Question about gays

[Petrel]

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

I don't expect this theory to do anything. I'm not actually a proponent. I certainly think it's possible that Paul may have struggled with same-sex attractions, but I don't consider it terribly likely. However, it is a possiblity, and I don't see why the suggestion should cause so much consternation. It seems more controversial here to suggest that Paul may have been tempted than to believe the account of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness!

 

[Martin]

RockRambler said:
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.

==I am familiar with Spong only through his book "The Sins of Scripture" which, btw, I would not advise anyone to read (mainly if you suffer from high blood pressure...it could be dangerous

) . In my opinion it is not worth the paper it is written on. Spong is on the far left of the theological landscape and his name being attached to the teaching does not surprise me. In fact his name came to my mind when I read your comments before.
______________________________________________

You said:
By posting the above paragraph to Martin I am NOT endorsing the writings of John Shelby Spong.

==I know you are not.

_______________________________________________

You said:
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.

==Yea I known of people who claim that as well. However the term refers to someone who is sexually active with a member of the same sex. Therefore I can't call someone a homosexual who has never acted out on the temptation (mentally or physically). I would also say I have never known anyone who fell into that group, why? Because they don't tell people what is going on in their head. They don't talk about the temptation. Usually we only hear about it when they have fallen into sin (mentally or physically).

I have a co-worker who is a active homosexual (though he usually never openly talks about it). I am sure he would oppose my position since he is of the view that folks are "born that way". However that is not a real good argument. Just because someone is born with certain leanings that may allow them to be tempted in certain areas does not give a person license to sin nor does it remove the sinful nature of the behavior. Sin is sin regardless of the cause. God calls us to deny ourselfs, take up our cross, and follow Him.

___________________________________________

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

==Well I am not sure I would apply the same standard. God created human beings to be heterosexual, therefore heterosexuality is the normal, natural way for humans. Anything outside of that is unnatural (ie..against God's created natural order). In order for a person to be "unnatural" they must be acting (physically or mentally) out in a unnatural way. I would point to Romans 1:26-27.

Having said all of this I think if a person is attracted to people of the same sex there is good chance they are lusting (ie..mental sin). That would mean they are homosexual because they have acted out the temptation. Being tempted is not a sin but lusting is a sin.

Your right though this gets too deep and very confusing sometimes.

Martin.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Personally I am not into theories or into trying to find something in scripture that ISN'T there. Applying principles are one thing in grey areas. But give me a break and stop this foolish nonsense in saying Paul must have been gay because of such and such.

Where the Bible is silent so shall you and I be.

Talk about real issues that are going on. This is ridiculous !!!

 

[TexasSky]

WOAH, Rock Rambler,

I did not say that Paul's sexuality was irrelvant.
I said that temptation resisted is not a sin.

Greg - I entered the discussion for the same reason you did. The absurdity of it had to be challenged.

 

[TexasSky]

I know of certain individuals who become upset with Paul because he encourages women to respect men. I do not know of any Christian denomination who represents that view as the majority view of their denomination.

I still say, you are spreading false witness.

Until you can offer some kind of concrete evidence that indicates Paul was homosexual, that goes beyond gays hoping he was - it is wrong to even discuss that theory.

 

[TexasSky]

Martin,

I agree with what you said, especially when you state Just because someone is born with certain leanings that may allow them to be tempted in certain areas does not give a person license to sin nor does it remove the sinful nature of the behavior.

A pedophile claims to be "born with" a sexual attraction to children - but no one wants to call that "normal".

 

[RightFromWrong]

Personally I am not into theories or into trying to find something in scripture that ISN'T there. Applying principles are one thing in grey areas. But give me a break and stop this foolish nonsense in saying Paul must have been gay because of such and such.

Where the Bible is silent so shall you and I be.

Talk about real issues that are going on. This is ridiculous !!!

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by RockRambler:
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 not grant this idea the status of a theory. I call it baseless speculation with an agenda behind it.

