[quote]forlife wrote<<< I was actually referring to gay believers who choose to remain celibate. As long as they are celibate, would you feel comfortable welcoming them into your congregation >>>[/quote]Man this is a great question. However, God will have to make me independently wealthy and give me six more hours in a day to respond to everything I’d like to respond to here. The VERY short answer is that anybody who calls their sin SIN, a violation of divine law in agreement with God and is laying it on His altar as a warrior for His truth and testimony is welcome in my church. That would include homosexuality. I would go so far as to say (my considered opinion) that a person living by grace in victory of over this extremely powerful sin is storing up for themselves vast rewards in the coming resurrection for their stellar representation of the transforming power of the gospel of Christ. That would be in character for the God I know though I can’t point to chapter and verse per se.
BTW, I happen to know for a fact that He can and has freed member of both sexes to live very godly married lives to members of the opposite sex. No doubt about it.
[/quote]
In your view, is homosexuality inherently sinful? Or is it homosexual acts? If a person is openly gay, but doesn’t engage in homosexual acts, is he free of sin?[/quote]
You need to define “openly gay.”
The act is sinful. The same way adultery is sinful. You wouldn’t expect a church to accept someone unapologetically involved in an adulterous relationship. However, if that person resolved to stop engaging in that sin and do everything in his power to live a godly life, he should certainly be welcomed.
[/quote]
By openly gay, I mean someone that openly acknowledges his same sex attraction and realizes it is not going to change, yet is committed to following the precepts of his faith, in both thought and action.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I apologize for creating multiple threads, but I felt the other thread was accomplishing little except to stir up anger and defensiveness. The one thing I ask in this thread is that if you don’t have something constructive to say, please don’t post. I will hold myself to this same standard.[/quote]
Apology accepted.
[quote]First, I want to say for the record that I believe Christianity has much to offer the world. I personally consider Jesus to be the greatest of all teachers. If the world would follow his message of love, most of the problems we create for ourselves and for others would disappear.
So, is there any possibility of common ground with Christianity and homosexuality?[/quote]
What do you mean by common ground?
[quote]Let’s set aside the differences in Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality. Some Christian churches welcome people in same sex relationships, some welcome gays who are celibate, and some exclude gays entirely. Discussing those differences is not the focus of this thread.
Can we find any common ground?[/quote]
Well, I guess I suppose I can find common ground between Christianity and homosexuality, in kind but not degree. If we make both categories for a moment, the former and the latter both have the same objective goal. This is somewhat of a misnomer, as this goal is shared with all of humanity. It is not far from saying that we share common ground, but our paths are not similar.
Christianity, specifically Catholicism is that which allows man to find Love, and homosexuality has the same pursuit here. In that those who are homosexual desire love. G.K. Chesterton would clear this matter up by his often quoted writ, a man who walks into a brothel is looking for God.
All humans have an inherent and real desire for God. This is built into us so deeply that if misguided will manifest in the most destructive of manners. As G.K pointed out, with the man and the brother, that man’s first desire is for God. Though he manifests it in unworthy causes such as food, drink, excessive speed, prostitutes, illicit sex, gambling, and power.
It is first good to realise what gays are and what they are not. All people are children of God and are to be treated so. To do otherwise is to sin against God and man, a determent to one’s salvation and will bring utter ruin upon one. The Church and society in general has seemed to forget what treating someone as a child of God means. To love them is the commandment, though we have not forgotten that love is the commandment, we have forgotten what love is.
We have to learn all over again. Love does not mean we do not admonish, or bring justice, &c. It means we treat them with love, with Charity. Justice being charity, means that we recognize that people are not equal. We do not treat the murder as the victim, we do not treat the thief as one who has lost something, and we do not with hold admonishment from our brother when he falls.
Second, we treat them with the mind that all men are flawed, or better fallen. We have to be a realist in understanding that man is not perfect, he is fallen. To deny that he is fallen is to realise that he needs mercy. Mercy being internal orientated, but fraternal correction and justice being external orientation of Charity. As Kreeft wrote, we have to be bleeding heart liberals and head stuck in the mud conservatives. Though we have forgiveness and mercy in our hearts, fraternal correction and justice should not be ignored as that would not charity. But, it would be the opposite, its vice: hatred.
