Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh the irony!


Your attitude is somewhat combative, so if you get the same in return don't complain.
To assert that homosexuality is sinful is nonsense, no denomination makes that claim. To say that this is the biggest issue facing christianity is laughable. Worse it shows a sense of priorities that are so askew they make Jesus cry.
Yes I am a professing Christian.

It might help generate more light and less heat if you and Jimi tried to understand what each one means by 'homosexuality'.

Wikipedia's definition reads: "Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender."

So, you might be claiming that no denomination claims that Definition 1 (attraction) is wrong, but Jimi might be referring to Defintion 2 (sexual behaviour) which most denominations would see as sinful.

Time to put mod hat on
Either way, throwing loose and inaccurate jibes around such as 'homophobe' does not help rational discussion on this issue. If there is genuine homophobia in a post (ie irrational fear or hatred) then that is contrary to the Charter and the mods will act accordingly. Feel free to use the Reported post button in that case - but let's scale down the rhetoric a bit, OK?

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

True.

However, I do believe that our brothers, sisters, cousins etc. etc. who identify as gay are more than worthy to thread the path, just so long as they know where the bar is set - just like me, who falls short many times over. They deserve as much hairy eyeball as I would receive as a heterosexual who is finding my way too, and falls below it, always will and looks to Christ - nobody is beyond the borders of looking to Christ for mercy.

They shouldn't be told 'bad you' or 'those crazy Christians, look elsewhere' if connection with Jesus is what they desire, because he is always waiting, always, and willing to change a heart any moment, and knows every single one.

They are no different to anybody else imo that falls short and doesn't even realise it in so many ways.

However, yes, the 'bar' is set, no point in moving it or even trying, it's immoveable, it's set in something stronger than stone, so yes you are committing a sin, yes so am I when I act contrary to God everyday; imo, the emphasis should be on not only the 'sin' every single person commits, but moreso on growing in a relationship and faith in Christ - everything else is secondary and comes naturally to it.

'Daniel' is a name that I love; it means 'God is my Judge' - it also signifies 'Daniel in the Lions Den' -

This is the lions den, and yes, God is Judge. However, sin is sin, but his mercy is boundless and anybody who seeks companionship with him no matter how tricky the road will be judged accordingly, there are no perfect stone throwers here.

The problem is heterosexuality can be celebrated. Homosexuality must not be celebrated. It is this inequality that people have issues with.

JimiTime

tommy2bad wrote: »

Oh the irony!

There is no irony. Once again, you've thrown out a proclamation without actually backing it up. All you've done is made proclamations, misrepresented and misunderstood arguments and thrown out insults.

Your attitude is somewhat combative, so if you get the same in return don't complain.

Now THAT is ironic;) I've no issue with you being combative. Making unsubstantiated pronouncements and dishing out insults is more, angry and rude than combative.

To assert that homosexuality is sinful is nonsense, no denomination makes that claim.

Don't try pretend that you just misunderstand what I've said now. It is clear what I've described as sinful, and it involves our actions.

To say that this is the biggest issue facing christianity is laughable.

Again, from the beginning you've been willfully misrepresenting arguments and pretending to be outraged seeking offence where you can get it. Maybe if you calmly read the posts first, give yourself 5 minutes to think about whats been said, then you may actually understand whats being said.

Worse it shows a sense of priorities that are so askew they make Jesus cry.

The only issue here seems to be with the quality of literacy.

Yes I am a professing Christian.

Then you should be able to do more than make proclamations, and dish out insults. If you believe that I, as a professing Christian, have this topic all wrong, then it is your duty as a Christian to be salt for me. Shouting at me, and just telling me the way it is according to you is not going to convince anyone. So if you wish to do your Christian duty, backup your proclamations, and bring me and the other professing Christians in the same position into the light. Do you think that shouting insults etc is doing some kind of good?
F

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

The problem is heterosexuality can be celebrated. Homosexuality must not be celebrated. It is this inequality that people have issues with.

What is it to 'celebrate' heterosexuality?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

What is it to 'celebrate' heterosexuality?