 

[blackbird]

RockRambler---I can't preach "assumptions" and "theories"---I can only preach TRUTH. Taking bits and pieces of scripture and fitting them together for an agenda---is like letting a Chimpanzee hold your loaded revolver.

Now, granted! There are some who "have it" against the Apostle Paul because of his stand on church leadership---roles of men and women---husband and wife issues---but again---we MUST realize that what he penned down is HOLY SCRIPTURE and to disobey the written word of Paul is to disobey the word of God!

 

[RockRambler]

originally posted by Texas Sky:

WOAH, Rock Rambler,

I did not say that Paul's sexuality was irrelvant.

I apologize, I don't know how I could have got that idea......

originally posted by Texas Sky:

Frankly, whatever Paul might or might not have felt in regards to sexual urges is irrelevant.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I sincerely apologize for the confusion I have created on this thread. Since I'm not making myself clear to the majority of you evidently, and I myself must be misunderstanding some posts, I will refrain from posting further on topic unless someone addresses me specifically. I do not want to create confusion or cause anyone to think that Baptist believe some of these liberal theories that have been discussed. Again I apologize if I have hurt feelings or raised blood pressures unnecessarily. Pray for me as I pray for each of you, as I am just an old sinner, saved by grace.

Martin, if you want to continue any of the discussion, feel free to PM me.

 

[Martin]

Maybe I am missing something here but I don't know that I have read anything by RockRambler endorsing these theories. Can someone show me where such an endorsment has taken place? I think RR was just pointing out a theory some hold. That is not a bad thing. When you leave the safe circles of the church (and this board) you will run into all sorts of people who hold to all sorts of theories. It is better to learn about those theories and how to answer them now in a safe environment rather than wait until you are face to face with it. I have made it a practice, over the years, to read books (etc) by people I disagree with. It makes my position stronger for two reasons (1) I see where my arguments work and where they don't work, and, (2) I see where their arguments are weakest.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

[TexasSky]

Martin,

If you spread a theory, without pointing out why the theory is wrong - the end result, whether it is your intention or not - is that you are teaching that theory to others.

In this case, Rock Rambler has come back and argued with those who have tried to point out why the theory is wrong - ergo - he has defended the theory itself.

 

[Petrel]

No one has showed that the theory is wrong. It's just speculation and can neither be proved nor disproved.

It does strike me that the way that everyone is becoming so upset about this theory shows that although we may pay lip service to the fact that it is not sinful to be tempted, when it comes to temptation by same-sex attractions there's a different standard applied.

All of which would make it very difficult for a person suffering from same-sex attractions to remain in the church, since he doesn't even have to sin in order to be considered disgusting.

 

[TexasSky]

Petrel,

I'm sorry, but it is not necessary to show it is wrong to insist it not be spread. Without a single shread of evidence to support it, it should not be spread.

I haven't called anyone disgusting, and I believe a church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for perfect saints. However - there is a thin line between loving a sinner and condoning a sin. Jesus never condoned a sin, and Jesus never told anyone to continue in that sin because giving it up was difficult or made them uncomfortable.

The simple fact of the matter is - the human anatomy is a living testimony to the fact that sodomy is not natural. Pretending it is, just to make people feel better, is doing those people a disservice.

There is scientific evidence that there is a genetic reason for alcoholism. Alcoholics, even though they might suffer major physical withdrawal don't need to be told, "You can't help it, that is just how God made you." Neither do we need to tell homosexuals, "You can't help it, that is just how God made you."

We need to tell them, "God will love you, even though what you are doing is a sin, but like any sin, you need to work with God to overcome this."

 

[TexasSky]

Please consider that by endorsing homosexuality, you are endorsing high risk behavior that is the equivalent of sexual Russian Roulette. (And yes, I consider those who are saying, "Let us make churches warm and welcoming and non-judgemental about homosexuality to be endorsing it.)

