The Christian Response to Homosexuality

[micatala]

Many Christians consider homosexual practices to be immoral. The forum has multiple threads which include arguments as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered immoral, and even whether this position is supported Biblically.

In this thread, we will take it is a given that homosexuality is immoral.

Under this assumption, what should the response of Christians be to the existence of homosexuality? How should we interact with or treat persons who are homosexuals?

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?


Again, arguments concerning the morality of homosexuality are not relevant to the thread. What is relevant is discussion of the possible Christian responses to homosexuality, and what valid rationale there are for these responses.

[Suzanne]

Suzanne,

I have no idea what you're talking about.

OF course you don't.. You apparently do not know what the LORD has already said .. IF you did you would already know what I said and would already know what the truth of what I have said is TRUE.. what age are you living in???

I AM LIVING IN THE YEAR of the LATTER RAIN.. I HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN THE FIRST RAINING.. THERE WAS A FIRST AND NOW THE LATTER IS HERE> I am GOING TO SIT AND WATCH the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD TAKE OVER THE KINGDOM :):):):) and all the WICKED BE MADE TO BOW THE KNEE.....

I HAVE PRAYED all my life right along with many that have before me OUR FATHER WHOM IS IN HEAVEN THAT is THE WAY WE ARE TO PRAY OR HAVE YOU NOT KNOWN THIS EITHER???? IT IS TIME TO GET THE LATTER RAIN.. that is IF YOU WANT TO GET THE BAPTISM OF THAT RAIN THAT IS RAINING DOWN .. I CAUGHT IT AND WAS BAPTISED WITH THE LATTER RAIN FOR THE LAST TIME. APRIL 7 years ago..

THE FIRST WERE BAPTISED and has been RECORDED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS, THE SECOND TIME that I am aware of was when the SPIRIT AGAIN FELL IN 1906 THEN IN 2006 It is falling again WORLD WIDE AND I MEAN THAT LITERALLY.. THIS YEAR THERE IS NO STOPPING THE BAPTISM FROM FALLING ON ALL THAT WANT IT ... FOR the WORD OF GOD is a truth and is going to be manifested LIKE NEVER THE EARTH HAS SEEN before. IT is HIS WORD THAT NEVER CEASES. and HIS KINGDOM HAS COME TO ALL THAT HAVE BELIEVED CONFESSED HIS NAME OF HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME JESUS AND HE HAS RISEN CHRIST JESUS IS OUR WITNESS BUT HE NO LONGER PRAYS FOR US >> IT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN SAID AND DONE> AND HE SIT ON THE THRONE WITH THE FATHER AND ALL THAT IS SEEN BY THE HEAVELY FATHER IS THE BLOOD. MAYBE you should REMEMBER HE HAS FINISHED IT.. HE HAS AND DID COME TO SAVE THE WORLD AND ALL HE HAD CREATED AND MADE!!!!!!! SO I AM GOING TO BE STILL AND WATCH the GLORY of the LORD be manifested IN THE W ORLD THAT HE HAS ALREADY SANCTIFIED AND SAVED ALL BECAUSE OF THE GOSPEL I HAVE HEARD AND BEEN TOLD OF.and KNOW... I AM ON THE WINNERS SIDE. NOT the LOSERS.. IS there any that are really LOSERS?? when HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN FORGIVEN AND SAVED????BYE.

[theleftone]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

OF course you don't.. You apparently do not know what the LORD has already said .. IF you did you would already know what I said and would already know what the truth of what I have said is TRUE..

It seems I'm slipping these days. What I meant to convey is I have no idea what your post has to do with the discussion McCulloch and I were having.

[off-topic: on]

THE FIRST WERE BAPTISED and has been RECORDED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS, THE SECOND TIME that I am aware of was when the SPIRIT AGAIN FELL IN 1906

While historians can argue when the "second time" began, I'd guess most would point to 1901. This was when Agnes Ozman was reported to have received the baptism. From there, Charles Parham continued to teach it, and the teaching was picked up by William Seymour. Seymour took the teaching to Los Angeles, and this culminated in the Azusa Street Revival. The revival started in 1906. They (Pentecostals) celebrated the centennial of the event earlier this year (April).
[/off-topic: off]

[1John2_26]

Number six may be the closest. But some Christians may act without seeking guidance.

That is as close as I want to come to discussing the Holy Spirit on this website.

McCulloch wrote:
[...]Argumentum ad hominem[...] Thank you for providing such a clear example.
1John2_26 wrote:
That an anti-Christian is trying to poison the Christian well?

