Homosexuality and homosexual practice

[dorkelf]

The topic came up in Guild Wars alliance chat yesterday evening. I'm not sure if the fellow who brought up the topic is active in these forums, but Heiscomingsoon was kind enough to direct him here and hopefully he'll get a chance to join in on this conversation.

I want to say first that homosexuality is a 'hot button' issue - most people have very strong personal opinions about it and it is hard to discuss it without offending other's beliefs and convictions. We’ve had members of our guild leave after similar forum or alliance chat discussions, usually after an ad hominem (personal) attack to the tune of ‘you can’t be a Christian if you hold that view’. Frankly I was reluctant to post this at all. But it did come up, and this is the right forum for it - so better to address it here rather than Guild Wars alliance chat.

There will differences of opinion on this issue, just as there are on Bible versions, young earth/old earth, or a host of other topics. I think it is important for anyone who participates in the discussion to respect those who hold different views.

With that said, here are some of the questions I wanted to bring up:

1 Is homosexuality as a gender preference a sin?
2 Is homosexuality as sexual practice a sin?
3 If yes to either above - should this sin be distinguished from other sins such as lust, greed, stealing, etc.?
4 Should homosexuals (gender preference) who abstain from practice be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
5 Should active homosexuals (sexual practice) be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
6 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a gender preference?
7 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a sexual practice?

And here are my own answers to these questions:

1 My BEST understanding of current scientific and medical research is that homosexuality (as a sexual preference) is a mental disorder, likely brought on by early childhood trauma, which creates an uncontrollable (but perhaps treatable) inclination towards the same sex. Therefore, because I believe sin has to involve an actual CHOICE to do what is immoral, I don’t think an involuntary PREFERENCE for ANYTHING can be inherently sinful.

2 I think it is very explicit in the Bible that homosexual practice is sinful.

3 I personally think that some sins are more despicable to God than others, but I don’t know that I could back that up solidly with scripture. What I do believe and would be able to support is that the ‘wages’ of sin aren’t determined by what the sin was, or how offensive it was to God.

4 I abhor the idea of punishing someone for an admitted inclination if that person has never acted upon that inclination.

5 Jesus’ modeled the role of a physician, and like he said…those who are sick are the only ones who need him. I think it is horrible that we so often turn away those with visible ‘symptoms’ of sin in order to preserve a comfortable church environment for ourselves!

6 I think the Church should stand behind all sinners and aid them. We’re dreadful wretches just like them. We can only hope in God’s promise that our own sins are overcome by His love, and share that promise with others.

7 Homosexual practice is NEVER mentioned in a positive light anywhere in the Bible, and its association with sin is very difficult to dismiss. I think the Church should be unified in condemning homosexual practice as a sin.

Paul

[Hescominsoon]

regarding number one...nothing has ever been proven that homosexuality is anything but a choice. NO gene has ever been found.

Also remember the Bible says before we are saved we have a sinful nature...homosexuality is in that category. Once we are saved we can choose to leave that sinful lifestyle behind or continue to indulge in it.

[sdenotter]

Let me give you a real example. My dad, a Pastor, was getting his car fixed, and started witnessing to the mechanic. He invited him to church, and then the mechanic asked if his husband could come too. My dad of course jumped at the chance and said yes.

Here is the sad part,

Every single person prior to my dad had told this man that God hated him for the sin. (my thought is that he may have thought that is what they meant) So when my dad told him that God loved him regardless, he was in disbelief. So it brings up the ol' "Hate the sin love the sinner"


So my opinion, Does it matter what the "right" answer is? yes, cause I think the right answer is God still loves him/her and wants him/her to join Him in heaven one day. So we should show God's love to them regardless of their sexuality preference.

[Hescominsoon]

A good phrase comes to mind..hate the sin love hte sinner. The issue comes when the sinner refuses to repent..then you must send them bakc into their own self-inflicted mess.

[dorkelf]

regarding number one...nothing has ever been proven that homosexuality is anything but a choice. NO gene has ever been found.

Also remember the Bible says before we are saved we have a sinful nature...homosexuality is in that category. Once we are saved we can choose to leave that sinful lifestyle behind or continue to indulge in it.

That is true, what you say about the gene. And in light of recent advances in understanding and mapping the human genome, I tend to believe such a gene would have already been discovered if it did exist. So at this particular point of scientific understanding, I think it is very hard to support the idea that homosexuality is caused by genetic makeup.

However, most psychological conditions are not pre-determined by genetic makeup. Schizophrenia, for instance, can't predicted before it happens, and it doesn't pass on from parent to child. It's something that happens to you, or more precisely something your brain does to adapt and protect itself when something happens to you.

