The Bible and Love and Christians

[CensoredAlso]

I respect your right to have this opposing point of view, but I must point out the use of the term "sin" three times when referring to gays in just this single post feels a little like finger-wagging to me. Once was enough.

I can totally understand why that would offend you, definitely. I want to make that clear. The only thing is that it bothers me a little bit when we tell people what they "can't say." We can't always make people say things exactly the way we want. And words mean very little anyway. More important are people's actions.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Ironic as it may be to say this, well said, heralde.
(And just to clarify though- in this case, I am praising the intention and attitude behind your words- so though actions speak louder than words- I think both the words here and the action in saying them speak loudly and well.)

 

[dwayne1115]

I'm kind of confused, it's been said on here that the act of homo sexuality is a sin. I always thought that was a lifestyle, am I wrong?

 

[GonzoLeaper]

(I don't know if this will help clarify, but I am specifically addressing dwayne1115's question here. I am not looking to rehash points already made- just to clarify what I mean when I use certain terms regarding sexuality and what they mean to me- and what some others take them to mean. I do not mean to offend any of the members here who identify as gay. This is meant as an explanation. For those who disagree with me, please know that I really am not wanting to upset you or demean you- you are a valued person loved by God and I want to extend His love to you as well. We will just have to agree to disagree peaceably on this point.)


What Leviticus 18:22 literally says is "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 18:22&version=NASB)
Some people take this verse to mean only the act of gay sex is wrong. In other verses, The Bible makes it clear that homosexuality itself is a sin. Romans 1 in particular talks about men and women turning against their natural functions and burning with desire for those of the same sex.
So in these verses, it is addressing both the physical act and the desire.
As some people who identify as gay have pointed out, at least some of the homosexual community find the term "lifestyle" offensive as it implies that they are nothing more than a sex-crazed person looking to engage in wild orgies - which would be just as wrong as a heterosexual living the same cavalier lifestyle for that matter. And I do think that is a wrong characterization as that is a stereotype- everyone, whether gay or straight, are at different points in dealing with sexual appetite.
But when I think of lifestyle, I am usually thinking more in the sense that some people have chosen to live their lives as a homosexual, mainly because they don't feel they have a choice. In this sense, it's referring more to the continued acting upon felt desires- whether through lust or engaging in such relationships. (and I don't necessarily even mean the physical act here- although that would be included as well.)
Now I differ with our gay friends here on this point, as I think everyone has a choice in their behavior. Speaking as someone who does know people who identify as gay, I do think that even if you feel it's an inbred part of your nature, it is still possible, through the power of Jesus, to say no to the sinful flesh and walk with God instead. I usually use the analogy of a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome (and sadly, I do know someone who has this as well.) I don't believe they are necessarily fated to be an alcoholic as well and that they have no choice in the matter- they can still make the choice to deny those cravings and stay away from it. This is exactly what Jesus came to do through His death and Resurrection- by faith in Him, we can have a new life and a new nature. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that when we trust in Christ we become a new creation- the old has gone and the new has come. This is why I love 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in its description of the old habits of the sinful nature and how it says that this is what some Christians were - it's what we used to be. And truth be told, yes- we certainly still struggle with it. But we have been washed in the blood of Christ, sanctified and justified through Jesus Christ The Lord.
This goes beyond just the issue of sexuality - heterosexual adultery is just as wrong - liars, thieves, slanderers, malice, rage, pride- all these things are wrong- and Jesus forgives and cleanses us of all of them.
Anyway- that is my viewpoint on that and on what the terms mean to me. I know others may view this vastly differently and perhaps someone else here will have a better explanation.
1 John 2:1-6 says that anyone who claims to know Christ as Savior must walk as He walked. So everyone lives a lifestyle of some kind or another- but for a Christian, it should be characterized by looking like Jesus' lifestyle.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Ironic as it may be to say this, well said, heralde.

Lol, thanks, and I do get what you mean. ; )

I'm kind of confused, it's been said on here that the act of homo sexuality is a sin. I always thought that was a lifestyle, am I wrong?

Well lifestyle implies that people are choosing to be homosexual, and therefore can choose not to be that way. As opposed to the other opinion that homosexuality is simply something you're born with and can't change.

I'm not a scientist and not a ton of research really has been done in the realm of sexual orientation, but I personally lean towards the theory that it's something you're born with. I don't feel like I choose to be heterosexual everyday, the way I choose to do my homework. It feels more like something that is just naturally there. I think if sexuality was simply a choice, a lot more people would have experimented over the years.

 

[Drtooth]

We live in a culture of absolutes. It's either-or. If you're for something you must shout it from the rooftops at all times and if you're against something than you must make sure that nobody else is permitted to explore it on their own. It's all rather childish to me.

Think what kind of a face-lift religious groups would receive if they stopped political opposition to gay marriage while maintaining their personal message. Think of how Christians would perceive atheists if they chose to enjoy the holiday festivities instead of boycotting them.

I second that. I HATE how everyone sees black and white. That's a very naive thing to do, and it leads to dangerous lumping of subjects. And political? Don't get me started... political stuff is just grabbed up by either side to manipulate people (of course, it works best on a certain side, but I'm not getting into that... but why else do you think Monkeyface McLegacy got re-elected?).

