Homosexuality: Innate, Perversion or Choice?
Much has been said and written on this subject. Lay the truth of the matter openly for all to see, for living and peace. Consider the questions below to unlock understanding for many in our churches and believers in the Bible:
- Is there a common ground or a clear-cut "sin"? What does the Bible say about Homosexuality or same-sex relationships? Is it moral?
- Is one born with an inclination toward the same-sex or is it a choice?
- Are culture conditioning and societal laws encouraging same-sex relationships?
- Are two people in a same-sex relationship are capable of loving (giving and/or receiving)?
- Can they procreate?
- Can they raise children?
- Can they be members of a Christian Church? Or Should they?
- Is Homosexuality the rejection of the creation account?
- Is there a difference between homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation?
- However the above is defined (homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation), are these just demons to rid oneself of or should they be embraced them as human weaknesses?
- Will practicing (not former) homosexual be a part of the redeemed when Christ returns?
- Is it true, once "homo" always "homo"?
- What do Christian scholars have to say on the matter not that the Bible authority isn't enough? Are they in harmony with their faith and sacred text?
In short, can one be homosexual and Christian? CM
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Much has been said and written on this subject. Lay the truth of the matter openly for all to see, for living and peace. Consider the questions below to unlock understanding for many in our churches and believers in the Bible:- Is there a common ground or a clear-cut "sin"? What does the Bible say about Homosexuality or same-sex relationships? Is it moral?
Clear cut sin.
- Is one born with an inclination toward the same-sex or is it a choice?
I believe it is both. They can have the inclination (all humans are inclined to sin) but they choose to give into that sin.
- Are culture conditioning and societal laws encouraging same-sex relationships?
Yes
- Are two people in a same-sex relationship are capable of loving (giving and/or receiving)?
- Can they procreate?
No
* Can they raise children?
Not effectively
* Can they be members of a Christian Church? Or Should they?
No, as they would be living in open sin.
- Is Homosexuality the rejection of the creation account?
Of course, he gave female to the man.
- Is there a difference between homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation?
I don't understand this question.
- However the above is defined (homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation), are these just demons to rid oneself of or should they be embraced them as human weaknesses?
Sin that must be mortified.
- Will practicing (not former) homosexual be a part of the redeemed when Christ returns?
This is a tricky question. If they are saved, they will be redeemed, but being saved means they are repentant of their sin. Now, if they have repented and, in a moment of weakness, they are back in their sin and Christ returns that would not leave them out of the Kingdom. I am sure all of us have unconfessed sin somewhere and Paul says our sin nature does not leave us in this life.
- Is it true, once "homo" always "homo"?
No, there are many testimonies that would refute that notion.
- What do Christian scholars have to say on the matter not that the Bible authority isn't enough? Are they in harmony with their faith and sacred text?
Depends on whether the scholar is liberal or conservative.
In short, can one be homosexual and Christian? CM
No
-
I believe Homosexuals are born that way and others choose to be that way. And they aren't any different from all sinners born in Adam. Each person has a different poison they prefer.
Many churches advocate adultery through divorce and remarriage while condemning homosexuality. Or violence, both vices needing removal from their own eyes so they can better critique others.
Everyone born in Adam is toxic. But if we focus on the New Heart God imparts by grace, often through the gospel, all of our sins will go away. And we will walk according to the Spirit of holiness.
-
@C_M_ said:
1. Is there a common ground or a clear-cut "sin"? What does the Bible say about Homosexuality or same-sex relationships? Is it moral?If by "common ground" you mean broad consensus on the question of the sinfulness of homosexuality, my answer is no. The Body of Christ consists of many different viewpoints on the matter.
As a rule, more theologically conservative Christians tend to understand homosexuality as what you call a "clear cut sin," while more theologically liberal/progressive Christians tend to understand homosexuality as an orientation of equal moral standing with heterosexuality.