HCS - I'm interested to know if you have considered whether homosexuality as a gender preference could be a mental disorder. You didn't address that issue in your previous posts. It seems to me that you see a homosexual gender preference as completely and entirely the choice of an individual - something that the individual decided, for whatever reason, to 'turn on' - and which he or she can 'turn off' at will. Is that a correct understanding of your position?

Paul

[Hescominsoon]

I have seen no credible medical/scientific research(not saying it doesn't exist..however I have also not seen any ministry that deals directly with homosexuals say anything credible exists either) saying homosexuality is anything other than a choice or learned behavior.

[Neirai the Forgiven]

The issue comes when the sinner refuses to repent..then you must send them bakc into their own self-inflicted mess.

Must you? I'd hate to think what would happen if Christ had thought this same principle.

However, to be fair, if a sinner refuses to repent you cannot force them to do so. You need to keep showing love and keep waiting for them to come around. You also must limit their influence in your life and the Christian community.

[Hescominsoon]

However, to be fair, if a sinner refuses to repent you cannot force them to do so. You need to keep showing love and keep waiting for them to come around. You also must limit their influence in your life and the Christian community.

you said the same thing i did..I just chose to use less words. The last sentence especially is true. I would limit their imfluence as much as possible. Frankly if somebody is homosexual, refuses to repent, me and my family would not be in contact with that person as i don't want that influence around my children. If htis was a fellow church member I would not freeze that indivudual out in church..jsut not allow that person contact with me or my family.

[dorkelf]

I have seen no credible medical/scientific research(not saying it doesn't exist..however I have also not seen any ministry that deals directly with homosexuals say anything credible exists either) saying homosexuality is anything other than a choice or learned behavior.

I haven't seen any conclusive findings on either side of the issue in medical/scientific research. But I'm not making a claim that I KNOW homosexual gender preference to be exclusively a choice or not. It is the responsibility of anyone who IS making such a claim to show why that claim is true.

I pose this question to this discussion group: How can we advocate the exclusion of non-practicing homosexuals from the Church based only on the fact that we STRONGLY SUSPECT they sinned by choosing their sexual orientation? Because if we have no actual proof that their sexual orientation is a choice, that is exactly what we are doing.

I'm all for condemning the practice of homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle. But I think the jury is still out on exactly what causes a homosexual gender preference, and whether it is a conscious choice. If you disagree, please show your proof otherwise.

Paul

[Gods_Peon]

My many apoligies for this long post.

I've been reading this thread with great interest and wonder:

How do you define sin? Without understanding your own definition of sin, this arguement will teeter on the side of fruitless.

From my own personal studies, Sin is that which seperates us from God. It is "missing the mark", and the mark is Gods perfection. How do we know when we have sinned, or missed the mark? We look to Gods laws because Gods laws are a reflection of Gods character. If we compare our acts, our decisions, our character to Gods law, or character, we will find the many ways in which we have missed the mark.

Gods law is not solely encompassed in the 10 commandments, they are listed everywhere through out the bible. Some times it is very specific in listing the laws, sometimes it is hint in how to behave. Every word of the bible is a reflection of Gods character and hence, a reflection of Gods law.

Any sin and all sin are equal. There is are no difference in the wages of sin between a simple theft and murder. While Gods laws may require different forms of restitution, the wages, the ultimate penalty of sinning is death.

When does sin happen? We do not sin in being tempted. A collegue may come to you ask that you make a dishonest decision and fix the numbers on a report, there is no sin on your part for being tempted. The sin on your part may come in simply thinking about doing it or actually doing it. Biblically, thinking of doing it is likened to actually doing it. Jesus taught us how to handle temptation...to outright refute it. To say that it is not right that somebody put you in such a position and that you will not give in to their tempations.

Specifically now to homosexuality. Is homosexuality a sin? Is the practice of it a sin? Is the gender preference of homosexuality a sin? To answer these question, we should go straight to the source of Gods law, Gods character and read what God has to say about it: It is an abomination to God that a man sleep with another man like he would a women.

To me, it is pretty cut and dry what Gods character is in regards to this. It is an abomination to God. Very strong wording, it is worth putting these people to their deaths over it in Gods law. And what is Gods law on marriage? That a man and woman leave their parents and cling to each other. That the one that was made two be made one, or whole again. Homosexuality does not fulfill Gods law, it is not a refleciton of Gods character. It is a sin.

Is being predisposed to being a homosexual a sin? Basically, having a gender preference that is homosexual, a sin? Yes. This goes back to the notion of original sin. When Adam allowed sin to enter into the world, he allowed the notion of original sin into the world. The original seperation of man from God, and it has bitten mankind since that day. We are all born predisposed to sin. Whether that sin is homosexuality or theivery or lieing or murder, it does not matter. There is no "gay" gene much like, there is no "lieing" gene. I am talking about the seed of sin that is in us when we are born.

