Being gay not a sin?

9,256 Views | 161 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by AG @ HEART
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/columns/story/2019/mar/17/cook-bible-moand-why-being-gay-not-sin/490741/

Guys message seems simple .... Christians need to disregard the Bible .... it's just a book like any other book

What do y'all think?
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What a terribly formatted website inserting pictures and links to his other columns like that.

Regardless, I think his best point is that ultimately both sides of this argument (and many others) are just doing appeals to authority. Oddly, sometimes the same authority.

Also, we could also list many examples outside homosexuality where Christians disregard the Bible. Or where one group of Christians accuses another group of Christians of disregarding the Bible, it happens on this board all the time.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Meh. Not very intriguing. He minimizes the bible to justify his opinion. My guess is he doesn't minimize the part about love and forgiveness.


swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was about to call that article gnostic drivel, but then I remembered my friend's recent tweet.




So fine.
SquareOne07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Meh. Not very intriguing. He minimizes the bible to justify his opinion. My guess is he doesn't minimize the part about love and forgiveness.





Is that like where some folks minimize love and forgiveness to maximize their belief that homosexuals are icky unrepentant sinners?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Is that like where some folks minimize love and forgiveness to maximize their belief that homosexuals are icky unrepentant sinners?

Well, some folks then are misunderstanding how we are told to serve them.
SquareOne07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

Is that like where some folks minimize love and forgiveness to maximize their belief that homosexuals are icky unrepentant sinners?

Well, some folks then are misunderstanding how we are told to serve them.


I have a guess as to where you're going with this, but please, expand.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Same Sex attraction is not the same as being a person who practices homosexuality.

Also, a person who engages in any sex outside a sacramental marriage is considered to be engaging in grave sin.

The issue, often, is not teaching, but emphasis. The same people who would condemn the mere attraction as sinful would, probably, also call premarital intercourse to be "a bit of fun".

The problem also lays with how we operationally define "Being Gay".

Fundamentally sexual intercourse outside of marriage, or even a committed relationship, is, on some level, is the de-humanization of a person to a mere object of physical pleasure. Even if we stipulate a rite of matrimony for same sex relationships, sexual relations outside of it is, fundamentally, dehumanizing.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SquareOne07 said:

Frok said:

Meh. Not very intriguing. He minimizes the bible to justify his opinion. My guess is he doesn't minimize the part about love and forgiveness.





Is that like where some folks minimize love and forgiveness to maximize their belief that homosexuals are icky unrepentant sinners?


In a way yes. But I don't see very many writing articles to justify the hatred of homosexuals as if it is not a sin.

However nowadays simply stating homosexuality is a sin is seen as hatred from many.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Fundamentally sexual intercourse outside of marriage, or even a committed relationship


There is no such thing as a "committed relationship" in the bible. Sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman.

But your post is pretty accurate, there are many sexual sins that are shrugged off and not considered serious sins. I would propose to say we are all sexual sinners.
SquareOne07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Same Sex attraction is not the same as being a person who practices homosexuality.

Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The heart is just as important as the action.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SquareOne07 said:

So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?


All are viewed as sins in the church. I would propose that homosexuality is the bigger issue because people claim homosexuality is their identity. That makes it a deeper issue because people are saying it is who they are. As a Christian it is my desire for homosexuals to feel welcome at my church but it seems like in order for that person to truly feel welcome they would need to first deconstruct the idea that their sexual desires make up who they are fundamentally. Otherwise I don't see how they could handle the general message that is preached.


diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I have a guess as to where you're going with this, but please, expand.

Sin or not, no one likes to be considered "icky". This is what I meant. Not much more needed to expand upon.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

Same Sex attraction is not the same as being a person who practices homosexuality.

Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The heart is just as important as the action.
"Lustful Intent" being the operative definition.

I can be attracted to a person without the objectification that comes from "Lustful intent". If mere physical attraction is the same as looking upon someone with "Lustful Intent" we would all be adulterous.

I, would therefore, say that their is a distinction between being attracted to a person, even sexual attraction, and looking upon them with a "lustful intent" that is dehumanizing and objectifying.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?

it's a fair criticism in general, but a poor justification for one' stance on homosexuality.

I think you would agree that the Church speaks out on Premartial and extramarital sex pretty clear. However, I do think we give divorcees a pass too much. Personally, I think it's because many find their religious "revivals" during this trial of life and pastors don't want to squelch that. it does do them a disservice, though.

edit: to your first statement, perception is reality and we have to own that, but I don't believe it's as bad as it's made out to be. Churches already know that some % of their congregation is gay and isn't out to demonize them.

I think also some language needs to be agreed on as to what this means. "Gay", as many have noted, means anything from "Im attracted to same sex" to "this is a core trait of my existence". There are different answers to these.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry OP.

Gay Threads are a Seamaster thing. Find your own lane.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Quote:

Fundamentally sexual intercourse outside of marriage, or even a committed relationship


There is no such thing as a "committed relationship" in the bible. Sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman.

