[tlj009]

Yeah, just pretend everything is fine and lie if anyone asks you. That always works.

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there is no reason for anyone to know your business. And there is no need to share things with people that can't handle it. What good does it do to share something with someone who can only make things worse? It is much better to seek help and support from those who understand what you are going through and you know that you can trust them.

Ah, so I should probably stop wearing nothing but rollarskates, a speedo with 'Insert here' on the butt, a rainbow wig and those little fairy wings.

On a serious note... What does that mean? 'Advertise it?' It makes it seem like the stigma that attaches to gays is somehow our fault (though, to be fair, some in our particular tribe don't help the situation).

By "advertise it" I mean that you tell people. Or you make comments that would let people know that you are gay. Or, like you suggested, you take on the stereotypes associated with being gay. Point is that people can't look at you and know what you are struggling with. You have to let them know in some way. And there is no reason for the general public to know your business. So there is no need for you to live with the stigma of being gay.

[TunerSteve]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

Hey, I absolutely agree that the church needs to develop a proper response to homosexual believers and unbelievers. It's definitely a major issue that has not been properly dealt with by the church.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what my response would be to such a situation. I wish I knew. The cop-out answer would be to love without discrimination, but that doesn't necessarily provide a real, useful answer. It's how to live out that love in that person's life that is the issue. A person in that situation would, as we've seen by some of the posts in this thread, have trouble seeing God as good and loving.

Again, this is one of the many reasons why it would be easier if the Bible didn't seem so clear on the issue. It would be much easier for me to respond to a person in that situation in that case...

I agree with Skeeter. When attempting to discuss this with my brother who is gay, I really can't wrap my head around the issue, because the Bible seems to be quite clear on the issue. No matter what our individual stuggles are, as humans we often try to justify them. I know people that steal, and try to justify it in some way. I have known people that commit fraud from their employers and also somehow feel justified in doing so. I am divorced, and in all likelihood will remain single the rest of my life. I really don't relish the idea, but I also know that I am never truly alone, and quite frankly, I find comfort in knowing God's presence is in my life.

I certainly don't have much advice to offer, but I have gained tremendous insight in reading this thread, and thank the moderators for re-opening it, and for the participants for remaining civil.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there is no reason for anyone to know your business. And there is no need to share things with people that can't handle it. What good does it do to share something with someone who can only make things worse? It is much better to seek help and support from those who understand what you are going through and you know that you can trust them.

I agree, but often times those who you think you can trust, prove to be untrustworthy.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

It's how to live out that love in that person's life that is the issue. A person in that situation would, as we've seen by some of the posts in this thread, have trouble seeing God as good and loving.

I'm not gay, but I have a lot of trouble understanding God in light of this issue as well. I agree that from what I can see, the Bible seems very clear in its assertion that homosexual actions are sinful, and if I'm honest with myself, I can say that I don't like that aspect of the Bible. Hate it, even. It's probably the single element of my faith I most struggle to reconcile.

I've largely stayed out of this thread for fear of speaking out of turn, but I did just want to address this post by TravisR from a few pages back (page 6):

Originally Posted by TravisR

In my study of the scriptures, I have found that truth isn't quite as black and white as we sometimes think. We often believe things not because they are true or because we've arrived to these conclusions on our own, but because that's what we've been taught. We don't really question it and we allow everything we encounter in life to filter in through our preconcieved notions about what ought to be rather than simply what is. It's difficult to be objective about things when we work that way. Now, I don't claim to be above that - but I have spent a lot of time and put a great deal of effort into studying the Bible and earnestly seeking God's will. In reading the scriptures and through prayer, God has given me a peace that transcends my understanding (or lack thereof) and now I'm just moving forward with my life. I've never felt so close to God. I've met other gay Christians and have literally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit working through them. I know that God is doing something in the GLBT community whether the church is ready for it or not and I'm excited for it. To answer your question, I guess just my collective experience of all of these things has brought me to that place where I believe that gay sex is permissible within the confines of marriage.

I don't know you at all, and so I don't know your walk with God or what kind of peace you've reached with this, but I thought the bolded section of your post was interesting. Without making any accusations, I would encourage you to ask yourself whether the conclusions you've reached might be altered by this same filter and your own preconceived notions. Just as some Christians admittedly filter everything they read in the Bible through their preconceived notions that life and sin ought to be far simpler/black-and-white, couldn't someone turn around and do the exact same thing by filtering their understanding of the Word through their own personal longing to have their struggles alleviated (not that that's a difficult longing to relate to)? Again, I don't know you and can't know whether or not this is your situation, but like you said, it's difficult to be objective in studying the Word when we filter it that way, and I think it's a worthwhile question for all of us to ask of ourselves.