Saying that you are a homosexual but do not practice it is similar to me saying that I am a liar but do not practice it. I am, by all means, a sinner of the worst sort. While I may not have done it all, I most certainly thought it all. Sin, is a choice. Although we are born predisposed to sin, we are also born with the ability to choose not to sin. Many a people are raised in abusive families and are not abusive when they start their own family. How does this differ from the person who says "I was born into a family that abused each other, thus, when I grew up, I only knew how to abuse others, that is why I abuse others?" I believe one chooses the high road. One makes the right choice and the other choose to justify the wrong choice.

To me, being born a homosexual holds as much weight as me saying I am born a liar. The statement, in its most basic form, is the truth. But to say I have no control over it is to deny God even more then admitting that we are sinner. I may not be able to help the fact I was born a sinner, but I certainly have a God given ability to choose not to sin, especially now that I know what sin is through the written word (the bible) and the life of Jesus.

What should the message of the church be in regards to homosexuality? That it is indeed a sin but not unlike any other sin. It's practice is no different then lieing, cheating, stealing, adultry or murder. That those who are born predisposed to homosexuality are no different then all who are born predisposed to sin via original sin. That we are called to sin no more and in all our comings and goings, to glorify God to the fullist.

Should a homosexual be forced into a hetrosexual relationship? No more then we should cut off the hands of our fellow believers who steal. We have no idea what relationship God has in store for any sinner and to force a sinner into a situation does not glorify God.

As for, should we reject a homosexual, should we shun them? Jesus did not shun the lepers, the cheats, the liar. And even though he ate and drank, and walked and healed them...I wonder, how did Jesus limit their lifestyle on his life? Maybe, he didn't limit it, maybe he went out to be with them on purpose so that his life and his grace would not be limited or restricted from them? It is meat to think about, thats for sure.

My many apoligies for this long post.

[The Mighty Gerbil]

1 Is homosexuality as a gender preference a sin?
2 Is homosexuality as sexual practice a sin?

I don't think anyone is disagreeing on the above. The bible is pretty clear it is a sin.


3 If yes to either above - should this sin be distinguished from other sins such as lust, greed, stealing, etc.?

No sin is acceptable by God so on that level it is equal. I do think the bible distinguishes it with especially strong language (abomination). Perhaps partially so people would not doubt it was a sin, although people still deny the Bible says it. Like the ones ordaining gay priests. I could conjecture more, but, don't feel the need at the moment.

4 Should homosexuals (gender preference) who abstain from practice be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
5 Should active homosexuals (sexual practice) be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?

I would say anyone who is actively working against their sin would be acceptable to a church. Excluding people from a church is done when that member is actively causing others to stumble. To compare those who are heterosexual may have problems with adultery, or thoughts of. However, if they condemn such things and fight against it would we not help them as anyone else struggling with sin?


6 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a gender preference?
7 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a sexual practice?

They should quote the Bible verbatim and get arrested for hate speech. :( I've read about it happening but haven't checked the details. Different subject anyway.

Up to here I think we all agree (and probably will below as well). I would also add though...

I've seen PBS shows that had homosexual behavior occurring between animals. I've also seen PBS shows that talked about the brain chemistry differences that could be related to murderous intent. That there are physical things that effect our choices is true, but, if we allow ourselves to believe we cannot EVER choose our actions contrary to our biology you are getting into a scary place. A place were people are condemned before they commit a sin in thought or deed based purely on scientific evidence. If a person is considered nothing more than the sum of their parts judgment of their total potential should theoretically be possible. A dystopian totalitaristic society where your future is planned from the start would be inevitable. Gattaca anyone? Too bad that movie wasn't coming from a Christian perspective it could have had a strong Christian message. Regardless all that is lacking is the technology to measure those parts accurately enough. This is why a society based on the belief that man is without a spirit will not work (at least by our standard of working).

The Homosexual (or heterosexual) urge could not be purely genetic as one must learn what a woman or man is (this is also why I am against homosexuals adopting but different subject). That is to say a person growing up alone could not have an attraction to something he did not know exist. That he may have a attraction is true, but, he must learn what it is he needs to fulfill that attraction. At that point it becomes a need to define what would fulfill him. Physically, mentality and spiritually men and women are different and made to fulfill each other by those differences. Whether you believe this by God or science it's irrelevant. Even if you were compatible mentally you would not be compatible physically. However, not all gay men choose alter themselves to become women-like (surgery etc. not that I agree with that either). So the physical incompatibility remains and the relationship would always be flawed.

