The question of the Christian and the homosexual

[michel]

I am not sure if this is so much a point to deabate, or maybe just an opportunity for me to formulate my own ideas, and to put them to paper.

Having just spent fifteen minutes writing this post - only to loose it in the ether of the internet - begs the question "Should I be posting this at all?"

I feel the vicarious pain of both the parties involved, and can sense the soul wrestling that must be taking place each day. That dreadful connundrum for ther follower of a faith for whom scripture has quite clear guidelines on what "God" has deemed sinful in the matter of Gay sexual Love.

The Religious Person, devoutly doing his best to follow the dictates of his God, and of his God's rule book, while the Gay suffers the estrangement and permanent refusal to be accepted - as any Heterosexual would be - as being able to live in a love tied relationship in which the physical act of lovemaking is such an important part.

I have wrestled with my conscience, over the years. I will fully admit that "Gay sex" was a subject I would have done anything to avoid thinking about in my younger years, because, to me, a heterosexual, gay sex is a meaningless and foreign idea. With maturity, however, and having now been a member of a community where there are so many homosexual family members, I had to make the choice - and know that I was comfortable with that choice.

Being a virtually nihilscriptura Christian, the only criterium I could use when deciding on my belief can only be the one of "What would jesus, if he was here today, have to say?"

To me, Jesus was a healer, and a lover of his children - which is what we are. He loved us so much that he underwent the most horrible of betrayals - because his one aim was to die so that he might save us from our sins. So, how would Jesus react, now ?, is the question I have asked myself so many times.

To me Love wins; Nature is God, and God is Nature. Nature is the agent that has (through genetic "differences") cause people to be born with a sexual orientation towards someone of his/her own sex. Would Jesus, that lovely an who would do anything for his children, really deny the relationship of love to be fulfilled with the physical element ? Would he truly be judging that all those who never chose to be born "different" to have to abide by the dictate of a life of chastity ? - and the answer which resounds through my thoughts are "No" - that is not the Jesus I know, and Love; even as I write this, I feel a "rush" of what I understand is a "spiritual moment", and I can say, with all confidence that what I say is what I truly believe.

I have seen and heard so many stories of the manipulation of Scriptures to know that what the Bible contains may hnot be the whole story - or may be the "distorted" story - messed with God inspired thoughts, regurgitated by well meaning men (and fools alike, no doubt).

So what is the answer? What would it take for those who want to do their best to follow the instructions of God to the letter to change ? - the words of a new Prophet ? - Am I that Prophet ? I wish I knew.

Edit "The Religious person, blindly following the dictates of his God"

I have edited to read " The Religious Person, devoutly doing his best to follow the dictates of his God"

 

[Mister Emu]

The Religious person, blindly following the dictates of his God

To sweepingly dismiss the religious person's beliefs as blind following, to me, is very insulting...

What would it take for those who want to do their best to follow the instructions of God to the letter to change ?

Not much... in my case...

 

[michel]

I am truly sorry, that was indeed very badly worded; I have edited that piece to read as it was intended to be read...............

 

[robtex]

I am truly sorry, that was indeed very badly worded; I have edited that piece to read as it was intended to be read...............

two things:

1) it is not badly worded. Blind is a metaphor meaning to follow without question. If the idea you are presenting is "to follow without question" than blind is an applicable metaphor to use.

2) the idea of "blind following" is neutral until such time the motives for doing so are uncovered as well as the motives for the presenation of dogma which are followed blindly. This assessment cannot be made until such time that it is openly acknowledge that many of the ideas presented are not applicable to questioning by proponets of the system in question.

 

[PureX]

I think that for a lot of people it comes down to whether or not they choose to believe that "God wrote the bible" or not. People who believe this tend to be the kind of people who interpret the bible literally, rather than symbolically, or metaphorically, and so will feel that God Himself says that homosexuality is an abomination.

Those who do not believe that "God wrote the bible" or that tend to interpret the bible symbolically or metaphorically (these tend to be the same people) will feel that the essence of Christ's message trumps any literal interpretation of one or two specific biblical quotes. As they will feel that the quotes are more the result of human prejudice than of God's will.

A question that has always crossed my mind regarding this is: do the bible literalists choose to interpret the bible as they do to justify and rationalize prejudices that they already hold, or does their interpretation of scripture create the prejudice, itself? I can't simply ask them this question, because in most cases these folks don't believe that they are being prejudiced. And in some cases they probably are not. But I believe that in many cases they are prejudiced against homosexuals, and I'm puzzled if this comes from the religious position they hold, or if they hold this religious position because it justifies their already held prejudice.

