[Andyman_1970]

I know a lot of Christian gay/lesbian/transgender people who are perfectly happy with whom they are and are by no means trying to repent for that. So does this make them a bad Christian? I don't think so.

So can a man who says he’s a Christian but continually commit adultery on his wife be a Christian and yet have no desire to stop committing adultery? Or say a father that says’s he’s a Christian but yet continually beats his wife and children, but yet feels no remorse or guilt for what he does, is he really a follower of Jesus? If there is no desire to return to how God created us to live (which is what repentance means), I would have a hard time from the Bible saying yes.

I’m not going to judge your friends, but if someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus, and yet has no problem continually living in a way contrary to what God intends – I would say that person needs to do some real soul searching and determine what it really means to be a disciple of Jesus.

[note: this goes for any sin, not just that of homosexuality, which the modern church likes to “pick on” because of it’s visibility]

After all, reading the bible that homosexuality is a sin is a matter of interpretation.

Really? Sexual immorality (be it same sex, extra marital, or humans and animals) is clearly defined in the Scriptures both Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus even goes as far to say if you have looked at a woman lustfully you’ve committed adultery.

Several mainstream protestant religions are quite accepting of a loving relationship between any couple---hetero or homosexual.

Several mainstream protestant religions in the 1800’s used the Bible to justify slavery but that didn’t make it right. Anyone can twist and tweak the Scriptures to make them say what they want. The problem with taking the Bible out of it’s historical and cultural context is that a “gap” is created regarding what the Text is actually trying to say. With this “gap” man can then insert any meaning they choose.

For a 1st century Jew (remember Jesus was a Jew, and so were the authors of the New Testament) homosexuality, or any sexual relation outside a covenant marriage between a man and a woman was sexual immorality and thus a sin.

If you study the bible from a historical perspective, many scholars have come to the conclusion that the bible "approves" of a committed relationship between man and woman. It condemns infidelity, or random sex, between men and women as well as random sex between those of the same sex. BUT, the text does not refer to a committed homosexual relationship---neither approving nor condemning.

In the 1st century there were two “schools” of rabbinic thought (remember Jesus was a Jewish rabbi)- there was the “House of Hillel” and the “House of Shammai”. The House of Hillel (named for rabbi Hillel who was the leaded of the Sanhedrin until 20 AD when he died ) were the progressives of the day. The House of Shammai (a former engineer turned rabbi) were the conservatives of the day.

In Jesus’ day there were 8 great rabbinic debates, and how a rabbi answered questions on the 8 issues gave you an idea of where the rabbi was on the progressive – conservative spectrum. These issues ranged from the resurrection, to teaching people how to pray to divorce. Typically Jesus responds to these issues in alignment with the House of Hillel. However on the issue of sexual immorality and divorce, Jesus’ answer to the rabbi’s lines up with the House of Shammai. Implicit in Jesus’ response to the rabbi’s when questioned about divorce is the definition of a marriage, a man and a woman. No where in Jewish culture in the 1st century would it have been accepted for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be in a committed relationship.

Historically speaking, the act of homosexuality that the bible was condemning was typically an abusive relationship between an older male and younger boy (probably not true all the time but this was a more accepted practice in Greek culture at the time).

The issue of homosexuality dates back to Abraham and before, many Mesopotamian religious ceremonies involved either hereto or homo sexual acts with either a priest or temple prostitute/eunuch – that was not unique to Greek culture.

For those that accept that homosexuality is a sin because the bible says so...do you also accept slavery because the bible says so?

Ok, here’s the difference between sexual immorality and the issues you list. Example: check out Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the spoils of war passage. Here God commands His people if you’ve found a chick in a conquered land you think is hot, you can take her as your wife. Now this sounds barbaric, but the passage goes on to say that she is not to be treated as a slave (she’s a human after all deserving of respect) so you can’t sell her when your tired of her, you have to let her go. In the ancient near east this was huge, women if captured were essentially sex slaves and you could do anything with them you wanted to, kill them, sell them, whatever. So for it’s time this idea of treating a captured woman as a human was revolutionary.