I have seen the argument used by advocates of homosexuality that because it is a naturally occurring phenomena we should accept it. Even if it were a medical condition I don't see how it matters in ones acceptance or rejection of it. Should we accept a disease if it is naturally occurring? What scientific purpose could long term homosexual relationships serve in the continuance of any species? I'd really like to see scientists say this but never have.

Although it is possible for homosexuality to be carried though recessive genes or some spontaneous mutation I am a little skeptical. Most genes are reinforced by BREEDING thus you should not be able to reinforce those traits!

My many apologies for this long post.


You are weak! You call that a long post you have seen nothing, nothing I tell you! :p Serious subjects often require much explanation to prevent miscommunication that's just the way it is and you haven't seen a long post till you have seen some of mine :)

[Amicus Dei of [FoG]]

#1: I firmly believe that it's a choice. My friend (a female) was once very heterosexual and interested in males only... then later she found interest in another female and has now decided on her own to be... bisexual... although i disagree i don't want to say "i hate what you're doing" so i'm trying to convince her that it's not the best choice.
Also, the causes for gender preference can stem from childhood experiences. For example, let's say there is a family with two children, one male, one female, and divorced parents living in separate houses. Now let's make it where the parents trade off weekends, and the children primarily stay with their mother (as is usual for divorced families). The mother is always helpful and generous and pampers the children, but the father is the opposite and does not give them what they want and teaches lessons the realworld way, which is tough for children. Chances are, because of the way that their experiences with males have been, both children may prefer to be with females, meaning that the female child may be homosexual. Of course this is by her choice, because she chose to turn away from males due to the treatment of her by them.
This is, as my understanding, a sin.

#2: Thinking about this one it reminds me of ye olde Adam and Eve. Of course the couple have been used in multitudes of conversations with similar topics to explain that God's plan for humans is to have a man and woman together, not two of either... Besides, homosexual practices cannot produce children...

#4 & #5: back to what was said about hate the sin, love the sinner; nobody should be rejected from a church or any other aspect of Christianity because of a particular sin. murderers, liars, and thieves can and have been saved and accepted into churches. God accepts everyone and so should his followers.

#6 and #7: both of these should be, IN MY VIEW, regarded as an obstacle that needs to be overcome, and churches should offer help to those who fit either of these categories. they should NOT, however, outright say that it's wrong.

[Hescominsoon]

in regard to 6 and 7:
how can you honestly say it should not be called wrong when the bible explicitly calls homosexuality an abomination? Folks who are trying to work through this and remove themselves from this sin yes should be helped..those who don't should not be allowed in to cause others to stumble.

[Amicus Dei of [FoG]]

i'm not saying it isn't wrong i'm saying don't run up and tell somebody "Hey, that's wrong you shouldn't do that" because they won't be so excited about accepting God when you tell them they're flawed and wrong right off

[Hescominsoon]

;230453']i'm not saying it isn't wrong i'm saying don't run up and tell somebody "Hey, that's wrong you shouldn't do that" because they won't be so excited about accepting God when you tell them they're flawed and wrong right off
the truth hurts. Nobody is going to be saved unless the full darkness of their sin is brought out into the light. Otherwise there is zero chance of a true conversion.

[Durruck]

Here's another analogy on this one.....

Two groups of college kids get on a plane, heading for spring break. A hostess comes up to one of the kids in each group, whispers something to each of them (one at a time) and then hands them a goofy-looking orange backpack. They're both explicitly told to not tell anyone anything about the backpacks.

They both put them on and go to their seats.

The first kid puts his on, and as he approaches his seat, his friends start laughing at him for wearing it. He finds that he cannot get comfortable sitting down because of it.

The second kid looks terrified when he gets his backpack. He promptly straps it on and nervously looks around the plane, wondering why nobody else can't have a backpack? He takes his seat and the plane takes off.

The plane starts hitting some turbulence. The first kid has had enough. This backpack is making him miserable. He can't take it anymore... He screams at the stewardess and throws his backpack on the ground. He doesn't care anymore, he's not wearing it and will never put on the backpack again. The second kid, however, looks even more nervous, and pulls the straps tighter.

Why? Because the stewardess told the two boys different things when she gave out their "backpacks."

First guy: Here is a parachute, it will make your life better.
Second guy: Here is a parachute, this plane is going to crash.

So the first guy thinks that all of a sudden his life is going to get better. Then he gets ridiculed, sitting in public is difficult, etc. When he's had enough, he doesn't care anymore, and nothing you say will make him put on that parachute again. He'll claim there wasn't even a parachute in the pack later, if you ask him.

The second guy tho, he knows that right now he looks silly to people, that he's not comfortable, but he understands that later, he's going to love having that pack, and wondering why nobody else gets to have a parachute. He'd give one to everyone if he could.