The point of my observation is that you attacked the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

No, I asked why an anti-Christian, or, better yet, a non-Christian is speaking in a thread about the Christian response to homosexuality. Obviously from your position you have nothing valid tp input. That is niether insult or epithet, it is just the way it is.

Yes, as a former Christian, I may well be motivated to express views which are anti-Christian. That does not make any argument that I post any more or less true.

On the contrary, it absolutely taints anything you input.

The argument presented is either valid or not, independent of the motivation of the arguer.

The Christian perspective can only be given by a Christian. You should be able to understand that concept.

1John2_26 wrote:
Seems logical.
Not logical but certainly reasonable. You see, logical means that the conclusion is drawn from a set of premises, following a set group of rules.

You cannot logically show that a former Christian must be trying to denigrate Christianity. However, you can show that it is reasonably probable that such a person would do such a thing.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Please, just bow out graciously.

Either way, it does not show that the argument is true or false.

As a Christian, I believe you are wrong on that.

Which, in case we have forgotten is:
tselem wrote:
You ignore the fact that human reason factors into "getting understanding from God's word." You read the Bible through human eyes. This means your prejudices will influence your understanding of the Bible.
McCulloch wrote:
Did not Jesus promise to send his Holy Spirit to guide his followers in the correct path? With the Holy Spirit of God to guide them, how could real Christians ever be mistaken about God's word?

I feel there is no way you could possibly even see the "kind" of Christian that has in inward position about homosexualizing Christians. The gift of discernment.

Let me answer my own question. Here are the possibilities as I see them:
1. There is no Holy Spirit.
2. There is a Holy Spirit, but Jesus did not send Him.
3. The Holy Spirit is deceiving real Christians.
4. The Holy Spirit is guiding real Christians but they are ignoring Him.
J5. esus did not mean that the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide all of the real Christians but a subset, such as the apostles only.
6. Real Christians are not mistaken about God's word; the Holy Spirit does guide them. Only false Christians can be mistaken.

Only you can answer your own questions. A Christian should stay out of your mindset.

I have tried to be as complete as possible. I think that these are the only possibilities, but if I have left any out, feel free to append them to the list.
I believe option 1.

End of story McCulloch. Butt out when the Christian response is asked for. I'll do the same when anti-Christ's are asked specifically for their opinion, since I can no longer see from the un-godly view. How can I be insulting you as what I am presenting is your stated position?

I am quite sure that options 2 and 3 can be dismissed rather quickly by all believing Christians. Option 5 is taught by some Christian sects.

Number six.

But the topic?

The Christian Response to Homosexuality is that homosexuals are not going to "lead" Christians anywhere on the topic.

[McCulloch]

No, I asked why an anti-Christian, or, better yet, a non-Christian is speaking in a thread about the Christian response to homosexuality. Obviously from your position you have nothing valid to input. That is niether insult or epithet, it is just the way it is.

If I have nothing valid to input, either ignore it as irrelevent or report it as off-topic.

The argument presented is either valid or not, independent of the motivation of the arguer.

The Christian perspective can only be given by a Christian. You should be able to understand that concept.

No, I do not.

Yes, it does seem that tselem and I have gotten off-topic with regard to this point.

[melikio]

That is as close as I want to come to discussing the Holy Spirit on this website.

I understand not making that a topic in this thread, but why not on the website itself?

No, I asked why an anti-Christian, or, better yet, a non-Christian is speaking in a thread about the Christian response to homosexuality. Obviously from your position you have nothing valid tp input. That is niether insult or epithet, it is just the way it is.

The reason anyone can discuss this 1John, is because things aren't as comparmentalized and partitioned off, as you tend to believe they are. You could have someone more deeply skeptical of Christianity, sitting right near you in your own church.

You aren't going to make the world "Christian"; Christians have influence in this world, but they don't RULE it (thank God). It's better that someone or something more perfect than a human being rule this world. After what I've seen some people do to "homosexuals" as a result of their "Christian" responses, I have no faith in their "religion" at all.

Yes, as a former Christian, I may well be motivated to express views which are anti-Christian. That does not make any argument that I post any more or less true.

This position is correct.

And 1John, do you actually believe/think that only a "Christian" could observe and/or scrutinize what some say is "Christianity"? If you do, it is delusional thinking.

On the contrary, it absolutely taints anything you input.

HYPOCRITICAL to the utmost! You don't think your views are tainted, but they typically are. I haven't known of a "Christianity" like that which you communicate here. And whether you intend to or not, you distort reality regularly. Not that I or other expect perfect answers from anyone here, but that you taint your own answers/responses by speaking as if they should not or cannot be challenged.

The Christian perspective can only be given by a Christian. You should be able to understand that concept.