"Hooray, hooray, thank God that I'm not gay!" (to the tune of Boney M's 'Holiday')?

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

What is it to 'celebrate' heterosexuality?

Etc Etc

Benny_Cake

Think I got a little sick just now, there could be diabetics reading this Morbert!

tommy2bad

@JimiTime;
We seem to be at cross purposes here.
My aggressive response to your post was as an example of how a 'strongly worded' post can read to someone else.
Now the claim that homosexuality, define it as being homosexual or homosexual acts are sinful is open to debate. Perhaps it siege mentality that causes such entrenchment but it's unnecessary.

lmaopml;
Christianity is not going to redefine 'sin' for anybody EVER -

Actually it has done so often, goal posts get moved all the time, or bars raised and dropped.
You insist Paul condemned homosexual acts but it is equally possible to read the same passage as condemning all illicit sexuality and more so condemning judgment of others before accepting our own faults.
I don't care if you forbid homosexual acts like you might forbid shellfish or pork or zippers, fine it a signifier of tribe then.
What I am objecting to is the idea that homosexuality is in and of it self an evil. Yes I do mean acts or orientation.

Benny_Cake

I think that there is a distinction between saying that being homosexual is sinful and saying that homosexual acts are sinful. I'd consider that the first opinion is completely lacking in love, charity, and is simply outright bigotry. However I can accept that many Christians, in good conscience, feel that all homosexual acts are sinful. Now I don't agree with that, but I at least feel that some discussion and debate is possible with Christians who feel that way - although I think Christians in general need to do a lot less talking about gay people and a lot more listening, to gay people and to the Holy Spirit.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What is it to 'celebrate' heterosexuality?

Someone didn't get a card for Valentines day perhaps :P

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

The problem is heterosexuality can be celebrated. Homosexuality must not be celebrated. It is this inequality that people have issues with.

Well, there is no inequality really Morbert, everybody is imperfect, so we're all imperfect equally. With respect, from a Christian perspective the focus is not on the physical part of life, it's focus is always on the spiritual - even for a Married couple, yes we 'love' eachother, but the whole idea is that even in the physical expression of love, is to put an emphasis on what God wills and expresses through that love - In saying that, it doesn't mean we always do so....obviously - I know I don't. Like I say, no perfect people, and God knows it..

I think everybody can celebrate love though, and in the same letter to the Corinthians St. Paul puts it perfectly....and balances everything - that's what Scripture does. The 'love' he speaks of though is not about between a man and woman or between a man and man or woman and woman, it's simply loving, even our enemies, the most difficult type - it's about living larger than life I think, and few accomplish anything near it, so nobody who looks and tries and even fails, and picks themselves up and carries on, even if they fail many times, is necessarily a failure, it's the journey that counts and the amount of times we pick ourselves up too, and the reason we did so -

I don't know if I'm good at expressing this properly without sounding Holier than thou - which is not, really not, what I think it's all about.

Anyway, it's important I think to put St. Paul in perspective too.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.



And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.


St. Paul wrote many letters to various Churches, some introductory, some to guide, others in answer to questions, some to praise, others to admonish and encourage properly in the faith, some questions the churches themselves must have asked via letters ( although we don't have the original letter actually to St. Paul ) - we have to put these things in perspective with all of Scripture too, and not isolate things, or anybody.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmm. Good question. It depends on what you mean by believe in the bible. 'Bible Believing Christian' tends to be a self description that denotes born again evangelical christian, some more Calvinist than others but ist less about being christian and more about tribal identity.
All Christians believe in the bible but not all give it the same weight, tradition and the guidance of the holy spirit are counted too.

All Christians are born again Christians. To be Christian, and to be born again of God's Spirit go hand in hand theologically. This comes as a result of accepting Jesus' death and resurrection as a means of atoning for our sin.

The term born again is clearly used by Jesus in the Bible. John chapter 3 in particular.

Paul and Peter also use it in their letters. Paul speaks of us being a new creation and coming to new life in Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17) and Peter speaks of us being born again into a living hope through the Resurrection of Jesus (1 Peter 1:3) and that we were born again by the word of God (1 Peter 1:23).