So the Bible in this case was pushing the culture ahead with regards to how women are to be treated. Throughout the Bible this “pushing” continues. This is also evident with the issue of slavery you cite – the Torah is replete with commands to treat slaves with dignity and respect – which was revolutionary for it’s day. Paul’s commands regarding slaves and masters in Ephesians was pushing the issue of slavery to the next level – read Philemon also.

This “pushing” or movement of an idea or issue through the Text is known as redemptive movement – there is a dude named William Webb that has a book on this I recommend it.

Now as for homosexuality, there is no such “movement” or “pushing” of this idea through Scriptures – no where is it condoned or taken to the next level of acceptance.

do you also follow the dietary laws written in the bible?

Technically for a follower of Jesus to be Torah observant (which is what you are alluding to) there are only two commands I need to live out – love God and love others. With all due respect, your citation of the lack of observance of the Kosher dietary laws as hypocrisy for a follower of Jesus demonstrates your ignorance of the Text and the culture in which it was given.

do you believe women should wear head coverings?

Who was Paul writing that to? What was the issue Paul was addressing with his passage on head covering? What were the cultural norms in the 1st century regarding head covering for women?

Researching these questions will give you insight as to the “why’s” of what Paul wrote regarding the matter.

All I'm trying to point out is that the bible says a lot of things that we don't follow or we explain away. It's not enough to say homosexuality is a sin just because the "bible says so".

If you’re a follower of Jesus the Bible is our guidebook for how we are to live as God created us to live. If a person is living in a way contrary to what Jesus taught, and that person claims to be a Christian, is that person really a follower of Jesus?

To answer the question initially posted, my uncle is gay, Christian and a mountain biker!

Note: my post is in no way a condemnation of people who are gay. They are humans, created in the image of God and as such are deserving of love, dignity and respect. People who claim to be Christians but scream and holler at people who are gay and say “their going to Hell” are not presenting the good news of Jesus as Jesus presented it. Jesus spoke of walking in harmony with God, not “you’re going to Hell”.

 

[Andyman_1970]

who you sleep with is only a SMALL SMALL part of who you are as a person...

This is a product of modern Greek/Western thinking and would have been foreign to Jesus in His day. We are whole people (holistic anyone), you can’t take an aspect of your life, say your sexuality and separate it and think that somehow it’s not going to affect the rest of your life (at least according to the Scriptures).

In the Hebrew Scriptures there is no word for “spiritual” – because the Hebrew (and thus Eastern) writers of the Scriptures understood that to label one thing as spiritual meant something else was not – and for the authors of the Scriptures everything was spiritual. One rabbi I read says “everything from praying to taking out the trash is a manifestation of God”. The idea that our lives can be split into a spiritual part and a physical/material part is an influence of a 1st century philosophy known as Gnosticism – which amazingly still has an influence on Christian thought today.

Holistic living should be the hallmark of the life of a follower of Jesus, not a fragmented compartmentalized life – Jesus was an Eastern teacher ya know…………

 

[Andyman_1970]

you will know we are Christians by our love." Exclusionism and exaggerated displays of piety are just as sinful as packing fudge or stepping out on your lady.

Very well said LL. Your hymn is a paraphrase of John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give you........"

 

[$tinkle]

uhhh....andy, at this rate, it'll be september, 2007 until you get a response back from those 1st 2 posters you replied to.

 

[Andyman_1970]

uhhh....andy, at this rate, it'll be september, 2007 until you get a response back from those 1st 2 posters you replied to.

Doh........sorry that was not intentional...........

