Here is another interesting tidbit regarding genetic and environmental factors as the underlying cause of homosexuality:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2008/December/Males-of-All-Species-Are-Becoming-More-Female.html
_________
At the very least, the mounting evidence in favor of the notion that homosexuality is a result of biological and environmental factors, should give pause to Christians who've assumed that gay people are damned, and should cause these Christians to give serious consideration to the contextual cues of scripture alluding to other possible interpretations.
7 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasEpi,
It very well could be a hospitality issue. The notion of hospitality is intimately linked with the Law of God, which is, love God with all your heart, etc., and your neighbor as yourself. In light of this, hospitality is no small thing, since it is an expression of love and respect for one's neighbor. It makes sense that if the inhabitants of S tality (e.g., the people of Sodom and Gomorrah), assuming being gay is even a choice.
============================================
Furthermore (this just dawned on me), there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus' own words support the hospitality interpretation, Matthew 10:11-15:
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."
=============================================
I notice that verse 35 reads "And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every sickness. (Matt.9:35)
Part of that gospel was that all manner of sins which men have commited will be forgiven of them (except the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit).
He also gave authority to His twelve disciples to prevail "over unclean spirits, so that they could cast them out and heal every disease and every sickness." (10:1)
He instructed His twelve "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons, ... freely give." (10:7)
What I read in this is that Jesus is saying had His disciples come to Sodom and Gomorah in this way, preaching forgiveness of sins, healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out demon spirits, etc. perhaps many of them would have repented of thier sins and believed the Gospel.
Some new testament age cities did not even believe the gospel after they witnessed such a generous visitation from God. They had a chance at something that Sodom and Gomorah never had. These modern cities will have less of an excuse then the cities of Sodom and Gomorah.
I do admit gladly that the passage shows that there are worse things than what occured in Sodom. However, as interesting as your application of the passage is, it is not strong enough to undue the clear statements like this:
"How Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who in like manner with these gave themselves over to fornication and went after different flesh, are set forth as an example, undergoing the penalty of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
Notice that Jude does not say that they were set forth as an example because of violating decent hospitality. Rather "fornication" and "going after different flesh".
Whatever the exact meaning of "going after different flesh" is, the strong implication is pursuing physical pleasure in conjunction with the act of fornication.
Had Jude said that Sodom and Gomorah had been made examples because of inhospitality, then you might have a case. But fornication and the active pursuit of flesh in some unlawful way is what Jude speaks of.
You have no recourse but to accuse Jude of being as ignorant as those of us who say Sodom was destroyed because of rebellion against God's natural order in sexual relations. Jude does not seem to side with your view.
But I have a solution. That is to preach the gospel with authority among the modern Sodom like people in the hope that they would repent and believe in Christ as the twelve sought to do. That requires that the Christians give themselves fully to the great commission.
They have a right to hear the Gospel and witness its power, love, forgiveness, and setting free from bondage. That, I think, is the appropriate response of the Christian.
In principle we disciples of Jesus should give ourselves utterly more over to Christ and His gospel of the kingdom. That is all we can do.
I do not think we should recoil from the lost sinners in natural disgust so as not to share the gospel of grace with them in love. Neither do I think we should try to twist the Bible so as to make thier sins appear no longer offensive to God.
(No offense meant )
Originally posted by jaywillbut morals change. not only that, god changes. what is indecent and wrong in the eyes of god at one time may be acceptable at another.
Epi,
[b]============================================
Furthermore (this just dawned on me), there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus' own words support the hospitality interpretation, Matthew 10:11-15:
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give ...[text shortened]... s to make thier sins appear no longer offensive to God.
(No offense meant )
eye for an eye became turn the other cheek.
divorce became "what god joined let no man separate"
how can we decide what is wrong and what is right when god doesn't give us clues anymore? not only that but we would lock up in a mental hospital any prophet that would claim he was speaking with jesus. so even if god would like to communicate the new changes in dogma, he couldn't.
so isn't it reasonable to assume that as long as we stay true to the basic message of the bible, we are allowed to make adjustments to it to fit our times?
4 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi=================================
but morals change. not only that, god changes. what is indecent and wrong in the eyes of god at one time may be acceptable at another.
eye for an eye became turn the other cheek.
divorce became "what god joined let no man separate"
how can we decide what is wrong and what is right when god doesn't give us clues anymore? not only that but we would loc the basic message of the bible, we are allowed to make adjustments to it to fit our times?
but morals change. not only that, god changes. what is indecent and wrong in the eyes of god at one time may be acceptable at another.
eye for an eye became turn the other cheek.
divorce became "what god joined let no man separate"
=====================================
The two examples you use do not to me mean that God changed.