Sorry to those of you who are offended by this post, it's just a question that's been on my mind. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us tend to choose religious beliefs that justify who we already are, rather than our having to change to become who we think our religions want us to be. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[joeboonda]

I believe the Bible is God's Word to us, to show us how to be saved and how to live. Well, it says we all have sinned, we all still do sin. It names some sins, homosexuality being one of them. But, so is gossip, slander, back-biting, laziness, gluttony, drunkeness, being overly critical, etc. etc, the list goes on and on. Now, we all treat our own sin in different ways, some we acknowledge and try to change, with some success and some failure, some we are in denial of, that it is really a sin, or all that bad. No matter, we all are sinners. Period. Christ came to pay for our sins and offers eternal life to all who accept that free payment plan. That is ALL who trust in Him for salvation are saved to the uttermost, forever. This includes anyone. This includes homosexuals. (I am not one, btw, but I have my own sins, trust me, lol). Now, I know there are folks who think that is ok, that it is not a sin, and even want them to be preachers and such. I don't know that I go that far, but I do believe anyone who trusts Christ is saved, and that He does work in us to conform us to His image as much as we yield to Him. I still have a long way to go, you do too, and you and you...But, if we have trusted in Christ, this is the most important thing, THE most important thing we can ever do in this life is to be born again. After that, the Lord will clean us up as we grow in grace. Sin is sin, whatever it may be, we all sin, we are sinners, (hopefully many are sinners saved by grace), we should take the beam out of our own eye, so to speak, and let God deal with His children as He sees fit. We are to simply love each other, for there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, Jesus does not condemn us, we should not condemn each other. If someone seeks councel for a particular sin, if I feel knowlegeable of that particular sin, I may try to help, otherwise the best thing is to talk to folks who have been through a similiar experience. Since I am not one of those, I bid you all a fair adeux.

 

[Zsr1973]

Just more proof that religion as an institution is sexist, racist, homophobic, restrictive, and generally limiting to human advancement.

It's a mixed bag of truth mixed with falsehood.

 

[James the Persian]

Michel,

Christ's love for all included the command to 'go and sin no more', so I'm fully confident that this would apply in this issue. If we accept those who feel homosexual attractions with love, given the anthropological view within Christianity, we simply must echo Christ's words. To do other is to fail in our duty to love. Unfortunately, sometimes loving people necessitates making them uncomfortable and telling them things they don't like to hear - a fact that you as a father simply must be aware of.

As to what could change this, nothing short of Christ's return and Him saying we misunderstood. There will be no new Prophets only false ones (I know that I'm speaking from my own Tradition here and some will disagree) to make any changes and we view change in the faith as synonymous to heresy. I'm sorry to have to say this but the Orthodox Church will never accept unrepentant sinners of any kind - to do so would be to do them more harm than good, which is something those who love to cry foul over our attitude often fail to understand (and alongside that, they always seem to think that we single out homosexuality for special treatment, which is untrue).

James

 

[joeboonda]

Just more proof that religion as an institution is sexist, racist, homophobic, restrictive, and generally limiting to human advancement.

It's a mixed bag of truth mixed with falsehood.

Where in Heaven's Name do you get such an idea from that post????

 

[joeboonda]

Michel,

Christ's love for all included the command to 'go and sin no more', so I'm fully confident that this would apply in this issue. If we accept those who feel homosexual attractions with love, given the anthropological view within Christianity, we simply must echo Christ's words. To do other is to fail in our duty to love. Unfortunately, sometimes loving people necessitates making them uncomfortable and telling them things they don't like to hear - a fact that you as a father simply must be aware of.

As to what could change this, nothing short of Christ's return and Him saying we misunderstood. There will be no new Prophets only false ones (I know that I'm speaking from my own Tradition here and some will disagree) to make any changes and we view change in the faith as synonymous to heresy. I'm sorry to have to say this but the Orthodox Church will never accept unrepentant sinners of any kind - to do so would be to do them more harm than good, which is something those who love to cry foul over our attitude often fail to understand (and alongside that, they always seem to think that we single out homosexuality for special treatment, which is untrue).