Also, I'll end by saying that it deeply saddens me to hear about the experiences Bryan and others have faced at the hands of church members. I will openly speculate that this is actually a serious consequence of what TravisR was describing -- a church culture in which Christians are simply taught that homosexuality is wrong (without even defining what that means), and are never really encouraged to talk about it or to gain a deeper understanding of what it means for a Christian to struggle with homosexual inclinations. It genuinely sickens me to listen to reports of the way some Christians treat fellow believers who are undergoing painful struggles in this area, and for any of you who have suffered from that, I hope and pray that God will lead you to fellowship with Christians who will love you enough to understand you and show Christ's love to you.

[tlj009]

I agree, but often times those who you think you can trust, prove to be untrustworthy.

True. But then I have my own trust issues to the point that I don't trust anyone. I guess that I don't actually expect the worst from everyone but I do consider the worst which leads me to not take chances by trusting them.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by TravisR

@Thrash: It just seems that we've become more focused on what the church does/doesn't do, who goes through what, etc. but we're not really looking any deeper into the actual passages of scripture here. I was quite interested to explore further the issue of whether all sin (perhaps including homosexual behavior?) could be defined by whether it violates the commands to love God and neighbor but it seems we have reached no resolution.

I agree. While it's certainly vital to consider how the church responds to this issue, that response should be rooted in the Bible.

Originally Posted by guitarguy90

How do you determine what violates the command to love God?

I think the answer to this can be found in the words of Jesus:

John 14:15 (New International Version)
If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 14:21 (New International Version)
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

It seems a bit circular, but I think we need to look at what God commands in scripture and seek to obey those commands, not out of duty, but out of our love for God. The central point then becomes, is homosexuality considered a sin in scripture. Does God command against homosexuality?

It is very clear that in the Old Testament, scripture commands against homosexuality. The oft-quoted Leviticus 20:13 is painfully clear:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Of course, there are many commands in Leviticus that are considered ceremonial or cultural. Leviticus 19:19, for example:

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; (A)you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

The question for the Old Testament command is whether it is a cultural or ceremonial law. The New Testament passages on the subject have been brought up several times already and others have gone far more in-depth than I am capable of, so I will leave that in other hands for the moment.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by TravisR

That's an interesting point I hadn't really considered. I will admit it seems more women do get involved in church these days than men (in general), but does that really mean that more women are Christians than men? I wonder whether we have any actually good numbers on this.

I couldn't give you anything more than anecdotal evidence. Specifically this: I don't know a single unmarried christian man. Lots of marrieds, none single. And truthfully, perhaps it's my age range, but I don't know any unmarried men, christian or otherwise.

Maybe I need to get out more.

My point, Travis, is that we all have stuff we want to do. And we all struggle with the flesh. I'm not unsympathetic to the situation homosexuals are in. I just really get annoyed that they (or anyone else) think they have the market cornered on suffering. The fact is, we live in a fallen world. We all are going to suffer in some degree over some aspect in our lives. If it was easy to walk in obedience, putting our flesh to death, the road wouldn't be narrow.

[Ted Logan]

Wow! This thread has certainly taken off since I posted last week. I've read every post since that time, but unfortunately, I don't have time to do the sort of research again that was required for my previous post. My intent, then, is to post here a (sadly, but necessarily) brief reply to some of what has been said in the hopes that my own argumentation can be evaluated more fully.

First of all, to Bryan: I repeat what I said before regarding homosexual relationships "hurting no one" - in distinction from Skeeter's agreement, I think your statement begs the question - in other words, you must assume it is not sinful in order to show that it hurts no one. If homosexual sex is sinful, then it hurts both partners by joining them together in sin. It further hurts (if it is sin) because the willful commission of sin despite warning and admonition has the effect of hardening the heart or searing the conscience. In other words, if it is sin, then your lack of feelings of "guilt" may be more the result of your actions (and a hardened heart) than a reflection on the morality of the act. This would then be an act of judgment against an unrepentant homosexual (as per Romans 1), rather than evidence against the sinfulness of the act. Granted, it must be determined that homosexual acts are sinful before I can claim that they hurt anyone; nevertheless, in the interests of clarity of thought, all of us should recognize that your statement is only true if your position is right regarding the morality of homosexual acts.

