The Christian Response to Homosexuality

[micatala]

Many Christians consider homosexual practices to be immoral. The forum has multiple threads which include arguments as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered immoral, and even whether this position is supported Biblically.

In this thread, we will take it is a given that homosexuality is immoral.

Under this assumption, what should the response of Christians be to the existence of homosexuality? How should we interact with or treat persons who are homosexuals?

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?


Again, arguments concerning the morality of homosexuality are not relevant to the thread. What is relevant is discussion of the possible Christian responses to homosexuality, and what valid rationale there are for these responses.

[Cathar1950]

Well micatala it seems you must have covered every conceivable scenario.
I like your approach it seems ask for a defensible position.
Of course whatever position taken should also stay within the bounds of law and sensibilities we would offer anyone in our society. If we can discriminate why not against anyone say women, blacks, the handicapped, non-whites and any other unjust actions. To not conceder their rights as persons are beyond the social responsibility that their choices may create
And should not be considered a viable alternative such as killing them would suggest.
It seems they have two possibilities. Either they tolerate them or they don’t. It is like to viruses competing one excludes the other does not. I guess we could wonder which one kills the host slowest. So you get churches with tolerance and call them free something or neo-something or you create new ones with intolerance and do the same thing, rename. It is evolution at work.

[micatala]

Of course whatever position taken should also stay within the bounds of law and sensibilities we would offer anyone in our society. If we can discriminate why not against anyone say women, blacks, the handicapped, non-whites and any other unjust actions. To not conceder their rights as persons are beyond the social responsibility that their choices may create

You offer some reasonable thoughts on why we should not follow some of the responses that have been offered.

Certainly, the idea of tolerance does have some biblical justification.

For example, Romans 14 says we should not judge fellow believers, as we are potentially subject to the same judgment of God. For believers, we each are responsible to God, not to each other, at least I think not unless we voluntarily enter into an agreement to be judged by other believers (say by joining a church which might function in this way).

Most Christians that have posted on this forum, even if they are strongly opposed to homosexuality, would not support outlawing homosexual acts, done by consenting adults in the privacy of their home.

[1John2_26]

Well, so far we seem to have the following suggested responses:

1. Kill homosexuals (e.g. by stoning) (Post #6). See also post #79.

2. Attempt to 'convert' them to Christianity

3. Condemn the sin, and attempt to help them repent from the actions, in essence to become heterosexual. Some suggest it is necessary to keep in mind our own sinfulness in pursuing this course.

wgreen wrote:
I think our response should be the same as our response to any other sin, be it adultery, theft, covetousness, or pride. We should condemn it and discourage it as sin, all the while acknowledging our own continuing struggle with and involvement in sin.

We don't claim to have no sin, or even to be less sinful than one who is practicing homosexual behavior, but neither do we condone the behavior.

We should point those who practice homosexual behavior to the same Christ who forgives our sins and who helps us overcome them.



4. The response might depend on whether the person 'sinning' acknowledges their sin or not. (Post #5)

5. Prohibit same-sex marriage, perhaps allowing civil unions.

6. Protect gays from abuse.


7. In some situations, follow a don't ask don't tell policy.


8. Prevent gays from 'homosexualizing' Christianity (post # 20). We might need a definition of what this exactly means, but part of this concept would include Christian churches not accepting or being forced to accept homosexuality as 'OK.'

9. Act with compassion towards homosexuality, and avoid the hypocrisy of treating homosexuality as 'more sinful' than other sins. Do not create additional pain for homosexuals by hateful speech or behavior.

10. Homosexuals or the 'homosexual culture' should not be trusted. (Post #38) Pastors need to protect their flocks from the influence of gays or gay culture.

11. And of course, Christians should never practice homosexuality, but should rather, flee from it. (end of post #54)

I have probably missed some.

My next question is can a Christian follow all of these responses? How should a Christian pick from amon these when such choices seem necessary?

I have also asked for Biblical justification for these. Some has been provided. I am also open to non-biblical justifications at this point as well.

Divorce and adultery and perverted sexual practices of many kinds are soundly condemned throughout the Bible. In Micah we have the essence of it all: I hate divorce says the Lord and the RETURN of the fathers to their children is an amazingly appropriate idea, considering the "modern world."

Jesus askes this supposedly smart guy: You don't know what Born-Again means? It is claer from that pasaage, that it was a common idea in theological and practical minds.