James

I am of the persuasion that all sinners are welcome. Repentance simply means 'a change of mind' and means that we change our minds about how we can be saved, to how God says we are to be saved, by coming to Him just as we are, sins and all, and trusting alone in Christ alone to have paid the penalty of those sins. THEN, let the Holy Spirit, who now resides in the new believer deal with that person. Just because a person reforms, and changes their behaviour does not save them, nor add to their salvation. Salvation is from God, it is free to all who admit they are sinners in need of a Saviour. Let God handle them after that. I do agree that homosexuality is a sin, it says so in the Bible, and so is a long list of other sins we all do everyday. We must let the Holy Spirit deal with them, they are saved, we can council them, teach them, rebuke them if necessary. And just like i would not put a person struggling with alcohol or a sex addiction, or whatnot, I would not put a homosexual in any position within the church, i.e. deacon, pastor, etc. But the requirements for those is another matter all together and detailed in the Bible, however, I would never turn a sinner away from a service, we'd all have to leave.

 

[James the Persian]

I am of the persuasion that all sinners are welcome. Repentance simply means 'a change of mind' and means that we change our minds about how we can be saved, to how God says we are to be saved, by coming to Him just as we are, sins and all, and trusting alone in Christ alone to have paid the penalty of those sins. THEN, let the Holy Spirit, who now resides in the new believer deal with that person. Just because a person reforms, and changes their behaviour does not save them, nor add to their salvation. Salvation is from God, it is free to all who admit they are sinners in need of a Saviour. Let God handle them after that. I do agree that homosexuality is a sin, it says so in the Bible, and so is a long list of other sins we all do everyday. We must let the Holy Spirit deal with them, they are saved, we can council them, teach them, rebuke them if necessary. And just like i would not put a person struggling with alcohol or a sex addiction, or whatnot, I would not put a homosexual in any position within the church, i.e. deacon, pastor, etc. But the requirements for those is another matter all together and detailed in the Bible, however, I would never turn a sinner away from a service, we'd all have to leave.

I'm not quite sure how this was a reply to my post. Other than some of the rather Protestant ideas which i do not share (such as you saying they are already saved), I don't actually disagree with you. Homosexuals should be welcomed in the Church but the Church has a duty to tell them the Truth, and that is that engaging in homosexual sex is a sin. I don't agree with you with regards to the clergy. I'd have absolutely no issue with homosexual celibate clergy at all but i would also state that unrepentant sinners of any kind would be denied the Eucharist for their own good in Orthodoxy. This would be no different for me than for a homosexual - the sins might differe but the result would not. I also feel that you put too much of an expectation on God in what you say above. We, after all have to work out our salvation - in other words we have to put effort in too and simply expect God to do it all for us. Works might not save you, on that we agree, but they can certainly help reform you and the Church, as a hospital for sinners, is bound to help you to do whatever you need to to reform yourself. On the whole, though, I think we agree. It's just that you're looking at it through a Protestant lens that I cannot and will not use whereas I'm looking at it from an Orthodox perspective.

James

 

[maggie2]

I am not sure if this is so much a point to deabate, or maybe just an opportunity for me to formulate my own ideas, and to put them to paper.

Having just spent fifteen minutes writing this post - only to loose it in the ether of the internet - begs the question "Should I be posting this at all?"

I feel the vicarious pain of both the parties involved, and can sense the soul wrestling that must be taking place each day. That dreadful connundrum for ther follower of a faith for whom scripture has quite clear guidelines on what "God" has deemed sinful in the matter of Gay sexual Love.

The Religious Person, devoutly doing his best to follow the dictates of his God, and of his God's rule book, while the Gay suffers the estrangement and permanent refusal to be accepted - as any Heterosexual would be - as being able to live in a love tied relationship in which the physical act of lovemaking is such an important part.

I have wrestled with my conscience, over the years. I will fully admit that "Gay sex" was a subject I would have done anything to avoid thinking about in my younger years, because, to me, a heterosexual, gay sex is a meaningless and foreign idea. With maturity, however, and having now been a member of a community where there are so many homosexual family members, I had to make the choice - and know that I was comfortable with that choice.

Being a virtually nihilscriptura Christian, the only criterium I could use when deciding on my belief can only be the one of "What would jesus, if he was here today, have to say?"

To me, Jesus was a healer, and a lover of his children - which is what we are. He loved us so much that he underwent the most horrible of betrayals - because his one aim was to die so that he might save us from our sins. So, how would Jesus react, now ?, is the question I have asked myself so many times.