Second, regarding pastoral concerns. I agree that churches have done damage to a number of people, perhaps including those who are reading and posting in this thread, and perhaps some of those posting in this thread have contributed to that pain. There is no doubting that church communities must find ways to move forward that take seriously the travails of those who struggle against homosexual temptations. In response to those questions posed regarding suicide rates, loneliness, and poor treatment of celibate homosexuals in the Church, while these are certainly important issues that must be addressed, strictly speaking they are independent of the question of the morality of homosexual acts, and independent of the exegesis of 1 Cor 6:9 et cetera (at least prima facie). Unless we are willing to reject what appears to be the position of Scripture regarding the development of ethical positions (a modified Divine Command Theory, as I understand it) and move into a consequentialist program (which, I think, is unavailable to a Christian who wants to form an Ethic that is Biblical), these questions must logically come after we determine what the Bible says and what it means. The loneliness associated with celibacy cannot in itself overthrow sound exegesis (and I don't think anyone was arguing it could), and this means that, if the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is sinful, and therefore those with only homosexual desires must abstain for life and must not seek out the type of spousal companionship which others enjoy, then the loneliness which may attach to this fact must be dealt with in ways other than adjusting our convictions about the ethics of homosexual acts themselves. The alternative, which is to move from an unbearable hardship to the conviction that our understanding of the Bible must be flawed, should be rejected on the count that this movement excludes the possibility of the Bible speaking for itself. It is a consequentialist argument, and should be therefore suspicious to us.

Furthermore, while I fully agree with Bryan and others who say that I cannot fully grasp how hard it has been to deal with such loneliness, this does not throw one's exegesis into doubt. Neither, I'm afraid, does it guarantee that Bryan's struggle with loneliness was itself either (a) the fault of the Church, (b) caused by a celibate lifestyle, or (c) ameliorable only by ending his celibacy. Granted, I do not know your struggles, Bryan, and I do not know what lengths to which you went, seeking respite from your pain. I do know, however, that there have been others in similar situations who have found long-lasting respite in other ways (for example, living in community). Briefly, on possible ways forward without adopting Bryan's exegetical decisions:

• Smaller churches. In smaller congregations, where the Church operates like a family, there is potential for "family dysfunction." However, there is also an enhanced possibility for redemptive, community life. The isolation so often experienced by singles (gay or not) in larger churches is easier to avoid in a congregation where anyone's absence is noticed and where the leadership is intimately involved with every member.


• Recognition that loneliness is a serious problem, and not only for those who have chosen celibacy. Teenagers, cubicle-monkeys, those suffering from depression, the mentally-ill, the elderly, latchkey children, socially awkward persons, those who have developmental differences like Asperger's Syndrome, and the like, may all suffer from greater or lesser degrees of isolation and perhaps debilitating loneliness. Again, smaller churches have certain advantages in this regard, but there are other possible solutions as well. First and foremost, the preaching and teaching ministries must shape our hearts in such a way as to make us sensitive to the needs of our brothers and sisters. I can't tell you how many times I preached as a youth pastor about reaching out to those who are simply lonely.
  
  Yet we can't forget that loneliness is sometimes unavoidable, and loneliness upon arrival at home for the night may be the most difficult type, as Bryan mentioned. As he further recounted, however, moving back in with his parents was at least partially helpful on this point, which should remind us that there are levels and degrees of loneliness, and while I cannot affirm Bryan's choice to enter a gay relationship, I nevertheless affirm the propriety of finding types of companionship which limit the loneliness associated with celibacy.


• We cannot forget that there are others who, for reasons quite different from Bryan's, TravisR's, and Ridley's Own's, must remain celibate and without spousal companionship. I have a dear friend, for example, who is in his mid-30s and who for various reasons has not been able to sustain any type of romantic relationship. To say that "the door is open to him," as TravisR mentioned, is frankly laughable. His loneliness, however, does not mean that he is free to engage in what otherwise would be considered sinful, nor does it validate claims that our understanding of the Bible must be wrong in some way. Homosexuals are not the only ones who deal with an inability to fill the companionship void.
  
  The properly-functioning Church ought to be doing for the lonely what Bryan's parents did for him when he lived with them - we are a family, after all. This, again, commends the small Church to us (not of necessity but pragmatically), where strong familial bonds develop. Would this eliminate the problem? No, but it would mitigate it.


• We must recover a Biblical understanding of suffering, travail, discipline, and putting the old self to death. When we understand passages like Heb 12:1-13, 1 Pet 1, 2 Cor 12, 2 Cor 1:7, Phil 3:10, 1 Pet 5:10, and elsewhere, we begin to see a pattern regarding suffering for the Christian which is unpleasant to any of us (cf. Heb 12:11) unless we see it in light of an all-Sovereign God who is also our Father, whose discipline sanctifies us. The struggle against sin is a travail, and it is painful, perhaps it will even kill you. Yet it is to be valued rather than shunned. For the struggle against sin, the painful struggle, is suffering for Christ's sake. Again, this brings us back to the community of faith, wherein we are to be strengthened by the Word and by acts of love and kindness.


• We must not forget that the family unit, though it has long been the center of human community, is not meant to be so for the Church. Yes, families are the most basic community in the Church, but they are not the most fundamental community; that fundamental community is the Body of Christ, the Gathered Church, the solidarity of believers, wherein we find that my father is more fundamentally my brother, and my neighbor is my sister. The desire to have a family of one's own is natural and good; yet much more important is the need to have a community not of natural kinship and blood, but of the blood of Christ. Here the childless widow finds that she has a vibrant family, and the Church ought to be such for the celibate gay man as well.