Repentance is coming out of a situation needing to be freed of. Obviously NO pun intended.

The Bible condones and proclaims repentance from beginning to end.

Christ Jesus highlights many important things. The cleansing of evil by war, is no longer a main tool. Now, it is for the heart and mind of the individual person to accept or rejcst repentance and return.

The story in the Bible is not very wide. Repent and follow the Lord: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and take care of the poor and needy. Returning over and over again to "what" it is to be in the condition of a follower of the God of Israel is not the aspect to dwell on redefining, as it is expected that confession, or declaration is made and actions are implemented.

James and the writers of the New Testament knew this as a matter of fact from "knowing" Jesus.

Showing your faith by your actions is very important. Repentance is not a theory. It is an actual fact of motion and thought. It changes the direction of the the person in mind and deed. There is no movement for example, of adulteres forming their own culture and community identification, and demanding that they now exist in a new definition or classification of society. Certainly Christianity has been consistent in seeing the need for those violating Biblical mandates as having to "come back to" a Biblical perspective on things. The Bible does not promote or condone "a person doing whatever they want to" and demanding that fellowship in the body of " believers" be applied to that declarartion.

There is a consistency in the Biblical record. Commitment, violation often times of that commitment, and a re-union between those that violate God's will by their actions, deeds and according to Christ Jesus (God), in though as well.

The Bible does not condone or promote UN-repentance and certainly not NON-repentance..

Even for those that see the Bible as allegorical, metaphors, or myth, the following is heart-wrenchingly appropriate. And no wonder some take so much effort to attempt to disprove the Bible. To all who seek God, through Christ Jesus and with the Holy Spirit guiding them.

David . . . a man "after" God's own heart:

Psalm 51
A psalm of David, regarding the time Nathan the prophet came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.
1
Have mercy on me, O God,
because of your unfailing love.
Because of your great compassion,
blot out the stain of my sins.
2
Wash me clean from my guilt.
Purify me from my sin.

3
For I recognize my shameful deeds--
they haunt me day and night.

4
Against you, and you alone, have I sinned;
I have done what is evil in your sight.
You will be proved right in what you say,
and your judgment against me is just.

5
For I was born a sinner--
yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

6
But you desire honesty from the heart,
so you can teach me to be wise in my inmost being.

7
Purify me from my sins, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

8
Oh, give me back my joy again;
you have broken me--
now let me rejoice.

9
Don't keep looking at my sins.
Remove the stain of my guilt.

10
Create in me a clean heart, O God.
Renew a right spirit within me.

11
Do not banish me from your presence,
and don't take your Holy Spirit from me.

12
Restore to me again the joy of your salvation,
and make me willing to obey you.

13
Then I will teach your ways to sinners,
and they will return to you.

14
Forgive me for shedding blood, O God who saves;
then I will joyfully sing of your forgiveness.

15
Unseal my lips, O Lord,
that I may praise you.

16
You would not be pleased with sacrifices,
or I would bring them.
If I brought you a burnt offering,
you would not accept it.

17
The sacrifice you want is a broken spirit.
A broken and repentant heart, O God,
you will not despise.

18
Look with favor on Zion and help her;
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

19
Then you will be pleased with worthy sacrifices
and with our whole burnt offerings;
and bulls will again be sacrificed on your altar.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
That is as close as I want to come to discussing the Holy Spirit on this website.

I understand not making that a topic in this thread, but why not on the website itself?

The spirit of anti-Christ is the reason. To discuss the Holy Spirit on websites such as these is not a safe bet that blasphemy is not sought by the hatred for Christians so inherent in the clubmembers arrayed against Christians. I take the advice of Jesus seriously.

Quote:
No, I asked why an anti-Christian, or, better yet, a non-Christian is speaking in a thread about the Christian response to homosexuality. Obviously from your position you have nothing valid tp input. That is niether insult or epithet, it is just the way it is.

The reason anyone can discuss this 1John, is because things aren't as comparmentalized and partitioned off, as you tend to believe they are. You could have someone more deeply skeptical of Christianity, sitting right near you in your own church.

I heve proven beyond doubt to be skeptical of many things called "Christianity" now haven't "I?" I sit next to many people in Church.

You aren't going to make the world "Christian"; Christians have influence in this world, but they don't RULE it (thank God).