To me Love wins; Nature is God, and God is Nature. Nature is the agent that has (through genetic "differences") cause people to be born with a sexual orientation towards someone of his/her own sex. Would Jesus, that lovely an who would do anything for his children, really deny the relationship of love to be fulfilled with the physical element ? Would he truly be judging that all those who never chose to be born "different" to have to abide by the dictate of a life of chastity ? - and the answer which resounds through my thoughts are "No" - that is not the Jesus I know, and Love; even as I write this, I feel a "rush" of what I understand is a "spiritual moment", and I can say, with all confidence that what I say is what I truly believe.

I have seen and heard so many stories of the manipulation of Scriptures to know that what the Bible contains may hnot be the whole story - or may be the "distorted" story - messed with God inspired thoughts, regurgitated by well meaning men (and fools alike, no doubt).

So what is the answer? What would it take for those who want to do their best to follow the instructions of God to the letter to change ? - the words of a new Prophet ? - Am I that Prophet ? I wish I knew.

Edit "The Religious person, blindly following the dictates of his God"

I have edited to read " The Religious Person, devoutly doing his best to follow the dictates of his God"

Michel,

I admire your willingness to share your thinking process on this very controversial topic. I also applaud your conclusions.

IMO the whole idea of sin is one used to try to keep people in line. The God who I believe in couldn't possibly treat humans the way literalists see it. That would make God a misearble so-and-so being and I don't believe God is miserable. As I've said many times before, no one can convince me that babies are born sinful. When I look into the eyes of an innocent child I cannot imagine a God who would do that to such a beautiful being, so the whole idea of sin as it is preached in traditional churches doesn't work for me.

As to homosexuals, I happen to know many of them as there are a number of them in my own family and I also know many of their friends. When they tell me that they've known since they were five or six years old that they were 'different' and then had the language to identify that difference by the time they were about 12 or so, I believe them. I fully accept them and they know that, so they have no reason to lie to me.

These are people who are loving, compassionate, full of Life and caring. They are truly good people and I know from what they have told me that this was not a choice. Who in their right mind would choose to be gay when there is so much gay-bashing going on?

Anyway, I could go on forever, so better stop now. Thanks for sharing, Michel. I appreciate it.

 

[xstian sista]

reguardless of what we think and say, Christ died for us even the homosexual.
But He did not die to keep us in our sin, He died to redeem us back to the original
place in which Adam and Eve were once at. Marriage was instituted in the garden
and blessed by God, between Man and Woman. we must not get mixed up.
God called homosexuality a sin as well as many other things, we must therefore
be Holy even as our Father in heaven is Holy,
Much Love to all.

 

[maggie2]

reguardless of what we think and say, Christ died for us even the homosexual.
But He did not die to keep us in our sin, He died to redeem us back to the original
place in which Adam and Eve were once at. Marriage was instituted in the garden
and blessed by God, between Man and Woman. we must not get mixed up.
God called homosexuality a sin as well as many other things, we must therefore
be Holy even as our Father in heaven is Holy,
Much Love to all.

That's your belief and I respect your right to it. However, not everyone believes as you do. First of all I do not believe homosexuality is a 'sin'. Secondly, I don't believe in the whole original sin concept. Thirdly, the day that those who condemn homosexuality become perfect and no longer commit any 'sins' (by their definition, not mine) that is the day they have the right to point fingers at homosexuals and tell them what they should do.

When I read the New Testament it seems to me that Jesus said "These are the two great commandments: That you love the Lord your God and that you love your neighbor as yourself." It seems pretty clear from that quote that what is expected is that we LOVE. The statement doesn't say we need to judge or point fingers or decide what's a sin and what isn't. It says to LOVE. If we spent our time attempting to follow that commandment there would be no need to have these kinds of discussions.

IMO if we really want to follow Jesus we need to follow what he saw as the two greatest commandments and by doing so all the rest will fall into place. So how about a little LOVE and a little less judgement?

 

[michel]

Michel,

Christ's love for all included the command to 'go and sin no more', so I'm fully confident that this would apply in this issue. If we accept those who feel homosexual attractions with love, given the anthropological view within Christianity, we simply must echo Christ's words. To do other is to fail in our duty to love. Unfortunately, sometimes loving people necessitates making them uncomfortable and telling them things they don't like to hear - a fact that you as a father simply must be aware of.