My personal view of homosexuality is consistent with the theologically liberal/progressive views I just described.
As for what the Bible says, CD forums have been down that road before. In fact, I convened and facilitated a couple of intentional Bible studies on the subject in the previous edition of CD. We didn't resolve anything, but the experience compelled me to engage Bible texts far more deeply than I had before, which I look back on as a good thing.
I don't want to get stuck in rabbit holes here, so I will simply say I think Bible writers have a bit but not much to say about homosexual activity, and next to nothing to say about homosexual orientation, primarily because they didn't know about orientation.
- Is one born with an inclination toward the same-sex or is it a choice?
I didn't choose to be straight, which leads me to believe people don't choose to be gay.
- Are culture conditioning and societal laws encouraging same-sex relationships?
In my view, whether laws and culture encourage same-sex relationships doesn't matter because sexual orientation isn't chosen, can't be legislated, and is not a societal trend.
- Are two people in a same-sex relationship are capable of loving (giving and/or receiving)?
Yes. Love is about commitment to another person. So yes, same-sex couples are as capable of giving/receiving love as hetero couples.
* Can they procreate?
Not without help, obviously.
* Can they raise children?
Yes, and with as much love and support for their children as hetero couples.
* Can they be members of a Christian Church? Or Should they?
Yes, by all means, yes. All are welcome at the cross.
- Is Homosexuality the rejection of the creation account?
No. The creation accounts testify to the creator more than they do to creation. And those who wrote the Genesis accounts were not aware of sexual orientation.
- Is there a difference between homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation?
There's a difference between orientation and activity/practice, but that's also true for heterosexuals - think heterosexual priests who take vows of celibacy.
I'm not familiar with the concept of homosexual "affiliation."
- However the above is defined (homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation), are these just demons to rid oneself of or should they be embraced them as human weaknesses?
Sexual orientation is who we are, not a demon and/or weakness.
- Will practicing (not former) homosexual be a part of the redeemed when Christ returns?
Yes.
- Is it true, once "homo" always "homo"?
Few people experience a change of their sexual orientation. Many experience confusion and uncertainty, but their true orientation remains unchanged throughout their searches for self-understanding.
FWIW, "homo" is not a good word choice, CM. At least in this country, "homo" is a pejorative reference to a person of homosexual orientation.
- What do Christian scholars have to say on the matter not that the Bible authority isn't enough? Are they in harmony with their faith and sacred text?
Discerning biblical truth on matters of sexual orientation is a challenge and a journey. Quickly-decided judgments based on superficial reading and consideration of texts and their contexts lead to problems.
In short, can one be homosexual and Christian? CM
If people be heterosexual and Christian - and they can - then yes, without doubt people can be homosexual and Christian.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
1. Is there a common ground or a clear-cut "sin"? What does the Bible say about Homosexuality or same-sex relationships? Is it moral?If by "common ground" you mean broad consensus on the question of the sinfulness of homosexuality, my answer is no. The Body of Christ consists of many different viewpoints on the matter.
As a rule, more theologically conservative Christians tend to understand homosexuality as what you call a "clear cut sin," while more theologically liberal/progressive Christians tend to understand homosexuality as an orientation of equal moral standing with heterosexuality.
My personal view of homosexuality is consistent with the theologically liberal/progressive views I just described.
As for what the Bible says, CD forums have been down that road before. In fact, I convened and facilitated a couple of intentional Bible studies on the subject in the previous edition of CD. We didn't resolve anything, but the experience compelled me to engage Bible texts far more deeply than I had before, which I look back on as a good thing.
I don't want to get stuck in rabbit holes here, so I will simply say I think Bible writers have a bit but not much to say about homosexual activity, and next to nothing to say about homosexual orientation, primarily because they didn't know about orientation.
- Is one born with an inclination toward the same-sex or is it a choice?
I didn't choose to be straight, which leads me to believe people don't choose to be gay.
