Outrage @ Outrage

[Guest]

I'm in agreement with JC. My post was about where our emphasis should be. We, generally, all agree that homosexuality is sinful and that homosexual marriage is a departure from what marriage truly is, as defined by God....but how should the church PRIMARILY go about addressing these issues?

I am of the persuasion that our PRIMARY way of addressing these issues is to 'get marriage right' in our own congregations. This makes us salt and light in our society. A SECONDARY way of addressing these issues is the political process. But the whole point of my post was that when we make the political process our PRIMARY way of dealing with the issue, we are destined to fail, ESPECIALLY when we're not practicing the 'righting of our own ship' way first.

We should do BOTH/AND, but in my observation a lot of Christians are just trying (or, more often, just hoping someone else will do) the political avenue while ignoring the in-house avenue.

[Guest]

You're right, of course, that the making of a law which would forbid homosexual marriage would not directly lead to anyone's regeneration.

However, the positive results of making such a law would go a long way in preserving "normal" family life as we now know it. Such a law could significantly slow the process of society becoming convinced that "homosexual practice in not immoral just because it's homosexual, any more that heterosexual practice is immoral just because it is heterosexual. Rather homosexual practice is just another lifestyle".

Unfortunately, this is already being taught to little children in schools under the guise of universal tolerance. Seven-year old children are introduced to books such as "Joey has two daddies".

As I see it, all of this will soon lead to society's total acceptance of homosexual practice. And what happens to such societies (beyond their moral degeneration)? Consider the once-mighty Roman Empire.

[_Sean]

Other than your strong initial reaction, I'd be curious to know which specific points you disagreed with. You may not like certain facts, but that does not make them any less existent.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize facts were presented. I mentioned several points already, but I'll zoom in on what what I call opinion instead of factual:

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior. He apparently assumes that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their usual sexual orientation.

This is simply conjecture. Mr. Wink could not possibly know what Paul knew. Mr. Wink is stuck because Paul condemned the actions Mr. Wink would like to condone and must therefore read into what Paul has written to try and make it say something that is not there. Additionally, saying that it is ok to perform an activity simply because your orientation was fixed early in life makes about as much logical sense as saying that if people are sinners early in life (or even born that way) then they are not condemned because they are not going against their nature. Now if someone was righteous at an early age, apparently it would be wrong for them to go against their nature and pursue a life a sin.

The amount of "choice" you have over your desires is not an excuse to indulge in them. The flesh and Spirit war against each other, remember? This wouldn't be mentioned if we were not expected to resist our "natural" desires.

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of genuine same-sex love.

What? Does this mean that same-sex couples have no sexual desire (lust) for each other? Then how on earth do they even know they are homosexual if they don't have lust for the same sex?

1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

I don't see an option for same sex marriage. Either remain unmarried like Paul or marry (the opposite sex) if sexual desire is not controllable.

Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species.

You don't think people noticed this before? The problem is that this statement is inaccurate. Animals that act this way are also heterosexual, otherwise they would go extinct. In other words, they are indescriminate. But that is the difference between man an animals. While we also have animal passions, we are made in God's image and are to reflect that in all ways. Including keeping the church pure from all sin, not just homosexuality. Some animals are killers, even of man. Does that mean then that man can kill if he is pre-disposed to from an early age? If not why not? Isn't that a good way to cut down on overpopulation?

Then he plays the overpopulation myth. The earth is not overpopulated. If you've done any amount of looking around you will see that there is plenty of unpopulated land to live on and food (if you don't expect everyone to eat like us overweight Americans, that is). The places that are overpopulated are big cities. We weren't commanded to live in cities by the way. Remember Babel?

I don't believe Dr. Wink, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary, would characterize Paul's statements as "foolish and idiotic". Perhaps he might use those terms for the way Paul's statements have sometimes been misused.

I meant "foolish and idiotic" as synonyms and was thinking of the the way Paul and James used the term fool, they used it about someone who did not know something. Someone who was ignorant or blind to the truth. This is what is being said about the apostle Paul by Mr. Wink in such a way as to reinterpret what he has stated to allow for (in this case, homosexuality) what Paul said was to be condemned. It seems Paul condemned the action itself. This is a difficult thing to get around, but satan will try to convince us of anything.

[Guest]

Excellent, Sean!

As for animal "homosexuality", here is an article that seems to render that supposition questionable:


The Animal Homosexuality Myth

[Guest]

Paidion,

Thanks for the link to the excellent article.

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Wow! This is quite a relief! Had a dog or two mount my leg before and now I know there are no homersexual dogs!

[Guest]

I am a bit confused as to what is being advocated here. I fully understand that we should uphold all the commandments of God.

JC wrote:

But whenever Paul condemned homosexual relations, it was always in a list that contained many sins and not of lesser gravity. I find it odd that we'd single one of them out when many of the people protesting this sin are guilty of the others Paul mentioned.

And:

You've derailed this thread because it was talking about gay marriage, not abortion. They are not the same thing and you are comparing apples to elephants. Perhaps you think the response to one sin is the same for any sin. I do not.