Vincent M.B. Silenzio advocates an "Anthropological Assessment for Culturally Appropriate Interventions Targeting Men Who Have Sex with Men." He considers the public-health education approach to be inadequate because it fails "to sufficiently take socio-cultural factors into account." Silenzio concluded that

"same-sex desire, attraction, sexual behavior, and identity are dynamic historical processes profoundly influenced by culture. Public health practitioners, advocates, and others need to be sensitive and open to how target populations of MSM frame these issues and experience these phenomena.

Culturally sensitive and appropriate interventions for MSM should ideally be based in ethnographic data specific to the population of interest in order to be effective. Using the comparative lenses of anthropology and cultural studies, we may begin to appreciate the needs of MSM and other sexual minority populations in fundamentally different ways."

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices
byA. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H.
Vice President, NARTH

From this same article:

Inherent Anatomical Problems Regarding physical health, there is increasing evidence that mortality and morbidity rates are substantially higher for those who engage in homosexual practices. For example, the risk of anal cancer soars by as much as 4,000% for men who engage in' (edited for the sake of decency, but the medical description of sodomy) "with other men. The host of medical consequences of those who practice" (same edit) sodomy "is large, from the tearing of the rectal lining with all of its accompanying problems to the diseases associated with subsequent contact with fecal matter."

From "On homosexuality and health consequences" by Segelstein

"Numerous studies repeatedly put out by the National Institutes of Health and respected universities, i.e., not fringe research, but research accepted by anyone with a serious interest in the AIDS epidemic, have shown that approximately 25% percent of men who, at age 20, identified themselves as gay, will be either HIV positive or dead of AIDS by age 30."

From the same article: "And there are numerous other illnesses which are part of the gay life and which have an extraordinarily detrimental impact. Nobody talks, for example, about the dangers of (sodomy)" (same edit - Sodomy substituted for actual words. ). "In populations which engage regularly in (sodomy) there's a higher incidence of rectal cancer, anal warts, anal tears, and on and on. Now let's put that together with the group of sixteen to twenty-five-year-olds where you've got 10% identifying themselves as gay at age 16 and only 3% at age 25. That means the years they spent thinking of themselves as gay -- and acting on it, being encouraged to act on it as a normal part of 'developing gay identity' --place them into a risk group with an 25% fatality rate. That also means that every educator who supports 10 kids in their identification as gay boys will have contributed to the deaths of three, and of those three it's not even likely that two actually would have continued to consider themselves 'gay'."

God's church should not be encouraging children to commit slow suicide.

 

[Bro Tony]

After reading all of this thread I feel a little sick to my stomach. Yes there are those who espouse ridiculous theories about Paul and Jesus and His disciples and their sexual orientation. These all need to be clearly denied and should not be seriously considered by any Bible believing Christian. This is slander against the men of God. I wonder how any living person would feel if it was spread around that they are homosexual, when they are not. Men like Spong and other liberal theologians should be labeled as dangerous and their theories that are extrabiblical and agenda driven should be placed in the proper receptical and flushed. I just cant believe we would ever get to the place where we would consider slanderous gossip about the Apostle of God appropriate conversation material.

Bro Tony

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
However - there is a thin line between loving a sinner and condoning a sin. Jesus never condoned a sin, and Jesus never told anyone to continue in that sin because giving it up was difficult or made them uncomfortable.

Somehow what I am saying is not getting through. . .

Where in the world do you get the idea that I'm condoning homosexuality when I have in fact said I do not and am currently experiencing a very strained relationship with my sister solely because I will not?

Perhaps we need to lay down some terminology. In my point of view, a heterosexual is a person who experiences sexual attraction primarily to members of the opposite sex. A homosexual is a person who experiences sexual attraction primarily to members of the same sex. Even if a person is celibate they still have an underlying sexual orientation.