- Are culture conditioning and societal laws encouraging same-sex relationships?
In my view, whether laws and culture encourage same-sex relationships doesn't matter because sexual orientation isn't chosen, can't be legislated, and is not a societal trend.
- Are two people in a same-sex relationship are capable of loving (giving and/or receiving)?
Yes. Love is about commitment to another person. So yes, same-sex couples are as capable of giving/receiving love as hetero couples.
* Can they procreate?
Not without help, obviously.
False, the answer is just a flat no. Has nothing to do with needing help. They CANNOT together proccreate.
* Can they raise children?
Yes, and with as much love and support for their children as hetero couples.
Also false. They cannot provide a mother's perspective (for gay couples) and they cannot provide a father's perspective and tourch (for lesbian couples). To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
* Can they be members of a Christian Church? Or Should they?
Yes, by all means, yes. All are welcome at the cross.
Not if it is truly sin. Church discipline would necessitate that they be thrown out after the discipline process.
- Is Homosexuality the rejection of the creation account?
No. The creation accounts testify to the creator more than they do to creation. And those who wrote the Genesis accounts were not aware of sexual orientation.
No, but they were aware of sin and biology and knew it was for man and woman.
- Is there a difference between homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation?
There's a difference between orientation and activity/practice, but that's also true for heterosexuals - think heterosexual priests who take vows of celibacy.
I'm not familiar with the concept of homosexual "affiliation."
- However the above is defined (homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation), are these just demons to rid oneself of or should they be embraced them as human weaknesses?
Sexual orientation is who we are, not a demon and/or weakness.
False. If I am inclined to lie is a liar just who I am? No. I am a sinner who needs to change and resist the flesh.
- Will practicing (not former) homosexual be a part of the redeemed when Christ returns?
Yes.
- Is it true, once "homo" always "homo"?
Few people experience a change of their sexual orientation. Many experience confusion and uncertainty, but their true orientation remains unchanged throughout their searches for self-understanding.
There are many stories to suggest otherwise.
FWIW, "homo" is not a good word choice, CM. At least in this country, "homo" is a pejorative reference to a person of homosexual orientation.
You are right, queer is better.
-
I don’t have a problem with homo. I have a queer friend who describes himself to me recently as homo. I asked it that term was ok and he said of course it was. I believe him. He is anything but a Christian but willing to talk. I suspect the term feels perjorative mainly to non-homo PC fanatics.
-
@reformed said:
False, the answer is just a flat no. Has nothing to do with needing help. They CANNOT together proccreate.I intended the inclusion of the word "obviously" in my previous response to make the point that same-sex couples "CANNOT together procreate."
Also false. They cannot provide a mother's perspective (for gay couples) and they cannot provide a father's perspective and tourch (for lesbian couples). To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
The experience of countless same-sex couples across the country, as well as the children they're raising, argues strongly that it is not "ridiculous" to argue that same-sex couples can lovingly and successfully raise children.
I'm curious: You seem to base your argument on what you believe to be the negative impact on children in same-sex households' going without a mother's/father's perspective. Do you therefore also consider it "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can lovingly and successfully raise their children?
Yes, by all means, yes. All are welcome at the cross.
Not if it is truly sin. Church discipline would necessitate that they be thrown out after the discipline process.
You and I disagree as to whether homosexuality is "truly sin."
No. The creation accounts testify to the creator more than they do to creation. And those who wrote the Genesis accounts were not aware of sexual orientation.
No, but they were aware of sin and biology and knew it was for man and woman.
There is nothing in the creation accounts about marriage being exclusive to hetero couples. It so happens that the only couple in the account is a hetero couple, but that is not evidence of a commentary on same-sex couples.
Sexual orientation is who we are, not a demon and/or weakness.
False. If I am inclined to lie is a liar just who I am? No. I am a sinner who needs to change and resist the flesh.
Sexual orientation is not an inclination. I'm not "inclined" to be straight; neither are you, I suspect. I was born straight, as, I suspect, were you.