As to what could change this, nothing short of Christ's return and Him saying we misunderstood. There will be no new Prophets only false ones (I know that I'm speaking from my own Tradition here and some will disagree) to make any changes and we view change in the faith as synonymous to heresy. I'm sorry to have to say this but the Orthodox Church will never accept unrepentant sinners of any kind - to do so would be to do them more harm than good, which is something those who love to cry foul over our attitude often fail to understand (and alongside that, they always seem to think that we single out homosexuality for special treatment, which is untrue).

James

I understand andd applaud your position, James. I also an so thankful - for your sake - that you haven't homosexual tendencies yourself (although only you know the real answer to that question).

If you did have, I am sure you are so strong in your faith and beliefs that I can see you remaining "chaste".

I thinkl JoeBoonda (if I remember rightly) made the very good point of re-affirming the priciple that our Father in heaven would bend over backwards to give his recalcitrant children every opportunity to be freed for the shackles of their sin....

Given the fact that psychotics cannot be helad liable for the actions as tied in with their concience (which, for many are lacking - or severely repressed), and God will judge them thus...........I cannot see a God that would turn away a son or daughter who was created with a love for their own sex. There could even be an argument (this from a fool who has little to no knowledge of biology and genetics) that perhaps our forefathers are the ones who have "messed with nature" - in the field of hormones; maybe there is something relating to that in this argument - I am grasping at potential straws. All I know ids that my father mst certainly didn't have man boobs, as I have - and I am sure he was more fertile than I - and I more fertile than my sons - but all that is for another thread.

What I am trying to say is that the tree that will not sway in the wind is one that has a tendency to crack, and break apart; you, I am sure will never understand what it is like to be a homosexual (as neither will I); all I know is that the world, and human kind, is built very much on the foundation of family, and loved ones.

Would God really deny Love to a vast swathe of the population because they have a defective (or specifically different ) gene that stops thenm from being attracted to members of the opposite sex?

 

[Anti-World]

I am going to do three things in response to that first article:
1.) Laugh
2.) Laugh Harder
3.) Give a logical response.

Here comes the logical response.

Apply that idea to child molestars, zoophiles, masturbation, even fornication if you like. What you just stated is that people have different sexual orientations and that we should fulfill them. All I can do is laugh because it's so rediculously against scripture. Whatever. Keep building up on belief until it comes crashing down.

 

[Anti-World]

"Would he truly be judging that all those who never chose to be born 'different' to have to abide by the dictate of a life of chastity ?"

I want to paste that into my signature... "Example of rationalization: 'Would he truly...

 

[Sunstone]

Here comes the logical response.

Apply that idea to child molestars, zoophiles, masturbation, even fornication if you like. What you just stated is that people have different sexual orientations and that we should fulfill them. All I can do is laugh because it's so rediculously against scripture. Whatever. Keep building up on belief until it comes crashing down.

How very strange you call that "logic".

 

[michel]

I am going to do three things in response to that first article:
1.) Laugh
2.) Laugh Harder
3.) Give a logical response.

Here comes the logical response.

Apply that idea to child molestars, zoophiles, masturbation, even fornication if you like. What you just stated is that people have different sexual orientations and that we should fulfill them. All I can do is laugh because it's so rediculously against scripture. Whatever. Keep building up on belief until it comes crashing down.

With the greatest of respect, you are talking through the top of your head.........

Homosexuality is genetic; child molesters - I'll keep an open mind on that, because I don't honestly know the reason for that phenomenon - although, from what I do know, it is a perversion. zoophiles, and fornication, I would agree with you. Masturabtion however is a different subject; since babies are known to masterbate as foetuses whilst in the woomb, I think you might care to think about that one............

 

[MaddLlama]

I am going to do three things in response to that first article:
1.) Laugh
2.) Laugh Harder
3.) Give a logical response.

Here comes the logical response.

Apply that idea to child molestars, zoophiles, masturbation, even fornication if you like. What you just stated is that people have different sexual orientations and that we should fulfill them. All I can do is laugh because it's so rediculously against scripture. Whatever. Keep building up on belief until it comes crashing down.

Why would you place masturbation and homosexuality on the same level as a pedophile or zoophile? There's a big difference between consensual sex between two people of the same sex and having sex with an animal or child. If you can't see that, then you probably shouldn't be making any judgements about sex at all.