You'll notice that I usually speak in terms of someone having same-sex attraction just to stay away from labels like homosexual, gay, etc. In my opinion, homosexual is an appropriate label for someone with primarily same-sex attractions even if they are celibate. In your point of view, it is not (although here we'd be up in the air, because I think we'd agree the person certainly isn't heterosexual). I reserve the labels "gay" or "lesbian" solely for people who are active homosexuals and are totally accepting of this.

It is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE for a person to experience same-sex attraction and yet be truly saved and an obedient Christian--yes, this seems to be contrary to the opinions of many on this thread, but that's the truth. It is not the temptation that is a sin, but giving in to that temptation. So if a Christian experiences same-sex attraction but is celibate, doesn't seek to arouse these feelings, and squelches them whenever they appear, they are doing nothing wrong--and in fact being more heroic than most of us have the opportunity to be in our day-to-day living.

Some people may in time be free from these unwanted feelings, but for most it is a burden they'll have to deal with their entire life.

This is why I'm not perturbed by the theory that Paul may have experienced same-sex attractions. If I know a fellow Christian struggles with these feelings, I personally don't care, except to be sympathetic because of the heaviness of this burden.

My point is that a lot of people on this thread are treating the temptation to sin as if it is just as bad as the sin itself. If so, then you'd better go ahead and condemn Jesus, because he was tempted as well.

 

[Martin]

Bro Tony said:
After reading all of this thread I feel a little sick to my stomach. Yes there are those who espouse ridiculous theories about Paul and Jesus and His disciples and their sexual orientation. These all need to be clearly denied and should not be seriously considered by any Bible believing Christian.

==We better seriously consider these theories. No, not to believe them, but rather to argue in an educated manner against them (apologetics). Like it or not these type theories are believed by alot, and I mean alot, of lost people. A board like this is a good place to have these discussions so that when we go out into the real world we will already know how to answer the charges.

__________________________________________

You said:
Men like Spong and other liberal theologians should be labeled as dangerous and their theories that are extrabiblical and agenda driven should be placed in the proper receptical and flushed. I just cant believe we would ever get to the place where we would consider slanderous gossip about the Apostle of God appropriate conversation material.

==See above. I agree Spong and company are very dangerous however their books are selling and people are believing the stuff they write. I promise we need to know how to deal with these arguments in a educated way. Otherwise people are going to ignore our "answers".

Martin.

Bro Tony [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
If you spread a theory, without pointing out why the theory is wrong - the end result, whether it is your intention or not - is that you are teaching that theory to others.

In this case, Rock Rambler has come back and argued with those who have tried to point out why the theory is wrong - ergo - he has defended the theory itself. [/QB]

==After reading through this thread several times I don't see your view point. I see the theory being put up as a theory some hold to, and they do, but I don't see Rock Rambler holding the position (see RR's post Aug 8 4:39pm). What I do see is alot of people getting steamed over mis-understanding the the reason the theory was raised.

Martin.

 

[Martin]

"It is COMPLETELY POSSIBLE for a person to experience same-sex attraction and yet be truly saved and an obedient Christian--yes, this seems to be contrary to the opinions of many on this thread, but that's the truth. It is not the temptation that is a sin, but giving in to that temptation."


==This statement is 100% Biblical and I openly challenge anyone to Biblically question it. Being tempted, by anything, is not a sin. Jesus did not sin yet He was tempted in the wilderness (to turn a bread into stone, etc).


"This is why I'm not perturbed by the theory that Paul may have experienced same-sex attractions."

==The major problem with the theory, and there are several problems, is that it has no supporting historical evidence. It is a rumor that our modern culture has started. After all they same the same thing about everyone else in history now days, right? Yep. They are calling Abraham Lincoln gay among others. Until solid proof of the above claim about Paul is given it must be considered unhistorical and unBiblical. Also it just does not fit the evidence we do have about Paul.


"My point is that a lot of people on this thread are treating the temptation to sin as if it is just as bad as the sin itself."

==People, sadly, do that all the time with alot of different sins/temptations. It is unBiblical but it is done.

In Christ,
Martin.