I reject your comparison of sexual orientation to lying. Sexual orientation is who we are. Lying is what we do. Orientation is personal identity. Lying is a character flaw. I grant that people such Donald Trump are "inclined" to lie. I reject the idea they are "inclined" to be gay or straight.
Few people experience a change of their sexual orientation. Many experience confusion and uncertainty, but their true orientation remains unchanged throughout their searches for self-understanding.
There are many stories to suggest otherwise.
Anecdotal evidence can be interesting, even captivating; but its portraits of exceptions to rules cannot overrule the truth of those rules, in this case, one of which is that few people experience a change of their sexual orientation.
FWIW, "homo" is not a good word choice, CM. At least in this country, "homo" is a pejorative reference to a person of homosexual orientation.
You are right, queer is better.
Before I consulted the GLAAD Media Reference Guide, I believed that "queer" had become an acceptable term of reference to gays and lesbians. It turns out that the term has a more nuanced and multi-layered meaning. To wit...
Queer
An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual (e.g. queer person, queer woman). Typically, for those who identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual are perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught with cultural connotations they feel don't apply to them. Some people may use queer, or more commonly genderqueer, to describe their gender identity and/or gender expression (see non-binary and/or genderqueer below). Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBT people to describe themselves; however, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBT community. When Q is seen at the end of LGBT, it typically means queer and, less often, questioning. -
For additional terms, see my post on Pansexuality: Fad, Perversion, Sin or Mis-understood? CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
False, the answer is just a flat no. Has nothing to do with needing help. They CANNOT together proccreate.I intended the inclusion of the word "obviously" in my previous response to make the point that same-sex couples "CANNOT together procreate."
Also false. They cannot provide a mother's perspective (for gay couples) and they cannot provide a father's perspective and tourch (for lesbian couples). To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
The experience of countless same-sex couples across the country, as well as the children they're raising, argues strongly that it is not "ridiculous" to argue that same-sex couples can lovingly and successfully raise children.
I'm curious: You seem to base your argument on what you believe to be the negative impact on children in same-sex households' going without a mother's/father's perspective. Do you therefore also consider it "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can lovingly and successfully raise their children?
Yes, by all means, yes. All are welcome at the cross.
Not if it is truly sin. Church discipline would necessitate that they be thrown out after the discipline process.
You and I disagree as to whether homosexuality is "truly sin."
No. The creation accounts testify to the creator more than they do to creation. And those who wrote the Genesis accounts were not aware of sexual orientation.
No, but they were aware of sin and biology and knew it was for man and woman.
There is nothing in the creation accounts about marriage being exclusive to hetero couples. It so happens that the only couple in the account is a hetero couple, but that is not evidence of a commentary on same-sex couples.
Surely you are honest enough to admit that biologically we are only suited for hetero couples in the creation account.
Sexual orientation is who we are, not a demon and/or weakness.
False. If I am inclined to lie is a liar just who I am? No. I am a sinner who needs to change and resist the flesh.
Sexual orientation is not an inclination. I'm not "inclined" to be straight; neither are you, I suspect. I was born straight, as, I suspect, were you.
You were also born a sinner.
I reject your comparison of sexual orientation to lying. Sexual orientation is who we are. Lying is what we do. Orientation is personal identity. Lying is a character flaw. I grant that people such Donald Trump are "inclined" to lie. I reject the idea they are "inclined" to be gay or straight.
You can reject it, but sin is sin. And no, sexual orientation is not who we are. Otherwise, people wouldn't be able to change.
Few people experience a change of their sexual orientation. Many experience confusion and uncertainty, but their true orientation remains unchanged throughout their searches for self-understanding.
There are many stories to suggest otherwise.
Anecdotal evidence can be interesting, even captivating; but its portraits of exceptions to rules cannot overrule the truth of those rules, in this case, one of which is that few people experience a change of their sexual orientation.