We really need to separate Church and state... not constitutionally, but emotionally. We have to realize that our beliefs are held hostage by politicos who just wanna get elected to give their rich buddies favors and perks so perverted, they boarder on sexual.

Yes, I agree... you should have the right to not like or accept that, and fakey atheists unfortunately have the right to passive aggressively stomp Christmas festivities... but just because people have those rights doesn't mean they have to use them. I don't like ANY finger wagging syndicate taking away stuff from me instead of coming up with a better solution that makes everyone happy. Though I still think that to get true spiritual enlightenment, you need to question things. Things shouldn't be things because it says so. I hate when my parents used to say "Because I said so." when an actual reason could have satisfied me.

Now, on the subject... historically speaking, didn't religious leaders say that sex is supposed to be a joyless, mirthless, mechanical means of making kids anyway? I hate when anyone questions that they get labeled "pervert." Balance... everything needs balance.

 

[frogboy4]

I do not mean to offend any of the members here who identify as gay. This is meant as an explanation. For those who disagree with me, please know that I really am not wanting to upset you or demean you...

Now I differ with our gay friends here on this point, as I think everyone has a choice in their behavior.

Speaking as someone who does know people who identify as gay, I do think that even if you feel it's an inbred part of your nature, it is still possible, through the power of Jesus, to say no to the sinful flesh and walk with God instead. I usually use the analogy of a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome (and sadly, I do know someone who has this as well.) I don't believe they are necessarily fated to be an alcoholic as well and that they have no choice in the matter- they can still make the choice to deny those cravings and stay away from it.

So everyone lives a lifestyle of some kind or another- but for a Christian, it should be characterized by looking like Jesus' lifestyle.

Thanks for the thoughtful response and I get where you're coming from. I still oppose the term lifestyle when referring to gays because it cherry-picks the physical nature of the relationship in order to describe the whole of it that can be very much like any other average straight person. It's not a style, just a life. However, living one's life under any religious dogma probably can be called a style if you'd like to call it one.

I also must object to linking gay people with alcoholism. It's offensive for a variety of reasons that I could easily dive into over a series of posts - - but won't. It would be best to find another analogy.

I agree that behavior is chosen while feelings are not. Every action is a choice unless one suffers from an impulse control disorder. It is my belief that a gay person trying to be straight, through the power of God or any other resource, is in self-denial and that has the potential to be very dangerous and destructive. I've seen many people and families torn apart because of this denial, but have yet to see a happy and emotionally healthy ex-gay; and I know a lot of people in all walks of life. It is their right to do so, but, with God as your witness here, would you honestly marry an "ex-gay" person? It's convenient talking about people and in an abstract, but once you meet individuals and they touch your life it's a completely different ballgame.

I guess when talking about truth and changing we must go with what speaks to us. With you it's Jesus who tells you things are right and wrong through the Holy Spirit, prayer and Biblical studies. Therefore you see being gay as a sin and/or a disorder. I come from the realm of common sense (God-given or not), science and the knowledge of personal experience and of those who have touched my life. Because of this I view belief in the Bible to be like how a child hangs on to the idea of the Easter Bunny as long as he can because it's all he's known to that point and the alternative isn't as appealing.

That isn't meant to be offensive. I'm must illustrating both sides of the coin. But in this thread I've actually refrained from much of my Easter Bunny rhetoric because it's offensive while many Christians liberally toss about terms like "sin" and unkind adjectives. The reason for this is because I know where we both stand and I'd rather reach a respectful understanding rather than legitimize my life in the hearts of others. That would be a nice thing, but civil rights are my only focus.

Well lifestyle implies that people are choosing to be homosexual, and therefore can choose not to be that way. As opposed to the other opinion that homosexuality is simply something you're born with and can't change.

I'm not a scientist and not a ton of research really has been done in the realm of sexual orientation, but I personally lean towards the theory that it's something you're born with. I don't feel like I choose to be heterosexual everyday, the way I choose to do my homework. It feels more like something that is just naturally there. I think if sexuality was simply a choice, a lot more people would have experimented over the years.

It amuses me when certain "family" groups try to disprove gay genetics. The data is still inconclusive in many ways. However, all of this could be solved by one thing - - meeting individuals who are gay and listening to them. One can make a great theoretical case why communism would solve many problems in our government, but we all can see how that the practical application doesn't work. You must see it up close in action to appreciate the reality. I think that's why some groups want to curtail gay rights. They don't want the reality to come out that we have identical strengths and frailties as straight couples.

I believe personal attraction, gay or straight, is a result of both nature and nurture and that differs for everybody. Ultimately I believe there's a recessive genetic gene that makes it likely for a person to be gay and certain environmental factors refine it some. I've met several sets of twins and in some cases both are gay while in others only one is. I'd say it's an equal amount of both. I've known transgendered folk who have felt very specific and sophisticated feelings at an early age that only genetics can explain.

