Compelled to change?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question is whether or not you 'agree with' or are prejudiced against something that a person is born with or is forced upon them.
If you are prejudiced against someones sexual preference, race etc it is not equivalent to being prejudiced against their particular actions like rape, theft etc. Nobody is forced to rape or steal but to judge someone for ...[text shortened]... homosexuals for acting on their preferences but to judge them for having preferences is wrong.

I do not comdemn people who may have tendencies towards homosexuality, rather, I am merely pointing out what scripture says in regards to acting on such impulses. For example, we all have "natural" inclinations to lie. In fact, the Bible says that God is true and every man a liar. However, does that mean we embrace lying? Some do, however, a follower of Christ should not based upon the teachings of Christ he claims to follow. Likewise, if a homosexual has inclinations towards homosexuality, does it give him or her the right to then embrace such activity if they are a follower of Christ? I get the impression that sexual tendancies are viewed as an innate right to act upon for many. For example, if someone is led by God to join the priesthood is it fair that God may ask him to give up all sexual persuits altogether?

Another question comes to mind in discussing all of this, what percentage of a person is homosexual? For example, there are bisexuals. Therefore, for some is it 50/50, or 60/40, or 90/10 ect. What percentage of homosexuality is being forced upon them and what percentage of heterosexuality is being forced upon them and which should they give into? Perhaps both? Also, is it possible to overcome feelings of homosexual/heterosexual inclinations? Can one dominate over the other? And finally, if there be a God, could such a God help someone overcome this inclination in much the same way that one overcomes other sinful behavoirs through God's help assuming, of coarse, it is sinful acitivity in the eyes of God?.

Originally posted by t0lkien
There are more than several scriptures in the Bible presenting a strongly negative view of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27 as an example which can't be sidestepped via arguments about temple prostitution). There are none presenting a positive view. There is no precedent in the old or new testaments for same sex unions as an acceptable norm. If you are going to of all believers). All the careful, clever polemics in the world mean nothing next to that.

Realistically the Bible isn't specific on the issue of committed homosexual relationships. For example, most of the verses that deal with homosexuality refer to homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc. and not committed relationships. Even the Romans verses you point to are unclear. An unanswered question is whether or not gender preference is inborn. If it is, then it would be 'natural' for those born homosexual to have same gender sex and it would only be 'unnatural' for those born heterosexual to have same gender sex.

So what does God think? Interestingly enough, so far as I know, Jesus was mute on this subject. I think the answer is that we don't really know. So what right does any human have to judge that homosexuals are unfit to be church members, unfit to be church leaders or unfit for society in general? Those who give themselves that right are bigots, plain and simple.

Originally posted by whodey
If you re-read what I said, I said that church's should make it clear to its members as to what is expected of them. There should be mission statements in terms of what the church believes and what they are expected to uphold in terms of certain beliefs. In a church that I would attend, there would be criterea for sexual conduct thus I would then expect the in scripture. Sometimes telling the truth is painful, but in the end it is the best policy.

That mission statement is bigoted in and of itself. The fact that you support such a mission proves you a bigot.

In case you missed my reply to t0lkien, look at the post just before this one.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
...Even the Romans verses you point to are unclear.

Well, in all honesty, those verses are clear as day to an honest, unbiased reading. You have to work fairly hard to create any other meaning - which, by the way, is to me a good sign that we are trying to make the words say something they just don't (or not say something they do). I understand that the meaning and the resulting conclusion are unpalatable to the modern ethical palatte. But that doesn't and can't change the intended meaning.

As for biological imperatives etc., that is a very messy argument and the science is (and will remain, I believe) inconclusive. To me, the only real issue is what God thinks. For that, all we have is scripture, and to a certain extent church history (though one has to be very careful there obviously). And by church I mean the body of believers through the centuries, not the institutions. Of course, believers have the Holy Spirit too on a personal level, and will be guided by what they believe God is saying to them personally, and through the Bible.

For me, it is not my job to convince anyone of the morality of their sexuality - homosexual or otherwise. My job is to love them. However, if they asked me what I thought, I would (and do) tell them. My personal view is that if people stop providing resistance to the homosexual paradigm, the inherent incongruity of it would reveal itself (instead of being disguised by a sense of societal rejection).

But be that as it may, it doesn't really answer the question, except to say that the only person who can compel anyone to change is God.

Originally posted by t0lkien
Well, in all honesty, those verses are clear as day to an honest, unbiased reading. You have to work fairly hard to create any other meaning - which, by the way, is to me a good sign that we are trying to make the words say something they just don't (or not say something they do). I understand that the meaning and the resulting conclusion are unpalatable to ...[text shortened]... wer the question, except to say that the only person who can compel anyone to change is God.

What makes a reading "honest [and] unbiased"? A reading that coincides with your own? What makes you so certain that your biases don't color your interpretation, just as racists can see what they want to see "clear as day"? Sorry to hear that you have enough arrogance to believe you know definitively "what God thinks".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What makes a reading "honest [and] unbiased"? A reading that coincides with your own? What makes you so certain that your biases don't color your interpretation, just as racists can see what they want to see "clear as day"? Sorry to hear that you have enough arrogance to believe you know definitively "what God thinks".

And which is it? Is one to test one’s experience of “the Holy Spirit” against one’s interpretation of scripture? Or is it the other way around?

“It’s not just my interpretation, because I am guided by the Holy Spirit.”

“I know that it is the Holy Spirit, because it agrees with scripture.”

Originally posted by vistesd
And which is it? Is one to test one’s experience of “the Holy Spirit” against one’s interpretation of scripture? Or is it the other way around?

“It’s not just my interpretation, because I am guided by the Holy Spirit.”

“I know that it is the Holy Spirit, because it agrees with scripture.”

I'm at a loss as to how this relates to my post. Did you understand that all the questions were rhetorical?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What makes a reading "honest [and] unbiased"? A reading that coincides with your own? What makes you so certain that your biases don't color your interpretation, just as racists can see what they want to see "clear as day"? Sorry to hear that you have enough arrogance to believe you know definitively "what God thinks".

Let's get specific. Show me how you can read those verses in Romans any other way.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm at a loss as to how this relates to my post. Did you understand that all the questions were rhetorical?

Yes, I did. I was just adding to it. Carry on. 🙂

Originally posted by t0lkien
Let's get specific. Show me how you can read those verses in Romans any other way.

I gave a possible interpretation in my post. It would help if you could tell me what you found unclear.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, I did. I was just adding to it. Carry on. 🙂

lol. Sorry, I thought you were asking the questions of me and I couldn't figure out what prompted them 🙂 Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Sorry, I thought you were asking the question of me and I couldn't figure out what prompted them 🙂 Thanks for the clarification.

No, my fault for the confusion. I can just see you going, "What the hey?!" 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I gave a possible interpretation in my post. It would help if you could tell me what you found unclear.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. You mean your comment that those passages could refer to "non-committed" homosexual relationships?

Originally posted by t0lkien
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. You mean your comment that those passages could refer to "non-committed" homosexual relationships?

The following is all related. I probably should have put it in a separate paragraph for clarity.

Even the Romans verses you point to are unclear. An unanswered question is whether or not gender preference is inborn. If it is, then it would be 'natural' for those born homosexual to have same gender sex and it would only be 'unnatural' for those born heterosexual to have same gender sex.