No; this is nothing but ignorance. "A" (single) Christian perspective can be given by a Christian; that one perspective. All other Christian perspectives are given by different individuals; there is no perfect or agreed upon overall Christian perspective or consensus. The list of Christian SECTS or denominations in existence, should help you to be fully aware of what I'm pointing out.

The Christian response to "homosexuality" isn't monolithic and cannot be, because it involves millions of people dealing with it in varying degrees and situations. MLK Jr. likely offered the world the best message about people getting along (despite their differences), but for some reason messages which promote understanding and real dialogue, are rejected. Homosexuals aren't out to control "Christianity", certainly not anymore than specific Christians are out to control homosexuals.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. Please, just bow out graciously.

If Mc must bow out as per your request, why are you not gone completely? You have been thought and found inaccurate (or just plain wrong) many times. Yet, despite the likely desire to see you leave, few (if any) have demanded that you stop giving your opinions. It seems you are the one who likes to tell people what to do. (Is that part of the "Christian" response, as you view it?)

As a Christian, I believe you are wrong on that.

You (1John) have a right to your opinions and perspectives; don't expect all other people to accept them.

You ignore the fact that human reason factors into "getting understanding from God's word." You read the Bible through human eyes. This means your prejudices will influence your understanding of the Bible.

Which is EXACTLY why I realize or understand, that much of what you say is hypocritical. You are clearly imperfect.

I feel there is no way you could possibly even see the "kind" of Christian that has in inward position about homosexualizing Christians. The gift of discernment.

1John, faith need not be belittled, to help people understand that different types of it are exercised. What you say here is based almost completely upon "faith", not reason. And WHile I don't agree that reason has the FULL answers, it is something that certainly cannot be dismissed or minimized, especially when it comes to COMMUNICATING diverse ideas, concepts or philosophies. The "Christian" way of thinking, isn't THE ONLY way of thinking.

1. There is no Holy Spirit.
2. There is a Holy Spirit, but Jesus did not send Him.
3. The Holy Spirit is deceiving real Christians.
4. The Holy Spirit is guiding real Christians but they are ignoring Him.
J5. esus did not mean that the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide all of the real Christians but a subset, such as the apostles only.
6. Real Christians are not mistaken about God's word; the Holy Spirit does guide them. Only false Christians can be mistaken.

As for #6: I and many other people spent most of their lives around Christians who were #6'ers. Unfortunately, many such people were often mistaken, and proved it regularly. That's not a putdown, it's an observation. They were as HUMAN and faulted as any other people. I've seen many times where a reasonable but secular person could provide a better answer for many, than the so-called "spiritual" warrior person.

Only you can answer your own questions. A Christian should stay out of your mindset.

Your opinion, 1John.

I have tried to be as complete as possible. I think that these are the only possibilities, but if I have left any out, feel free to append them to the list.
I believe option 1.

Mc, you did an excellent job.

End of story McCulloch. Butt out when the Christian response is asked for. I'll do the same when anti-Christ's are asked specifically for their opinion, since I can no longer see from the un-godly view. How can I be insulting you as what I am presenting is your stated position?

1John, the quote directly above... epitomizes the problem with some people and the religion they practice. Bigotry, arrogance and prejudice flow from an attitude like that. I swear, that quote is worth cutting into stone, and displaying it as an example of what attutide to NOT display when communicating a religious idea.

The Christian Response to Homosexuality is that homosexuals are not going to "lead" Christians anywhere on the topic.

[/quote]
Where are homosexuals trying to "lead Christians"?

The sad thing is that (unfortunately) many Christians will be led by attitudes/paradigms like yours, and only notice a problem when a crisis presents itself.

-Mel-

[micatala]

The Christian perspective can only be given by a Christian.

I don't want to continue to drive the thread off-topic, but this seems to me a quite astonishing statement.

If we were to say a person can only speak about the perspective of group X if they are a member of group X, a good deal of this website would be abolished, were we to delete all such posts.

All the posts by Christians who are not homosexuals but who claim to speak knowledgably of homosexuality and understand homosexuality would be gone. The longest thread on this forum would probably be shrunk to a few pages.

In fact, this thread itself would probably be entirely gone, as it is explicitly asking for the Christian response to homosexuality. Under the logic of the assertion above, such responses are not appropriate unless they are made by someone who is both a Christian and a homosexual.

It is unfortunately true that many who have a particular view X often mischaracterize or denigrate people with view Y. However, in debate, the rules are not that "people who don't share view Y are not allowed to speak on the substance and nature of view Y". Rather, it is incumbent upon those debating for view Y to correct the errors or mischracterizations.

If you feel McCulloch is in error in his characterizations of Christian views, then address the errors. To attempt to silence him by an ad hominem attack is not appropriate debate tactics. Notice that tselem offered a correction to one of McC's statements, and the correction has been accepted.

