The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

1) IF Original Sin is a valid possible concept, it does not matter what the collective sum of human rights passions may lead to.
2) The basic argument against homosexual passion is that humanity has elevated the right to idealize (idolize) the human form above the responsibility to honor God. Heterosexual lust and idealized SI swimsuit images are no less evil than any Gay image.
3) Admittedly, we need to understand fundamentalists. They are no better than anyone else. The sin among them is that they proclaim superior morality. The truth is that the image that they profess to worship is in ideal, flawless.(Jesus Christ) The reality, however, is that fundies fail as often as any Pagan on the planet. Lets forgive the fundies and cut them a bit of slack. Bottem line: Do we worship God or do we worship the glory of the human form be it male or female? Homosexual feelings are not rare, and are no more a sin than lusting after the girl at the Supermarket. Again, the sin is in the elevation of thinking towards creature worship. Gays would rather defend the right to be with each other more than the responsibility to love Jesus first. Same sin with male/female couples who defend the right to do whatever they want to do regardless of the Church.
I agree, however, that the Church is very conservative. At least in theory. (Altar boy idolatry is also a very pesky sin.)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 07-07-2004 09:31 AM

Homosexuality...our original topic, is a volatle subject. Itis my personal belief that people are born predisposed to be attracted/emotionally bonded to one sex or the other. The factors which lead to a person "becoming gay" are more than merely biological, however. We may not choose our attractions yet we most certainly do choose our eventual actions. Culturally, same sex unions are becoming accepted. The problem from an orthodox Christian perspective is NOT that gays will "burn in hell" because we all are sinners to one degree or another and no sin is worse than any other/ The issue is that many militant homosexuals place more importance on their right to be with another man OVER their responsibility to love Jesus first. Trust me...if you love Jesus first, everything else works out a lot better....no idolatry, no lust, and a healthy passion.

You say that there is no evidence for Jesus. In response, check out this article:Origins of Christianity | Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
As for homosexuality, same sex attraction is a reality. The issue is whether or not society is better off condoning or condemning it. If honest, however, we had best condemn organized gambling, prostitution, and adultry if we dare condemn hopmosexuality.
So what does Jesus have to do with any of this? Spiritual guidance and morality.

As for homosexuality, check out this link:
http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/
And as for adultery? A far bigger problem than the ads for Vegas claim. Namely "What goes on here stays here".
I suppose all of this leads into the old argument of legislating morality, and I do not condone THAT, either.
What I do suggest is that people ask themselves what the source for moral governance should be? Where should it start?

BTW Why am I a crackpot???? You think that I am out to condemn you like many fundies are?? NOT! I have shortcomings and quirks in my life that are no better or worse than what you deal with. Lets discuss same sex attraction, shall we?
Many who have same sex attraction are not repulsed by the opposite sex, and many, such as yourself, are. Why is this? Is it an issue of gender identity? I mean, as a male, I can honestly say that I find some males attractive, although I would never seek to kiss them or pick them up. I also find women attractive. As a Christian, I am single, so my best bet is to desire Jesus above all others...be they male or female. What about you? Were you ever hurt by anyone when you were younger? Molested? Did you connect much easier with women and in a sense identify with them? Perhaps internally, you think on a feminine level. (I am just guessing, for I obviously do not know you.) Many gay friends whom I have were bisexually oriented at 14, yet through experience they have now become more gay. I think that it is ludicrous for society to attempt to push them into a relationship with a women. I don't want them to marry a man, however. Call me uncertain.

You are the one that started this thread with questions concerning the interpretation of Biblical Morality and same sex attraction. A man named Andrew Cominsky, a self professed former homosexual who now is in fact attracted to his wife,tells his story this way:
He was exclusively attracted to men throughout his youth. He became a Christian, but lived a double life since the church did not understand,or much less approve of his lifestyle. He wanted to love Jesus, but he knew how he felt. He feels that many of the pro gay Christians give much more glory and homage to their sexual orientation than they do to Jesus. It is a form of idolatry. While one cannot stereotype gay culture exclusively, there does seem to be a lot of middle aged men who are driven to idolizing the young and brash gay ones much as heteros idolize S.I. swimsuit babes. There is an overemphasis on phallic worship. One man who claims to have progressed into a mature adult claims that he was looking for a man when he in fact needed to become one. Many gays are immature. Emotionally stunted. They are 20 something with a teenage emotional makeup. They are frozen at the age at which they first experienced sex. Before you brashly label me a bigot, know that I am not against homosexuals. I think that society does need to accept homosexuality as it has accepted other minorities. All that I am stating is that I don't think for a minute that homosexual behavior is merely another flavor of character. A healthy fully mature man may well be closer to bisexual. The solution is not to demand the rights to go run off with the man of your choice. The solution is to grow up!

