Featured Can a Person Be Gay and Still Be a Christian?

This thread reported as homosexuality discussions are against the rules if I remember correctly.

 

Based upon what?

...not that you will read this post, unless you 'sneak another peek'.

 

I'm unsure what you are trying to say with that last sentence. I'm not placing demands on anyone. I am expressing what I believe can very plainly be derived from reading the NT in context and submitting to it.

The Bible does not speak to sexual orientation because it isn't a biblical concept. It is a concept CONTRARY to the Bible in that it ONLY allows for materialistic causation.

You continue to attempt to foist an unbiblical concept onto the scriptures as a form of pseudo-hermeneutics.

To say that someone is "oriented" in the way it is universally meant in discussions of this issue means that it is an innate, immutable characteristic. MOST who use that term consider acceptance of that term assent to the notion of a biological cause for homosexuality.

If you want to say it is the "spiritual orientation" of some lost people... then I think I could mostly go with you.

God created them male and female... God commanded them to reproduce and fill the earth. Jesus said that a man should leave his family and become one flesh with his wife. Please show a single scripture that suggests anything other than heterosexuality being God's natural, created design or conversely one that shows that the scriptures treat homosexuality as anything but unnatural and sinful.

You are evading.

Orientation is an attitude. Attitudes determine behavior... ALL THE TIME.

If someone IS a sin... then they are NOT a Christian. That would seem crystal clear.

But to your larger point here... I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term "sexual orientation". If you do... then you are just spinning now.

If you understand the words as they are used... then it will make sense to you.

Really? Attitudes cannot be sinful without actions? Thoughts cannot be sinful without actions? What we embrace and love cannot be sinful without outward actions?

You should be since the term you keep foisting on scripture is from secular science.

If they ARE (present state of being) gay even if it is just their intent, desire, and attitude then they are guilty of sin according to Jesus even if they do not act it out. Again, the scriptures teach that we become a new creation when saved.... the old man with his lusts dies. To still identify with that lust... is inconsistent with being born again.

PROVE that scripture accommodates the notion of sexual orientation AT ALL then we can go forward. We're getting nowhere so long as you do not provide that basis for your argument.

And you are attempting to say someone can be "gay" by nature and a Christian by nature once you boil away the fat.

No. I simply have to trust the Bible.

So now you would change direction and attempt to make sexual sins different from other sins?

People do have weaknesses spiritually that make them susceptible to one sin more than another. That isn't an "orientation" in the way the term is used in discussions of homosexuality. But it IS biblical.

You are attempting a false dichotomy but I am unsure what end you are trying to reach. Are you trying to say it is OK to continue to "be" something that God condemns?

Nope. And you've said absolutely nothing that proves that and to this point have failed to even allude to a scriptural basis for whatever it is you are trying to prove.

I am unsure if you are truly this determined to rationalize something you haven't actually spelled out yet or are just engaging in sophism. The scriptures call sin... sin. That includes homosexual sin. To attach a sin to the name of Christ in labeling one's self brings reproach on the name of Christ. I strongly suspect you are attempting that because you believe with the world that homosexuality is innate and immutable. But the Bible calls sinners to repent... to be changed into a new creature... not to dress up the old one.

 

I haven't been here in a very long time and am unaware if this is a rule.

But why would discussion of sin be a violation of the rules? This is probably THE most consequential issue facing the church today. It could very well end up being the basis for persecution in the US. How we understand and learn to answer this issue in this "safe environment" could be of immense value.

 

So it would be okay to call yourself a pedophile Christian or a murdering Christian?

Something tells me you are trying to justify your own actions.

 

You are too. You're trying to make being gay a sin. And Scripture doesn't say that anymore than it says being straight is a sin.

You're submitting to something that's not there. You're creating a new sin.

If it doesn't speak to it, how are you calling it a sin?

I haven't foisted anything upon Scripture. You just admitted that Scripture doesn't speak to it. So why are YOU creating new sin? There must be a motive.

.

Nope. That's just what you want it to mean because it fits your now argument.

Why would I say that?