Without putting emphasis on the Bible as God's word there is no guide for Christian living, without putting emphasis on the Bible as God's word, we might as well say anything can be Christianity.

tommy2bad

Well I never herd any catholic self describe as "a bible believing Christian" It's something of an American import tbh. And a term that has no relevance pre reformation.
Yes we are born again, yes we believe in the bible but what we don't do is use the bible as a stick to beat others with, its a yard stick.
Once I hear the term bible believing I know that Im dealing with a specific kind of Christian, protestant evangelical.
I have nothing against that understand, just the need to insist on the bible believing part as if no one else believes in it.
What of tradition? what of the holy spirit? Or has God said and done everything already?

lmaopml

Well, Tommy you haven't met many Catholics so lol.... Scripture is God breathed, it's foundational and perfect - all Catholics and the Catholic Church has always professed itself on the pillars of the four Gospels of truth, and of all Scripture - although it reveals it's secrets over the course of time, and is ageless, part of it's unique beauty - a hallmark of God.

The difference is Scripture only, and how that should be understood, in light of the Holy Spirit and Sacred Tradition, which is what leads on to the community of Christ and indeed the body of Christ too as it is understood from a Catholic perspective, and how one who is Catholic interprets Scripture in light of, and giving weight to Sacred Tradition and the voices of the saints gone by iykwim. However, absolutely Scripture is foundational, there would not be a Christianity without the written word too - it's part of the life of the faith, it's intrinsic to it, and perfect for it's purpose too.

imo of course.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

The problem is heterosexuality can be celebrated. Homosexuality must not be celebrated. It is this inequality that people have issues with.

So the issue is not that homosexual activity is considered sinful, sin being the thing that cripples us spiritually and drives us from God, but that homosexuals can't send valentine cards to each other? Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

So the issue is not that homosexual activity is considered sinful, sin being the thing that cripples us spiritually and drives us from God, but that homosexuals can't send valentine cards to each other? Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Those are both the same issue. Homosexual activity, like sending valentines cards to each other, is considered sinful or spiritually crippling.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

Those are both the same issue. Homosexual activity, like sending valentines cards to each other, is considered sinful or spiritually crippling.

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. As for your perceived inequality, that is not the case in terms of God. We all struggle with our own sins before God. Be it a desire for money, a desire for fornication etc. We are all called to walk in Christ and reject the flesh. Jesus gave us this lesson explicitly in Mark 9

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[g] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[h] to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire.[j] 50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”


Here, Jesus is giving us the big picture in terms of the flesh and the spiritual.

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. As for your perceived inequality, that is not the case in terms of God. We all struggle with our own sins before God. Be it a desire for money, a desire for fornication etc. We are all called to walk in Christ and reject the flesh. Jesus gave us this lesson explicitly in Mark 9

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[g] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[h] to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire.[j] 50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

Here, Jesus is giving us the big picture in terms of the flesh and the spiritual.

Now I am the one seeking clarification. Could a homosexual be thrown into hell for something as innocent as a valentine's card? If yes, would a heterosexual face the same judgement?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So the issue is not that homosexual activity is considered sinful, sin being the thing that cripples us spiritually and drives us from God, but that homosexuals can't send valentine cards to each other? Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

I think the issue is that lack of recognition of the legitimacy of homosexual romantic love as equivalent and as significant as heterosexual romantic love.

For example, when the killer of Shane Geoghegan was sentenced both Geoghegan's mother and girlfriend were given special position to hear the verdict. When a friend of mine was very ill in hospital the only people allowed see her were her parents and her boyfriend. Society recognizes romantic bonds as being particular significant, even more so when marriage is introduced. It sees these bonds as important and to a large extend celebrates them.

Given that Christianity focuses almost entirely on the sexual aspect of being a homosexual, it is difficult to see if Christianity recognizes the same for homosexuals as equally legitimate. Certainly a lot of Christians don't seem to, either viewing homosexual romantic love as some perversion or frankly not even being aware that such a thing is possible.

But rather than putting words in your mouth, what are your feelings on the matter.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

Now I am the one seeking clarification. Could a homosexual be thrown into hell for something as innocent as a valentine's card? If yes, would a heterosexual face the same judgement?

