Why is it so hard to have a dialogue about homosexuality?

[cool_name123]

Please Read What My Question Actually Is Before Responding to The Title of this Post


So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

Hello, I am new, and may have an answer for you. Before I give you my answer, I would like you to know a few things about me, so that any potential prejudices can be swept away before anyone's minds exploded with prejudice.

I am a white male, liberal Christian (Isaiah 32 declares we should be liberal, if we intend to be ones who stand uprightly). I am pro-life, pro-gun. I believe homosexuality is *likely* a sin. I am fundamental, and take the Word of God at face value, and accept all that it declares.

So with that disclaimer, allow me to give you an answer that may be the best answer you have heard:

The reason you have a hard time getting to the bottom of discussions with people may be because of a hardness of heart in which they refuse to accept what scripture teaches because their heart does not wish to hear that homosexuals can be saved even if they remain homosexual, even in their practices, to the day they die.

That is a hardly reality for people to accept, and so they will do whatever they can, doctrinally, to deny that reality. They plain and simply do not wish to hear that such a thing could be true.

So, allow me to explain why I believe homosexuals, *if they truly believe in Jesus as their God and Saviour who rose from the dead*, are saved....even if they never repent....even if they continue in sin all the rest of their days.

What is the Gospel Message?

The Gospel Message is that man is weak, God is strong, and that His Grace is sufficient for our salvation no matter how great our sins...all paid for by the blood of Jesus at the cross.

Now, if a man, for example a Catholic, argues that good works are required, or that we must stop sinning....or for example a Protestant argues a man must repent...in order to see salvation....their doctrines are not found in scripture. Their doctrines are, infact, heresy. But because God's Grace is always sufficient for those who believe in Jesus...He saves the Catholic, He saves the Protestant, He saves the heretic....not because of their doctrines, but inspite of their doctrinal errors.

The simple reality is that God's Grace extends much further beyond the bounds of any doctrines that any sect has ever constructed.

There is no scripture which states a man must repent as a requirement to be saved.

There is no scripture which states a man must have faith as a requirement to be saved.

There is no scripture which states a man must do good works to be saved.

There is no scripture which states a man must stop sinning to be saved.

These are all doctrines constructed by mankind when we read scripture which talks about repentance, or about good works, or about faith. But those scriptures, if you go back and look carefully, do *NOT* say that such things are requirements to obtain salvation.

Now, don't get me wrong....

Repentance is a good thing. Faith is a good thing. Good works is a good thing. Remission of sin is a good thing. And one who desires God would do well to seek such things.

But as far as God's Doctrine of Grace goes...well...here is the scriptures to prove it:

Romans 10

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

(Notice this is an explicit declaration of Salvation Doctrine, and no other requirements are added unto this).

By what reason?

Ephesians 2:8

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

(Notice it does not say saved by faith. Faith does not save. At least not our faith. The only faith that saves is God's faith towards us.)

And why?

Romans 11:6

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

And why must it be this way?

1 Corinthians 1

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

And what is the proof of being able to discern who is saved by God and who is not saved by God?

1 Corinthians 12

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

So if a man willingly testifies Romans 10:9 as his pillar of belief....then you should always know that that particular man is a Christian and saved. There are no exceptions to this, really. Some people argue "even the demons believe Jesus is who He is" as a counter-argument. But demons are not mankind. Its not a valid counter argument.

If a Mormon believes Jesus is God and Saviour who rose from the dead, a Mormon will be saved inspite of his church's false doctrines.

If a Catholic believes Jesus is God and Saviour who rose from the dead, a Catholic will be saved inspite of his church's false doctrines.

If a Calvinist believes Jesus is God and Saviour who rose from the dead, a Catholic will be saved inspite of his church's false doctrines.

If an Arminianist believes Jesus is God and Saviour who rose from the dead, the Arminianist will be saved inspite of his false doctrines.

If a Muslim believes Jesus is God and Saviour who rose from the dead, a Muslim will be saved inspite of his religion's false doctrines.

Even if they never stop naming themselves as Mormons, Catholics, Calvinists, Arminianists, Muslims, etc.

Even if they never stop believing in the doctrines of those sects.