Why thank God the way you do? You would rather sexual hedonists ruled earth? We have seen their civilizations crumble often.

It's better that someone or something more perfect than a human being rule this world.

Satan or God? Or the pantheon of other deities? Plase step up and name your more perfectness? Certainly it cannot be those that seek to define their lives by their orgasms.

After what I've seen some people do to "homosexuals" as a result of their "Christian" responses, I have no faith in their "religion" at all.

I quoted you. That is a choice you are free to make.

There is always repentance still and always until the day a person dies.

Quote:
Yes, as a former Christian, I may well be motivated to express views which are anti-Christian. That does not make any argument that I post any more or less true.

Yes it does. Most certainly it does.

This position is correct.

That you are not a Christian? That is news to me.

And 1John, do you actually believe/think that only a "Christian" could observe and/or scrutinize what some say is "Christianity"? If you do, it is delusional thinking.

I have proven beyond doubt that I am NOT delusional. Graphic posts amd all. It is not I who will not look at facts.

Quote:
On the contrary, it absolutely taints anything you input.

HYPOCRITICAL to the utmost! You don't think your views are tainted, but they typically are.

In your non-Christian "assertions" what could we expect?

I haven't known of a "Christianity" like that which you communicate here.

Forgiveness? Repentance? Worshipping the Risen Christ? That says more about you than me.

And whether you intend to or not, you distort reality regularly.

Liberal-progressive reality or real reality? There is only on ereality. Throw a rock in the aor and stand under it.

Not that I or other expect perfect answers from anyone here, but that you taint your own answers/responses by speaking as if they should not or cannot be challenged.

Why are presenting sucha wrong assertion? If I demand anything, it is that people view what I present. If they can look at something that has really happened or is happening and say it didn't or isn't, the delusion is in them not me. I presnt things that really happen and my adversaries/opposition ask me "What's you proof?"

Quote:
The Christian perspective can only be given by a Christian. You should be able to understand that concept.

No; this is nothing but ignorance. "A" (single) Christian perspective can be given by a Christian; that one perspective. All other Christian perspectives are given by different individuals; there is no perfect or agreed upon overall Christian perspective or consensus. The list of Christian SECTS or denominations in existence, should help you to be fully aware of what I'm pointing out.

Weeds growing in a garden should be a good lesson for your students on Christ Jesus and reality.

The Christian response to "homosexuality" isn't monolithic and cannot be, because it involves millions of people dealing with it in varying degrees and situations.

Apostasy is reality as well.

MLK Jr. likely offered the world the best message about people getting along (despite their differences), but for some reason messages which promote understanding and real dialogue, are rejected.

Judging people by the "content" of their character. I couldn't agree more, and do not deviate from that message.

Homosexuals aren't out to control "Christianity", certainly not anymore than specific Christians are out to control homosexuals.

I believe that I have proven that "homosexuals" are in deed out to control Christians and Christianity. I have presnted facts to back that up. Christians want to control how much of the homosexual attack they possibly can. Christians have proven to be the only consistent voice for morality on earth today. I wish homosexuals would stop infiltrating beautiful Churches are insidiously altering them from within but, that as well is a matter for God. All Christians should do is keep a bright light on the danger within their midst, and flee from it.

Quote:
Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Please, just bow out graciously.

If Mc must bow out as per your request, why are you not gone completely?

This thread is "the Christian" response to homosexuality. Not the anti-Christian's response to homosexuality. That is a simple thing to ascertain. McCulloch bowed out when he wrote that he was a "former" Christian. Hint, hint.

You have been thought and found inaccurate (or just plain wrong) many times.

By the homogenized clubmembership of anti-Christians.

Yet, despite the likely desire to see you leave, few (if any) have demanded that you stop giving your opinions. It seems you are the one who likes to tell people what to do. (Is that part of the "Christian" response, as you view it?)

Please re-read the Gospels and come back and ask me that question again. I believe you'll have no need to. Jesus didn't give Dear Abby advice.

Quote:
As a Christian, I believe you are wrong on that.

You (1John) have a right to your opinions and perspectives; don't expect all other people to accept them.

I have proven beyond doubt that I live (on these threads) your assertion here.

Quote:
You ignore the fact that human reason factors into "getting understanding from God's word." You read the Bible through human eyes. This means your prejudices will influence your understanding of the Bible.