Homosexuals are no different from any other variety of sinner, at least not in kind. Some maybe different by margin in degree. This should be dealt with in particular, not in general, specifically individual. Though if a brother does fall publicly and it is prudent to admonish him publicly so as not to cause scandal it is just to do so as to allow for the sinner to bring forth good and prove sin is detrimental to others.[/quote]
Chris, good post. Would you agree that although all are not equal, all are equally loved by god?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
there are no indications whatsoever that Jesus would meet homosexuals with contempt. Only love and understanding.
[/quote]
Hippie-talk nonsense.
Of course there is.
Even the biblical Jesus showed little love for non-jews, expelled “demons”, and worked with this curious concept of “sin”.
Whores may be forgiven if they refrain from sinning, so it’s ridiculous to assume that homosexuality would have demanded less (“just continue with your wayward ways, my son”).
A non-jew homosexual (which is sinful or perhaps indicates a demon) who wouldn’t be interested in permanently repenting or having the demon expelled would have not been worth his time.
Don’t ask me what a proper bronze age diagnosis would demand for, exorcism, distance-healing, maybe just forgiving?
I don’t think that forlife wishes for Jesus to help him overcome his homosexuality?
Besides, Jesus affirmed the old testament and since we don’t know of any new deal for homosexuals, the idea of being able to integrate them into any kind of christian way is bizarre.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone was suggesting that Jesus would accept gays and tell them to “continue with their wayward ways”.
Some Christian churches don’t consider committed same sex relationships sinful, but I don’t believe anyone commenting in this thread belongs to those faiths (Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian).
What they did say was that Jesus would embrace gays who believe homosexuality is inherently sinful, and choose not to act on their homosexuality.
If you are totally focused on getting love from an angry, jealous, mesopotamian god, then I suppose the Bahai could have just the semitic monotheism for you.
To them, being and living as a gay person would be technically still a sin, but the whole concept of sinning is more personal.
Just a thought. By the way, won’t you respond to your thread?
@Houstonguy
That’s what you say.
Countless others sing a different tune.
Besides, Jesus proclaims at least three times -to my knowledge- how the old rules are still in place (Which made the Inquisition a very busy institution).
Also, the irony is that hippieverses like “let he who is without sin…” were among the latest, very much manmade additions to the canon (bible) of earlier Jesus-fiction.
[/quote]
Just because I’m looking for common ground doesn’t mean I share their convictions about homosexuality being inherently evil. I don’t believe that.
Also, I don’t believe it’s healthy to repress your sexual orientation due to religious convictions. I did that for many years. While many Christians would applaud my faithfulness in doing so, they also don’t know the price of living like that.
HOWEVER, I also am realistic enough to recognize that many gay men and women do believe in Christianity, in particular the Christian sects that consider homosexuality to be sinful.
The common ground we’re discussing here is for the benefit of that population. If believers can genuinely accept gay brothers and sisters into their congregations, rather than judging and disparaging them, their path will be a little easier. If Christians recognize that people can’t change their orientation, but are still able to control their thoughts and behavior, then at least they won’t guilt gays into entering damaging reparative therapy programs.
Gay believers have a heavy cross to bear, and anything we can do to make that cross lighter is a service.
[quote]forlife wrote<<< I was actually referring to gay believers who choose to remain celibate. As long as they are celibate, would you feel comfortable welcoming them into your congregation >>>[/quote]Man this is a great question. However, God will have to make me independently wealthy and give me six more hours in a day to respond to everything I’d like to respond to here. The VERY short answer is that anybody who calls their sin SIN, a violation of divine law in agreement with God and is laying it on His altar as a warrior for His truth and testimony is welcome in my church. That would include homosexuality. I would go so far as to say (my considered opinion) that a person living by grace in victory of over this extremely powerful sin is storing up for themselves vast rewards in the coming resurrection for their stellar representation of the transforming power of the gospel of Christ. That would be in character for the God I know though I can’t point to chapter and verse per se.
BTW, I happen to know for a fact that He can and has freed member of both sexes to live very godly married lives to members of the opposite sex. No doubt about it.
[/quote]
In your view, is homosexuality inherently sinful? Or is it homosexual acts? If a person is openly gay, but doesn’t engage in homosexual acts, is he free of sin?[/quote]
You need to define “openly gay.”
The act is sinful. The same way adultery is sinful. You wouldn’t expect a church to accept someone unapologetically involved in an adulterous relationship. However, if that person resolved to stop engaging in that sin and do everything in his power to live a godly life, he should certainly be welcomed.
[/quote]
By openly gay, I mean someone that openly acknowledges his same sex attraction and realizes it is not going to change, yet is committed to following the precepts of his faith, in both thought and action.