My point, biased though it may well be classified as,(although I wager that statistically it is not far off) is that the usual homosexual relationship is pursued for different reasons than some sort of marriage ideal. Same + Different= Complimentary. One gender lacks what the other gender has in numerous ways. Men are Martians. Woman are Venutians. Complimenting leads to completeness or wholeness.
Same+Same, on the other hand, is an attempt by one to compensate for his own deficiencies. Often, however, one male will take on complimenting characteristics. This adaptive feature is not to be judged by me as evil, inferior, or immoral.(Just so I make myself clear) In observing same sex courtships with younger people, I have often noted a lack of maturity.
So being a smug judge of morality, I would condemn!
Being a secular humanist, I would condone!
Being a progressive liberal, I would leave them alone.
Being who I truly am, I would pray for the same sex couple much as I would pray for any male/female couple.

OK, Lam, I'll throw in a Bible verse just for the sake of debate. You know that I like and respect you as a person and that sexuality is not a criteria that I usually judge people with, unless they have a bitchy attitude. Anyway, does anyone know a gay couple that loves God with ALL of their heart, soul, mind, and strength? I maintain that so called gay churches usually focus on the RIGHT to be gay rather than the RESPONSIBILITY to love God before all else.
This is the commandment that I refer to: It is one thing to acknowledge God and live a life of ones own choosing. It is quite another level to actually LOVE God more than any other human. This applies to heterosexual relationships as well. Comments?

Yes. My assertion and accusation, based upon limited personal observation, suggests that many of the "enlightened" church leaders present a social relevant message rather than a historic "yahweh or the highway" one.

Am I that unloveable or unloving? What did I do? I know that same sex attraction is inborn. All that I maintain is that if a person loves God first, allowing His Spirit to fill them, they will be less concerned with their "right" to have sex with another. I am not attacking homosexuality...I just do not see the need to marry as being of high priority. Love God and desire holiness and love from His Spirit, and nobody will attack your orientations....but if you trumpet about with the "right" to marry, you will be scrutinized. Now, Lam, I am not attacking you. Why are you putting me on the hate list. My family voted for Kerry, for petes sake! I may be spiritual, but I am not your garden variety fundie.

Does not this verse mention lesbianism? To be fair, however, allow me to quote a comment by another friend of mine:This message has been edited by Phatboy, 11-10-2004 01:59 PM

Yaro, you DO have a good point. I do not believe that the Bible should be used literally without regards to the cultural contexts of its words. I DO think that the Spirit and meaning behind scripture is inerrent, but when it comes to many of the O.T. passages, I disregard them. I am not cherry picking, in my mind. The O.T. was written to Jews. It is for Gentiles/non Jews, yet it is not written TO us.
I am a Progressive disepensationalist in regards to the Bible.
What do they teach?
1. P. D. believes the salvation of man is the unifying theme of biblical history. God has designed one divine plan of redemption for all mankind from Adam until the last human descendant of Adam has been born and God's purposes and workings in the various dispensations are to illustrate His plan. P. D. seems to concentrate upon the salvation and minimizes the blessings that result from obeying God according to His dispensational instructions after receiving His salvation.2. P. D. believes a "new" complementary hermeneutic must be employedOld Testament prophecy while retaining its original purpose may change in its relationship to current situations based upon progressive revelation [? understanding]. The "mysteries" of the New Testament, especially the Church "mysteries," are divinely revealed "expansions" [deeper understanding] of the Old Testament biblical covenants and prophecies. Therefore, a "mystery" is something that you now understand more fully instead of something hidden by God and now revealed.
3. The Abrahamic covenant, primarily through its the promise of redemption"through you all the nations of the world shall be blessed...," is being progressively fulfilled in the successive dispensations (through the Mosaic covenant in the Mosaic dispensation and through the New Covenant and the Davidic covenant in the Church and Millennial dispensations). The Dispensation of Grace (the Body of Christ) is not considered a parenthesis (an interruption) in God's prophetic program nor a break in the progressive fulfillment of the covenants, but an essential stage in that fulfillment.
4. P. D. believes that the New Covenant has already been inaugurated with its spiritual blessings, but its political and physical blessings are not fully realized until the Millennium. P. D. understands dispensations not merely as differing arrangements between God and mankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive relation of God's accomplishment of redemption. All covenants subsequent to the Abrahamic Covenant further expand its promises (specifically, the blessing of redemption to all mankind). The New Covenant is dependent upon concurrent fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and New Covenantthe Davidic king is to mediate the New Covenant blessings.5. P. D. believes that the Church (the Body of Christ) inaugurates the Davidic reign of Jesus. Jesus Christ has already assumed the Davidic throne with His ascension, thus beginning the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. There is some disagreement in P. D. as to whether Christ is actively reigning today [Bock and Blaising] or merely residing at the right hand of the Father waiting to actually reign on earth as the promised Davidic Messiah-King during the Millennium [Saucy].6. P. D. believes the Church (the Body of Christ) is distinct only in this age. The concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid. There is disagreement among Revisionist Dispensationalism as to whether the Church is a part (the first stage) of the Kingdom or whether Israel has become the Church which will once again at the end of the Church Age revert to the Kingdom at the Millennium (P. D. sees only one eternal people of God).