I don't claim this brief list provides solutions which will be pleasing to everyone, nor does it seem to me that a lack of solutions to the problems addressed points to a deficiency in the exegesis of Scripture. One last plug for the small church, however - properly understood, such a church does not have the personnel required to create elaborate programs designed specifically for the celibate homosexual or the alcoholic. That, of course, is part of my reason for preferring the small church. Familial solutions, organic solutions, rather than assembly-line/segregative solutions, may often be of great benefit. Obviously, there are concomitant disadvantages as well.

Now, a brief response to TravisR's post to BSPE where he treats my earlier response.

Originally Posted by TravisR

I would not agree that Aaron has "well demonstrated" this idea as being unbiblical. It occurs to me that Aaron's argument is centered around the idea that the Apostle Paul was in fact quoting or alluding to Leviticus 18:22 when he coined the term "arsenokoitai" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and while I find the argument that he makes here to be compelling, it is less than conclusive.

I agree to an extent - any argument that appeals to background material must in the end be somewhat tentative. We could imagine that a future archeological discovery at Corinth would turn up a temple to Priapus that calls its priests "arsenokoitai," but of course no argument is refuted by the possibility that perhaps somewhere down the line new evidence might force us to change our minds. On balance, if you look at what we have, however, it seems that the arguments are strong and reasonable which link 1 Cor 6:9 to Lev 18:22 and 20:13; on the other hand, the arguments against this interpretation don't seem to stand. Is it possible that cult prostitution in Corinth is in mind in 1 Cor 6? Perhaps; but this seems unlikely at the current time.

Furthermore, of course, we have Lev 18 and 20 themselves to deal with, which was not the purpose of my previous post.

First, I want to point this out: Though Paul would obviously have been well-versed in the scriptures and Mosaic law, it doesn't make sense to me that he would be quoting a foreign law to Gentiles. I imagine these Corinthians would be little familiar with Leviticus and find it doubtful that they would even get the reference, if that indeed was Paul's intent.

Note the recounting of the establishment of the Corinthian Church in Acts 18 -

Act 18:1-11 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. (2) And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, (3) and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. (4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. (5) When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. (6) And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." (7) And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. (8) Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (9) And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, "Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, (10) for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people." (11) And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Later in the chapter, we learn of Apollos, another Jewish Christian, described as "competent in the Scriptures," who "powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus" (Acts 18:24-28). Apollos then goes to Corinth (Acts 19:1). Thus, what we have in Corinth is a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, with a Jewish teacher who uses the Scriptures (the OT, probably in Greek) to teach the Gospel. This little church had its beginnings in the synagogue. So, to say that Paul in 1 Cor 6 is speaking to Gentiles who do not know the Law is mistaken on two points: a) it assumes the Church is made up of Gentiles (note that Crispus, the synagogue ruler, became a Christian, Acts 18:8), and b) it assumes that the Gentiles did not know the Law (note that Titius Justus, to whose house Paul moved the fledgling congregation, was a God-fearer, a designation which implies knowledge of the Scriptures, Acts 18:7). Neither of these assumptions holds water. Thus, the substantial objection is negated. The pattern of teaching in Acts is precisely to use the OT in teaching Christian truths. Thus, such a background for 1 Cor 6 is to be expected.

The meaning of μαλακος wasn't under discussion in my last post. I was exclusively discussing ἀρσενοκοιται. The "problem" is a red-herring. μαλακος appears right next to μοιχοι (adulterers), and ἀρσενοκοιται is right next to κλεπται (thieves), but we don't think the word μαλακος must somehow be related to adultery, or ἀρσενοκοιται must be related to theft. To say that the two together refer to two aspects of cult or male prostitution contradicts the earlier contention that ἀρσενοκοιται originates with Paul! On the other hand, if we don't assume the two words supply content to one another, the Lev 18/20 background gives greater explanatory power to ἀρσενοκοιται, whereas μαλακος is free to be translated according to its meaning elsewhere in Koine Greek.

Also, I believe that I mentioned this in one of my last posts, but in the NIV, that same word "arsenokoitai", is translated as "perverts" in 1 Timothy 1. If Aaron is right, and Paul was obviously quoting Leviticus, than why is there this distinction? Why hasn't the word been translated consistently even within the same translation of scripture?

The translators may have simply been inconsistent (this is often the case), or perhaps two different groups of people worked on the different epistles (also common). Or, perhaps the committee determined that the context of 1 Tim was different than that of 1 Cor. In any case, this doesn't pose a particular problem for the meaning I have argued for. It just shows that there is disagreement on the point, which of course is not surprising to anyone reading this thread. There's disagreement on many things, but the fact of disagreement does not endanger a given position.