Isn't this what sharing the Gospel is like? If all we tell everyone is how great Jesus is, how much God loves them, how He will take away their troubles...... when they have troubles... they think He has abandoned them. But if you show both sides of the story - this plane is going to crash, and you'll die, paying for your sins... then won't you put on that parachute of forgiveness? Won't you look around and wonder why everyone isn't wearing the parachute - try to tell them about it? When you hit the turbulence, won't you pull the straps tighter and truly appreciate the fact that you have been given your parachute of forgiveness?

I think one of the problems that we run into with our ministries is that we don't give an even mix of what we're supposed to tell people about.
We have the protesters out front of the abortion clinic... and the people that just seem all sing-song. We need to be in the middle ground, telling people about their upcoming judgement by God, how they can avoid it, but make sure they understand that it's not always easy or comfortable. But when the plane crashes, they'll definitely love the fact that they've worked so hard for Him. You reach out to people, give them both sides of the story, and perhaps they'll hold on a little tighter, even when the times are tough.

[dorkelf]

How do you define sin? Without understanding your own definition of sin, this arguement will teeter on the side of fruitless.

It is a very important question. If we somehow manage to never practice sin, are we still sinners and still condemned based on our very nature? Or do we sin ONLY by making a conscious decision to do (or, think about doing) what is wrong? Doesn't there have to be a conscious DECISION for there to be sin? I'm convinced so, which is why I can't call a 'preference' for ANYTHING a sin when it is not acted upon.

Saying that you are a homosexual but do not practice it is similar to me saying that I am a liar but do not practice it.

The issue I have with your analogy is that a 'liar' is implicitly someone who DOES NOT resist the temptation to lie - i.e., who actively lies frequently enough that they are characterized by the word 'liar'. So your analogy implies (probably unintentionally) that having a homosexual gender preference is synonymous with practicing homosexual acts. To avoid that implication I would use this analogy instead: 'Saying that you are a homosexual but do not practice it is similar to me saying that I love gambling, but choose not to gamble.'

What should the message of the church be in regards to homosexuality? That it is indeed a sin but not unlike any other sin. It's practice is no different then lieing, cheating, stealing, adultry or murder. [B]That those who are born predisposed to homosexuality are no different then all who are born predisposed to sin via original sin.

That's a great way to put it.

Paul

[dorkelf]

;230356']Chances are, because of the way that their experiences with males have been, both children may prefer to be with females, meaning that the female child may be homosexual. Of course this is by her choice, because she chose to turn away from males due to the treatment of her by them. This is, as my understanding, a sin.

I don't think a female's decision to 'turn away' from males is inherently a sinful act, because I don't think being unmarried or unattached is a sin.

Besides, homosexual practices cannot produce children...

Marriage to a woman who has had a hysterectomy also cannot produce children. Or to a woman you can't have sex with because she has AIDS. Are these women ineligible to be married? Just some food for thought.

Paul

[ChickenSoup]

I personally think that some sins are more despicable to God than others, but I don’t know that I could back that up solidly with scripture. What I do believe and would be able to support is that the ‘wages’ of sin aren’t determined by what the sin was, or how offensive it was to God.I'd have to agree, well sort of. I haven't found any sin (so far--I'm willing to change my mind if someone said "hey here's a verse where it says this") that's "worse" than any other sin... but I've found that one sin cannot be forgiven--which is blasphemy against the spirit.

From Biblegateway.org (the bold letters are the words I had typed in the search engine)

Matthew 12:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=31&version=31&context=verse)
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Matthew 12:30-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=30&end_verse=32&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Matthew 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)


Aside from that I never saw anything being considered worse than anything else, but anyway that's my two cents on that point.


(by the way--what exactly is blasphemy against the Spirit?)

[Gods_Peon]

***EDIT OFF TOPIC***

[tjguitarz]

(by the way--what exactly is blasphemy against the Spirit?)

Continual rejection and mockery of the Spirit. I heard a very good sermon buy a guy in Seatle who explained this very well.

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Continual rejection and mockery of the Spirit. I heard a very good sermon buy a guy in Seatle who explained this very well.

Okay, but let me throw a monkey wrench at you:

Jesus's audience, when he mentions blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, happens to be the Pharisees. The Pharisees have just finished pointing out that Jesus has cast out demons "by the power of Satan, the master of demons."

Now, understand who the Pharisees were. They were very educated men, who knew their scriptures cold. They knew the Law, often by heart. They also quite possibly had a great breadth of Jewish theology.

So, assumedly, they should be able to realize by whose power demons were cast out. Should. But they misjudged, claiming that Jesus cast out the demons by Satan's power.