[/quote]
Sounds fine to me. I personally know someone like this, one of my mom’s best friends. He was actually very close to entering seminary (this was about eight years ago) and finally decided against it for reasons he kept private. He’s a very strong Catholic and just a shade less obviously gay than Buddy Cole.
[quote]forlife wrote<<< I was actually referring to gay believers who choose to remain celibate. As long as they are celibate, would you feel comfortable welcoming them into your congregation >>>[/quote]Man this is a great question. However, God will have to make me independently wealthy and give me six more hours in a day to respond to everything I’d like to respond to here. The VERY short answer is that anybody who calls their sin SIN, a violation of divine law in agreement with God and is laying it on His altar as a warrior for His truth and testimony is welcome in my church. That would include homosexuality. I would go so far as to say (my considered opinion) that a person living by grace in victory of over this extremely powerful sin is storing up for themselves vast rewards in the coming resurrection for their stellar representation of the transforming power of the gospel of Christ. That would be in character for the God I know though I can’t point to chapter and verse per se.
BTW, I happen to know for a fact that He can and has freed member of both sexes to live very godly married lives to members of the opposite sex. No doubt about it.
[/quote]
In your view, is homosexuality inherently sinful? Or is it homosexual acts? If a person is openly gay, but doesn’t engage in homosexual acts, is he free of sin?[/quote]
You need to define “openly gay.”
The act is sinful. The same way adultery is sinful. You wouldn’t expect a church to accept someone unapologetically involved in an adulterous relationship. However, if that person resolved to stop engaging in that sin and do everything in his power to live a godly life, he should certainly be welcomed.
[/quote]
By openly gay, I mean someone that openly acknowledges his same sex attraction and realizes it is not going to change, yet is committed to following the precepts of his faith, in both thought and action.
[/quote]
Sounds fine to me. I personally know someone like this, one of my mom’s best friends. He was actually very close to entering seminary (this was about eight years ago) and finally decided against it for reasons he kept private. He’s a very strong Catholic and just a shade less obviously gay than Buddy Cole. ;)[/quote]
Lol. I actually think the Catholic church provides a healthier option for gay members than most, by virtue of the call to celibacy. By celebrating celibacy and giving people a channel for their faith and passions, the church gives gays a potential place of respect in its hierarchy.
At least, I thought that until reading Chris’s post today about the church disallowing gays from entering the clergy a few years ago. I think that’s unfortunate, especially for faithful gay members who have never sinned according to church standards.
If they keep their sexuality to themselves, I assume they can still serve as priests? Is the same restriction in place for nuns?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:<<< Show me some verses rather than your conjecture to back your view.
[/quote]The whole chapter, but don’t miss verse 12. 1 Corinthians 5 NASB 1995
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, good post. Would you agree that although all are not equal, all are equally loved by god?[/quote]
No, Jesus loved Peter the most, then John and James - Sons of Thunder - second and third when it came to the Apostles (probably in the world accept his mother). Though the most beloved was his Mother, and Mary Magdalene was the second most loved woman by Jesus.
This means the four most loved people on earth by Jesus (after his mum) was a rowdy and wild fisherman who wasn’t scared to cut off a man’s ear to start the new Jewish Kingdom, an ex-prostitute, and two zealous Jewish boys who attempted to call down an otherwise angelic airstrike upon a Samaritan village for lack of hospitality (don’t forget a nagging Jewish mother).
I’m sure they’d do just swell in an inner city ministry.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chris, good post. Would you agree that although all are not equal, all are equally loved by god?[/quote]
No, Jesus loved Peter the most, then John and James - Sons of Thunder - second and third when it came to the Apostles (probably in the world accept his mother). Though the most beloved was his Mother, and Mary Magdalene was the second most loved woman by Jesus.
This means the four most loved people on earth by Jesus (after his mum) was a rowdy and wild fisherman who wasn’t scared to cut off a man’s ear to start the new Jewish Kingdom, an ex-prostitute, and two zealous Jewish boys who attempted to call down an otherwise angelic airstrike upon a Samaritan village for lack of hospitality (don’t forget a nagging Jewish mother).
I’m sure they’d do just swell in an inner city ministry.[/quote]
Sounds like a flaming gay priest would fit right in with Jesus and his beloved motley band of believers
@forlife:
He might be disqualified only if the people in his parish knew about this, and this not due to any fault of his, but because people might have too many doubts and start talking behind his back, not trust him etc. (that is, because the people aren’t virtuous and think the worst of others. OTOH, if someone is “known” as “gay”, wouldn’t everyone understand that this means he has/had sex with another man/men?)