Which is EXACTLY why I realize or understand, that much of what you say is hypocritical. You are clearly imperfect.

Since I am quite open about my sin, how is your poition here valid or truthful or factual in any way?

Quote:
I feel there is no way you could possibly even see the "kind" of Christian that has in inward position about homosexualizing Christians. The gift of discernment.

1John, faith need not be belittled, to help people understand that different types of it are exercised.

Liars need to be belittled if that protects innocent people from those liars. Again, please read the Gospels.

What you say here is based almost completely upon "faith", not reason.

I have proven that "faith" in the Christian sense of it, can ONLY be founded on facts. That, of course, is why our adversaries try so desperately to "disprove" the reality of Christ Jesus and the Bible. Otherwise i would be a lunatic that believes that something can come from nothing. I have left atheism and anti-Christ positions long ago.

And WHile I don't agree that reason has the FULL answers, it is something that certainly cannot be dismissed or minimized, especially when it comes to COMMUNICATING diverse ideas, concepts or philosophies.

Oh that that were the case. I have proven that anti-Christians are far from using facts.

The "Christian" way of thinking, isn't THE ONLY way of thinking.

Re-read the Gospels and your point will be found wanting.

Quote:
1. There is no Holy Spirit.
2. There is a Holy Spirit, but Jesus did not send Him.
3. The Holy Spirit is deceiving real Christians.
4. The Holy Spirit is guiding real Christians but they are ignoring Him.
J5. esus did not mean that the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide all of the real Christians but a subset, such as the apostles only.
6. Real Christians are not mistaken about God's word; the Holy Spirit does guide them. Only false Christians can be mistaken.

As for #6: I and many other people spent most of their lives around Christians who were #6'ers. Unfortunately, many such people were often mistaken, and proved it regularly.

Were these human people or liberal/progressive/atheist/skeptics/agnostic perfect people?

That's not a putdown, it's an observation. They were as HUMAN and faulted as any other people.

But anti-Christians are always right.

I've seen many times where a reasonable but secular person could provide a better answer for many, than the so-called "spiritual" warrior person.

Why is that to be expected?

Quote:
Only you can answer your own questions. A Christian should stay out of your mindset.

Your opinion, 1John.

You have proven yet again that my assertion is valid. You now claim to be a former Christian.

I have tried to be as complete as possible. I think that these are the only possibilities, but if I have left any out, feel free to append them to the list.
I believe option 1.

Mc, you did an excellent job.

Quote:
End of story McCulloch. Butt out when the Christian response is asked for. I'll do the same when anti-Christ's are asked specifically for their opinion, since I can no longer see from the un-godly view. How can I be insulting you as what I am presenting is your stated position?

1John, the quote directly above... epitomizes the problem with some people and the religion they practice. Bigotry, arrogance and prejudice flow from an attitude like that.

Confidence usually gets a Christian attacked. I have proven that I am neither arrogant or "prejudiced" as all of my positions hail from experience.

I swear, that quote is worth cutting into stone, and displaying it as an example of what attutide to NOT display when communicating a religious idea.

The Gay Community and Culture shows what should be held out, displayed and never forgotten either. Yuck.

Quote:
The Christian Response to Homosexuality is that homosexuals are not going to "lead" Christians anywhere on the topic.

Where are homosexuals trying to "lead Christians"?

The sad thing is that (unfortunately) many Christians will be led by attitudes/paradigms like yours, and only notice a problem when a crisis presents itself.

The crisis of homosexuality is upon we Christians in ways we can no longer deny is presenting itself as the second most threatening attack on the beauty of the Church. We have noticed the problem and are trying to do something about it, but are being criminalized by all of the secular forces siding with homosexuality.



-Mel-

[Cathar1950]

1john:

I have proven beyond doubt that I am delusional. Graphic posts amd all. It is not I who will not look at facts.

Well you said something we can all agree with and support.

[melikio]

I wish more Christians were here to express their actual human responses to homosexuality. As it is, it remains fairly clear, that keeping my distance from most "Christians" is the safest way to be.

Not that I find Christ Himself to be abhorrent or ugly in any way, but that I do find the anti-gay culture ingrained in many "Christian" venues to be troubling overall.