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

There is no need for gays to "announce" their sexuality. It is no one's business who you sleep with, and the only two reasons why anyone needs to know:

1. They hate/are afraid of gays.
2. They are gay themselves, and are looking to hook up.

Anyone who want to know how many RM's are gay, please tell me if you are No. 1 or No. 2?

i dont think i fit into 1 nor 2 but i´d say am closer to be gay, than to be scared or hate one..

on the other hand... isnt a "dont ask, dont tell" policy certainly homophobic???

would it be the same as asking any engineers in the house, or any australians in the house?

 

[$tinkle]

on the other hand... isnt a "dont ask, dont tell" policy certainly homophobic???

would it be the same as asking any engineers in the house, or any australians in the house?

perhaps a closer (but of course not perfect) analogy may be framed in a "civil rights" attribute, as proponents of various gay causes tend to do.

are there any [blacks | handicapped | christians | old-farts | dolphin-molesters] who regularly post on the rm pd? there does seem to be this reticence to discuss this attribute on the personal level; it tends to be discussed "in a vacuum", in a rather accepting forum. what gives?

not sure where i stand on this little side playground-fight; i see merits to arguments on both sides, even if emotional.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

perhaps a closer (but of course not perfect) analogy may be framed in a "civil rights" attribute, as proponents of various gay causes tend to do.

are there any [blacks | handicapped | christians | old-farts | dolphin-molesters] who regularly post on the rm pd? there does seem to be this reticence to discuss this attribute on the personal level; it tends to be discussed "in a vacuum", in a rather accepting forum. what gives?

not sure where i stand on this little side playground-fight; i see merits to arguments on both sides, even if emotional.

and i think that artificial "difference" is ridiculous..

being black, christian, handicapped, old fart, jew (but no dolphin molester!!).. is just an attribute or adjective like any other.
isnt there a jew crew in rm already?

the fact that some people see in them an extra-connotation (whether is for good or for bad)... that is kinda bigot...

 

[schweino1]

any JW's?

i am one....

not gay tough.... i do disaprove the moral aspect of it, but i am not a homophobic... i dont look forward to make friendship with gay persons, but i wouldnt denny a job to one or expell him/her from a school or a club....

as i said, i disaprove the moral aspect of it, and do believe the bible condem's it as an "inmoral" behavior.

 

[$tinkle]

any JW's?

i am one....

not gay tough.... i do disaprove the moral aspect of it, but i am not a homophobic... i dont look forward to make friendship with gay persons, but i wouldnt denny a job to one or expell him/her from a school or a club....

as i said, i disaprove the moral aspect of it, and do believe the bible condem's it as an "inmoral" behavior.

i can't....

i just can't......

 

[Changleen]

It's pretty sickening to me that so many people on here view homosexuality as 'immoral'.

 

[Serial Midget]

Hmmm. Leave it to N8 to stir the pot by dredging up a two year old thread... one in which I admit to doing a few of my areas local homos, I don't know how much further out of the closet I can get.

Except to say that spandex makes me feel all sexy and stuff. :heart:

 

[schweino1]

i have a co-worker that is gay, living with a gay couple....

very nice guy, excelent engineer... but he is the first to avoid the subject.

i dont have a problem with him beeing gay, is just that i wouldnt celebrate the fact or promote it....

but is true, even the word gay is used as an offense sometimes... i dont use it by the way...

i gues tolerance towards it is the issue here, i mean, i fully disaprove it, but it doesnt mean i will be trowing bibles to gay persons or shouting at them...

we can co-exist, if its an inmoral way of life or not.... well, only god can judge, i dont feel "moral" enough to judge anyone...

 

[webb]

hey andyman-

first off, your knowledge of the bible is staggering, and I feel a little foolish in questioning you on any biblical issue, but this is a debate that I've been pretty confused about, so I've got a question or two. so here it goes, notice that I'm swipping your style a little, hope that's ok.