I'm going to go out on a small limb here and suggest that possibly, just possibly, the Pharisees could tell exactly whose power it was, namely God's, that set the afflicted free from the demonic influence. But they chose, politically, to decry it as being the power of Satan. A dire insult to the Holy Spirit if I've ever heard one.

Jesus's reaction is to point out that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not* be forgiven. Moreover, after this incident, Jesus refers to his accusers as a "brood of vipers."

Perhaps, I'd like to argue, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in fact the act of accrediting an act that you know darn well to be of God (and therefore the power of the Holy Spirit) to someone or something else, or even worse, to Satan. Of course, I can't say for certain, but I'm always careful when I hear of a weird or strange thing the Christians are doing to make sure that I don't label it as sin or evil without very direct proof. I'd much rather call it weird or strange; God's ways are often weird or strange.

And yeah, this is off topic.

Edit: I forgot my footnote.

* Interesting food for thought: while i'm not a uber Greek scholar, I'd like to point out that the implication in Jesus's words that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven is not to suggest that it can not be forgiven, but rather that it will not be forgiven. Such a blasphemy is a strike against God's own divine essential character, and as such he will not forgive it. Maybe. Or maybe I'm wrong. But the implication is that such a sin will not be forgiven by choice, rather than by some sort of overarching constraint. As with all other punishments, however, God is free to act as he decides, and so one need not fear that they will be condemned by God without the full benefit of his Love and his Mercy.

[Captain_Tea]

Must you? I'd hate to think what would happen if Christ had thought this same principle.

However, to be fair, if a sinner refuses to repent you cannot force them to do so. You need to keep showing love and keep waiting for them to come around. You also must limit their influence in your life and the Christian community.

I think these verses speak for themselves:

1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--
1Co 5:10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
1Co 5:13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

I think that the churches need to start cracking down on some of the other people listed above, as well as the homosexuals. Once you are in the body of Christ we need to be accountable to his body, the Church. If you are repentant then of these things then great, not to say there won't be an occasional failure, but if someone refuses to repent then they should be excommunicated until they show true repentance.

[Durruck]

To a point, we do need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. But on the other hand...

Mt9:12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."
Mt28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Jn8:7 "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Jesus tells us that only the pure (and therefore, none of us!) have the right to condemn others. Jesus himself was accused of many things because of the company he kept and those he visited.

Then he tells us to go out into the world and spread the Good News. How can we tell people about Jesus' love, our salvation, if we don't talk to people because they're gay? Or because they're prostitutes? Or because they're white, black, red, green, or orange? Or because they're Cambodian, Mexican, or Swedish?

It's our duty to share what Christ did for us, and pass that story on to other sinners, so that they know they will be welcomed home as we were, just as the prodigal son was that Jesus talked about.

I've got my problems just like everyone else. I'm ashamed that I fall weak to the devil's traps and lies. Whether it be sex, drugs, alcohol, adultery, idolatry, greed, malice, gossip, rudeness, lying, or bad language... they're all sins. How can the church excommunicate.. when the rest of the body is guilty, too? If the church kicked out everyone that had problems, it'd be an awfully empty place.

We're told that it's not our actions, but His action that redeemed us. We can't be "good enough" on our own to get to Heaven. Even John reflects on his problems... "the things I want to do I do not do, but the things I do not want to do I do." John was admitting to us that he was a screw up! Yet still, Jesus hand-picked him to spread the gospels to the masses. Nowhere does it say, "spread the good news, except to (pick a group of people)"

I'm going to join Neirai on this one...

However, to be fair, if a sinner refuses to repent you cannot force them to do so. You need to keep showing love and keep waiting for them to come around. You also must limit their influence in your life and the Christian community.

Show them love. That's what it's all about.

[riathamus]

I've got my problems just like everyone else. I'm ashamed that I fall weak to the devil's traps and lies. Whether it be sex, drugs, alcohol, adultery, idolatry, greed, malice, gossip, rudeness, lying, or bad language... they're all sins. How can the church excommunicate.. when the rest of the body is guilty, too? If the church kicked out everyone that had problems, it'd be an awfully empty place.

Show them love. That's what it's all about.

Bingo.

We are ALL works in progress. Our job is to love people in Jesus' name. So many people see someone get saved and then they immediately begin telling them what changes they need to make in their lives. Unless your name is "Holy Spirit", that isn't your job. Allow Him to do what only He can do, in His time. :-)

[Captain_Tea]

Bingo.