The question is motive, and who our master is. There is nothing wrong with sending a person a card. Its the matter of the heart that could condmnn a person in Gods site though. For example, if I'm a married man desiring a relationship with someone other than my wife, and I send such an item as an indication of my sinful desire, then the motive makes it sinful. Its not simply sending a card. So if sending the card is borne out of something that is rebellious against God, i.e. something sinful, then its not just sending a card.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I think the issue is that lack of recognition of the legitimacy of homosexual romantic love as equivalent and as significant as heterosexual romantic love.

Can you define romantic love without using analogy? As in, a dictionary style definition of what romantic love is? If I understand what you are describing, then I'm not sure how you can have such a feeling without a sexual element? The analogies of curling up on the sofa together etc just state events that of themselves are innocuous. Its a matter of the heart and of motive that may dictate a seemingly innocuous act as something sinful.

Given that Christianity focuses almost entirely on the sexual aspect of being a homosexual,it is difficult to see if Christianity recognizes the same for homosexuals as equally legitimate. Certainly a lot of Christians don't seem to, either viewing homosexual romantic love as some perversion or frankly not even being aware that such a thing is possible.

Again, are you trying to detach any sexual element from whatever 'romantic love' is?

But rather than putting words in your mouth, what are your feelings on the matter.

A Christian will not or should not embrace sin. A Christian looks to nail his flesh to the Cross with Christ. As described in Mark, the big picture is whats important. Our spiritual welfare and our relationship with God. A person who wishes to embrace a sinful desire, such as a same sex relationship, or an extra-marital relationship etc is not surrendering to or trusting Christ.

There is nothing wrong with two men or women being companions. Once there is no sexual element, then there is no issue. However, if they are sexually desiring each other, then there is an issue.

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

The question is motive, and who our master is. There is nothing wrong with sending a person a card. Its the matter of the heart that could condmnn a person in Gods site though. For example, if I'm a married man desiring a relationship with someone other than my wife, and I send such an item as an indication of my sinful desire, then the motive makes it sinful. Its not simply sending a card. So if sending the card is borne out of something that is rebellious against God, i.e. something sinful, then its not just sending a card.

To illustrate the inequality, consider these two cases: An unmarried woman sending a card to an unmarried man, and an unmarried homosexual woman sending a card to an unmarried woman. Both cases are identical insofar as both gestures are not born from simple lusts, but from complex affections and deep emotions. In the first case, the woman's heart opens doors to blossoming relationships. In the second case, the woman's heart condemns her to hell.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

To illustrate the inequality, consider these two cases: An unmarried woman sending a card to an unmarried man, and an unmarried homosexual woman sending a card to an unmarried woman. Both cases are identical insofar as both gestures are not born from simple lusts, but from complex affections and deep emotions. In the first case, the woman's heart opens doors to blossoming relationships. In the second case, the woman's heart condemns her to hell.

Again, in terms of God, that is not unequal in any shape of form. Both are called to a Godly standard. Woman A may be greedy and quick to anger, while Woman B may be very kind and meek. That does not make it unequal, Woman A will be expected to be kind and meek. If they wish to follow Christ, Woman A's struggle will be with her desire for money and her anger issues, Woman B's struggle will be with her sexual desire.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Can you define romantic love without using analogy? As in, a dictionary style definition of what romantic love is? If I understand what you are describing, then I'm not sure how you can have such a feeling without a sexual element?

I'm not saying there isn't a sexual element. I'm saying that the feelings go far beyond the sexual element.

For example, no one dismiss Shane Geoghegan sobbing girlfriend as simply being interested in fornication, the way some dismiss homosexual couples as being focused around sex.

Society (or humanity at large) recognize romantic love as something that has a sexual element but that is much more than that. The recognition that this is also true of homosexual romantic love seems missing from Christianity.

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not saying there isn't a sexual element. I'm saying that the feelings go far beyond the sexual element.

For example, no one dismiss Shane Geoghegan sobbing girlfriend as simply being interested in fornication, the way some dismiss homosexual couples as being focused around sex.