I should also like to point out that the first reference we have to "arsenokoitai" after its appearance in the New Testament is in Aristedes (125 CE) where it is used as a reference to the story of the rape of Ganymede by Zeus. Interesting stuff! If people in the first few centuries really took arsenokoitai to refer to homosexuals as we think of them today, why do we have this constant association with older men raping young boys?

This is rather uncontroversial; words are used in different ways by different authors. Was Aristedes a Pharisee trained by Gamaliel, steeped in the OT?

Second, I do not believe that people in the first century took the word to refer to homosexuals as we think of them today - that would be anachronism. Paul certainly didn't think of "orientation" as we do. The argument is that Paul had committers of a certain act on his mind - those who transgressed the prohibition against gay sex. That's all.

Third, the argument does not depend on how people understood Paul, but on Paul's own intention. As a Baptist, I have no trouble saying that the Biblical ideas of elder/overseer, justification by faith alone, baptism of believers only, the Lord's Supper as a memorial only, and many other things were obscured very quickly after the writing of the NT. To put it another way, if Jesus is Divine, why do we have the majority of the bishops siding with Arius right after the Council of Nicea? This kind of argument doesn't really say anything about the Bible, but only about those who read it.

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by tlj009

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that there is no reason for anyone to know your business. And there is no need to share things with people that can't handle it. What good does it do to share something with someone who can only make things worse? It is much better to seek help and support from those who understand what you are going through and you know that you can trust them.

By "advertise it" I mean that you tell people. Or you make comments that would let people know that you are gay. Or, like you suggested, you take on the stereotypes associated with being gay. Point is that people can't look at you and know what you are struggling with. You have to let them know in some way. And there is no reason for the general public to know your business. So there is no need for you to live with the stigma of being gay.

I'm sorry. There's something wrong with this. What your saying sounds wise and I believe you have every good intention - but the closet is a place of death. I just came out to my close friends, my family, and my Pastor all over the course of the last month and a half and it has been such a burden off of my shoulders. This isn't something I "struggle with" (though I did for many years), it is a party of who I am, and it is important that people are able to be open with others rather than being told to stay in the closet to keep others comfortable. Being in the closet keeps you from building true relationship with others. It cuts you out of the communion of believers, it keeps you from confession, it causes you to live in fear of what people would think or do if they knew. It perpetuates ignorance, which perpetuates fear, perpetuating prejudice, perpetuating hatred. Galatians 6:2 tells us "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." I think that carrying one another's burdens is the greatest act of neighborly love that we can commit because it is so sacrificial - and we can't do that if we're telling people to stay in the closet.

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

I don't know you at all, and so I don't know your walk with God or what kind of peace you've reached with this, but I thought the bolded section of your post was interesting. Without making any accusations, I would encourage you to ask yourself whether the conclusions you've reached might be altered by this same filter and your own preconceived notions. Just as some Christians admittedly filter everything they read in the Bible through their preconceived notions that life and sin ought to be far simpler/black-and-white, couldn't someone turn around and do the exact same thing by filtering their understanding of the Word through their own personal longing to have their struggles alleviated (not that that's a difficult longing to relate to)? Again, I don't know you and can't know whether or not this is your situation, but like you said, it's difficult to be objective in studying the Word when we filter it that way, and I think it's a worthwhile question for all of us to ask of ourselves.

It's a good point that you bring up. Even in the same post you had quoted I claimed not to be above that lack of objectivity and if I'm being honest, I think it is impossible to reach a place where we can be completely objective. Our worlds and the ways in which we see them are colored by our individual experiences. Having said that, I don't think I had a lot of "preconcieved notions" through which to filter the idea that it's okay to be gay and Christian. That was a totally foreign concept to me until just recently and as I was first going through the Biblical case for same-sex marriage, I found that it was very hard for me to accept because everything I read was still being filtered through the other point of view. It was very difficult time for me. Anytime I heard or read the words "sexual immorality" or "sin" in scripture I automatically associated it with homosexuality, even if it was a totally irrelevant verse. I bought into the idea that in "carrying my cross" and "crucifying the flesh" I had to sacrifice or give up those desires or "that way" of living to God. I can't tell you how much time I spent on my knees for years of my life begging God to change me and make me normal. What I eventually realized was that I was trapped in this vicious cycle of being angry at God, repenting, claiming that I had been "healed" or that I would never back to "those ways", realizing that I couldn't change things, hating myself, being angry at God again.... on, and on, and on. And I look back at that... and I think, wow. I really, really hated myself. We're commanded to fulfill the law by loving our neighbor as ourselves... and I hated myself. How could I ever love others as I love myself when I hated myself? And I don't say that lightly. I really just wanted to die. I felt I had no worth. I normally would never do something like this... but I just want to share this with you. This is part of a journal entry in an old notebook I have. It's dated March 4th, 2007.