We are ALL works in progress. Our job is to love people in Jesus' name. So many people see someone get saved and then they immediately begin telling them what changes they need to make in their lives. Unless your name is "Holy Spirit", that isn't your job. Allow Him to do what only He can do, in His time. :-)

I agree with this, change doesn't happen overnight in most cases, but if they aren't bearing any fruit after many years it our job as brothers and sisters to lovingly show them that what they are doing is not right. Not beating them with scripture, but letting them know as lovingly as you can that when God says don't, what He's really saying is don't hurt yourself and those you love.

[Shadowwing]

With regards to homosexuality, I agree with the sentiment that it is a choice. It is, however, no worse than any other sin.
Homosexuals need to be reached just as fervently as everyone else.

Now, if there is a homosexual who boasts to be a Christian, then it's different. According to Paul, those in the Body who knowingly live a sinful lifestyle, should be "cast out." This seems very judgemental, and you'd be right. As Christians, we can't judge those outside the church because they don't have the same moral standards or baseline as we do. However, in the church, we have the responsibility to judge each other, out of love, in order to bring them back to a Godly lifestyle. This is not in reference to a "sin" but rather a "sinful lifestyle." We shouldn't be waiting with radar guns to catch the church goers who are speeding going home from church... 8)
Look at Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5 1-13:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Corinthians+5&section=0&version=niv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=5&NavNextChapter=%3E%3E&NavCurrentChapter=4

This is done out of love for the brother/sister, not out of a spiritually-haughty attitude. If the christian comes back and is repentant, we welcome them back with open arms.

Wow, intense for my second post here... 8)

[Captain_Tea]

With regards to homosexuality, I agree with the sentiment that it is a choice. It is, however, no worse than any other sin.
Homosexuals need to be reached just as fervently as everyone else.

Now, if there is a homosexual who boasts to be a Christian, then it's different. According to Paul, those in the Body who knowingly live a sinful lifestyle, should be "cast out." This seems very judgemental, and you'd be right. As Christians, we can't judge those outside the church because they don't have the same moral standards or baseline as we do. However, in the church, we have the responsibility to judge each other, out of love, in order to bring them back to a Godly lifestyle. This is not in reference to a "sin" but rather a "sinful lifestyle." We shouldn't be waiting with radar guns to catch the church goers who are speeding going home from church... 8)
Look at Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5 1-13:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1+Corinthians+5&section=0&version=niv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=1co&NavGo=5&NavNextChapter=%3E%3E&NavCurrentChapter=4

This is done out of love for the brother/sister, not out of a spiritually-haughty attitude. If the christian comes back and is repentant, we welcome them back with open arms.

Wow, intense for my second post here... 8)

Amen

[ppar3566]

The topic came up in Guild Wars alliance chat yesterday evening. I'm not sure if the fellow who brought up the topic is active in these forums, but Heiscomingsoon was kind enough to direct him here and hopefully he'll get a chance to join in on this conversation.

I want to say first that homosexuality is a 'hot button' issue - most people have very strong personal opinions about it and it is hard to discuss it without offending other's beliefs and convictions. We’ve had members of our guild leave after similar forum or alliance chat discussions, usually after an ad hominem (personal) attack to the tune of ‘you can’t be a Christian if you hold that view’. Frankly I was reluctant to post this at all. But it did come up, and this is the right forum for it - so better to address it here rather than Guild Wars alliance chat.

There will differences of opinion on this issue, just as there are on Bible versions, young earth/old earth, or a host of other topics. I think it is important for anyone who participates in the discussion to respect those who hold different views.

With that said, here are some of the questions I wanted to bring up:

1 Is homosexuality as a gender preference a sin?
2 Is homosexuality as sexual practice a sin?
3 If yes to either above - should this sin be distinguished from other sins such as lust, greed, stealing, etc.?
4 Should homosexuals (gender preference) who abstain from practice be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
5 Should active homosexuals (sexual practice) be accepted or rejected by the Christian church?
6 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a gender preference?
7 What should the overall message of the Church be in regards to homosexuality as a sexual practice?

Paul

Hi all. I am really glad this post came up as it has become an important issue for me and my wife as we now have some lovely friends who are gay. I have never really thought about the issue until experience made me confront the issue. So here is my 2 cents worth.

1. No there is no evidence that there is a gene for homosexuality. Having said that, there is no evidence that there is a gene for anything specifically. Rather, genes work in remarkably complex ways. The best we can say is that people with certain genes tend more likely to be homosexual than others. From here we have further complex relationships between genotype and phenotype and further more diffuse environmental influences. I suppose what I am saying is, from a purely scientific point of view, we are not at a position to know yet. If I have discovered anything over the last few it is that nothing is purely genetic or purely environmental (not even a persons height which most people would suggest is purely genetic – note that malnutrition leads to people being shorter than there genes will allow for).
2. I relation to whether it is a sin or not there are two major points of view that I can tell (I tend to think a) is more likely than b) but am willing to be convinced).
a. The bible refers to homosexuality as a sin (not the preference) consistently in both the old and New Testament, while other sins (i.e. eating pork) that were sins in the Old Testament are arguably not in the New. Therefore we can be fairly certain that it is still a sin.
b. The counter argument is that in both the Old and the New Testament periods, homosexuality was linked with paedophilia and this is what was objected to during the period. To be fair this is a very poor explanation of this argument and I am simply not able to give it better justice.

