Beliefs of born again christians?

nonbeliever

Could someone please tell me what are the beliefs of born again christians but more so how do they feel towards homosexuals?
thank you.

Excelsior

All Christians should be able to describe themselves as born again Christians as that is how Jesus actually describes his followers.
Born again is a term used by Christians of all denominations (but not all Christians use the term!) to describe the process of coming to accept the claims of Jesus independent of the religious background you were reared in.

The term comes from the 3rd chapter of the Gospel of John where Jesus tells an interested Rabbi called Nicodemus that to be enjoy eternal life you must be born again for a second time (spiritually through the Holy Spirit instead of through the waters of a physical birth). As such, a Catholic, Protestant or Pentecostal Christian could all describe themselves as born again.

Born-again is sometimes very incorrectly used as a different word for "evangelical". Evangelical Christianity is an approach to Christianity (that again is not tied to a denomination or tradition) that places emphasis on studying the Bible for one's self and that tries to bring the churches back to the kind of atmosphere they would have had in the earliest days of Christianity. Some Catholic Priests in Ireland used to rant against the "born-agains" and warn that they were "a cult", not realising that unless they were born again they had wasted their lives as priests.

How do born-agains feel towards homosexuals? In the majority of cases, they love them and treat them just anyone else. The Bible has no particular issue with homosexuals, it has a problem with homosexual practice and indeed any sexual practice (hetero, homo or other) that is outside of the marriage covenant. Any Christian, regardless of the cringe inducing "born again" label or not, who doesn't love homosexuals as they love all other people is badly failing their belief. On the other hand, any Christian, regardless of label, who doesn't take Christ and the Bible's teaching on sexuality seriously is failing their beliefs.

Nightwish

they dont view it so favourably http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1302

Excelsior

I couldn't get that link to open but I can imagine the kind of crap it might have on it. You can of course quote lots of fundamentalist sites who are not speaking in love, but even if you mis-appropriate the term "born again" to apply to evangelicals, they should always seek to speak out of Grace for every person.

Homosexual sex is not compatible with the Bible. Neither is pre-marital sex or any other kind of adultery. Neither is cheating on your tax, lying to your siblings or killing people in cold blood. But there is no basis upon which any Christian, fundamentalist, evangelical, born again, whatever label you put on them or they take, can claim to be living in sync with the Bible and as followers of Jesus if they confuse the sin with the sinner and regard homosexuals as outside the offer of Easter.

nonbeliever

I went to that link thanks very much for the crap i had to read. I've pasted some of it here encase there is anyone who cant get onto link.

Q. How does one determine if the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong?

That depends upon who is answering the question. The Christian point of view is based solely upon the Bible, the divinely inspired Word of God. A truly Christian standard of ethics is the conduct of divine revelation, not of statistical research nor of public opinion. For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behaviour.

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is ya?da`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977), "There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible." How does a church leader arrive at such a conclusion?

This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behaviour in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.

However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term "The New Morality," which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as "a kind of holy communion." This modern concept of Christian ethics rejects totally the precepts laid down by God in His Word. It is blasphemous and atheistic.

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, "Gay and Christian." But the two terms, "gay" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous.

Representing the women at that retreat, Nancy Krody a lesbian, spoke on "The Lesbian Christian Experience." Here again is a misnomer. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian. Calling one's self a Christian does not make one a Christian.

Malcolm Boyd speaks about "The Gay Male Christian Experience." Boyd, a protestant clergyman, says he has been a homosexual secretly for years. Only recently he made a public announcement of his homosexuality. He claims that his public announcement of his homosexuality has brought him back to the church. Boyd does not tell us what he means by the "church"!

Following is one point on which the speakers at Kirkbridge agreed: "A monogamous homosexual relationship characterized by fidelity, honesty and love is possible, desirable, and honoring to God."

Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it. A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God's revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns. "If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him" (I John 2:29). "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (II Timothy 2:19). Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.

nonbeliever

Q. There are those persons who say that homosexuality, even though a perverted form of the normal, God-ordained practice of sex, is a genetic problem, constitutionally inherited. Is there evidence to support this view?

I read in a periodical that in June, 1963 a panel of specialists in medicine, psychiatry, law, sociology and theology participated in a conference on homosexuality called by the Swiss Evangelical Church Union. That group reached the conclusion that homosexuality is not constitutionally inherited, it is not a part of one's genetic makeup. The ill-founded and unverifiable myth that homosexuality results from genetic causes is gradually fading away.

There are possibly a number of different ways in which homosexual practices could begin. When boys and girls reach puberty and the genital organs develop, it is not uncommon for boys to experiment with boys, and girls with girls. In prisons where men and women are denied access to persons of the opposite sex for long periods of time, some are introduced to homosexuality for the first time.

A young Christian woman came to our office in Detroit for counseling. She became involved in lesbianism when her marriage began to fail. She was introduced to her first homosexual experience by a divorcee who was her neighbor. After six months of practicing lesbianism she was convicted of her sin and sought help. We were able to show her from the Bible that she was sinning and that God stood ready and willing to forgive and cleanse her. She confessed and forsook her sin, and continues to this day to live a happy, normal Christian life.
Homosexuality must be accepted for what God says it is-- sin. Some homosexuals will attempt to circumvent the plain teaching of the Bible with the insipid reply that they are the way God made them. There is not the slightest bit of evidence in Scripture to support this false concept. God never created man with a so-called "homosexual need." No baby is born a homosexual. Every baby is born male or female. In every place the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The practicing homosexual is guilty of "leaving the natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:27), meaning that his behaviour is "against nature" as in the case of the lesbian (Romans 1:26). Inasmuch as homosexuality is opposed to the regular law and order of nature, the genetic concept must be ruled out completely. If homosexuality were a genetic problem, there would be little hope for the homosexual simply because there is no way that the genes in a person can be changed.

