Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room To Christians

But isn't homosexuality considered sinful anyhow?

Merely having a homosexual "orientation" is not a sin; acting on the inclination is considered a sin in traditional Christian theology. Some, perhaps as Jeffrey, would say that this is splitting hairs and hypocritical. Others, like myself, would say that it's the same as any other type of sinful behavior - being human, we are inclined to all types of sin, any of which are as potentially "irresistable" as a sexual urge, but it is only sin when we act upon the inclination.

hook line and sinker JBryan! :rolleyes:

"Remember, though, "He who even looks at a women lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Emphasis mine)."

Correct NAK, because God is looking at the intent of the heart, and if you've taken the ogling to the point of lust, then you have acted on the urge. Merely admiring the beauty of a woman does not necessarily rise to the level of lust.

Sounds like a standard that's impossible for us to live up to, doesn't it? Well of course, it is. We can't measure up to a standard set that high, it's beyond our human capabilities, and even the thought of such a standard offends our modern sensibilities.


...or, as someone once said using somewhat more archaic language, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Means the same thing, eh?

JBryan, I know bait when I see it. But every once in a while I figure, if even one lurker gets any benefit from something that I write, it'll be worth it. Call it a "future occupation"-al hazard.

G'nite.

Dwain: "The traditional Christian position doesn't discriminate against gays in this regard, it holds gays and straights to the exact same standard."

False. Yes, I know it is the line. But it is still false. Gays are not, in principle, allowed to meet any moral standard. Your version of God feels like sadistically tormenting gays, you are welcome to it.

"Gays are not, in principle, allowed to meet any moral standard."

I don't know what this sentence means, Jeffrey. Gays are held to the same moral standard as straights who do not marry. And regarding all other moral issues that do not pertain to sex, the standard is, again, the exact same.

You and I will never agree on this issue because our definition of discrimination - or, in your opinion, "sadistically tormenting" gays - varies too much. I continue to stand up for tolerance and genuine love toward homosexuals, and fight against gay-bashing - particularly when done supposedly in the name of God. But there is a line that I draw, and I've defined it here: that in accordance with the traditional Christian position, that engaging in homosexual sex is viewed as a sin in the eyes of God - no more than my own particular sins, but no less so, either. To you, that's unacceptable. To me, it's applying the same standard to a gay man that is applied to me.

Dwain: Correction. My sentence should have said "Gays are not allowed to meet any moral standard, while remaining true to themselves as gay." I sort of assumed the second half of the sentence as understood. If you sin, you can repent, a gay person cannot (in this respect, and while respecting their own sexual orientation). This makes a mockery of the alleged distinction of hating the sin but not the sinner.

It doesn't, actually, because one could use your phrase of "respecting their own sexual orientation" in the same way regarding any other thing that the person was inclined to do, that God defines as contrary to his will. Self-centeredness is as equally a part of me as homosexual orientation is to someone else. In order to follow the Christian model, I am not allowed to "respect" this part of my existence; in fact, I am told I must "deny" it - i.e., turn away from it. Yet in the midst of this ongoing struggle, I am still worthy of the love of God and fellow humans. That isn't a mockery of hating the sin but not the sinner; it's the definition of it - unless one defines the term "loving the sinner" as simply agreeing that their sin is not sin.

I think that the Christian Church has done itself great harm in its often inconsistent and hypocritical stance toward homosexuals, particularly regarding the issue of the ordination of gays. This issue is one that has come up a lot in our particular denomination in recent years, and it's given me opportunity to think through my own personal theology of the issue in detail. Our church policy is that "unrepentant homosexuals" may not be ordained leaders of the church. I agree with this policy. I also agree that anyone else, who is living a life that includes unrepentant sin is not a partcularly good pastoral role model, and should not be an ordained minister. This does not necessarily mean that either of these people is not truly a Christian, or that they may not be a member of the congregation, or even a valued lay leader within the congregation. The fact that they have an unrepentant spirit toward some sinful aspect of their lives is only indicative that they are at a different point in their personal journey of faith to become more Christlike than someone else - and that that point is not an acceptable one from which to begin pursuing ordination. Becoming a Christian is not a one-time, lightning bolt experience (even those who begin their "faith journey" via a distinct "conversion experience" realize that it's only the beginning of a lifelong journey, not the end of the process).

But that phrase "unrepentant homosexuals" leads to another scenario. Another man is homosexual. He, too, is deeply serious about his Christian faith, and feels a call to the ordained ministry. He freely tells people about his sexual orientation, while telling them that he realizes that to act on his orientation would be wrong in the eyes of God. He confesses that he is in a lifelong struggle to turn away ("repent") from this aspect of his life, and acknowledges that he, just like any of his potential congregation, occasionally fails in his attempts to avoid sin. Would this man be eligible for ordained ministry?