3. If it is a sin I don’t think, in light of the New Testament (and particularly Galatians), that you could seriously suggest it is a worse sin than any other. It is worth noting here that the ‘sin’ lists in the new testament more frequently refer to sins such as gossip or disunity more often than homosexuality and I do those other things every day (so if a homosexual is in trouble I am in real trouble). To be fair the sin lists in the New Testament tend to refer more to particularly relevant sins for the occasion of writing than the particular badness of these above all other sins (i.e. the list in the last chapter of Galatians tends to refer to sins that cause disunity which is what Paul is addressing in the letter.
4. To answer the last few points let me give an example of a friend of mine who is struggling with this very issue. He is a deeply devoted Christian and a homosexual. He believes he is going to hell but, in his words, try as he might he just can’t stop being gay (even though he has genuinely tried very hard). I think the bible’s overwhelming message to him is that God loves him and that we should be willing and able to help him with his difficulties, not by excluding him, but by bringing him into a community of believers who will love him no matter what.

Just as a quick end note. At least by the official international diagnosis manual for psychologists and other health professionals the DSM III and the DSM III-TR homosexuality is not a mental disorder and has not been clasified as such for many years. It is important to note the the american psychiatrist association who publishers the DSM have excluded homosexuality from this catagory because of the weight of scientific evidence against the conclusion of it as a mental disorder not because it was socially convienient to do so. Note that this has alot of revalence to the discussion but it is worth putting here.

[ajmucha]

I hope this is not regarded as "forum necromancy" due to it being nearly 2 weeks since last posted..but this is my two bit, and i apologize if any of these ideas have been thrown out there already:

In regards to number 3: I believe that (Roughly) Jesus said that he who breaks one commandment is guilty of breaking them all. And by some sort of logical conclusion, in reference to practice of homosexuality, wouldn't the sin first be lust? And (slightly related) isn't anything that God tells us not to do, a sin? We had a sermon on worry, and it was mentioned that since Jesus said "Do not worry about tomorrow...", then worrying would be a violation of Jesus' commands to us. (Back on topic now)
I tend to think that modern media is throwing mud in the direction of Christians, becasue, if any of you have seen recent commercias, there's one (i dont remember the name of) but the actor was "rejected By EHarmony" for being homosexual.

This is a pseudo-story:
Many of you do not know this, but I have a friend very near and dear to me who lives in Texas, whose name is Hannah, and she is like my baby sister. One day I got a call from her, and she was literally in tears because a friend of hers, who for this purpose shall be called Katie, basically blew up at her on a MSN conversation. It is interesting to note that this is basically how it went (censored for language content). "What the has God ever done for me? How do you explain how three of my friends killed themselves in the past month!? How does that show that this 'mighty god' gives a about me or any of us?" Basically tha's how the whole rant went, she went off on my 'lil-sister' and has not been heard from since...from what I've heard (through certain connections of mine) this Katie basically become a cutter, wound up in an asylum twice, and is 'bisexual' with a heavy homosexual preference. I feel there is so little I can do, and I know Hannah has deep scars from that, losing a friend and all...I don't know what to say to her, and I don't know how to comfort her because she's a fraid of this former friend going to hell for what happened...i guess this is a dual story/prayer request...so yah...I'll shut up now..

[Durruck]

I think you're correct - any sin makes us fall short of God's perfection.

Lust. (hetero- or homosexual)
Gossip.
Worry.
Hatred. Anger. Resentment
Blasphemy.
Lies.
Theft.
Pride of self.
Self-reliance.
The list goes on and on.

It doesn't matter which one (or ones) we do, we're all guilty. The Bible also tell us that there is no distinction between someone that covets and someone that murders. Without Jesus, all sinners will die and suffer eternal damnation. I think that Christians take a bad rap for being so overly anti-homosexual because it's a big part of our culture. But I think we should really focus on being anti-sin as a whole. I'm not condoning homosexuality, but I really don't think it's the worst of our problems.

I don't know what you can say to Hannah to help her. I think that we all stress about losing ones we care about deeply. It hurts to see a lot of my friends reject God, because I know that in the end, if they don't repent, our here-afters are forever separated. I don't think there's anything we can really do except just show them love. Be the lamp on the stand and hope that they search for the light before it's too late.