He most probably could be a priest if nobody (except, say, his bishop and other such) knew.
Regarding sexual purity: yes, priests are held to very high standards (then again, these standards apply to every Christian, just that most every sin is less of a sin for John Doe than it is for Father John).
In a way, this is more a kind of ritual purity, i.e. he couldn’t be ordained into priesthood, but he could actually be(come) as virtuous as anyone else (priests, monks, bishops included).
(reminder: in Eastern Orthodoxy - and Catholicism, if they still hold the Canon law - extramarital sex - pre- and adultery ; homosexuality - acted upon*; murder - even in war or in self defense, which aren’t considered sinful, but stain one’s hands with blood; all of these prevent ordination) (*why would someone who feels attraction towards the same sex but refuses to act on it be considered a sinner? That’d be retarded - i.e. considering him a sinner. Feeling temptation is unavoidable, acting on temptation, is)
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote: @forlife:
He might be disqualified only if the people in his parish knew about this, and this not due to any fault of his, but because people might have too many doubts and start talking behind his back, not trust him etc. (that is, because the people aren’t virtuous and think the worst of others. OTOH, if someone is “known” as “gay”, wouldn’t everyone understand that this means he has/had sex with another man/men?)
He most probably could be a priest if nobody (except, say, his bishop and other such) knew.
Regarding sexual purity: yes, priests are held to very high standards (then again, these standards apply to every Christian, just that most every sin is less of a sin for John Doe than it is for Father John).
In a way, this is more a kind of ritual purity, i.e. he couldn’t be ordained into priesthood, but he could actually be(come) as virtuous as anyone else (priests, monks, bishops included).
(reminder: in Eastern Orthodoxy - and Catholicism, if they still hold the Canon law - extramarital sex - pre- and adultery ; homosexuality - acted upon*; murder - even in war or in self defense, which aren’t considered sinful, but stain one’s hands with blood; all of these prevent ordination) (*why would someone who feels attraction towards the same sex but refuses to act on it be considered a sinner? That’d be retarded - i.e. considering him a sinner. Feeling temptation is unavoidable, acting on temptation, is)[/quote]
To be clear, I’m talking about a faithful member who had same sex attractions but never acted on them. If others knew about his sexual orientation, but he was 100% faithful in thought and deed, could he still be ordained as a priest?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:<<< Show me some verses rather than your conjecture to back your view.
[/quote]The whole chapter, but don’t miss verse 12. 1 Corinthians 5 NASB 1995
[/quote]
Are you suggesting these scriptures hold homosexuality to a different level than other sins?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sounds like a flaming gay priest would fit right in with Jesus and his beloved motley band of believers
[/quote]
Eh, I don’t think so. If you look at the “composition” of the character of his friends, they went from left of center no bodies to what people today would consider “bad” religious people. I don’t see it but I guess some people think that if someone has conviction of their religion they are bad.
They were zealots though, they hadn’t learned charity (though Mary was pretty good at it, but we can chalk that up from being saved from being stoned and being a woman). The difference between that and a priest who is open about his SSA is that the priest would be going against what Jesus taught, while the rest can possibly be accused of over-simplifying his teachings and missing the entire picture.
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote: OTOH, if someone is “known” as “gay”, wouldn’t everyone understand that this means he has/had sex with another man/men?)
[/quote]
If a man is straight, does that mean that everyone understands that this means he has/had sex with a woman/women?
Priests who are not open about their SSA fare better than priests who are open about their SSA, and priests that do not have SSA at all fare the best. This is obvious from the large percent of sexual abuse cases being by priests open about their SSA.
This is partially the reason why those with SSA have been refused to be allowed to enter the seminary to become a priest.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:<<< Show me some verses rather than your conjecture to back your view.
[/quote]The whole chapter, but don’t miss verse 12. 1 Corinthians 5 NASB 1995
[/quote]
Are you suggesting these scriptures hold homosexuality to a different level than other sins?[/quote]
What you don’t believer there is discrimination between different sins?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:<<< Show me some verses rather than your conjecture to back your view.