I say yes. Even though I know he'll occasionally stumble, his heart has turned in the right direction. Just as I stumble in sin, so will he. In fact, I believe that this man could be an incredible asset to the church, offering a powerful message and setting an example of love, hope, and support to the many members of congregations around the world who fill the pews on any given Sunday, who face the same struggle.

But here, sadly, the church fails itself. Because of social and cultural prejudices also held by many of its members, and not effectively fought by the church itself, the church continues the incorrect double standard applied to gays and lesbians - that their sin is in some way worse than the more "socially acceptable" sins of other parishioners. This attitude is wrong, and it's led many to call out the Church as hypocritical in this regard - and in my opinion, those critics are exactly right.

But the church's often incorrect, hypocritical attitudes toward gays can't be corrected by swinging too far in the other direction - that God does not call homosexual acts wrong at all, and that it's some sort of crime against the dignity of mankind to "deny" a person the right to act on homosexual urges without considering it sin. Just as I continually turn away from my sin as I go through life, I expect the gay man sitting next to me in the pew to be following a similar path of faith. And all the while, we are both deserving of love, support, and human dignity and respect.

Dwain, if you begin from the admonitions in the Old Testament, then it is indeed necessary to do the tap dance you just outlined to allow gays to exist - or at least exist within the graces of the Church.

If however, you begin with the teaching of Jesus - who generally stuck to variations of the golden rule - you will find no such tap dance necessary. You will find that when you do that, everything becomes much simpler, much more loving, much truer to the message He brought to us. The admonitions then - rather than existing as a stumbling block to work around - reveal themselves to be little more than historical oddities.

There are any number of oddities such as those in the Old Testament. They're freely ignored by even the most literal of followers. To insist that these oddities are more important than the teachings of the man you profess to follow is to change the very essence of the message.

Start with love, Dwain. The message reveals itself so much more clearly when you do.

Oh, Dwain, so close! So close!

I think the Bible is pretty clear (at least New Testament-wise - the oft quoted Leviticus obviously does not apply to this issue).

Biblically, gays are and should be held to exactly the same standard as straights. END OF SENTENCE. And what this requires of the true Christian is that he/she support gay marriage. This is the clear intent of the scriptures. It is ignored by many Christians because of a somewhat understandable personal repugnance.

Gays are not allowed to meet that particular moral standard because humans, for personal and not divine reasons, have imposed an artificial ban on marriage. If gay marriage were okay, there would in principle be no biblical prohibition against gay sex within marriage. Sadly, my church along with most has not seen this yet.

Oh no TimR, I disagree. Dwain was nowhere close. As far as I'm concerned, Jeffrey check-mated him.

Just to clarify. What Dwain is in effect saying is that heterosexuals have an out for their God-given, Natural, sexual tension. They simply have to get married.

Gays are afforded absolutely no such out. They have to forever bottle up their natural sex drive and, at least as "evil," never ever consummate the valid love they have for that special someone.

Oops, excuse me, they do have an out. They can marry the opposite sex and release their sex drive that way. Of course, this, for all practical purposes, is tantamount to asking a heterosexual to marry a sheep to release their sex drive.

Hmmmmm ... on second thought

But the Bible, even the New Testament, is very clear that homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe it's any less of a sin just because the people involved are married. Why do you think that allowing gay marriage is obviously the intent of the teachings of Christ, TimR?

baaaaaaaaaaaaad idea (the sheep)

heterosexuals established long ago that the little piece of paper was meanlingless if passion were the order of the day, or protocol decreed their relationship unsacrosant...

"What's a piece of paper when one is in love?"

Steve, my position is simply examining the heart of the individual in relation to its response to the will of God. That's hardly a tap dance, it's actually at the core of Christian belief.

My position is based on the numerous scriptural references that begin in the Old Testament and continue through New Testament scriptures. The key in understanding the Bible as a unified canon that tells a continuous story is to look at the overriding emphases and for consistency of meaning. I think that there's ample consistency throughout scripture to support my personal theology regarding this issue. Also, it is Christian theology that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. In part, that means that certain aspects of the Old Testament may be, not void, but redefined in Christ - but that argument can't be made regarding stipulations that continue to be applied in New Testament scripture, both during and after Christ's earthly ministry.