Originally Posted by 3.4.07

Who am I? I've constructed walls all around me to hide my innermost secrets, but I am so desperate to have a friend close enough that they could see past those walls, tear them down, and not despise what's inside. I have no confidant. No best friend. No person I hold dearly enough and trust deeply enough. No one at all. And I'm so afraid of rejection that I can't will myself to reach out to anyone for that. So I've used this idea of God to try and fill that hole, but I need and I want a human being who is my age and shares my faith and goes through the same things I go through to just love on and be loved on and share with. I have realized things about my that make me hate myself inside. I feel incredibly worthless.

As I read over that... I'm so glad that's not where I am anymore. I'm so glad that I'm being open with people. I'm so glad that I have the peace of God and the joy of the Lord in my heart. I'm so glad that God has been so good to me. I love who I am and I have tremendous worth because God sent His Son to come and die a terrible death on the cross for me. That is the ultimate proclamation of who I am to God. That's the peace I have in my heart. And I don't think it comes from a preconcieved notion. This wasn't something I had ever hoped for or thought possible. This notion in me was only ever concieved through my study of the scriptures and my experience with the power of the Holy Spirit moving in my life and in the lives of other gay Christians who just love the Lord.

Originally Posted by Skeeter

I think the answer to this can be found in the words of Jesus:

John 14:15 (New International Version)
If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John 14:21 (New International Version)
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

It seems a bit circular, but I think we need to look at what God commands in scripture and seek to obey those commands, not out of duty, but out of our love for God. The central point then becomes, is homosexuality considered a sin in scripture. Does God command against homosexuality?

Skeeter, with this much, I agree.

Originally Posted by Skeeter

It is very clear that in the Old Testament, scripture commands against homosexuality. The oft-quoted Leviticus 20:13 is painfully clear:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Of course, there are many commands in Leviticus that are considered ceremonial or cultural. Leviticus 19:19, for example:

You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; (A)you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

The question for the Old Testament command is whether it is a cultural or ceremonial law. The New Testament passages on the subject have been brought up several times already and others have gone far more in-depth than I am capable of, so I will leave that in other hands for the moment.

In this, I feel you are misguided. Where are you drawing the distinction between cultural and ceremonial law? Why? That does not seem Biblical to me. Righteousness does not come from the law. Remember, the righteous live by faith. I think you should read Galatains 3. Specifically, let's look at verses 23 through 25.

Originally Posted by Galatians 3:23-25

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

We are no longer under the supervision of the law! Those commands have been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17), they have served their purpose! They are done! The old law does not apply - we are living under the new covenant. It's a radical concept, isn't it? By the way, Justin Lee describes this in his essay much better than I have. I don't know if you've had a chance to read through it yet, it is kind of long, but I think it would be of a lot of benefit to you if you did.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by TravisR

In this, I feel you are misguided. Where are you drawing the distinction between cultural and ceremonial law? Why? That does not seem Biblical to me. Righteousness does not come from the law. Remember, the righteous live by faith. I think you should read Galatains 3. Specifically, let's look at verses 23 through 25.

We are no longer under the supervision of the law! Those commands have been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17), they have served their purpose! They are done! The old law does not apply - we are living under the new covenant. It's a radical concept, isn't it? By the way, Justin Lee describes this in his essay much better than I have. I don't know if you've had a chance to read through it yet, it is kind of long, but I think it would be of a lot of benefit to you if you did.

I think you are misinterpreting me. What I am wondering here is if the commands have actually been fulfilled and served their purpose. Don't misunderstand me: I completely agree we are not under the law and that we are under a new covenant. At the same time, part of living by faith is loving God, which means obeying his commands. My reasoning in posting the verse from Leviticus is questioning whether God commands His people to abstain from homosexual sex. Under the old covenant, at least, God did make such a command.

Again, we are not under the law. But, as Paul says in Romans 6:1-2a, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?May it never be!" Just because we're no longer under the law does not necessarily mean that homosexual sex is no longer a sin. If a command from the old covenant is repeated in the new covenant, we must endeavor to follow it. If we fail, that's what grace is for.

To clarify completely, my point in posting that verse is that at God did make a command against homosexual sex in the old covenant. At the very least, under the old covenant, part of loving God would be to follow the command against homosexual sex.

[tlj009]

I'm sorry. There's something wrong with this. What your saying sounds wise and I believe you have every good intention - but the closet is a place of death. I just came out to my close friends, my family, and my Pastor all over the course of the last month and a half and it has been such a burden off of my shoulders. This isn't something I "struggle with" (though I did for many years), it is a party of who I am, and it is important that people are able to be open with others rather than being told to stay in the closet to keep others comfortable.