Few people based on what?
FWIW, "homo" is not a good word choice, CM. At least in this country, "homo" is a pejorative reference to a person of homosexual orientation.
You are right, queer is better.
Before I consulted the GLAAD Media Reference Guide, I believed that "queer" had become an acceptable term of reference to gays and lesbians. It turns out that the term has a more nuanced and multi-layered meaning. To wit...
Queer
An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual (e.g. queer person, queer woman). Typically, for those who identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual are perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught with cultural connotations they feel don't apply to them. Some people may use queer, or more commonly genderqueer, to describe their gender identity and/or gender expression (see non-binary and/or genderqueer below). Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBT people to describe themselves; however, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBT community. When Q is seen at the end of LGBT, it typically means queer and, less often, questioning.Well, I definitely meant the dictionary definition. Strange, odd. In other words, not natural.
Romans 1 clearly tells us homosexual behavior is against God's natural order.
-
@reformed said:
Surely you are honest enough to admit that biologically we are only suited for hetero couples in the creation account.The one couple in the creation account is indeed a hetero couple. But I don't take from that account any information about how humans are biologically suited.
I want to re-pose a question you chose not to address: You seem to base your argument on what you believe to be the negative impact on children in same-sex households' going without a mother's/father's perspective. Do you therefore also consider it "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can lovingly and successfully raise their children?
You were also born a sinner.
As were you, but I don't think that has any relevance to your (or my) heterosexual orientation. On what basis do you conclude that it has relevance to a person's homosexual orientation?
You can reject it, but sin is sin. And no, sexual orientation is not who we are. Otherwise, people wouldn't be able to change.
Sin is sin, but as I noted earlier, you and disagree as to whether homosexuality is in fact sin.
It's a curious and complicated field of inquiry, the question of whether people change their sexual orientations, or instead, over time more accurately discern them. So their orientations didn't change, just their perceptions of them.
Few people based on what?
Based on the fact that there is no evidence that a significant percentage of people "change" their sexual orientation. They might change how they understand it, but that's another matter.
Romans 1 clearly tells us homosexual behavior is against God's natural order.
I acknowledge that the Romans 1 text is a challenge to us who understand homosexuality not to be a sin. The passage was the focus of one of two Bible studies I convened in the previous edition of CD. Lots of thoughtful stuff came out of that study. It's too bad we've lost contact with it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Surely you are honest enough to admit that biologically we are only suited for hetero couples in the creation account.The one couple in the creation account is indeed a hetero couple. But I don't take from that account any information about how humans are biologically suited.
I want to re-pose a question you chose not to address: You seem to base your argument on what you believe to be the negative impact on children in same-sex households' going without a mother's/father's perspective. Do you therefore also consider it "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can lovingly and successfully raise their children?
Sorry, I did miss that one. That is a completely different scenario and has no bearing here. Obviously, it would be better if there were a mother and a father.
You were also born a sinner.
As were you, but I don't think that has any relevance to your (or my) heterosexual orientation. On what basis do you conclude that it has relevance to a person's homosexual orientation?
Because homosexual behavior is sin. We are all prone to our various "pet sins" if you will. That doesn't mean we should embrace them and encourage their participation.
You can reject it, but sin is sin. And no, sexual orientation is not who we are. Otherwise, people wouldn't be able to change.
Sin is sin, but as I noted earlier, you and disagree as to whether homosexuality is in fact sin.
The Bible is on my side on that one. You can twist it however you want but homosexual behavior is sin.
It's a curious and complicated field of inquiry, the question of whether people change their sexual orientations, or instead, over time more accurately discern them. So their orientations didn't change, just their perceptions of them.
We will have to disagree.
Few people based on what?
Based on the fact that there is no evidence that a significant percentage of people "change" their sexual orientation. They might change how they understand it, but that's another matter.
Romans 1 clearly tells us homosexual behavior is against God's natural order.
