Question about gays

[TexasSky]

RockRambler,

If I started spreading "the theory" that "someone" molested children, would you feel differently about the "false witness" thing?

[ August 09, 2005, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[Petrel]

It's just this kind of attitude that drove my sister away from Christianity. We grew up in an IFB church, and there was always the attitude that being gay was WRONG, and not only that, but having same-sex attractions was WRONG--even if one did not want to have them, did not entertain them, and prayed for them to be removed.

My sister became a teenager and started being attracted to girls. She prayed about this and went to Christian counselling, but God did not remove these feelings. I told her that it did not make her evil to have these feelings and that being tempted in itself is not a sin. However she still had the idea from our IFB upbringing that God hates her just for having these temptations, and decided if he won't take them away, she won't have anything to do with God. So she now considers herself an atheist.

Right now she's gone completely bonkers liberal in rebellion against her prior beliefs. I'm glad that so far she hasn't found a girlfriend (unless it's just that no one's telling me) and hope that when things calm down a little maybe I can talk to her about this. Right now I can't. I'm the only member of my family that hasn't "accepted" her being lesbian, so for the past year and a half I've been trying to rebuild our relationship. And then I come here and read that my sister as a single lesbian is essentially no different than a child molester.

Thanks.

 

[TexasSky]

Petrel,

You are right in that being tempted is not sinful. However - anyone who will put their personal sexual pleasure above what they think God wants is already sinning, even if they are wrong about God's view about that sexual pleasure.

This, in all honesty, is the largest problem I have with most sexual sins. The, "God will forgive me," becomes, "God should forgive me," and then becomes, "If God doesn't forgive me, I don't want Him." And that attitude is sooooooooooo wrong.

This is also the real issue I have with Rock Rambler. Frankly, whatever Paul might or might not have felt in regards to sexual urges is irrelevant. If he did not act on those urges, he was not homosexual, any more than a person tempted to commit murder is not a murderer until/unless the commit the act.

So - trying to justify anything based on what Paul might have felt is wrong.

 

[RockRambler]

This is also the real issue I have with Rock Rambler. Frankly, whatever Paul might or might not have felt in regards to sexual urges is irrelevant. If he did not act on those urges, he was not homosexual, any more than a person tempted to commit murder is not a murderer until/unless the commit the act.

So - trying to justify anything based on what Paul might have felt is wrong.

Please show me where in any of my postings I have tried to justify anyone committing sexual sin. Also show me where I have stated that I believed the theory of Paul being homosexual. I thought this was an open discussion forum, but evidently not in some people's opinion. Is the theory possible, yes. Is it probable, IMO, no.

I have a life-long friend who says he has always had sexual attraction for the same sex. He was saved at 12, and states he has never acted on those feelings. He has never married, continues to live with his mother, and is the Choir Director/deacon at his SBC. He says he asks God daily for the strength to keep from acting on those feelings. He considers himself a non-practicing homosexual, even though he has been celibate his entire life. I consider him a much better Christian than I.

 

[Coov]

Popularity and acceptance... hooboy! We get shunned for standing for morality but take a back-seat to the lost's values. If someone is not taught the difference between right and wrong, how will they learn. The world is consumed with grey areas. The choice to sin is now called freedom. Freedom from sin is my cup of tea!

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
So - trying to justify anything based on what Paul might have felt is wrong.

I haven't seen where anyone has tried to justify anything.

 

[TexasSky]

Rock Rambler,

(And Petrel) What is the purpose of presenting a theory that Paul was gay if not to somehow justify homosexuality?

 

[RockRambler]

The theory was brought up because someone posted that they couldn't understand why Paul didn't condemn homosexuality more than he did, since it was rampant in Greek culture at the time. IF the theory was correct, that would be a possible answer.

 

[TexasSky]

Thank you for explaining. Given your explanation, I do apologize for misunderstanding your intentions.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by RockRambler:
The theory was brought up because someone posted that they couldn't understand why Paul didn't condemn homosexuality more than he did, since it was rampant in Greek culture at the time. IF the theory was correct, that would be a possible answer.

The reason that the Apostle Paul didn't condemn homosexuality any more than he did----is because he was under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit who was having him(Paul) scribing what would later be called "inspired scripture"----Paul didn't need to "condemn" what had already been condemned in previous scripture.

Just because he didn't condemn it any more than what he did----does not mean---"Well, the dude must've been homosexual!"

You would do well to throw your man made theories out the back door along with the bath water!!

Blackbird

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

ANY so-called "biblical scholar" that would espouse a "theory" that the Apostle Paul "might" have been a closet "gay"(what a terrible misuse of a perfectly good english word)....isn't worth the gunpowder it would take to blow him(or her) to HELL.I'll bet satan just laughs with glee(if that is possible for him)everytime he succeeds in deluding another one of these over-educated buffoons into this kind of lunacy.Just my humble opinion..lol...have a nice day ya'll.

Greg Sr.

P.S.I find it even more amazing that anyone who is a thoughtful God-loving member of this Baptist Board would dignify this garbage with a "lengthy" discussion about it."It" is nothing more than rank heresy.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
I find it even more amazing that anyone who is a thoughtful God-loving member of this Baptist Board would dignify this garbage with a "lengthy" discussion about it."It" is nothing more than rank heresy.

Really? There's a doctrine of the Heterosexuality of Paul? How did I miss that??

 

[blackbird]

Petrel--nowhere--absolutely nowhere in the living word of God does God even hint at the possiblity of Paul being HS---but scripture does share the "singleness" of Paul

1Corinthians 7:7-9 reads, "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of god, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Now---unless you are willing to call every Single person a Homosexual---are you????