And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth bascally means - "Be just in your demand for recompense and do not over do it. Recompense should be appropriate to loss. "
But Jesus comes saying "I say unto you, that if you would be a son of God you should leave your vindication and recompense up to the Father. Turn the cheek. Do not let your natural demand for vengence eat you up. Deny yourself for the sake of living Christ's nature within you. Stand against your natural reaction to get revenge.
In the second example God refers not to a new code of ethics but back to what His original intention was. That is not something new. That is refering them back to what was intended from the beginning.
I don't think that these two examples represent a changing God in His nature.
The mother tells her two year old, "Eat with your fingers". When the child becomes five she may say "Eat with your spoon."
Is this really the mother changing ? I admit there is a contrast here. But I don't think it represents a change in the mother in the sense you discribe. We are told that the law was a servant child instructor leading the student to grace. There was a progressive deepening understanding of what God wants.
The Bible leads man to live by abiding in the living God who has come as Christ and is available as the indwelling Holy Spirit - "... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)
God was leading man progressively to live in union with Christ in resurrection, the life giving Spirit who can be imparted into man's being.
============================================
how can we decide what is wrong and what is right when god doesn't give us clues anymore?
===================================
The New Testament is not telling us to go out and by your on effort do what is right and don't do what is wrong. The New Testament is telling us to abide in a living Person Jesus. "Abide in Me and I in you."
Abiding in Him leads to neing guided by His peace. There is the sense of life and peace ever deepening and ever expanding. This trains us how to live. We have with this the Scripture to sensatize out conscience and help steer our conscience.
But you have to forget about the thought of Jesus teaching us to grit our teeth and go out and be "good people" by our own religious energy.
Rather, He has resurrected and is able to impart His life and nature into man that man might live Christ, live a blended life in Christ, abide in Christ and live in union with this living Christ. This takes time. This grows and matures more and more. This living regulates on a ever deeper and deeper level. This conforms us to the image of the Son of God.
And the Scripture becomes a way to feed on Christ and enlighen our conscience to when we are on the right track.
"The mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the spirit is life and peace." (Rom.8:6)
The anointing teaches us concerning all things. The anointing teaches us to abide in Him. This anointing is like the rubbing of God's Spirit into our personality like the way one would anoint Vick's Vapor Rub. Or it is like one being painted with paint until all the cracks are filled with paint.
Abiding in Christ causes God to be rubbed, anointed into, and painted upon one's personality. This anointing teaches us what to do. It not only makes the demand. It supplies the life power to live up to the demand.
====================================
not only that but we would lock up in a mental hospital any prophet that would claim he was speaking with jesus. so even if god would like to communicate the new changes in dogma, he couldn't.
===============================
In the Old Testament you had prophets speaking in the way of "Thus says the Lord .... thus and such." They acted as tape recorders of God. In the New Testament God weaned His saints off of this way.
Instead God wroughts Himself into the human personality of the prophet. Paul gives almost no Old Testament style "Thus says the Lord, this and that." Rather he teaches in a normal human way. Yet his teaching became the word of God. He even said that he gave his opinion concerning something. But he added "And I think I have the Spirit of God."
God becomes a human in incarnation. God and man mingle and blend. The disciples becomes "Jesusly human." It is no longer a matter of acting like a tape recorder - "Thus says the Lord, this and that and this..."
But in a human way one speaks from the indwelling Spirit of the God man Jesus. Incarnation mean that God and man are mingled. His divine attributes are expressed from within human virtues. We are no longer taken control of as tape recorders in the Old Testament prophetic sense.
I know Pentacostals still love to act this way "Thus says the Lord, you shall not wear lipstick tonight !" As if one is taking dictation from Heaven. But I think this is play acting and not really the Holy Spirit.
=======================================
so isn't it reasonable to assume that as long as we stay true to the basic message of the bible, we are allowed to make adjustments to it to fit our times?
========================================
In our congregation we use to use one cup to pass the wine. Eventually for hygenic (spelling?) reasons we adjusted to pass many cups to limit the spread of germs. This is an example of making an adjustment in practice.
I think this is different from saying for example:
"In the past stealing was a sin. Today we no longer recognize stealing as a sin. "
Or
"In the past we believed in the resurrection of Jesus. But today to adjust for modern thought we no longer believe that Jesus is risen from the dead."