But aren't some of those things on Paul's lists even farther apart than apples and oranges? There is a similarity between abortion and homosexual marriage. I must disagree they are as apples and elephants. Both are abominable behavior, and both were once illlegal. Abortion is legal where it once was not, and homosexual marriage is on the way to becoming legal if the people do not stop it. On the other hand, some of the things on Paul's lists, such as hatred, anger, and gossip have never, to my knowledge, been illegal.

I have personally spoken out strongly, at the church we attend, against gossip. Can I not oppose homosexual marriage? I have never met Paidion, except here at the forum. My estimate of him is that he is a God fearing man, dedicated to following Jesus as best he can. From what he has written, I believe the assembly he is part of is like him. Can Paidion not take a strong stand publicly against homosexual marriage, unless he can straighten out a liberal church in his area that winks at divorce?

How can "the church" take a stand on anything, unless it is an institution as in Rome? Can't only individuals actually do that, in agreement with other individuals? Did John the Baptist need to straighten out the Pharisees before he confronted Herod regarding his marriage? And how "good" do we have to be to speak out?

I must say I have long been strongly persuaded that we can not make sinners live right by passing laws. Their hearts must be changed first. That is not to say, however, that we should not protest when attempts are made to gain official government approval and benefits for those engaging in that which God considers an abomination.

[Guest]

I must say I have long been strongly persuaded that we can not make sinners live right by passing laws. Their hearts must be changed first. That is not to say, however, that we should not protest when attempts are made to gain official government approval and benefits for those engaging in that which God considers an abomination.

Well expressed, Homer! This is precisely my position.

[Guest]

One of the things that has changed over the years is the kind of things our society attaches a stigma to. The stigma can be a powerful tool in determining how people live their lives. A prime example of this is the changed attitude toward divorce. As has been mentioned, if the church is a place where divorce occurs as frequently as in society as a whole, how can there be any stigma to the behavior at all? Among most people a century ago, divorce was a scandalous thing. And that which is stigmatized usually happens less frequently.

A good example today is the attitude towards those who litter the environment. There is a stigma attached. People think twice about throwing trash out their car window or littering the beach, particularly if they might be seen. Shacking up and having children outside marriage was once scandalous. The children were known as bastards. Now celebrities proudly seek publicity, and money for pictures of their out of wedlock children, and the children of our nation are taught something by this.

Once government officially approves and recognizes homosexual marriage, the legal restraint, for whatever it was worth, will be gone. And, perhaps more importantly, the stigma may be gone also. When a stigma exists for a particular behavior, there is less of it, and where the stigma is removed, you get more.

There is good in the movement concerning pollution of our physical environment. Far more lives are lost, here and eternally, and far greater is the cost of pollution of the moral environment. The AIDS epidemic is a prime example of this. And the fact that during the time period of the war in Iraq, about twenty times as many people have died on our highways in alcohol related accidents as compared to deaths of our military. Which receives the most publicity?

It is imperative for Christians to follow Jesus' commission to make disciples who follow Him in all things, but we fail to love our neighbors as we ought if we wait until the church is perfect before we speak out against moral decay in our society.

[Guest]

It is imperative for Christians to follow Jesus' commission to make disciples who follow Him in all things, but we fail to love our neighbors as we ought if we wait until the church is perfect before we speak out against moral decay in our society.

It's a different thing to speak out in the public arena against homosexual marriage verses say abortion because as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow Christians will end up looking like the persecutors and judgmental. Our argument is based on biblical standards yet we are trying to persuade folks who by and large don't accept the bible as the standard that society should live by.
I think you do what you can at the ballot box , you try to explain it calmly and as lovingly as possible at the appropriate venues but if we become to aggressive it will make us look like witch hunters and be counterproductive.
We must be as wise as serpents in this issue.

[Guest]

Hello, Homer. You raise very good questions. I don't say the church has to be perfect before speaking out, I'm only concerned with how we speak out. I say we speak most sternly to our fellow believers and allow more grace to the unbeliever. Paul said he doesn't judge those on the outside but will definitely judge those inside the church. So I say we start there.

I saw a bumper sticker driving to work today that said, "Heaven or Hell: Your choice." Is that a true statement? In my opinion, it is. But what affect will that sticker have on an unbeliever who reads it? Will they sense the love of God and the love that Christians have for all people? I'd say it would simply embitter the unbeliever.

I do wish that gay marriage and abortion were illegal. But I don't think protests do anything toward making that a reality. Maybe I'm just naive but when you hold a sign that contains generalized statements, it tends to alienate those you'd most like to win over. We have to ask ourselves at some point, "If society and government reject morality, what then are we to do?" I think we're at this point right now. Our message has clearly been rejected and will eventually move toward a degredation. If you feel that protesting sin to make it illegal will turn the tide, then please do all you can to make a difference. I'm 30 years old and know my generation very well. I see less hope in society and governement. A revival of the Spirit is what's needed and until that happens, the church needs to work to rid itself of divorce, abortion, greed and all sorts of sexual immorality. If sin isn't illegal in the church, why should it be illegal in society?