That's kind of why my search of legitimacy ended. It's a dead end and really doesn't matter. I'm in touch with myself, motivations and emotions. That, along with equal rights, is all I really need on the subject. I also thank you for exploring just why those equal rights are important earlier. You hit the nail on the head of what makes life harder on us for not having them.

I second that. I HATE how everyone sees black and white. That's a very naive thing to do, and it leads to dangerous lumping of subjects.

We really need to separate Church and state... not constitutionally, but emotionally. We have to realize that our beliefs are held hostage by politicos who just wanna get elected to give their rich buddies favors and perks so perverted, they boarder on sexual.

Now, on the subject... historically speaking, didn't religious leaders say that sex is supposed to be a joyless, mirthless, mechanical means of making kids anyway? I hate when anyone questions that they get labeled "pervert." Balance... everything needs balance.

Pundits line their pockets with their mud-throwing. Personally, I prefer to hang around those of different beliefs and ways of life. It makes life rich!

Aw, you're talking about the Footloose Christians, LOL! Yes, they exist and there are actually many verses in scripture that prove them wrong, but I won't go into those. There's much of Christian life in this country that is more societal than scriptural. I've known people from all walks of life, many with incredible challenges, and I can honestly claim that we all live our lives as joyfully as we allow them to be. Yes, one way or another, happiness is a choice.

 

[Drtooth]

Pundits line their pockets with their mud-throwing. Personally, I prefer to hang around those of different beliefs and ways of life. It makes life rich!

Paid opinions bug me. The most money is in unnecessary name calling and bad behavior. I wouldn't want to go to a doctor that's bribed to prescribe me an expensive medicine. I want there to be blandness and dullness brought back to both sides of debate. I want a tepid bowl of flavorless oatmeal to come back... at least that way I'm willing to listen. Again, that's why I like Ben Stein so much... he's calm. Plus, he's known for stuff outside of politics...

Also, I can rant like a mental patient over nothing. Where the heck is my book deal?

But I really feel politics and religion should split up completely, since beliefs of one adversely affect the other. I can smash this whole thread to bits with three words:

Log Cabin Republicans...

see what I mean? The pigeon holing is what's wrong with BOTH... there are no liberal Christians? There are no agnostic Conservatives? It's all a wash in painting with a brush. Everyone needs to be heard, but they also need to do it free of emotions or they'll sound like I usually do... angry and unfocused.

 

[frogboy4]

Paid opinions bug me. The most money is in unnecessary name calling and bad behavior. I wouldn't want to go to a doctor that's bribed to prescribe me an expensive medicine. I want there to be blandness and dullness brought back to both sides of debate. I want a tepid bowl of flavorless oatmeal to come back... at least that way I'm willing to listen. Again, that's why I like Ben Stein so much... he's calm. Plus, he's known for stuff outside of politics...

Also, I can rant like a mental patient over nothing. Where the heck is my book deal?

But I really feel politics and religion should split up completely, since beliefs of one adversely affect the other. I can smash this whole thread to bits with three words:

Log Cabin Republicans...

see what I mean? The pigeon holing is what's wrong with BOTH... there are no liberal Christians? There are no agnostic Conservatives? It's all a wash in painting with a brush. Everyone needs to be heard, but they also need to do it free of emotions or they'll sound like I usually do... angry and unfocused.

Catholics do have a huge problem with war and the death penalty and many have no problem voicing that. I've seen them demonstrate just a few blocks from my apartment and many of them do vote for Deomcrats. But I do believe that liberals get a bad-rap when it comes to religious voters. Conservatives co-opted the term "values" long ago in order to make it seem that liberals were somehow hedonistic in comparison. This is not true. "Values" is code for Christian America imposing its beliefs on others instead of merely enjoying their freedoms like everyone else.

If my gaining equal civil rights actually does bring about a plague of frogs, I promise to buy them all tiny banjos!

 

[CensoredAlso]

Catholics do have a huge problem with war and the death penalty and many have no problem voicing that.

Yep, there's the Jesuit's "Just War Theory," a very specific list of conditions when it is moral to go to war (for instance World War II) and when it's not. I remember there was a lot of concern at my school that the Iraq War did not fit the Just War Theory; I even went to a meeting about it. We also had an anti Death Penalty week every year. Ted Kaczynski's brother came a few times and I asked him a question, very tragic story.

That said, I also know some Christians who will defend the death penalty, which frustrates me a lot. I personally think if you're anti abortion, you should also be anti death penalty.

Conservatives co-opted the term "values" long ago in order to make it seem that liberals were somehow hedonistic in comparison.

It's true, Republicans try to claim they have a monopoly on values, which CLEARLY hasn't been the case, lol. The same way Democrats claim to be the more tolerant party, which I personally find hilarious. I can't in good conscience be anything other than independent.

It amuses me when certain "family" groups try to disprove gay genetics. The data is still inconclusive in many ways.

It's definitely inconclusive. And I personally think those kinds of groups shouldn't try to mess with people's heads (so to speak) before we really understand the science behind these things!

I also thank you for exploring just why those equal rights are important earlier. You hit the nail on the head of what makes life harder on us for not having them.

Thanks, no problem! Yeah a lot of that I've heard from documentaries on the military and it was just obvious what was happening wasn't fair.