Suzet - I really would ask you to seriously question the "experts" you are quoting on sexuality. You speak with authority, but it contradicts other experts who aren't published by the amoral mainstream media.

I have to go with my own training in mental health and my personal spiritual studies. I have studied this extensively instead of buying into the pop psych of the day. It boils down to this:

I was born, genetically oriented to addiction, depression, manic depression, suicide, obesity, and heart disease. Life circumstances compounded that genetic problem into a real-life challenge that I face as an adult almost daily.

Do I succumb to the flesh? Or do I overcome? The argument that God made me that way so it must be ok for me to ACT on those predispositions is so wrong-headed. If I acted on these, I would be dependent upon tax-payer support; or I could be homeless and add to society's problems that way. I would be absolutely more miserable than I can even fathom, and I would be making those who love me suffer because they would be helpless to stop me because it's MY choice to ACT on my predisposed tendencies.

I make different choices. As a result, I'm sleep deprived, unfulfilled sexually, I HAVE to exercise and watch my diet, and be resigned to generally living a physically uncomfortable life.

Yet, because I'm engaged in overcoming the flesh, I live a much more fulfilled life than I would, if I gave in to the flesh.

Someone who believes they are born homosexual, yet desiring to live from a Judeo-Christian or Islamic moral code, will master that predisposition to be at peace spiritually.

And I agree with Dorry - it is the action, not the tendency which is at conflict with Christianity.

Sorry for the delay in getting back to the point of this particular discussion.

Suzet*, we may be talking about two very different things here, so I wanted to clarify this point.

ALL people, practicing sinnners, unbelievers, believers (old and newly "minted") are WELCOME to sit in the pews of any Christian church and be "ministered to" by the preaching of the Word of God and the proximity of believers. That is a "reach out" sort of thing.

But "membership" in a local body of believers, imho, "should be" restricted to those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and, in the case of someone who has been struggling with "prohibited" sin, membership delayed, and/or denied, until sufficient time has passed to give evidence that they have "overcome" their prediliction to that sin (be it homosexuality, adutlery, pornography, etc., etc., etc.). Once in "membership," the local church has the biblical responsibility, for the good of the church itself, to follow Matthew 18:15-20 concerning the "discipline" of it's members. Membership in a local body of believers should not, therefore, be undertaken lightly by either party to the membership agreement.

Understand that I am talking about membership in a LOCAL body of believers called a "Church," that fellowship together to worship the Lord and to be edified throught the expository preaching of the Word.

Homosexuals, like all of us various sorts of sinners, who have accepted Jesus Christ as both their Savior and their LORD, ARE a member of the 'catholic church' of all believers. There IS only "one true church of God," and that is Christ's "bride," regardless of local affiliation.

But be careful, the "Wheat" and the "Tares" WILL be growing together. So carefully discern what is taught in any local church to determine if it is "of God" or "not of God." The Scripture is the final authority of that determination, so expect that those who want to go the "not of God" route will begin to attack the authority of Scripture, bending, twisting, and denying the truths that God, through His inspiration of the writers, revealed to mankind. This road of denying the Scriptures leads, invariably over time, to apostasy (even though they may still "claim" to be "Christian", though certainly NOT as it is traditionally and historically defined).

God bless.

I have to disagree with Suzets arguement in that without sex the two men would not be considered homosexuals. I think two men can have a bonded friendship and live together without having sex and not be homosexual. In the bible it says the David loved Jonathan more than any woman, yet David was not a homosexual. Their bond was great as two men and they deeply trusted and respected each other. So without sex being involved, two men who love and care for each other do not have to be considered homosexual.

KaylaAndy, NOWHERE in my posts have I said it’s okay for homosexual orientated people to ACT on their urges, impulses and desires, so I don’t know why you have mentioned the above in the quote. I also agree with Dorry that it is the action, not the tendency which is at conflict with Christianity. But please remember that people are not equally strong and some may take longer than others to overcome their personal problems & struggles.

FH, thanks for the clarification on this matter. I agree with you on this one.

I didn't said this or made arguments about anything in this specific post. I just gave some questions for people to ponder and to give food for thought on this complex matter...