For the most part, people need to share their problems with someone. I wasn't saying otherwise. I was just stating that we don't need to share our problems with everyone. And I think that we are coming from two different places because you have decided that it is not a sin. I am still convinced that it is. So for you, you are not "struggling" with it because you have given up the fight. You have accepted it as part of who you are and therefore you don't try to change it. I see all sin as being part of who we are and I believe that we are called to change.

Being in the closet keeps you from building true relationship with others. It cuts you out of the communion of believers, it keeps you from confession, it causes you to live in fear of what people would think or do if they knew. It perpetuates ignorance, which perpetuates fear, perpetuating prejudice, perpetuating hatred. Galatians 6:2 tells us "Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." I think that carrying one another's burdens is the greatest act of neighborly love that we can commit because it is so sacrificial - and we can't do that if we're telling people to stay in the closet.

I disagree with the whole concept of staying in the closet. The term indicates actively hiding something. As if you are living that lifestyle, but are hiding it. That would definitely lead to guilt, and cut you out of communion, confession, etc. But if you are not living that lifestyle and have chosen to live a life of celibacy, then you have nothing to be ashamed of and have no reason for guilt or not to partake of communion, confession, etc. Furthermore, there is no need for anyone to broadcast their sins. Sins are to be confessed before the Lord. We are to carry each others burdens but not to burden others with our troubles. And trying to lean on someone who can't handle it is doing exactly that. We burden them with no chance of receiving help our self.

As for your comments on perpetrating ignorance, fear, prejudice, and hatred, I again think that it is because we are coming from two different places. All sin should be hated. We should also acknowledge that we all sin. So if we hate any person for sinning, we receive the same judgment. In short, fear, prejudice, and hatred have no part in a Christian's life. The trouble is that I have many times heard this terminology and when I do, it almost always is in reference to the act not being a sin. Examples of hatred seem to be about hating the person but the terminology seems to be more about defending someone's right to have homosexual relations. I think that there is a real disconnect there. Maybe that isn't what you were saying and if it isn't, please clarify. Because the way that I see it, keeping your struggle with homosexuality from the general public is no different that keeping a porn addiction from the general public. It is simply no ones business unless you choose to make it their business.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by TravisR

In this, I feel you are misguided. Where are you drawing the distinction between cultural and ceremonial law? Why? That does not seem Biblical to me. Righteousness does not come from the law. Remember, the righteous live by faith. I think you should read Galatains 3. Specifically, let's look at verses 23 through 25.

We are no longer under the supervision of the law! Those commands have been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17), they have served their purpose! They are done! The old law does not apply - we are living under the new covenant. It's a radical concept, isn't it? By the way, Justin Lee describes this in his essay much better than I have. I don't know if you've had a chance to read through it yet, it is kind of long, but I think it would be of a lot of benefit to you if you did.

And I would return it with Paul's clarification of those concepts. That is, that we are not to live anti-nomian lives. The pendulum of Scriptural teaching often swings between legalism and lawlessness; where we often pay no heed to the law, because righteousness does not come from its observation; or where we often pay no heed to grace and beat our bodies into submission to make ourselves blameless, all the while thinking God wouldn't accept us until we are blameless. The balance is where you rest on grace, but do not live by the flesh in exploiting grace. Grace cannot be exploited. Paul says that those who think so do not live according to the Spirit, but according to the flesh. He gives us a list of vices, not as a law, but as a general rule: "if you live like this, you know who you are".

You recall reading verses like that and feeling condemned, with the assumption that homosexual desires were sexually immoral desires. Where I am in one mind with tlj009 is in this: instead of sharing your struggles and seeking help for change outside of yourself, you admitted to it for the purpose of being accepted as one who will continue to do those very things which we know are wrong.

One thing I find in common with each of your stories is the demand, the begging to be released from it. My question is this: why is God obligated to meet your demand? God is not obligated to release you from it. Likewise to your situation, I call out to God to change me, give me a greater respect for women that I would not lust after them, that I would stop finding myself on porn sites, that I would stop watching all this evil that is desirable to my eyes. I call out to God in forgiveness. I feel dirty. I am tired of it. It destroys me. It also destroys me even more having it hidden, behind closed doors with no one knowing; with no confession or seeking restoration or help from others.

The wrong thing for me to do is to decide, since God has not released me from my lust, that God has given me a different preference from other people, where I just appreciate sex in a different way, where I see the beauty in some of the most intimate acts of God's creation -- to justify my behavior. And then follow that up by telling people of this behavior with the expectation that they should accept me by condoning the continuation of this lifestyle. Worst would be to change my "filter of preconceived notions" to consistently reinterpret Scripture and jump through semantic hoops and do exegymnastics to allow me to continue in surfing porn. Instead, I earnestly call it sin, hate it, call out to God, confess it to my friends, and try to eliminate it.