Society (or humanity at large) recognize romantic love as something that has a sexual element but that is much more than that. The recognition that this is also true of homosexual romantic love seems missing from Christianity.

Sorry I'm late getting back. Have I not already said such romantic love can be part of homosexuality? And any other sexuality. It's just that the only morally valid expression is the heterosexual one.

**********************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that there is a distinction between saying that being homosexual is sinful and saying that homosexual acts are sinful. I'd consider that the first opinion is completely lacking in love, charity, and is simply outright bigotry. However I can accept that many Christians, in good conscience, feel that all homosexual acts are sinful. Now I don't agree with that, but I at least feel that some discussion and debate is possible with Christians who feel that way - although I think Christians in general need to do a lot less talking about gay people and a lot more listening, to gay people and to the Holy Spirit.

It's like this: any desire that is sinful must be rejected by the individual, or he/she sins. I may be tempted to adultery, a heterosexual desire - but I have not sinned if I reject that desire. If I hold on to it, even if I do not act on it, I sin.

Same for people with homosexual desires. Same for people with bi-sexual desires. With paedosexual desires. With omnisexual desires.

*******************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

What I am objecting to is the idea that homosexuality is in and of it self an evil. Yes I do mean acts or orientation.

The Bible plainly condemns both the embracing of the desire and the act. We all have a sinful nature - in the Christian it struggles against his/her new nature. So if I have a problem with sexual temptation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, paedosexual or other, I do not sin unless I tolerate that temptation. If I reject it utterly and seek God's grace to overcome it and indeed be free from it, then I am not sinning.

***************************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.

Morbert

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, in terms of God, that is not unequal in any shape of form. Both are called to a Godly standard. Woman A may be greedy and quick to anger, while Woman B may be very kind and meek. That does not make it unequal, Woman A will be expected to be kind and meek. If they wish to follow Christ, Woman A's struggle will be with her desire for money and her anger issues, Woman B's struggle will be with her sexual desire.

The inequality between greed and compassion, or between anger and peacefulness, fits perfectly within the Christian narrative. They are genuine inequalities, with observable consequences that lead to suffering. No such narrative is established in the Bible when it comes to homosexuality, however. Instead, it is equated with lust and debauchery. It is this inequality I am interested in. Does it really just boil down to "God forbids it"?

Doc Farrell

Morbert wrote: »

JimiTime wrote: »

The question is motive, and who our master is. There is nothing wrong with sending a person a card. Its the matter of the heart that could condmnn a person in Gods site though. For example, if I'm a married man desiring a relationship with someone other than my wife, and I send such an item as an indication of my sinful desire, then the motive makes it sinful. Its not simply sending a card. So if sending the card is borne out of something that is rebellious against God, i.e. something sinful, then its not just sending a card.

To illustrate the inequality, consider these two cases: An unmarried woman sending a card to an unmarried man, and an unmarried homosexual woman sending a card to an unmarried woman. Both cases are identical insofar as both gestures are not born from simple lusts, but from complex affections and deep emotions. In the first case, the woman's heart opens doors to blossoming relationships. In the second case, the woman's heart condemns her to hell.

How many others here would agree with this, that a lesbian who sends a valentines card is condemned to hell?

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

The problem is heterosexuality can be celebrated. Homosexuality must not be celebrated. It is this inequality that people have issues with.

Homosexuality can be celebrated, and is. Drunkenness can be celebrated, and is. It's up to those who like it to celebrate - just don't demand the rest of us confess homosexuality or drunkenness is morally good. They may be morally good in the minds of the celebrators, but we be beg to differ.

The issue of homosexual marriage is contentious not because we object to homosexuals entering a life-long commitment similar to heterosexuals, but because the gay lobby wants to force their definition on the heterosexual term.

It they would like to call it 'homosexual marriage', that would be fine by me. Just not 'marriage'.

********************************************************************
2 Samuel 13:13 After this Absalom the son of David had a lovely sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. 2 Amnon was so distressed over his sister Tamar that he became sick; for she was a virgin. And it was improper for Amnon to do anything to her.