And I was not talking about 2 heterosexual orientated men who are having a close friendship (like than example in the Bible) - I was talking about 2 homosexual orientated men who have an intimate relationship with each other but didn't involve sex or any type of sexual contact in their relationship.

I agree that without sex being involved, two men who love and care for each other do not have to be considered homosexual. But what if they ARE homosexually orientated and sexually attracted to one another but don't ACT on those impulses? Is that also then not considered an homosexual relationship as long as they don't ACT on their feelings?

FH,

I don't understand. Are you saying that there are different "classifications" of sin? So if someone has a huge issue with pride (which for some may be a difficult sin to battle - such battle taking a lifetime) they would be acceptable for membership even though they haven't given evidence they have overcome that sin? Please tell me where in the Bible it says that as I will have to educate my minister.

Our problem in todays society is that we think if two men live together, and the two men do things together, and the two men seem to care for each other, then the two men have to be homosexual. We have built a society that is homophobic. There was a period of time in history when it was common for men to live together and take care of one another, not sexually, but as deep caring friends. Nuns, monks are some examples in todays world that live in such a way. We put the label homosexual there because of sex. What is wrong about people caring for each other in a non-sexual manner? Nothing. Timothy cared for Paul and tended to his needs.

So homosexual is a label we put. I'm not sure we all understand it. I'm not sure the person who gets involved fully understands it at times. Sometimes the carings and emotional part gets mixed up with the physical part and had the emotional part just been there maybe the physical sex would have never manifestied itself. It's hard to say. I just know from my same sex friends, it's not about sex, it's about the emotional bond with men.

Suzet,

Rather than go into every question that you posted, let me just ask this:

It appears that you believe there are victimless crimes, correct?

Well, sin isnt defined by man...it is defined by God. And every sin...EVERY sin, has a victim! And the primary victim is NOT the rape victim, or the child who was molested, or the person that was murdered. God did not create He!! for people who sinned against their fellow man. He created He!! for people that sinned against HIM! The "victim" is God.

I have said the the world has various levels of "sins." Some sins are more heinous than others. But to God, they are all the same. They are all the same because they all have the same penalty...death. And not just physical death...but also eternal spiritual death.

The pedofile has sexual urges, right? And yes, there is an innocent victim in this...the child. But that sin causes the same result with God as does the act of two men having intimate relations with each other. Both are sins against God and both carry the same penalty.

Interestingly enough, while we have our sins ranked, Jesus' blood ranks no sin. ALL sins are capable of being forgiven by that same blood.

So, if the homosexual and the pedofile both have sexual urges that if acted upon, are an affront to God and will cause eternal damnation, then as a Christian, I am most concerned about that. I am concerned about their eternal well-being. Both struggle against ungodly sexual urges. But as a Christian, Jesus gives that person the power to overcome these urges (notice I didnt say rid themselves of the urges) through the reliance on Jesus. That is if we CHOOSE to rely on Him.

The homosexual or the pedofile or ANY other sinner, as a Christian, has the power to overcome these urges or "tendencies." God didnt set a bunch of rules and then lift the bar so high that they werent attainable. But, as a man, that bar is too high for me. But as a man who has Jesus inside of me, then I am a person that can reach and exceed those bars.

It goes back to what I said originally...how big is your God? I dont expect a heathen to overcome homosexuality or any other sin. But I do expect my brothers and sisters in Christ to do so. Because they have the Word and they have the Holy Spirit. And that is MORE than enough.

To treat homosexuality as some victimless sin, with patting them on the heads and saying that's okay, we understand," is to allow that believer to rebel against the word of God. And Hebrews 10 tells of what happens to believers when they rebel against the Word.

The wife of the man on here that her husband kissed that guy has only one issue with him. Will he bend his knee and follow Christ? Will he trust God to help him overcome his temptations? Will he let God take over?

If this man choses to wrestle with this on his own, he will fail everytime. And his wife should begin the process of church discipline for and to him. But if he will bend his knee to Christ, then his wife should help him find the help he needs, help him in order to get him focused on Christ. And then he will overcome.

Suzet, I have to disagree with you here. There is no such thing as a victimless sin. And I am more concerned with the sin against God by a murderer, than the sin against the person he murdered. And so is God.