Sexual immorality (be it same sex, extra marital, or humans and animals) is clearly defined in the Scriptures both Old Testament and New Testament. Jesus even goes as far to say if you have looked at a woman lustfully you’ve committed adultery.

but by this logic, it's near impossible to walk through new york with out sinning (umm... I'm refering to the lustful looking at women part... that probably needs to be stated). and if something as minor as looking at a woman lustfully is on the same grounds as adultry, then adultry's not that bad right? but of course, then all of the ten commandments aren't that bad, and that wouldn't make any sense. so there's got to be some sort of hierarchy- does jesus spell out which is worse, and does he ever specifically refer to anything gender specific, not just sodomy?

the thing that gets me in this debate, is the assumption that all gay men are sodomites (which is specifically in the bible). honestly, I know alot more straight people who practice sodomy than gay dudes. most gay guys I know don't do it. so then that would put the responsiblity on the bible to actually spell out that a homo-relationship is a bad thing. is that sort of thing there?

For a 1st century Jew (remember Jesus was a Jew, and so were the authors of the New Testament) homosexuality, or any sexual relation outside a covenant marriage between a man and a woman was sexual immorality and thus a sin.

so was eating shellfish. I think while it's tempting to transpose issues that aren't stated from the general concensus of the day (for jesus or even the founding fathers), it's a flawed strategy. the reason these thinkers are notable is because they deviated from the general millieu. to assume that they agreed with everything they didn't specifically state against is, well, an assumption.

Implicit in Jesus’ response to the rabbi’s when questioned about divorce is the definition of a marriage, a man and a woman. No where in Jewish culture in the 1st century would it have been accepted for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be in a committed relationship.

the shellfish thing applies here too. christianity is inherently different from jewish culture, though grounded in it, and to assume that everything not stated by christianity reverts back to judiasm doesn't seem logical.

If you’re a follower of Jesus the Bible is our guidebook for how we are to live as God created us to live...

true, which is why I am convinced that if it's not in there, it can't be taken from another source. it seems to be subverting the word of god, and manipulating his message.

Note: my post is in no way a condemnation of people who are gay. They are humans, created in the image of God and as such are deserving of love, dignity and respect. People who claim to be Christians but scream and holler at people who are gay and say “their going to Hell” are not presenting the good news of Jesus as Jesus presented it. Jesus spoke of walking in harmony with God, not “you’re going to Hell”.

yeah, I just thought this was pretty nice. that's all.

 

[Andyman_1970]

hey andyman-
first off, your knowledge of the bible is staggering……..

Thanks for the props………………

….. and I feel a little foolish in questioning you on any biblical issue, but this is a debate that I've been pretty confused about, so I've got a question or two. so here it goes, notice that I'm swipping your style a little, hope that's ok.

Don’t feel foolish, asking questions and wrestling with issues is how we learn. I prefer the term discussion rather than debate. Debate tends to have a venomous connotation to it.

but by this logic, it's near impossible to walk through new york with out sinning (umm... I'm refering to the lustful looking at women part... that probably needs to be stated).

Yeah this is something I struggle with as well (the looking lustfully deal). Read the rest of that passage in Matthew 5, with reference to hate and murder. Notice how Jesus equates what you’ve done in your heart with the actual act. The problem was many of the rabbi’s of Jesus’ day taught that it was “acceptable” to hate or lust after someone as long as you have not actually performed the act. This however, the hating and lusting, even on a mental level is a violation of Leviticus 19:18 “love you neighbor as yourself” – which Jesus subsequently states is the 2nd most important commandment.

and if something as minor as looking at a woman lustfully is on the same grounds as adultry, then adultry's not that bad right?

No, that’s exactly the pervading idea that Jesus taught against. Jesus instead takes the issue of adultery and “raises the bar” if you will - that ultimately “stepping out” on your wife is an issue of the heart and that’s where it begins.

I would also argue that looking at a woman lustfully is not a minor issue (at least as far as the Bible is concerned) – but that is WAY off the OP – I’d be more than glad to address that in a PM if you would prefer.

but of course, then all of the ten commandments aren't that bad, and that wouldn't make any sense.