But your post is pretty accurate, there are many sexual sins that are shrugged off and not considered serious sins. I would propose to say we are all sexual sinners.
I use "committed relationship" in order to say that even if we discount scripture, we can still appeal to the fact that one night stands could, even outside of scripture, be taken as fundamentally dehumanizing and objectifying. So even with a stipulation of a rite of gay marriage or "committed relationship" we still have sex that is, while consensual, still dehumanizing.

I don't want to fall victim to the fallacy of an appeal to authority that the author of the cited article does not seem to place on scripture.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ordhound04 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

Same Sex attraction is not the same as being a person who practices homosexuality.

Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The heart is just as important as the action.
"Lustful Intent" being the operative definition.

I can be attracted to a person without the objectification that comes from "Lustful intent". If mere physical attraction is the same as looking upon someone with "Lustful Intent" we would all be adulterous.

I, would therefore, say that their is a distinction between being attracted to a person, even sexual attraction, and looking upon them with a "lustful intent" that is dehumanizing and objectifying.
But homosexuality is a sin. Being attracted (the heart) would be a sin, too. Being attracted to sin is a heart issue that needs to be corrected. Or else we are no better than Paul "as to righteousness under the law, blameless."
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

Ordhound04 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

Same Sex attraction is not the same as being a person who practices homosexuality.

Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The heart is just as important as the action.
"Lustful Intent" being the operative definition.

I can be attracted to a person without the objectification that comes from "Lustful intent". If mere physical attraction is the same as looking upon someone with "Lustful Intent" we would all be adulterous.

I, would therefore, say that their is a distinction between being attracted to a person, even sexual attraction, and looking upon them with a "lustful intent" that is dehumanizing and objectifying.
But homosexuality is a sin. Being attracted (the heart) would be a sin, too. Being attracted to sin is a heart issue that needs to be corrected. Or else we are no better than Paul "as to righteousness under the law, blameless."
Being tempted is not a sin...... This would imply that the mere temptation is sinful. This would mean, by your logic, that if I am attracted to an unmarried woman, I am sinning in my attraction until I marry her. This seems like purity culture run amok rather than any orthodox interpretation of scripture.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll also disagree. I believe that Jesus is talking about the action of choosing to feeding that lust while not breaking any explicit rules...thereby creating a "grey zone" in which sin can flourish. Jesus was stating that there's no grey zone. There was still an action he was calling out when he said "heart".
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ordhound04 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Ordhound04 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:


Quote:

Same Sex attraction is not the same as being a person who practices homosexuality.

Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The heart is just as important as the action.
"Lustful Intent" being the operative definition.

I can be attracted to a person without the objectification that comes from "Lustful intent". If mere physical attraction is the same as looking upon someone with "Lustful Intent" we would all be adulterous.

I, would therefore, say that their is a distinction between being attracted to a person, even sexual attraction, and looking upon them with a "lustful intent" that is dehumanizing and objectifying.
But homosexuality is a sin. Being attracted (the heart) would be a sin, too. Being attracted to sin is a heart issue that needs to be corrected. Or else we are no better than Paul "as to righteousness under the law, blameless."
Being tempted is not a sin...... This would imply that the mere temptation is sinful. This would mean, by your logic, that if I am attracted to an unmarried woman, I am sinning in my attraction until I marry her. This seems like purity culture run amok rather than any orthodox interpretation of scripture.
Hetero attraction is not sinful as it's natural to procreation. Homo is sinful as is beasts, children, family, etc. The person should work to have proper attractions and affections.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I feel bad feeding the troll. Carry on.
Ordhound04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To be Fair, Jesus is explicitly talking about hetro attraction in the cited verse of sacred scripture, so......

We can call some attractions, fundamentally "disordered", but to say that all non-normative attractions are sinful, in and of themselves in isolation, seems like a stretch.

We can look at an addict as a great example. If an addict has a desire for a fix, does the existence of that desire make him a sinner? I would say No. Now, if he acts upon his desire and "intends" to have a fix, then, yes, we can say he has sinned. That is the distinction.

I would contend that Jesus is not giving us a grey area, but that he is warning us not just about a fulfilled action, but of sinful intent.

In the same vein, telling a gay person that their attractions are "disordered" is very different than telling them those attractions are "sinful" and to "stop being gay".
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I figured this would become a debate on homosexuality versus homosexual conduct

If you read the article, he clearly Excuses Homosexual conduct

The take away from this is not that it is a sin, among many sins. He is basically saying it is not a sin,.

And even claims that he could match intellectual opponents verse for verse

And even if the Bible says it is, it doesn't matter. The Bible is just One book of many

A Nonbinding reference, if you will
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

We can look at an addict as a great example. If an addict has a desire for a fix, does the existence of that desire make him a sinner? I would say No. Now, if he acts upon his desire and "intends" to have a fix, then, yes, we can say he has sinned. That is the distinction.
How do you act upon your desire while also not intending it? The sin begins at the heart. The desire.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ordhound04 said:

To be Fair, Jesus is explicitly talking about hetro attraction in the cited verse of sacred scripture, so......