In His arms.

Fair enough question, Eaglesoar. But before I attempt to answer it for you, let me pose a question to you in return and make a few brief comments.

Please tell me WHERE it is written, so we can all be educated, that if there is KNOWN sin that someone is struggling with, as opposed to their hiding it and claiming "all is well," that they should be admitted into the local body of believers in full membership even though they are still "practicing" (either by choice or by "slip") that which is expressly forbidden by God for anyone, much less HIS children?

The Roman Catholic Church is right now "struggling" with what to do with Priests who have molested children. Should they NOT follow the biblical directive for "church discipline?" If not, on what authority should they refuse to obey Christ's clear directive on the matter?

Will you have unprotected sex with someone who is known to have HIV simply because they have said that they don't want to "infect you?" I know, that's "reaching" a bit, but the idea is that the "problem" is KNOWN, not hidden, and the "body" has the right and obligation to it's members to limit exposure when things are KNOWN.

IF someone infects someone else with HIV, because in their selfish desire to "belong" they chose NOT to reveal the truth of what they struggle with and will have for the rest of their lives, the "major" fault lies with the person who "lied by ommision" and stated that they are "only struggling with no longer "practicing unsafe sex with members of the same sex," but failed to state that the infection was still "transmissable" or "harmful" to others. In such a case, celebacy might also be required as one of the "consequences" of the original decision to ACT on sinful desires and temptations, because "Forgiven" does NOT mean that all consequences of sin are erased from the life of the "forgiven sinner." They ARE saved, and a member of the "catholic church" of all believers, but the consequences of sin may still have to be addressed and dealt with. Some take little time to address and some take a lot of time, such is the differing nature of some sins, especially those sins against one's own body.

Becontent, in fact it does... Please read the following text from the Bible and tell me how YOU interpret this script. IMO this script also refers to people who can't marry and have to practise "celibacy" because of their sexual orientation & identity (which they didn't choose) - and this verse CLEARLY states that some people are BORN this way. Here is the scripture:


Here are other versions on this verse:



To read the entire chapter on Matthew 19 (KJV), go here. It’s better to read the whole chapter in its entire context.

Well, as you can see from the above scripture, the Bible do talk about homosexuality (as I interpreted it) which are born into some people. The scripture also said some people are MADE this way by the actions of others, and as I see it, this part probably refers to people who have gotten homosexually orientated because of things which happened in their early childhood years whether it was sexual abuse by heterosexual or homosexual pedophiles, an absent father or whatever. I consider pedophile behavior evil and from the devil. I can’t say the same about homosexual orientation though because I know some people become homosexual orientated as a direct result of the behavior of pedophiles (sexual child abuse) and this is the other reason it makes me so angry if people like you compare homosexual orientated people with the behavior of pedophiles. I mean, I was molested myself from a very young age (2 years) and for YEARS into adulthood I didn’t trust & respect men as a result of that… Therefore, I think it’s only by GOD’s GRACE that I turned out relatively normal (thank God!) and didn’t become a homosexual orientated person myself… But I’m asking myself: WHAT IF I DID turn out homosexually orientated and wasn’t interested & able to connect with the opposite sex because of what happened in my past? Would I then receive the same condemnation and rejection from Christians as some other gay believers receive because of their sexual orientation? I wonder… <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Maybe this is why this topic has touched such a nerve with me...

Edited to add:
Please note I was talking about sexual orientation & identity in the above context, not ACTING on those urges and impulses. There is a difference. And it's true that some people ARE condemned because of their sexual orientation although they are not ACTING on those feelings. And sometimes those who condemn and judge them are CHRISTIANS... It's very sad.

FH,

I agree with you completely that the church is called to discipline its members and is not to turn a blind eye to sin. But you and I both know there are bodies of believers the world over who will cheerfully admit to full membership the prideful, the gluttonous, the covetous, etc. and are focused on excluding the homosexual.

IMHO, a practicing homosexual who has not chosen celibacy is clearly sinning and as such, discipline is warranted. What I disagree with is the body of believers who focus on this one sin to the exclusion of all others. We have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I wrestle with my own sin on a daily basis.