Again---holding to a "theory" is like holding onto the steering wheel of the sinking Titanic---it just doesn't do much good!!!

Blackbird

 

[RockRambler]

Really? There's a doctrine of the Heterosexuality of Paul? How did I miss that??

Oh yes...study up on that. Because if it was ever proven that Paul had homosexual tendencies or attractions, then all of our salvation would be lost!!!!!!

 

[RockRambler]

Just because he didn't condemn it any more than what he did----does not mean---"Well, the dude must've been homosexual!"

The theory was not developed because Paul didn't condemn homosexuality more than he did. It was based on taking bits and pieces of scripture and assuming a lot. Hence once again why it is referred to as "theory".

I would also guess...and this is just my personal guess...that it was develop to explain some of Paul's perceived slight toward women.

 

[RockRambler]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
I find it even more amazing that anyone who is a thoughtful God-loving member of this Baptist Board would dignify this garbage with a "lengthy" discussion about it."It" is nothing more than rank heresy.

Heresy??? Sorry, I wasn't aware that Paul's sexuality was part of church dogma. As Texas Sky stated, it is irrevelant.

 

[Martin]

RockRambler (sp?) said:
There is a school of thought among some Biblical scholars that Paul himself was a non-practicing homosexual, and that is why he was so overwhelmed by the thought of being saved by grace instead of good works.

==Could you please name some of these scholars? I am not familiar with any mainstream scholars (conservative or critical) who have taken this position. However I am certainly not knowledgeable of all scholars . Having said that I think this theory has zero merit. If one takes the records as they stand Paul was strong on salvation by grace through faith because that is how people are saved (and this was revealed to him by Jesus). Paul was never one to be restrained. Read his letters, read Acts, Paul went all out. When he was a Pharisee, when he became a Christian and a apostle. He was pettle to the metal all the way. My guess would be that the above theory is "gay-friendly theologians" grasping for straws. I had such a Old Testament professor in college.

_________________________________________

You said:
A non-practicing homosexual is no different from a non-practicing adulterer. They may have the desire, but if they don't act on it and turn to God for guidance and forgivenes, then their sins are forgiven just like any other Christian.

==If a person is tempted, but have not acted on it (mentally, or physically) then they have not sinned. Jesus was tempted but did not sin. However if the person engages in lust, which everyone does at some time in their lives, they have sinned and must repent.

_______________________________

You said:
I think it can be genetic or choice, but acting on the desire is an entirely different matter.

==I reject the idea that a person can be a non-practicing homosexual. Homosexuality is an activity not a state of being. Therefore if a person is attracted to people of the same sex (for whatever reason) if they never act out on the temptation they are not homosexuals.

Lets take those of us who are not homosexauls (etc) as an example. We are capable of being fornicators (or adulterers if married). However just because we are attracted to women does not mean we are fornicators. In other words being tempted towards something does not equal sin. However if someone has strong temptations towards any sin they need to do some serious praying and trusting otherwise they will fall. Mainly in the area of sexual sin. They need to guard their thought life, they need to be careful who they hang around with, and the situations they allow themselves to get involved in.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[blackbird]

His slight toward women???? We need to remind ourselves that every seemingly slight----is part of Holy God's Holy Scripture which is inspired, inerrant, & infallable----thus---to say that Paul had a "slight" toward women---is to say that God had a slight----because---Scripture---though it be through the pen of Paul---is God talking!!! To read the words of the Apostle Paul on the printed page of Holy Scripture---is to read God's mind!!! Now!! Does God have a slight toward women????

Folks need to (1) get out of the liberal seminary and (2) forget every liberal "theory" they taught them there----go get into the truth of the word from the Word----and preach truth---not theory!!!! God help us!!!

 

[RockRambler]

Blackbird...did you catch that little word "perceived" in my post???? I don't think any of us could deny that some denominations believe that Paul slighted women in some of his writings. I do not claim that those denominations believe in the inspired, inerrant, infallibable word of God.

 

[RockRambler]

Martin...without doing a "google" search or going through a bunch of reference materials here in the office...one I can think of right off the top of my head is Bishop John Shelby Spong, and Episcopalian (sp)Bishop. I believe it was his book "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" that he goes into detail about Paul's sexuality.

*****DISCLAIMER ALERT*****DISCLAIMER ALERT*******
By posting the above paragraph to Martin I am NOT endorsing the writings of John Shelby Spong.
(Now back to the post)
************************************************

"I reject the idea that a person can be a non-practicing homosexual. Homosexuality is an activity not a state of being. Therefore if a person is attracted to people of the same sex (for whatever reason) if they never act out on the temptation they are not homosexuals.

Lets take those of us who are not homosexauls (etc) as an example. We are capable of being fornicators (or adulterers if married). However just because we are attracted to women does not mean we are fornicators. In other words being tempted towards something does not equal sin. However if someone has strong temptations towards any sin they need to do some serious praying and trusting otherwise they will fall. Mainly in the area of sexual sin. They need to guard their thought life, they need to be careful who they hang around with, and the situations they allow themselves to get involved in."

My first instinct is to reject that notion too (non-practicing homosexual). However, as I mentioned in a previous post, my life-long friend (and college roomate) refers to himself that way even though he says he's never acted on it.

Plus, if a single person never acts on their attractions or lust, does that mean they aren't heterosexual??

Probably too deep a psychological issue for me!!!