We can call some attractions, fundamentally "disordered", but to say that all non-normative attractions are sinful, in and of themselves in isolation, seems like a stretch.

We can look at an addict as a great example. If an addict has a desire for a fix, does the existence of that desire make him a sinner? I would say No. Now, if he acts upon his desire and "intends" to have a fix, then, yes, we can say he has sinned. That is the distinction.

I would contend that Jesus is not giving us a grey area, but that he is warning us not just about a fulfilled action, but of sinful intent.

In the same vein, telling a gay person that their attractions are "disordered" is very different than telling them those attractions are "sinful" and to "stop being gay".


Should it really be challenging to us if that craving or attraction is sinful? Why is it so bothersome? Do we believe there are limits to man's fallen nature, that we need to excuse anything?

What difference does it make if the thought of SSA is sinful (such as one man being attracted to another), unless one seeks to excuse it and include it in an identity statement?
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quad Dog said:

What a terribly formatted website inserting pictures and links to his other columns like that.

Regardless, I think his best point is that ultimately both sides of this argument (and many others) are just doing appeals to authority. Oddly, sometimes the same authority.

Also, we could also list many examples outside homosexuality where Christians disregard the Bible. Or where one group of Christians accuses another group of Christians of disregarding the Bible, it happens on this board all the time.


Irrelevant

is homosexuality a sin or not?

Is homosexual conduct a sin or not?
SquareOne07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sure are a lot of folks splitting hairs around here based on what they know to be sinful and not....
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SquareOne07 said:

So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?


What do you mean demonized? All I hear mostly is that they are ongoing unrepentant sinners, and as a result, they are prohibited from being in the clergy. And existing clergy cannot perform gay weddings


With regard to divorces, most people do not Commit the act of divorcing multiple spouses multiple times, in perpetuity, without repenting. If that's the case, they should be Prohibited from being in the clergy, and what not

With regard to heterosexual sexual conduct, that is ongoing, and the person is unrepentant, and they keep doing it anyway, then they should be condemned as sinners, and certainly not be allowed in clergy etc

SquareOne07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Captain Pablo said:

SquareOne07 said:

So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?


With regard to divorces, most people do not Commit the act of divorcing multiple spouses multiple times, in perpetuity, without repenting. If that's the case, they should be Prohibited from being in the clergy, and what not

With regard to heterosexual sexual conduct, that is ongoing, and the person is on repentant, and they keep doing it anyway, then they should be condemned as sinners, and certainly not be allowed in clergy etc




Ah, so the issue with homosexuality is that it's done so without repentance?
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SquareOne07 said:

Captain Pablo said:

SquareOne07 said:

So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?


With regard to divorces, most people do not Commit the act of divorcing multiple spouses multiple times, in perpetuity, without repenting. If that's the case, they should be Prohibited from being in the clergy, and what not

With regard to heterosexual sexual conduct, that is ongoing, and the person is on repentant, and they keep doing it anyway, then they should be condemned as sinners, and certainly not be allowed in clergy etc




Ah, so the issue with homosexuality is that it's done so without repentance?



Ongoing, Perpetual, without repentance.

You asked a question. That is my guess as to why homosexuality is so High profile.
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SquareOne07 said:

Captain Pablo said:

SquareOne07 said:

So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?


With regard to divorces, most people do not Commit the act of divorcing multiple spouses multiple times, in perpetuity, without repenting. If that's the case, they should be Prohibited from being in the clergy, and what not

With regard to heterosexual sexual conduct, that is ongoing, and the person is on repentant, and they keep doing it anyway, then they should be condemned as sinners, and certainly not be allowed in clergy etc




Ah, so the issue with homosexuality is that it's done so without repentance?



Is homosexual conduct a sin or not? If it is, And it is ongoing, perpetual, and there is no repentance, do you really have a problem with a person actively engaging in Homosexual conduct being denied clergy status, Or a church speaking out against it?

What should A church's position be?
Captain Pablo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The reason this article got my attention is this

It is not unusual to hear people minimize, downplay, or even ignore the notion that Homosexual conduct is sinful. But even in those instances, most Christians would even acknowledge, sometimes reluctantly, that Homosexual conduct is clearly prohibited by scripture, and is a sin...God loves everyone, right?

What is unusual, at least to me, is to see a proclaimed Christian come right out and say Homosexual conduct is not a sin in the first place.

And to be so dismissive of the Bible as an authority on this matter, and pretty much anything else
jja79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SquareOne07 said:

So why are the gays so demonized in our churches?

Why don't we equally speak against the divorcees? The ones who have sex outside of marriage? Even the adulterers?
You ever hear people jumping up and down saying look at me I'm an adulterer, or screaming about being discriminated against because they're an adulterer? Me either.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.