From your post I seem to hear you say that known sin (known to whom? the pastor? the governing body of the group of believers? the elders? most of the congregation?) exempts one from becoming a member of the body. If that is the case, then I am not fit for membership because I am overweight and obviously engage in the sin of gluttony.

It seems to me that the body of believers should be those who confess their sin to God, ask forgiveness, accept Jesus Christ as their savior, and try their dead level best to live their lives in a way that is pleasing to Him. The body of believers is not those who are already sinless because there was only one of those and He died on the cross.

I truly could not follow your logic on the HIV paragraph and for that I apologize. Are you saying allowing someone with a know sin into a congregation will infect them? Certainly a congregation should not turn a blind eye to sin in its midst and I agree the body is called to discipline its members. However, it is not called to only discipline certan specific sins but all sins. Mine included.

Suzet,

Your last post struck a nerve with me, especially the last part. Let's take your supposition to its logical end.

A fictitious example. Let's say my father beat my mother and my siblings and I when I was young. And we know that studies have shown that boys that grew up in abusive homes, tend to be abusers.

So, I grow up and abuse my wife and kids. Whose fault is it? Who is sinning? Who pays the penalty of that sin, both to the world and to God? I do, of course. Now, if I would have had a loving environment when I grew up, I probably wouldnt have become an abuser, in my example here. But instead, I had a rotten home life and a father who taught me to hit women and children. Is it my father's fault? Should people come alongside me and treat me as if I am a victim?

Absolutely not!! Remember, ALL sin has been passed down. We are ALL "victims" of what Adam and Eve did in the Garden. So, we really shouldnt be held responsible, should we? I mean, they were the ones that sinned and passed it onto us, right?

Do you see where this logically leads, Suzet?

What about the pedofile who became one because he was molested? Do we not lock him up? Do we not treat him the same as the guy who was "born" that way?

You have classified sins here as some being evil and from the Devil. Well, the Bible says that all sins are evil. As Jesus said, you are either for Him or against Him. Which means that if it isnt of God, then it has to be of the world...of Satan. Jesus is not a uniter. He doesnt deal in grey areas. Jesus is a divider. He says that if you do not follow Him, then you are in your sins...all of them. And all of them are equal, because all of them have the same penaly...capital punishment. Eternal death.

When we start trying to rank sins as Christians, we are not following the example of Christ. Christ had compassio nand love for everyone. But He condoned NO sin.

The issue with Christ is are you open to following Him? Will you let Him lead? If a person is open to being saved, and following Christ NO MATTER WHAT, then Christ shows compassion and helps that person overcome their struggles. If that person has not or will not (remember, He already knows what your decision will be) follow Him, then He doesnt even waste His time. That is why He could flog unrepentent tax collectors and at the same time, be loving to a woman caught in adultery. He knew that woman would follow Him. He knew the ones He flogged never would.

My pastor, when doing counseling, starts off the first session with "Now Mortarman, I am here to help. And we will begin to work through all of the issues that you came here to address. But I have a question for you. If during this, God reveals what He wants for you to do, will you obey NO MATTER WHAT that decision is?" Now, if you say "Well, that depends on what He says." or "I dnot know," then my pastor says "then this counseling session is over."

Why does he do that? How is that compassionate? Why wont he work with that person when they havent stated upfront that they will follow where the Lord directs? It is because my pastor would be wasting his time with a Christian that doesnt want to or doesnt know if he will follow God's will. It is a waste of everyone's time involved in the counseling.

Again, it all comes back to Jesus. A person is either for Him or against Him. Most people in history have chosen to be against Him, because they never chose to be for Him.

The road is narrow. Most people follow the wide path. The wide path does NOT lead to Heaven.

In His arms.

Here is the answer to your questions. We all struggle against the forces of evil. Teh issue is one of rebellion, that warrants being disciplined by the church. If I have a problem with pornography, and I go to the church elders for help, they are not going to throw me out...they are going to come alongside me and help me. But, if I have a problem with pornography, and my wife takes me before the church...and I still refuse to stop, then this is where I end up:



In His arms.

I agree totally with your post that it is an issue of rebellion against God's Word. I also agreed with your earlier post that God doesn't rank sin.