There is a scripture which proves all these things, and names only one exception:

Mark 3

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Thus, the one person you do not want to be...is the person that says "XYZ person is not a Christian" after they have already declared their belief in Romans 10:9 wholeheartedly.

Unfortunately, many people do this. They do this against other sects, and they do this against other sinners because of their type of sin.

Homosexuals have it particularly hard because so many sects teach homosexuals cannot be saved if they remain in their sin. There is no scripture which declares this.

(There is scripture which says there are many homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, and those who deal in magic and pharmacology who will be in Hell...but it does not declare that *all* people who are guilty of those sins go to Hell. It just simply declares there are many who do end up there. Reasoning therefore suggests that many end up not believing in Jesus. But those who believe in Jesus will be saved. Scripture also declares there are indeed judgments against those of us who live in sin. But it does not declare those judgments to be a stripping of salvation. People have misinterpreted those scriptures and argued they say things that they do not say. In essence, they have added and taken away from the Word of God in order to convince themselves of their own convictions against others. In so doing...they have lost their ability to feel Grace. They are still under God's Grace, but they are unable to perceive it.)

So how should we treat homosexuality?

Well, within the full context of the Bible.

1) We should not be harsh towards them, nor deny them of their belief in Jesus.

2) We should not demand repentance in order to obtain salvation, for such a thing is false doctrine.

3) We should remind them that repentance is good, whether it be of their homosexual nature, or of other sins...whatever they are able to do...they should do it. And whatever they are not able to do...they are forgiven under His Grace.

4) We should remember that scripture says "It is not good for man to be alone" and we should treat their testimony with respect, assuming that what they say in their heart is true: Namely...that they were born gay. Scripture *does* actually declare that God makes us all the way we all are, each to our own faults and weaknesses. One is born gay, while another is born full of pride. One is born an adulterer, while another is born a drunk. And all are forgiven, even if they do not believe in Jesus (but not all who are forgiven....are saved. For salvation depends upon their belief in Jesus).

Matthew 12:31 proves that all sins are forgiven, even of those who deny Jesus. But though all of mankind's sins are forgiven, we are all still appointed to die once. And anyone who dies...needs a resurrection. And the only way to obtain resurrection is belief in Jesus. Thus, all mankind and the entire world is forgiven...but not all is saved, for many deny Jesus inspite of being forgiven.

John 11:25

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.

So...in conclusion, if a homosexual believes in Jesus, he will be saved. This will not change, it is certain and without doubt. It will glorify God. It will shame mankind (both the homosexual, for his sins....as well as those who rose up against him with their doctrines).

What about gay marriage? Should it be legal or illegal?

The answer to that can also be found in scripture. In short, gay marriage *most certainly* should be legal.

Why?

2 main scriptures answer this:

First scripture:

Romans 13

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

What is the highest source of authority in the U.S.?

Our Constitution.

And what does it declare?

Liberty and Justice for All.

And by which means do we make laws?

In a manner that maximizes liberty and justice for all, where the laws impede man's freedom where he attempts to use and abuse it to the harm of others. Namely, protection of person, and protection of property.

If two people willingly consent to marrying each other (regardless of whether God recognizes it)...are they harming the one they consent to, or their property?

No.

Therefore, there should be no law against it. Even if God does not recognize the marriage on a spiritual level. Even if it is immoral.

Remember...the Constitution is not there to protect moral laws. It is there to protect personal liberty.

If my moral standards interfere with your personal liberty...then I am violating the Constitution, and thus I am violating Romans 13.

Second scripture:

Matthew 19

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

There is a very significant truth in this passage that many overlook, or refuse to adhere to: Jesus is stating that divorce, in all cases except prior to consummation, is immoral. (It is even immoral to divorce in cases of adultery. People misinterpret that passage, for it states one can divorce in cases of fornication, not adultery. Those who have consummated their marriage already....cannot commit fornication. They can only commit adultery. Therefore...the passage is speaking about something different than people think.). There is literally no exception allowed for divorce once a marriage is consummated. Yet Moses allowed divorce in a variety of reasons. He did not allow it "because it was moral or justified." Jesus is plain and clear: Moses allowed divorce "because of the hardness of their hearts."