You, again, are talking about specific acts. The sum total of heterosexuality or homosexuality is not boiled down to sex acts.

Why would I, again, Scripturally show you something that you've already admitted that Scripture does not speak to?

God's natural, created design was for a man to become one flesh with his one wife. That's not the definition of heterosexuality. It's an act of heterosexuality.

You've obviously been away for a while. There's nothing for me to evade.

Nope. But nice try to redefine.

Why would SOMEONE be a sin? Someone's COMMIT sin. They are not sin.

From the sounds of it, you don't understand what it is. Orientations don't commit sin. People do. Orientations aren't sinful. People are.

Everything you mentioned involves an action. So what are you talking about?

Even if WHAT is their intent, desire and attitude?

It's not inconsistent. Born again people still commit sin. The old man died. Sin will remain until it is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Prove it for what? I didn't say Scripture accommodated a notion of sexual orientation. YOU'RE the one who called sexual orientation sinful. So I ask again, if you admit that Scripture doesn't speak to sexual orientations, why are you trying to create new sin? There's got to be a reason for that.

.

I'm saying that you don't understand what sexual orientation is. God has called sin what He intends to be sin. No need for you to create new ones.

So deeming something sinful that you've admitted the BIBLE does not speak to is your idea of trusting the Bible?

Nope. Just trying to give you a simple lesson in communication so that you don't breed confusion. You compare LIKE items. You can't compare a gay Christian with a liar. You'd have to compare the gay Christian with a lying Christian.

That's all I was saying. Grammar.

You obviously have your own idea of what orientation is/isn't. I'm gonna surmise that you are incorrect as you keep trying to make it into a sin while at the same time acknowledging that Scripture doesn't speak to any such thing.

You're talking out both sides of your mouth here. How is God now condemning something you have again acknowledged is NOT spoken to in Scripture?

:laugh: You've already admitted that's what you're doing as you said Scripture doesn't speak to it. So if Scripture doesn't speak to it, why are you calling it sinful?

Homosexuality is NOT the same as homosexual sin.

It sounds like it hurts your feelings far more than it could ever hurt Christ's feelings. If someone wants to call themselves a gay Christian and they are following Christ and keeping His commands, it's just a non-issue except with folks who hear gay and immediately think gay sex.

You feel free to strongly suspect whatever you wish. I could care less if it's innate or immutable. God hasn't said it's a sin so it's a non-issue.

Now if you want me to preach a sermon against gay sex, I'm with ya. But that's an ACT to which Scripture actually does speak.

And how do you know that someone who is calling himself a gay Christian has not changed into a new creature?

I believe you are again trying to equate gay with gay sex. Do you equate straight with straight sex?Were you having sex at that point in your life that you realized you were straight?

 

Nice try. But pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. It's fornicative and a whole lot of other things.

You don't have to be committing a sin to identify as gay as you would to identify as a pedophile.

A murdering Christian? Same thing. Murder is a sin that Scripture has spoken to. Scripture doesn't speak to what we are calling sexual orientation.

Thus there's no right comparison to be made between gay Christian and pedophile Christian or murdering Christian.

Funny. People say the same thing about folks who try so hard to make into a sin something God hasn't said is a sin.

 

Really? Then why place pedophiles on a lifetime list?

Really? On the scale of total depravity not every sinner is at the same place. Some individuals are so depraved that they are completely consumed by it. Check into the mind of Ted Bundy.

They are all differing manifestations of sin. They have that in common. They all have the potential of being acted upon.

I do believe there are gay or homosexual individuals until they engage in homosexual activity. Until then they have same-sex attraction. And yes, Christians can suffer with same-sex attraction. I believe there are Christians who can struggle with the temptation to commit a whole range of perverse sexual sins (some mentioned in their thread and others not). They suffer in private because to admit such temptations would most likely result in being castigated (or worse).

This is not simple issue to discuss. But I am completely convinced that there is no such thing as a gay Christian. There are Christians who are vexed by sin. There are Christians who may fall into sexual perversions, but if they repent they are not to be labeled as X-Christian. They are Christians.

It is not funny. Sexual perversion is sad.