I also think that it is consistent with Jesus' own words. Some people would say that the only scripture that qualifies as the Word of God are those words actually attributed to Jesus. I disagree with that philosophy, as does all traditional Christian theology and exegesis going back to the days immediately following Christ's death and resurrection. However, even looking at Christ's own words, we find the following. This is Matthew 15:17-20; the story can also be found in the Gospell of Mark:

"...Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."

The passage above uses the word "fornication" to translate a particular greek word - porneia. Obviously enough, it's the same word that our word "pornography" originates from. In Jesus' time and earlier, this word was used to define any form of illicit sexual intercourse, and it included adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, sexual intercourse with close relatives, or sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman.

Jesus' use of the word, then, takes in a much broader range of practices than what current English language generally defines as "fornication."

It's true that (at leat as far as we know)Jesus didn't actually speak Greek, but the ancient Greek translations are far closer to the original source than 21st century English, so I still place more trust in the original text than subsequent translations for different languages, cultures, and times.

I also think that my personal theology is consistent with Christ's message that love - love for fellow humankind, and most importantly, love of God - are the most important commands. I don't think that it is expressive of love to not point out that a particular behavior is sinful, and is therefore a stumbling block to a person improving their relationship with God. The biblical definition of love includes instructing and reproving each other in order to strengthen our faith and understanding of God.

Jesus was never afraid to stir the pot, making comments and redefining faith in ways that were (and continue to be) considered revolutionary. During his earthly life, homosexuals in the Hebrew tradition had a tough life, to say the least. At the same time, the Greco-Roman tradition was extremely tolerant and supportive of homosexual activity. It's revealing that despite what must have been many opportunities, Jesus never is quoted as saying anything even remotely like: "Don't you see that what is important is love; and that love may be expressed sexually between members of the same sex? Do you not see that marriage, as defined by tradition and the Law, is actually a stumbling block to expressing love? So whether it is with a man and a woman, or a man and a man, love is love, and should not be denied by denying marriage." Jesus' ministry was a continual example of helping the sick, the poor, the forgotten, the outcasts of society. Yet he didn't say anything like the words I used just now. Why?

That's correct, and it would be awfully unfair and mean if the story ended there. But it doesn't end there. I have natural urges in my being that are as ingrained as sexual urges, that are also defined as being contrary to God's ideal, and which I am commanded to turn away from. Neither I, nor any other Christian, has been given a path in life any easier than any gay man. We just have different, equally irresistable sins to battle with. That's why no one can condemn simply due to the fact that a person is gay, or even that the gay person will fail to always avoid the temptation, because we are in the exact same boat. The key is the state of acknowledgement that it is not God's ideal, the act of asking for forgiveness, and the ongoing life of avoiding the sin.

Just like me - different sin, same problem.

Well done, Mr. Lee.

I agree:)

Dwain,

I neglected to mention a key premise of mine. And that is that being gay is Natural, not a life style choice.

No I can't prove that, although there is much evidence that most gay men effectively had no true choice in the matter. I haven't seen such evidence for gay women yet but, of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Further I have a gay male cousin who the entire family "knew" was naturally gay from a very early age. Again no proof, but overwhelming "obvious" from observation.

Interestingly, he meets the common profile of being born as the third of three successive sons. Also, he happens to be the best true Christian in the family in the sense of the Sermon on the Mount which to me is the essence of true Christianity.

So those are some of my biases in this matter.

Others include a different take than yours on the relevance of the Old Testament to Christianity. I won't get into that here.

One more. I was for a long time a lapsed Catholic, in fact ,really an atheist. Look at my profession. Any surprise? But then I came back to my faith. In the interim I, in effect, developed a litany of arguments against every argument for Christianity.

You've seen only some of them so far from others on PW. But make no mistake about it. This is an especially intelligent set of anti-Christians you have here on PW.

I will tell you that your kinds of arguments will not work with those who approach religion with a more, let me say, scientific, "logical," "rational," approach. In fact, it's decidely offputting.

I had this problem with my children, particularly my son who I might mention had a full scholarship in EE at MIT from undergraduate through his graduate degrees. Get the picture again? But I finally got through to him.

So you might get huzzahs from the "choir" here, but it ain't gonna work with the people who really need it.

This is meant to be constructive. I, like you, would wish to share our Gift with others. But you know as well as I do that, for that to happen, they first have to be receptive and open to Jesus finding them. I just don't see this process making that happen.

You see, I'm not at all interested in defending or validating my position. I don't give a flying fig what others might think of my beliefs. But, at the same time, I'm not exactly thrilled about seeing any goings on that might turn them off to the possibility of receiving that gift.

OK, end of story.