So I agree with adjustments is some practices to accomodate the present age. But I am cautious to understand exactly what kind of adjustment you mean.
So I agree somewhat depending on what kind of change you mean.
Changes stating that fornication is no longer a sin is not an adjustment that I think is valid. The same I would apply to gossiping, murmering, backbiting, extortion, kidnapping, murder, adultery, idol worship, or men having sex with men, or women having sex with women.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillGood point, jaywill. I concede that you are right regarding hospitality. However, Jude 1:7 still does not rule out the possibility that some people are born gay. What it does address is the 'unnatural' sexual practices which the Sodomites engaged in. If an individual is born gay, though, homosexual behavior would not be an unnatural act. What are your thoughts concerning this?
Epi,
============================================
Furthermore (this just dawned on me), there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus' own words support the hospitality interpretation, Matthew 10:11-15:
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give s to make thier sins appear no longer offensive to God.
(No offense meant )
Originally posted by jaywillI think that Jude was referring to the fact that in Genesis 19:1 these were not just men that the men of Sodom were lusting after. These were angels in the form of men. Therefore, Lot was doing more than being hospitable, he was trying to protect heavenly messengers.
Epi,
[b]============================================
Furthermore (this just dawned on me), there is a passage in the New Testament where Jesus' own words support the hospitality interpretation, Matthew 10:11-15:
"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give ...[text shortened]... s to make thier sins appear no longer offensive to God.
(No offense meant )
i have not seen the documentary, but I do believe that the views of homosexuality that u speak of are very interesting. I personally, would fall under that categorization. I am against homosexuality, but I believe that Christ-like love is also needed. In the bible it says that all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. meaning that we all deserve hell for the wrongs we have committed. I believe I have made mistakes that are deserving of hell, as has the homosexuals as they have practiced homosexuality. Due to that idea, I believe I and homosexuals are equal, as we are both sinners. I believe that just as someone with pornographic sins needs to be held accountable for their temptations, so does a homosexual. Politically, in our country the US, I believe, it being a "free country" it shoudl be legal. What i disagree with is that they are trying to make us accept that their beliefs are equal to ours. They may believe what i believe is false, but I do not want to be told what to believe. If my belief is that homosexuality is wrong, they should not tell me their belief is right, thereby rejecting my belief.
Originally posted by zeger55Huh? You already spouted off with your belief that homosexuality is a sin and deserves hell as punishment.
What i disagree with is that they are trying to make us accept that their beliefs are equal to ours. They may believe what i believe is false, but I do not want to be told what to believe. If my belief is that homosexuality is wrong, they should not tell me their belief is right, thereby rejecting my belief.
So, you get to tell other people that certain acts are sinful, but they can't tell you your beliefs are misguided? How is that not a double-standard?
4 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas=======================================
Good point, jaywill. I concede that you are right regarding hospitality. However, Jude 1:7 still does not rule out the possibility that some people are born gay. What it does address is the 'unnatural' sexual practices which the Sodomites engaged in. If an individual is born gay, though, homosexual behavior would not be an unnatural act. What are your thoughts concerning this?
Good point, jaywill. I concede that you are right regarding hospitality. However, Jude 1:7 still does not rule out the possibility that some people are born gay. What it does address is the 'unnatural' sexual practices which the Sodomites engaged in. If an individual is born gay, though, homosexual behavior would not be an unnatural act. What are your thoughts concerning this?
========================================
It does not really matter what a sinner is by birth or is not by birth. A sinner needs to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus and transformed by the Spirit of Jesus - regardless.
In the act of sharing the Gospel with a person, I don't usually try to focus their attention on their behavior. The strong natural tendency of human beings to try to change themselves when they become aware that they are wrong in something.
It we point out people's sins to them and they get absorbed with them they will not focus on the Deliverer, the Great Physician who can heal them, the Savior.
Rather than point people to focus on their behavior I try to turn their attention fully to the living Lord Jesus. Then help them to take Christ into their being, to receive Him.
Ron Kangus writes in reference to the tree of life, the Paschal Lamb, and the manna from heaven ...
"The record regarding spiritual eating in the Bible is a strong indication that God intends to dispense Himself into us by the way of eating. God's placing man in front of the tree of life indicates that God wanted man to receive Him as life by eating Him organically and assimilating Him metabolically, causing God to become the constituent of man's being (Gen. 2:9).