[Cathar1950]

As a former Christian I would say Mack (McCulloch) has every right and understanding to form a Christian view and response. Christianity has influenced our Western cullture and history, both good and bad, in many forms. I don't know how any one unless they have been totally isolated can help but have some kind of Christian view. Most of us free thinkers try not to let our prejudices influence our rational understanding. Historically I see much of Christianity as a Jewish heresy with pagan influences. But so is much of Jewish thought including the Hebrew Scriptures.
I question anyone that tries to speak for all of Christianity as many in here often do. When they say they are being purely biblical, it raises another red flag, because the bible is a collection of often-competing ideas and history that they fail to perceive.
However a “Christian” responds should remain with in the bounds of laws and civil rights. When they cross these bounds by advocating violence or murder they should be chastised for their crude behaviors and remarks despite however they read their bible. Most of the objections I have read concerning Homosexuality amount to fear and imaginary futures created by over zealous biased individuals. For them it seems that Satan is in charge and God is totally powerless. Many seem to lack any understanding of sexuality human or otherwise. Much of what they say amounts to nothing more then identification with present or ancient cultural mores.
Many do nothing more then scapegoat all the evils of society.

[Suzanne]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

OF course you don't.. You apparently do not know what the LORD has already said .. IF you did you would already know what I said and would already know what the truth of what I have said is TRUE..

It seems I'm slipping these days. What I meant to convey is I have no idea what your post has to do with the discussion McCulloch and I were having.

[off-topic: on]

THE FIRST WERE BAPTISED and has been RECORDED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS, THE SECOND TIME that I am aware of was when the SPIRIT AGAIN FELL IN 1906

While historians can argue when the "second time" began, I'd guess most would point to 1901. This was when Agnes Ozman was reported to have received the baptism. From there, Charles Parham continued to teach it, and the teaching was picked up by William Seymour. Seymour took the teaching to Los Angeles, and this culminated in the Azusa Street Revival. The revival started in 1906. They (Pentecostals) celebrated the centennial of the event earlier this year (April).
[/off-topic: off]

VERY GOOD :):) something to learn everyday huh???? I learned that from my brother. NEVER TO OLD TO LEARN something NEW . BUT I happen to believe that what is NEW to me will come again to another sometime to another.. somewhere .. BUT it will never be me again because i will never see this day again. ONLY MY TOMORROWS. will I see. and TODAY may be MY LAST and I may not have a tomorrow here. in this body . ONLY GOD KNOWS THAT RIGHT?? ya YOU KNOW THAT.

[Cathar1950]

I am watching "man bites dog " on the comedy channel ...funny stuff.
They had two guys go in a fast food place and order the same thing. One was pretending he was gay.

[micatala]

Well, so far we seem to have the following suggested responses:

1. Kill homosexuals (e.g. by stoning) (Post #6). See also post #79.

2. Attempt to 'convert' them to Christianity

3. Condemn the sin, and attempt to help them repent from the actions, in essence to become heterosexual. Some suggest it is necessary to keep in mind our own sinfulness in pursuing this course.

I think our response should be the same as our response to any other sin, be it adultery, theft, covetousness, or pride. We should condemn it and discourage it as sin, all the while acknowledging our own continuing struggle with and involvement in sin.

We don't claim to have no sin, or even to be less sinful than one who is practicing homosexual behavior, but neither do we condone the behavior.

We should point those who practice homosexual behavior to the same Christ who forgives our sins and who helps us overcome them.

4. The response might depend on whether the person 'sinning' acknowledges their sin or not. (Post #5)

5. Prohibit same-sex marriage, perhaps allowing civil unions.

6. Protect gays from abuse.


7. In some situations, follow a don't ask don't tell policy.


8. Prevent gays from 'homosexualizing' Christianity (post # 20). We might need a definition of what this exactly means, but part of this concept would include Christian churches not accepting or being forced to accept homosexuality as 'OK.'

9. Act with compassion towards homosexuality, and avoid the hypocrisy of treating homosexuality as 'more sinful' than other sins. Do not create additional pain for homosexuals by hateful speech or behavior.

10. Homosexuals or the 'homosexual culture' should not be trusted. (Post #38) Pastors need to protect their flocks from the influence of gays or gay culture.

11. And of course, Christians should never practice homosexuality, but should rather, flee from it. (end of post #54)



I have probably missed some.

My next question is can a Christian follow all of these responses? How should a Christian pick from amon these when such choices seem necessary?


I have also asked for Biblical justification for these. Some has been provided. I am also open to non-biblical justifications at this point as well.