In simple terms: Moses made an immoral act legal. He allowed an immoral divorce to occur. And Jesus defended this position, not because the immoral act was good...but because of Grace and personal liberty.

Therefore, we ought to do the same with our justice system. The hearts of homosexuals may be hard, but we should allow them to pursue their happiness and freedoms.

This is what Grace is all about.

Now, many people will create arguments against the things I have said here...suggesting that I have misinterpreted scripture. But scripture is very clear and explicit that Grace does indeed go *that far*.

John 12

44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Please know, if you have any concerns about how this may conflict with other scriptures, you may post those scriptures and ask how my position works with those scriptures.

My ultimate goal is to find how all scripture works together without it contradicting each other. Many people will claim scripture does not contradict itself, and yet they hold to doctrines that, if the doctrine were true...would lead to scripture contradicting itself.

If you find what I have said seems to contradict other scriptures (I know of many where it can appear that way, example James 2.) Then please ask. I am here to provide.

In summary, people do not want to believe that God's Grace extends to certain groups of people.

But it most certainly does.

God Bless

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by cool_name123]

The reason it's so hard to have a dialogue between hetero- and homosexuals, regardless biblical dogma, is that there is no common ground. With race you can point to other races and say they're really just the same as us. But no matter how hard you try, anal sex is both unnatural, unhealthy and repulsive, in addition to our genetic programming. Sorry, you asked.

That said, you have a right to expect equal rights, to have your talents appreciated when deserved, and even to familial and brotherly love, but just don't ask us to understand. It's as impossible for us to understand as it would be for us all if gender didn't exist.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 3 by ThePainefulTruth]

Or its just because people do not desire Grace to fall upon those who do the unnatural.

There really isn't a good excuse. Scripture is very explicitly clear that *all* manner of sins are forgiven except 1, and homosexuality isn't that one.

Therefore, Grace covers it.

But people don't want Grace to cover it because their hearts are hard.

Thankfully, God's Grace and Love are greater than the hearts of man, and their doctrines.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by HumbleDisciple]

Hi there,

Just to check in so I can follow your thoughts? Are you a universalist or do you think one has to acknowledge Jesus as lord and saviour and ask for Jesus to pay for their sins?

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]

I am very *not* a universalist. But I do believe in searching out the heights, lengths, widths, and depths to which His Grace extends. I believe the only way to obtain salvation is by belief in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead (raised by the Father) as Romans 10:9 declares.

Any person who does not believe this statement, Romans 10:9, at the time of their death, removal from time as we know it, and return to eternity...is not saved....for their decision and choice is sealed into eternity.

And *ALL* people who believe Romans 10:9 are saved, no exceptions really except the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.

So you might say I am "a universalist for all those who believe in Jesus as their God and Savior who rose from the dead." But I am most certainly not a universalist outside of that condition. I do not believe there is any other way to heaven other than to live a perfect life, of which only Jesus had done.

This, in effect, makes repentance, good works, continuous sinning, traditions, rituals, and all other types of things people like to add unto salvation....irrelevant to salvation.

Those things do, however, play their own unique roles in the importance of other types of punishments and rewards, outside of obtaining salvation.

That is the basis of my doctrinal beliefs. If you desire any particular proofs on any particular portion of that, feel free to ask.

God Bless

[help3434]

The reason it's so hard to have a dialogue between hetero- and homosexuals, regardless biblical dogma, is that there is no common ground. With race you can point to other races and say they're really just the same as us. But no matter how hard you try, anal sex is both unnatural, unhealthy and repulsive, in addition to our genetic programming. Sorry, you asked.

Listing "unnatural" in a series of negatives about anal sex is an appeal to nature. An appeal to nature is a problematic argument because as Philosopher Julian Baggini said, "Even if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse)." Its a false appeal to nature to boot because anal sex has observed in a variety of animals. Many straight people engage in anal sex and many gay people do not, so this is going off on a tangent anyway.

Also, what do you mean by "in addition to our genetic programming?" Seems like an incomplete thought.

That said, you have a right to expect equal rights, to have your talents appreciated when deserved, and even to familial and brotherly love, but just don't ask us to understand. It's as impossible for us to understand as it would be for us all if gender didn't exist.