I acknowledge that the Romans 1 text is a challenge to us who understand homosexuality not to be a sin. The passage was the focus of one of two Bible studies I convened in the previous edition of CD. Lots of thoughtful stuff came out of that study. It's too bad we've lost contact with it.
It shouldn't be a challenge, it should change your position.
-
@C_M_ said:
Much has been said and written on this subject. Lay the truth of the matter openly for all to see, for living and peace. Consider the questions below to unlock understanding for many in our churches and believers in the Bible:- Is there a common ground or a clear-cut "sin"? What does the Bible say about Homosexuality or same-sex relationships? Is it moral?
- Is one born with an inclination toward the same-sex or is it a choice?
- Are culture conditioning and societal laws encouraging same-sex relationships?
- Are two people in a same-sex relationship are capable of loving (giving and/or receiving)?
- Can they procreate?
- Can they raise children?
- Can they be members of a Christian Church? Or Should they?
- Is Homosexuality the rejection of the creation account?
- Is there a difference between homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation?
- However the above is defined (homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation), are these just demons to rid oneself of or should they be embraced them as human weaknesses?
- Will practicing (not former) homosexual be a part of the redeemed when Christ returns?
- Is it true, once "homo" always "homo"?
- What do Christian scholars have to say on the matter not that the Bible authority isn't enough? Are they in harmony with their faith and sacred text?
In short, can one be homosexual and Christian? CM
In consulting the ultimate authority, one finds there are many New Testament texts that directly or indirectly address the issue of same-sex sexual behavior. On the other hand, Jesus discussed heterosexual marriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 as well as Paul’s statements in Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10.
It appears that homosexuality in **Romans 1 **is not limited to a certain time, culture, or to certain homosexual forms only. It is sinful behavior. How could this be? By pointing out that all practices of homosexuality are a sin. This passage warns humanity not to get involved in such behavior. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@C_M_ said:
Much has been said and written on this subject. Lay the truth of the matter openly for all to see, for living and peace. Consider the questions below to unlock understanding for many in our churches and believers in the Bible:- Is there a common ground or a clear-cut "sin"? What does the Bible say about Homosexuality or same-sex relationships? Is it moral?
- Is one born with an inclination toward the same-sex or is it a choice?
- Are culture conditioning and societal laws encouraging same-sex relationships?
- Are two people in a same-sex relationship are capable of loving (giving and/or receiving)?
- Can they procreate?
- Can they raise children?
- Can they be members of a Christian Church? Or Should they?
- Is Homosexuality the rejection of the creation account?
- Is there a difference between homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation?
- However the above is defined (homosexual-orientation, tendency, practice, and affiliation), are these just demons to rid oneself of or should they be embraced them as human weaknesses?
- Will practicing (not former) homosexual be a part of the redeemed when Christ returns?
- Is it true, once "homo" always "homo"?
- What do Christian scholars have to say on the matter not that the Bible authority isn't enough? Are they in harmony with their faith and sacred text?
In short, can one be homosexual and Christian? CM
In consulting the ultimate authority, one finds there are many New Testament texts that directly or indirectly address the issue of same-sex sexual behavior. On the other hand, Jesus discussed heterosexual marriage in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 as well as Paul’s statements in Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10.
It appears that homosexuality in **Romans 1 **is not limited to a certain time, culture, or to certain homosexual forms only. It is sinful behavior. How could this be? By pointing out that all practices of homosexuality are a sin. This passage warns humanity not to get involved in such behavior. CM
Correct, there is no other way to read it if one is being honest.
-
@reformed said:
Correct, there is no other way to read it if one is being honest.No, reformed. Two people can each be "honest" yet understand Scripture's message differently. For example, though I disagree strongly with your understanding of Scripture's message on homosexuality, I don't doubt your honesty. Honesty is a character trait (as is dishonesty). In forums where a guiding principle is "criticize ideas, not people," raising the honesty of fellow posters' views of Scripture seems out of place to me.