[/quote]The whole chapter, but don’t miss verse 12. 1 Corinthians 5 NASB 1995
[/quote]
Are you suggesting these scriptures hold homosexuality to a different level than other sins?[/quote] I’m not suggesting anything. Paul is commanding (by way of a rhetorical question) TO judge and withhold fellowship from (not associate with) those inside the visible church, those claiming Christ’s name, who are in flagrant unrepentent sin of all sorts. 11b-13 (Caps as per the NASB translation crew indicating a quotation from the OT.) “any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-not even to eat with such a one. 12-For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13-But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” Agree or disagree? Since you are here boldly proclaiming what appears at least to be a high view of the inspiration and authority of the Christian scriptures.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sounds like a flaming gay priest would fit right in with Jesus and his beloved motley band of believers
[/quote]
Eh, I don’t think so. If you look at the “composition” of the character of his friends, they went from left of center no bodies to what people today would consider “bad” religious people. I don’t see it but I guess some people think that if someone has conviction of their religion they are bad.
They were zealots though, they hadn’t learned charity (though Mary was pretty good at it, but we can chalk that up from being saved from being stoned and being a woman). The difference between that and a priest who is open about his SSA is that the priest would be going against what Jesus taught, while the rest can possibly be accused of over-simplifying his teachings and missing the entire picture.[/quote]
Why would the priest be going against what Jesus taught? We’re talking about a priest who, despite being attracted to people of the same gender, controls his thoughts and actions according to what the Catholic church believes Jesus taught.
[quote]forlife wrote:
HOWEVER, I also am realistic enough to recognize that many gay men and women do believe in Christianity, in particular the Christian sects that consider homosexuality to be sinful.
The common ground we’re discussing here is for the benefit of that population. If believers can genuinely accept gay brothers and sisters into their congregations, rather than judging and disparaging them, their path will be a little easier.
[/quote]
that’s a nice pile of cognitive dissonance there.
How will real christians ever be able to truly accept homosexuals?
It is for instance debatable whether women should be completly at their husband’s mercy, because the holy text is somewhat ambiguous with that topic.
But the scripture itself condemns homosexual extremely harshly multiple times.
It’s very, extremely clear.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If Christians recognize that people can’t change their orientation, but are still able to control their thoughts and behavior, then at least they won’t guilt gays into entering damaging reparative therapy programs.
Gay believers have a heavy cross to bear, and anything we can do to make that cross lighter is a service.
[/quote]
Let me honestly tell you,what you ask is wether to tread upon the path of needles or the path of pins, when instead your feet could peregrinate on grass or leaves.
You’ll never achieve anything then a shaky compromise.
These two views -archaic vs modern, liberally educated- aren’t reconcilable.
The thing is, there seems to be nothing bad in having, as you say, gay believers (as bizarre as that sounds) find a little christian haven.
But what it would do foremost is strengthen the side, that, if gained enough momentum, will, once more, try to oppress, condemn and burn our world right into another dark age.
There’s greener grasses and friendlier pastures, not only for gays but also for the rest of humanity. Let’s go there.
To be clear, I’m talking about a faithful member who had same sex attractions but never acted on them. If others knew about his sexual orientation, but he was 100% faithful in thought and deed, could he still be ordained as a priest?[/quote]
Depends on those others. Some people just aren’t educated enough etc. to understand. If it were a village full of simple people (not saying this in a derogatory manner), probably not. If those others understand that his attraction is a desire he doesn’t act upon, I’d guess that he might be.
It depends on the bishops best judgment, whether people knowing of his SSA would “stumble” (or how much they would) because of this. The priest, apart from his virtue, must be trusted by his parishioners in order to be able to do his “job”. (talking about parish priests, here. If he were in a monastery…or simply choose to serve somewhere else… based on Canon, he would be certainly ordained)
Better and shorter: he could be ordained, but probably he couldn’t serve (I don’t know the English term for this) in the parish where his SSA is known. “probably” and “couldn’t”, depending on the parishioners.
Now, while “sins of the flesh” ARE in a different category (and, indeed, of a greater gravity. Here included are fornication, adultery, bestiality, sodomy. Masturbation is oh-so-much smaller), of course murder and sadism, for example, or renouncing one’s faith, are much worse.
And, homosexuality is as bad as adultery. (sometimes, adultery might be considered worse)
yep, homosexuality will not, EVER, stop being a sin. Neither will adultery. Neither will premarital sex. “Accepting” can only mean that people understand this is nor better nor worse than adultery, and that if they’re lieing, wife-beating, conniving…creatures… they’re not better than a “homosexual” just because they don’t have sex with the same sex.