No where did Jesus teach that the 10 commandments or any of the 613 Torah commandments (mitzvot in the Hebrew) are or can be minimized. He was a Torah observant Jew (if He wasn’t He would have been a false Messiah) – and He did not teach anything to contradict the Torah.

so there's got to be some sort of hierarchy- does jesus spell out which is worse, and does he ever specifically refer to anything gender specific, not just sodomy?

God has no hierarchy with regard to sin, either involuntary or voluntary.

is the assumption that all gay men are sodomites (which is specifically in the bible). honestly, I know alot more straight people who practice sodomy than gay dudes. most gay guys I know don't do it. so then that would put the responsibility on the bible to actually spell out that a homo-relationship is a bad thing. is that sort of thing there?

Sodomy aside (which I assume you’re referring to anal sex) – sexual immorality is technically the Biblical issue here. I think this is where the church has missed the boat and vilified itself in the process. The issue according to the Bible is sexual immorality (which includes adultery) not just homosexuality (which Biblically falls under sexual immorality).

so was eating shellfish. I think while it's tempting to transpose issues that aren't stated from the general concensus of the day (for jesus or even the founding fathers), it's a flawed strategy. the reason these thinkers are notable is because they deviated from the general millieu. to assume that they agreed with everything they didn't specifically state against is, well, an assumption.

Where does the shellfish thing factor in here? If you’re assuming because most Christians eat at some point shellfish and thus it’s a sin, I would suggest you read Acts 15 (the Jerusalem council) that defined the dietary “requirements” of Gentile believers. Notice also in that list is sexual immorality. The leaders of the early church in Jerusalem were trying to figure out if these new Gentile believers needed to convert to Judaism (which Christianity essentially was, a sect of Judaism…….more on that in a minute) – or do they essentially just need to adhere to the Noahicde covenant (which was essentially abstain from meat for idols and sexual immorality).

To state that the issue of sexual immorality was not stated from the general consensus of the day – that it’s not addressed in the OT and NT is again with all due respect a lack of understanding of what the Text is saying.

Again, to assert that Jesus was not Jewish (ie deviated from the general milieu) is to assert that He was a false Messiah – this is not a Biblically sound position. This is how we get a better understanding of Jesus and who He was, the New Testament is not an exhaustive biography of His life, but by looking at the historical and cultural context of the time period we can safely “fill in” some of the blanks if you will – however this issue of sexual immorality is not one of those blanks. Jesus’ comments on divorce do give us insight as to the general consensus of what a marriage was in the 1st century and what Jesus’ general consensus on the matter was.

the shellfish thing applies here too. christianity is inherently different from jewish culture, though grounded in it, and to assume that everything not stated by christianity reverts back to judiasm doesn't seem logical.

See my comments regarding Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council. Also remember until the close of the 1st century and the start of the 2nd century, Christianity was essentially a sect of Judaism, just like the Pharisee’s, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, etc.

At the close of the book of Acts most scholars estimate the number of Messianic Jews (Jews that believe in Jesus as the promised Messiah) numbered in the several hundred thousands.

So Christianity is based on Judaism, Jesus was a Jew, Paul was a Jew, Peter was a Jew, John was a Jew, Luke was a Noahcide Jew (converted Gentile), Matthew was a Jew, Mark was Jew, James was a Jew, Jude was a Jew………..see where I’m going with this?

To not assume that things not implicitly stated in the NT should not revert back to the OT and thus Judaism is to take Christianity out of it’s historical and cultural context – when we do that man is then free to substitute any context he wants in order to support a particular point of view and as you say “manipulate” the Word of God.

true, which is why I am convinced that if it's not in there, it can't be taken from another source. it seems to be subverting the word of god, and manipulating his message.

I don’t believe I took anything from another source and asserted that is was in fact authoritative, if I have please enlighten me.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Suggested reading:

Webb, William J., Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Culture Analysis, InterVarsity Press