I only added this last bit for one reason and that is simply because it badly needs to be updated. Only just recently they HAVE actually found evidence that it is genetics that cause people to be BORN "homosexual". They now believe it is because too much of certain hormones go too the womb while a woman is pregnant. They now say that the youngest in a family of all boys is more likely to be "gay" because the while in the foetus he got too much oestrogen and not enough testosterone. I also highlighted the funniest part of the web page.

Excelsior

I'm heterosexual, as much as anyone can be concretely one or the other (which suggests that they HAVE not found a nature alone over nurture explanation) and there are strong genetic predictors for that. However, my disgusting naked woman fetish can still be turned to sin if I so choose it.

It is a ridiculous argument to claim that moderating our sexual appetite is somehow wrong. Not that you managed to even make that argument. You simply quoted a website derisively.

Dades

nonbeliever I'm quite confused as to where you stand on this and what this has to do with born again Christians...

nonbeliever wrote:

They now say that the youngest in a family of all boys is more likely to be "gay" because the while in the foetus he got too much oestrogen and not enough testosterone.

Oh and I'm the youngest in a family of three boys.

Please don't tell my wife I'm gay.

Excelsior

Good point Atheist.

Does homosexuality creep in gradually as you move down through the siblings? I'm the 3rd brother of 4 so should I tell my wife that 2 nights a week I can't sleep with her because of my "homo-quota"? Or does homosexuality only begin to kick in when you are the youngest brother?

Damn science. I wish it could somehow apply to life.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

Good point Atheist.

Does homosexuality creep in gradually as you move down through the siblings? I'm the 3rd brother of 4 so should I tell my wife that 2 nights a week I can't sleep with her because of my "homo-quota"? Or does homosexuality only begin to kick in when you are the youngest brother?

Damn science. I wish it could somehow apply to life.

Disappointingly facile remarks.

The consensus of all credible research into human sexuality gives great weight to in utero hormonal processes as a causal factor, and there has been observed a statistical correspondence between order of birth and occurrence of homosexuality.

It is never particularly advantageous to ones cause to set it against this kind of hard science.

Excelsior

I think you're missing the point. I don't deny the very large genetic aspect to homosexuality. I think I can safely speak for The Atheist and say he doesn't either.

What we were taking issue with was the scientistic rolling out of soundbyte "Facts!" that have nothing at all to do with historical Christianity's position on homosexuality.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

I think you're missing the point. I don't deny the very large genetic aspect to homosexuality. I think I can safely speak for The Atheist and say he doesn't either.

What we were taking issue with was the scientistic rolling out of soundbyte "Facts!" that have nothing at all to do with historical Christianity's position on homosexuality.

In that case I think you failed to make the point, and instead wrote something puerile and offensive.

neuro-praxis

Sapien, it was a joke. Just because you didn't register the point he was making doesn't mean the point was not made. You absolutist, you! And for the record, there was nothing facile in either what he or The Atheist wrote. Rather, the opposite in fact.

Unless of course you meant facile to mean eloquent, in which case we are in agreement.

The real irony would be, I suppose, that among his qualifications, Excelsior holds a science degree. Metaphorically speaking of course: he doesn't carry it around with him. Most of the time.

Sapien

neuro-praxis wrote:

Sapien, it was a joke. Just because you didn't register the point he was making doesn't mean the point was not made. You absolutist, you! And for the record, there was nothing facile in either what he or The Atheist wrote. Rather, the opposite in fact.

Unless of course you meant facile to mean eloquent, in which case we are in agreement.

The real irony would be, I suppose, that among his qualifications, Excelsior holds a science degree. Metaphorically speaking of course: he doesn't carry it around with him. Most of the time.

How exactly does one go about acquiring one of these fan clubs?

I realise that Atheist and Excelsior intended to suggest that nonbeliever's comments were not entirely germane. What they wrote, however, was a snide dismissal of an important development in the understanding of human sexuality. Context aside, it was a clumsy move, and I have come to expect more - from Excelsior at least, whom I have come to consider as one of the few people who argues what he argues in a remotely tenable way.

There was an intelligent point to be made, and absolutely no need to coin such unworthy phrases as "homo-quota". My disappointment arose from my expectation that he would recognise the sensitivity of the issues involved, and eschew glibness in favour of clarity and ingenuous discussion.

And given that you feel free to disclose so much, can you tell me what discipline the degree is in?

Dades

Sapien, we're not a taskforce handpicked by the Vatican to sort this issue out.
It's a free forum on the Internet. Loosen up.

I'm just sorry I dragged Excelsior down with me.

Seaneh

Sapien wrote:

How exactly does one go about acquiring one of these fan clubs?

Easy.
Marry someone.

nonbeliever

The Atheist wrote:

nonbeliever I'm quite confused as to where you stand on this and what this has to do with born again Christians...

Oh and I'm the youngest in a family of three boys.

Please don't tell my wife I'm gay.

If you actually read what i wrote it says you are more likely to be gay, not that you will be or you are.

Excelsior

I'm not allowed to hang out with The Atheist anymore. My mom says he is a bad influence.

juddd

The term comes from the 3rd chapter of the Gospel of John where Jesus tells an interested Rabbi called Nicodemus that to be enjoy eternal life you must be born again for a second time (spiritually through the Holy Spirit instead of through the waters of a physical birth). As such, a Catholic, Protestant or Pentecostal Christian could all describe themselves as born again.

I think what jesus meant there was that to enjoy eternal life you must repent your sins and then live your life according to the teachings of the bible, as is also mentioned in the book of revelations.