Look up the Kinsey Scale. Not everybody is either 100% gay or 100% straight.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 5 by Wootah]

I am very *not* a universalist. But I do believe in searching out the heights, lengths, widths, and depths to which His Grace extends. I believe the only way to obtain salvation is by belief in Jesus as God and Savior who rose from the dead (raised by the Father) as Romans 10:9 declares.

Any person who does not believe this statement, Romans 10:9, at the time of their death, removal from time as we know it, and return to eternity...is not saved....for their decision and choice is sealed into eternity.

What choice and decision? What about people that have never read that verse? What about people who have read it but don't believe it because there is no evidence for it and because it is illogical and unjust? Who don't believe it because there is no Spirit to tell them it is true?

And *ALL* people who believe Romans 10:9 are saved, no exceptions really except the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.

So you might say I am "a universalist for all those who believe in Jesus as their God and Savior who rose from the dead." But I am most certainly not a universalist outside of that condition. I do not believe there is any other way to heaven other than to live a perfect life, of which only Jesus had done.

This, in effect, makes repentance, good works, continuous sinning, traditions, rituals, and all other types of things people like to add unto salvation....irrelevant to salvation.

A significant part of the Bible are about those things, but those are irrelevant because of a few passages that Paul wrote? If salvation is the most important thing, then why are the things that are relevant to salvation only a tiny part of the Bible?

Those things do, however, play their own unique roles in the importance of other types of punishments and rewards, outside of obtaining salvation.

That is the basis of my doctrinal beliefs. If you desire any particular proofs on any particular portion of that, feel free to ask.

God Bless

What are your proofs that Romans 10:9 should supersede Matthew 7:21? Why do you think confessing your mouth is sufficient for salvation when according to Matthew Jesus says that not everyone who says "Lord Lord" will be saved?

[ThePainefulTruth]

The reason it's so hard to have a dialogue between hetero- and homosexuals, regardless biblical dogma, is that there is no common ground. With race you can point to other races and say they're really just the same as us. But no matter how hard you try, anal sex is both unnatural, unhealthy and repulsive, in addition to our genetic programming. Sorry, you asked.

Listing "unnatural" in a series of negatives about anal sex is an appeal to nature. An appeal to nature is a problematic argument because as Philosopher Julian Baggini said, "Even if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this?

AIDS, for one thing. Anal tearing in a high bacteria environment and weakening of the sphincter as well.

Many straight people engage in anal sex and many gay people do not, so this is going off on a tangent anyway.

Only 5-10%, and if it's intermixed with vaginal sex, the chance for disease skyrockets. I don't even want to go into oral-anal even if it was done in the Oval Office. Don't call it unnatural if you don't want to, but it's still dangerous and dumb. That said, you're free to do as you want between consenting adults. As I've often said, "Freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want--on your own dime."

Also, what do you mean by "in addition to our genetic programming?" Seems like an incomplete thought.

We're biologically programmed with pleasure incentives to reproduce. But if as many, especially men, claim, that they knew from an early age that they were "different"; how that comes about, and the evolutionary/biological "why?" of it, is the source of my incomplete thought. I believe homosexuals have genuinely different biological drives, I just don't have a clue why that would come about.

BTW, I think most animal homosexuality is bisexual, and as with human bisexuality, sex is largely used as a tool for power or dominance.

Look up the Kinsey Scale. Not everybody is either 100% gay or 100% straight.

Yes, the bisexuality I just mentioned. So what? And, btw, how many does the Kinsey Scale say are 100% gay or straight? 15% each with a straight diagonal in between. BFS As for Kinsey, it was pioneering work, but the methods and controls are very dated and with low reliability, basing it's findings more on anecdotes than actual observation of hetero-homo behavior. The scale is much too simplistic, artificially symmetrical and, I'm afraid, biased. I'm sure there is a gradation, but the one they show is absurd.

Hard research on sexual orientation is as hard to find financing for as it is for differences is intelligence between men and women or between races. It's a hot potato for which the politically correct fear what the answer might be--Truth being something they abide only if it suits their agenda.

[ThePainefulTruth]

dupe--no "delete" button