I do not think I am being unfair with this analogy. And I hope you don't think I am down-playing the intensity or unfairness your desires (which I think are sin), just as I hope you do not down-play my desires (which you probably think are sin).

[LinkH]

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

I'm not gay, but I have a lot of trouble understanding God in light of this issue as well. I agree that from what I can see, the Bible seems very clear in its assertion that homosexual actions are sinful, and if I'm honest with myself, I can say that I don't like that aspect of the Bible. Hate it, even. It's probably the single element of my faith I most struggle to reconcile.

I guess one question you could ask yourself is why you don't like that part of the Bible? Maybe it is because you have allowed yourself to be influenced by the world and to filter your attitude toward parts of the Bible through the 'morality' of this present evil age. If we watch TV or go to the movies, we are bombarded by this philosophy of the world regarding sexuality. It teaches us things like this: Sex is for pleasure. If you love each other okay to have sex. Homosexuals are a poor persecuted minority, persecuted for being different, and if they love each other, they should be treated like anyone else.

The Bible, on the other hand, shows us that sexuality finds it proper expression in marriage, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Is there any reason to think the Biblical understanding of things is something undesirable?

Honestly, I find the parts of the Bible about putting to death cities of Canaanites and Midianites, etc. to be a bit more controversial. But I know God was righteous in ordering it.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

I am just going to point out again that in the New Testament, Sexuality is only seen as good in the marriage relationship. It is not that gay sex is wrong and straight sex of the same type would be right. (someone you are not married to.) Rather, marriage is the only biblically appropriate outlet for sexuality. Jesus does define marriage as between a man and woman.

Matthew 19: 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Thus, it seems this is an exclusive relationship which is a unique case in Christianity. Nowhere in scripture is the idea of Gay Marriage so much as hinted at.

Romans 1 is a new Testament passage which regards homosexual acts as sinful as well. Thus, we have the New Testament calling it the result of denying God as creator,(Romans 1 does paint it in that light, putting it as a gateway sin to all manner of heinous sins we conveniently ignore, such as boasting, gossip, disobedience to parents, etc.) and only allowing sex in heterosexual marriage, and I really don't see how we can come to any other biblical conclusion than that the acts are wrong.

Do I wish that the church had a more pastoral response than this? Sure, but it seems to me, that not falling into sin is a huge deal. ANd besides, I will be honest, the church really does not have much of a pastoral response for those who deal with a lot of issues.

And I have dealt with that suicidal teen recently. To be honest, I don't know what to say. I can tell said kid has a lot of issues from unspeakable abuse at the hands of his mom. I can pray with him, try to show him the love of Christ, and from there... I really don't have a nice, neat answer.

But to me, I firmly believe that there is no temptation that takes us than such as is common to man, but God is faithful, and will with the temptation provide a way of escape that we may be able to bear it.

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by LinkH

I guess one question you could ask yourself is why you don't like that part of the Bible? Maybe it is because you have allowed yourself to be influenced by the world and to filter your attitude toward parts of the Bible through the 'morality' of this present evil age. If we watch TV or go to the movies, we are bombarded by this philosophy of the world regarding sexuality. It teaches us things like this: Sex is for pleasure. If you love each other okay to have sex. Homosexuals are a poor persecuted minority, persecuted for being different, and if they love each other, they should be treated like anyone else.

The Bible, on the other hand, shows us that sexuality finds it proper expression in marriage, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Is there any reason to think the Biblical understanding of things is something undesirable?

I have asked myself why this is something I struggle to accept, and I'd be naive to say that it hasn't been influenced by my surrounding culture. I also made it clear that I do believe that the Bible forbids homosexuality, and that if I am to live by the Bible, whether or not I "like" it is irrelevant; it is God's word and His law, and I can't just ignore the parts that upset me.

However, it is still a hard teaching for me to wrap my head around -- I'm not going to sugarcoat that. I believe (as others here have already said) that according to the Bible, a person with homosexual inclinations doesn't always operate that way by choice. God allows some to be changed, but some never are, and in order to live a Godly life, those people must live out their lives in celibacy, often battling their desire for romantic companionship every day because marriage is not an option for them. As someone who is engaged to a wonderful woman who I love with all my heart, yes, it is hard for me to accept that some people are forbidden to experience that level of human companionship, for reasons (at least in some cases) beyond their control.

Does this mean I just cut out the relevant pages of the Bible and believe whatever's easiest for me? No. But I'm certainly not going to apologize for struggling with it, nor for empathizing with the struggles of those it affects. Hell, I think the church could stand to have a lot more of that kind of empathy. I'll also be so bold as to say that I honestly think that the only reason a lot of Christians have such an easy time accepting this issue is that they haven't ever been faced with it or felt the need to examine it on a personal level.