The actual "Christian" response to homosexuality is "vast" and "diverse", indeed. That is, if we include the attitudes, mindsets, doctrines and dogmas of those who consider themselves to be "Christian".

In considering the dimensions of what actually should be responded to, or what the "right" response is, there is a likely insurmountable amount to address. It would actually make more sense having it handled on a case-by-case basis, rather than the monolithic dictates many today are apparently so comfortable with.

This SHOULD be a long-lasting topic, as surely ALL "Christians" (despite the Bible, and how it's interpreted) do not share the exact same view of what is right/wrong concerning homosexuality.

Be all that as it may, in the practical sense, most any person who is homosexual (especially if they are a follower of Christ) realizes that they must also "respond" to other Christians. And that response cannot always be based upon the conventions many draw from the Bible. For it is one thing to view homosexuality from a distance (disconnected), and another to deal with it directly as a part of yourself (the person you happen to be).

I can assure anyone, that they external stimuli provided by many anti-gay zealots, doesn't come close to the intensity of struggling with and tiring of the same on a near daily basis. Sure, while it may be easy or popular to stand and point at hedonism itself, that is certainly NOT all of what homosexuality is, not by any means.

So, those things which "Christians" must address or "respond" to are myriad. Again, it is rather comfortable to insist from a 3rd person viewpoint what MUST BE, but there are more things to consider overall than most individuals are capable of or willing to consider.

Many want to paint it ALL in black and white (right/wrong), and it truly cannot be done, likely not ever.

-Mel-

[melikio]

John,

Why does it look like I signed your post (#254)?

Is that a "formatting" error?

-Mel-

[melikio]

The crisis of homosexuality is upon we Christians in ways we can no longer deny is presenting itself as the second most threatening attack on the beauty of the Church. We have noticed the problem and are trying to do something about it, but are being criminalized by all of the secular forces siding with homosexuality.

No, this is not proven to be happening; why the distortion and hype?

Don't you consider yourself to be a "Christian"?

Why do you proclaim things that are not actually proven to be true, as if they are?

Do you understand the damage that you are doing spiritually (and socially) by promoting these distortions?

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

1john:
Quote:
I have proven beyond doubt that I am NOT delusional. Graphic posts amd all. It is not I who will not look at facts.


Well you said something we can all agree with and support.

I write a lot of things a lot of people have to agree with. Facts do that.

I'm glad my typo could make you so giddy.

I inserted the fact of my sound reasoning ability to correct my typographical quickness in the earlier post in my edit. Thanks for looking out for me. It was Christian of you.

[micatala]

The Bible does not condone or promote UN-repentance and certainly not NON-repentance..

The theme of repentance takes up much of this post.

Let's start with an area of agreement. Yes, I think it is certainly fair to say that Jesus calls us to repentance, and that this is also a major theme of the OT. The Israelites were called time and again to repent of their 'hardness of heart.' In the NT, we are asked to follow the law of love as the pre-eminent law. To repent in this sense means to forgo selfishness, pride, etc., to follow the law of love.

Repentance is an act of an individual in relationship to God. It is not something other believers can insist on, although it is something a believer can encourage another to do, if they are acting in love and for the good of the person they are encouraging to repent. I think this is clear from the NT.

However, to require repentance, it seems to me an act must proceed from a lack of love or a lack of faith or both. This means that the same act might sometimes be sinful, and at other times or for another person, not sinful.

Paul speaks of this in Romans chapter 14. One man eats meat, and another eats only vegetables. Each should be convinced
in his own mind that what he is doing is right. It is clearly not up to other believers to decide what is right for a person to eat.

THe measure is whether the person is acting in good conscience, in faith, and also being conscious not to act in a way to harm others.

I think it is very clear that asking all homosexuals to repent, or insisting that they must do so, runs exactly counter to what Paul is writing here. A homosexual act, if done after full examination of one's conscience, and in faith that it is right for the person in their own mind, is not subject to condemnation by other believers. It is a matter between the Lord and the person.

Calling for repentance of others and insisting that it must be done for a person to be considered a Christian or acting morally violates others rights, as outlined in the Bible, to stand in their own relationship to God.

If one wants to question or suggest that repentance might be necessary, for the good of the person, I see no harm in that. But to engage in blanket condemnation, ignoring that it is matters of the heart that God is most concerned about, I believe runs counter to the teachings of Jesus, as well as those of Paul.