NOTE: In another thread, we engaged the issue of the similarity of your posts' word choice, writing style, and theological point of view to those of a poster formerly active in this forums named David Taylor. Because others may well notice what I notice about your latest post in this thread - specifically, your raising the issue of the honesty of a person reading Scripture's message on homosexuality - I bring to your attention the fact that if you do a forum search on the use of "honest" or "dishonest" to comment on other posters and/or their points of view, you'll discover the rather amazing result that basically every one of the several times a poster has questioned the honesty of another poster or a point of view, it's been David Taylor who did so (except for the couple of times you've done so).
I know it's just a coincidence that your and David's styles are so similar, but I believe you have a right to know the scope of the coincidence.
-
I want to re-pose a question you chose not to address: You seem to base your argument on what you believe to be the negative impact on children in same-sex households' going without a mother's/father's perspective. Do you therefore also consider it "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can lovingly and successfully raise their children?
@reformed said:
That is a completely different scenario and has no bearing here. Obviously, it would be better if there were a mother and a father.The central similarity between the two scenarios is that in each, children are deprived of what you called a father's or mother's "perspective." You contended that it is "ridiculous" to argue that women can provide a father's perspective, or that men can provide a mother's perspective. So it seems reasonable to me to conclude that you also believe it is "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can provide a father's or mother's perspective, respectively. On that basis, I ask again: Do you therefore also consider it "ridiculous" to argue that widows and widowers can lovingly and successfully raise their children?
As were you, but I don't think that has any relevance to your (or my) heterosexual orientation. On what basis do you conclude that it has relevance to a person's homosexual orientation?
Because homosexual behavior is sin. We are all prone to our various "pet sins" if you will. That doesn't mean we should embrace them and encourage their participation.
I asked how our being born sinners affects our sexual orientation. And your response is that homosexual behavior - NOT orientation, interestingly - is a sin. So I take it that you understand homosexuality to be an unlucky roll of the dice for gay people. You have the "pet sins" that you were born with, and I have mine. Unfortunately for gay people, one of the "pet sins" they were born with is homosexual orientation. Is my summary correct?
For what it's worth, I reject the idea that sexual orientation is for gay people a reflection of the sin in which they were born.
Sin is sin, but as I noted earlier, you and disagree as to whether homosexuality is in fact sin.
The Bible is on my side on that one. You can twist it however you want but homosexual behavior is sin.
It's not a matter of "twisting" Scripture, reformed. It's a matter of understanding Scripture in its social, cultural, literary, and scientific context.
I acknowledge that the Romans 1 text is a challenge to us who understand homosexuality not to be a sin. The passage was the focus of one of two Bible studies I convened in the previous edition of CD. Lots of thoughtful stuff came out of that study. It's too bad we've lost contact with it.
It shouldn't be a challenge, it should change your position.
I wish you could access the lengthy Romans 1 study we conducted in the previous iteration of CD. I don't have the time or patience to reconstruct the material I wrote there. It will have to suffice to say I think the Romans 1 passage is a mine field for just about everyone who turns to it for counsel on sexuality.