I do not think it deals with sexual orientation at all. Here is the dictionary definition of an Eunuch:

1 : a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2 : a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals

Here is the Bible Dictionary definition:

Eunuch Literally bed-keeper or chamberlain, and not necessarily in all cases one who was mutilated, although the practice of employing such mutilated persons in Oriental courts was common (Kg2 9:32; Est 2:3). The law of Moses excluded them from the congregation (Deu 23:1). They were common also among the Greeks and Romans. It is said that even to-day there are some in Rome who are employed in singing soprano in the Sistine Chapel.

Also, particularly in the Old Testament some of the Eunuchs were about self-mutulation which was condemned

.

It is about a man that cannot have sex whether from castration or birth defects. I see nowhere that this would fit into a man that wants to have sex with a man.

I would agree in that we can have any sexual orientation or tendency we want, it is acting on them that is the sin. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing Biblically wrong with living a sexless life.

Suzet,

Just wanted to say that I appreciate your views about homosexuality and christianity. I'm catholic and I had a lesbian A, and the sexual and religious aspects really set me back. I didn't even discuss my religion on here. It's not a topic for discussion, IMO. It's something private, that I share with my priests and with people whom are extremely close to me. Thankfully the religious aspects were never brought into my various threads, or I'd have a whole other ball of wax to deal with!!

FH:
I've got to say that I agree with JL and some other posters, in that it seems that you delight in quoting scripture to those whom you *think* need it here. It's quite disconcerting. I wouldn't like to be preached to in my time of need. My own religion is enough to carry me through, and I wouldn't need anyone else's take on it. JMO, but you could have found another way to support or help that poster without cramming your religious views down her throat.

Buttercup,

I am not sure where I have ever seen Foreverhers shove his religious views down someone's throat. Maybe you can provide a link or two that would show me where that happened. Maybe I just didnt read that part.

It is not shoving anything down someone's throat if a Christian asks for advice, and another Christian gives the Biblical answer to that question.

Again, if someone isnt a Christian on here, you dont see me saying much about the "religious" component of all of this. If they ask, then I do respond. But otherwise, I stick to the question at hand.

But a Christian that wants the answer needs the Biblical answer FIRST. That is ALWAYS the right answer. As a brother in Christ to my fellow believers, it is my responsibility to let my fellow brothers and sisters know what the Lord is saying and to caution them when they are out of God's will. As it is for all of you to keep me on the narrow road.

As far as I know of, ForeverHers has done the same. So, if you have some examples of him forcing religion on someone, please post here so I can check them out. Thanks.

Oh, and I do agree that if you are seeking the Lord in a problem (like the one you listed here) and you are going to your priest, close Christian friends, etc, then there is no problem with it being kept at that level. But if it had been brought up here by you in order to receive help, then as a brother in Christ, I would have offered up what Scripture says. And there is nothing wrong in that, either.

In His arms.

I have no wisdom to add to this debate, just a personal experience.

I always considered homosexuality to be a perversion chosen by practitioners. A lifestyle. A sin.

Then I got a job working for a man who was gay. Lovliest man I ever met, we became intimate friends and I learned his story.

HATED being gay. Tried for the LONGEST time ot be straight. Girlfriends, even engaged to be married but could not find anywhere within him a sexual attraction to the female sex. His parents disowned him when he called off the wedding. His fiancee was broken despite his having been very honest with her throughout their time together. He was distraught.

Since then he has LONGED for a long term committed relationship, but such is rare in the gay world. He feels trapped in a sexuality he does not like but that he cannot deny.
He is very smart, analytical and emotionally articulate.

He smashed my previous clumsy view of homosexuality. If homsexuality is a sin then it is a sin within the very flesh and minds of gay people like my friend. Heterosexual relationships feel as alien to my friend as gay ones would to many of we straight people.

I am now unsure as to the nature of homsexuality.

I do not offer anything deduction from my experience, only my experience.

Back to the Eunuchs for a moment, the reference is about celibacy. Eunuchs protected the harems because they were celibate. And Jesus is making the point that some will sacrifice marriage to dedicate themselves to the church. It was not a reference to homosexuality.