The passover reveals that God delivers us by feeding us, that He saves us by giving us something to eat (Exo. 12:1-11). Whereas the Lamb energizes us to leave the world typified by Egypt, the manna nourishes us and constitutes us with a heavenly element (Exo.16:14-15). The eating of manna by the children of Israel shows that God's intention in His salvation is to work Himself into us and change ouur constitution by changing our diet and feeding us with Christ as heavenly food (John 6:27,32,35). Deuteronomy 8:7-10 reveals that God wanted His people to eat the produce of the good land, a type of the riches of the all-inclusive Christ (Eph. 3:8)"
Rather than focus the person on what he is or is not by birth, I seek to focus him on taking in the Lord and Savior so that what Jesus Christ is becomes their inner constituent. It does not matter what they are or are not by birth.
It only matters if they choose to take into themselves the resurrected Christ. He Himself is their salvation by imparting and infusing them with what He is.
Originally posted by jaywillSuppose a gay couple comes to your church wanting to accept Christ and be baptised and be part of your membership, would the couple be accepted and baptised?
[b]=================================
but morals change. not only that, god changes. what is indecent and wrong in the eyes of god at one time may be acceptable at another.
eye for an eye became turn the other cheek.
divorce became "what god joined let no man separate"
=====================================
The two examples you use do not to me ...[text shortened]... having sex with men, or women having sex with women.[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999===========================================
Suppose a gay couple comes to your church wanting to accept Christ and be baptised and be part of your membership, would the couple be accepted and baptised?
Suppose a gay couple comes to your church wanting to accept Christ and be baptised and be part of your membership, would the couple be accepted and baptised?
==========================================
The church is not joined in the sense that someone "joins" the Lion's Club or "joins" the Girl Scouts. You are born again into the Body of Christ. You do not "join" it as any worldly association is "joined" in that outward sense.
The church is an organic entity in which one is spiritually born into. If one is born of God she or he is a constituent of the Lord's church. This is a matter of spiritual life.
If we ascertained that a person is indeed regenerated, born of God, we would baptize them. The fellowship of the church is opened to them.
We receive believers one at a time. And usually baptize believers one at a time. They have an individual standing before God.
If the elders of the church were to consider that a person or persons are so militant that they may disrupt the fellowship with militant unbiblical teachings, and if they thought it better not to baptize them, I would submit myself to the fellowship of the elders.
They will bear the responsibility before Jesus Christ.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillAnd you also bear the responsibility for submitting to the elders.
[b]===========================================
Suppose a gay couple comes to your church wanting to accept Christ and be baptised and be part of your membership, would the couple be accepted and baptised?
==========================================
The church is not joined in the sense that someone "joins" the Lion's Club or "joins" the Girl Scout e fellowship of the elders.
They will bear the responsibility before Jesus Christ.[/b]
Don’t get me wrong: I think that you take responsibility for your own decisions/actions very seriously.
One of the arguments that I have made on here ad nauseum is that no one gets to abrogate their own responsibility for what they think (believe) or do. It is simply impossible. One cannot even turn that responsibility over to God, since one is still responsible for making that decision.
For example, you are inescapably responsible for giving the Bible authority to tell you what is and is not moral behavior; I am inescapably responsible for not giving the Bible that authority. Which ultimately means that neither one of us can escape our own responsibility for deciding moral issues.
Yet, I keep running into those who will use such statements as “the Bible says” or “the Qur’an says” or...whatever says...in ways that imply that they, as individuals, are now exempt from being responsible for those decisions—as long as they obey those authorities that they (for good reasons or bad) are responsible for granting authority to...
Sorry to use you for one more “ad nauseum” statement on this question...
Originally posted by jaywillI understand.
[b]===========================================
Suppose a gay couple comes to your church wanting to accept Christ and be baptised and be part of your membership, would the couple be accepted and baptised?
==========================================
The church is not joined in the sense that someone "joins" the Lion's Club or "joins" the Girl Scout ...[text shortened]... e fellowship of the elders.
They will bear the responsibility before Jesus Christ.[/b]
In your estimation would they be considered disruptive to the fellowship since clearly homosexuality is not a recommended lifestyle in the Bible.
Originally posted by Rajk999The important word there is "if".
I understand.
In your estimation would they be considered disruptive to the fellowship since clearly homosexuality is not a recommended lifestyle in the Bible.
Of course all manner of people receive the Gospel and participate in the church life.
The church as we practice it is very inclusive. This does not mean that we are foolishly so.