-
We may wonder how many personnas the person who goes by Bill has had. Just one, no doubt. We are pretty sure just one. There is lots of evidence and this one-person-only case has been vehemently defended. So, probably just one. It’s a possibility that it is just one. Anything is possible.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I wish you could access the lengthy Romans 1 study we conducted in the previous iteration of CD. I don't have the time or patience to reconstruct the material I wrote there. It will have to suffice to say I think the Romans 1 passage is a minefield for just about everyone who turns to it for counsel on sexuality.Bill,
Since you don't have "access to the lengthy Romans 1 study" conducted in the previous CD, nor the time or patience to reconstruct the material", you have written; do the next best thing. That is, exegete Romans Chapter 1, especially, since you deem it a "minefield" for just about everyone who turns to it for counsel on sexuality. If it appears too much or limited availability of time, then, exegete Romans 1:26- 27 in its historical, literary, analytical contexts with implications for the 21st Century. All this in a new thread. It would be a grand project for all CD Users (group effort) to shine a new light on "Homosexuality in Romans 1 or the Bible." Give it some consideration. CM -
@GaoLu said:
We may wonder how many personnas the person who goes by Bill has had. Just one, no doubt. We are pretty sure just one. There is lots of evidence and this one-person-only case has been vehemently defended. So, probably just one. It’s a possibility that it is just one. Anything is possible.GaoLu,
What meaneth thou? CM -
@C_M_ said:
Bill,
Since you don't have "access to the lengthy Romans 1 study" conducted in the previous CD, nor the time or patience to reconstruct the material", you have written; do the next best thing. That is, exegete Romans Chapter 1, especially, since you deem it a "minefield" for just about everyone who turns to it for counsel on sexuality. If it appears too much or limited availability of time, then, exegete Romans 1:26- 27 in its historical, literary, analytical contexts with implications for the 21st Century. All this in a new thread. It would be a grand project for all CD Users (group effort) to shine a new light on "Homosexuality in Romans 1 or the Bible." Give it some consideration. CMThanks for the invitation, CM. I'll give it some thought... as I hope you will give some thought to responding to my request for your take on the ten texts from John's Gospel that I posted for your attention in the "Is Jesus Deity?" thread. I DID respond directly to each of the texts you cited in that discussion; I hope you will return the favor.
-
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)
“But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers—in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.” (1 Timothy 1:8–10)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Thanks for the invitation, CM. I'll give it some thought... as I hope you will give some thought to responding to my request for your take on the ten texts from John's Gospel that I posted for your attention in the "Is Jesus Deity?" thread. I DID respond directly to each of the texts you cited in that discussion; I hope you will return the favor.Bill,
Thanks for your response. As for your other thread concerns, I, too, would give it some consideration. Reason being, I am in the process, albeit, not at your pace, addressing the theme of Jesus/Divinity and not in the selected texts as you have given them. As you well know, "a text without a context is a pretext." This is all I will say on this matter in this thread. CM -
@C_M_ said:
Bill,
Thanks for your response. As for your other thread concerns, I, too, would give it some consideration. Reason being, I am in the process, albeit, not at your pace, addressing the theme of Jesus/Divinity and not in the selected texts as you have given them. As you well know, "a text without a context is a pretext." This is all I will say on this matter in this thread. CMI hope - but am not certain - that means you're going to post a response to each of the ten texts I cited in the other thread, CM. I look forward to your takes on them.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I hope - but am not certain - that means you're going to post a response to each of the ten texts I cited in the other thread, CM. I look forward to your takes on them.Let me be perfectly clear: I am "addressing the theme of Jesus/Divinity and not in the selected texts as you have given them." I repeat, "'a text without a context is a pretext."' The end, here...CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Let me be perfectly clear: I am "addressing the theme of Jesus/Divinity and not in the selected texts as you have given them." I repeat, "'a text without a context is a pretext."' The end, here...CMYour response disappoints me, CM, but it doesn't surprise me. Your refusal to engage the texts I cited is in keeping with the response most advocates of Jesus' deity have offered in CD forums over the years I've been in them when presented with Scripture texts that raise significant doubt about their theological conviction. My working assumption has been that those advocates believe that troublesome texts not engaged are somehow not relevant, and don't have to be accounted for.
The problem is the texts I cited ARE relevant, and they MUST be accounted for. Do you argue that you can objectively and adequately "(address) the theme of Jesus/Divinity" WITHOUT considering the texts I cited? Doesn't any such review of the issue HAVE to include ALL the things Jesus said about himself and his relationship with God?
-
Ok, then, Bill. Do it for me.
Or maybe you don’t think anyone here will engage your nonexistent texts.
