Threads on Homosexuality: WHY, Oh Why do we continue with them?

[Paul DeBaufer]

As I read the last few posts on the Naz Ally thread I began to wonder why is it we even begin such threads. I mean the same people say virtually the same things over and over. Stuff we've all heard in the myriad of threads on the subject. So much so that we are predictable. In one thread it was assumed that I was heading to a particular conclusion. That is my fault because in other threads that is what I have done. Is there anyone here who doesn't know where I stand, what my position on this particular topic is? I am not the only one who is consistent in his/her position. Our positions never change. So why then do we do this to ourselves? We beat up on each other, get beaten up on, whether in actuality or perception? Why do we subject ourselves to this?

What's worse is that when I read a post from some, when I know well in advance what they will say and can love them dearly even having that knowledge. When it is in writing I run to the fridge and grab a bottle of the purple or blue haterade (thank you Cam for such a great and descriptive portmanteau) and drink deeply. Sometimes it shows, mostly I delete the posts that are written under the influence of haterade. (though it oft doesn't seem that way.) Am I the only one who reaches for that bottle when we have these conversations? I don't think so, but can't really speak for anyone but me.

We all know the others' position. We know we are not going to change anyone's mind. We turn on each other like in no other topic. Again, why do we continue with fighting over this one particular topic?

[Benjamin Burch]

As I read the last few posts on the Naz Ally thread I began to wonder why is it we even begin such threads. I mean the same people say virtually the same things over and over. Stuff we've all heard in the myriad of threads on the subject. So much so that we are predictable. In one thread it was assumed that I was heading to a particular conclusion. That is my fault because in other threads that is what I have done. Is there anyone here who doesn't know where I stand, what my position on this particular topic is? I am not the only one who is consistent in his/her position. Our positions never change. So why then do we do this to ourselves? We beat up on each other, get beaten up on, whether in actuality or perception? Why do we subject ourselves to this?

What's worse is that when I read a post from some, when I know well in advance what they will say and can love them dearly even having that knowledge. When it is in writing I run to the fridge and grab a bottle of the purple or blue haterade (thank you Cam for such a great and descriptive portmanteau) and drink deeply. Sometimes it shows, mostly I delete the posts that are written under the influence of haterade. (though it oft doesn't seem that way.) Am I the only one who reaches for that bottle when we have these conversations? I don't think so, but can't really speak for anyone but me.

We all know the others' position. We know we are not going to change anyone's mind. We turn on each other like in no other topic. Again, why do we continue with fighting over this one particular topic?

Because both the Church and the culture have told us that it is the most important issue and that it should be the most important issue to each of us. In fact, it is supposed to be important enough to turn on each other. At least, that is what both the Church and the culture have told us.

[Cam Pence]

Well as the person who started the Naz Ally thread, I originally started it to see if anyone had heard of the group but I should have known what it would become

[Susan Unger]

...I began to wonder why is it we even begin such threads. I mean the same people say virtually the same things over and over. Stuff we've all heard in the myriad of threads on the subject. So much so that we are predictable. ... Our positions never change. So why then do we do this to ourselves? We beat up on each other, get beaten up on, whether in actuality or perception? Why do we subject ourselves to this?

This and the haterade is why I just stopped reading those threads altogether. I do know what people are going to say and just can't handle the vitriol. Doing so causes me to lose respect for others. I just decided this time around that ignorance [of the threads] is bliss.

[Marsha Lynn]

Personally, my view has changed a lot during the time this has been an issue in the culture at large and is still evolving. I know there are those who see everything clearly and simply dig their heels in deeper every time it comes up, but I think there's a gradual shift in our culture and I, for one, am not immune to the compassion driving that shift.

I suspect you don't want this to turn into another thread on homosexuality and I hope I'm not pushing it that direction, but it really is a puzzle as we each listen to the rhetoric happening around us and decide where we stand on the matter. It's especially puzzling because there seems so little grace on the "correct" side.

When truth and grace hit an impasse, which side shall I choose?

Marsha

[Peggy Gray]

When truth and grace hit an impasse...

Can that happen? I wonder...if that happens, maybe either it isn't truth or it isn't grace.

[David Troxler]

I, for one, am not immune to the compassion driving that shift.

Marsha

Marsha, I especially appreciated your description of compassion driving this shift. It was out of compassion that Jesus repeatedly entered into the world of the outcasts of His day.

dave t

[Jeremy D. Scott]

When truth and grace hit an impasse, which side shall I choose?

My faith tells me that truth is a person, not a concept.
(And grace is embodied by him, too.)

I've found that people are messy.
(And so is grace.)

[Marsha Lynn]

When truth and grace hit an impasse, which side shall I choose?

Can that happen? I wonder...if that happens, maybe either it isn't truth or it isn't grace.

Truth:

Ex 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.

Luke 13:14bThe synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

Grace:

Luke 13:15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

------------
Truth:

Lev 20:10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Jn 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?”

Grace:

Jn 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---------
The law was the law and those people were accurately quoting it. They had airtight arguments. And yet, our great Example chose compassion and grace over the truth of the lawkeepers, humiliating them in the process.

Still, you make a good point. When there is apparent conflict between truth and grace, we may need to rethink either our truth or our grace.

Marsha

[Paul DeBaufer]

This and the haterade is why I just stopped reading those threads altogether. I do know what people are going to say and just can't handle the vitriol. Doing so causes me to lose respect for others. I just decided this time around that ignorance [of the threads] is bliss.

You are both smarter and stronger than I.

[Susan Unger]

You are both smarter and stronger than I.

That comes from a strong desire and prayer that God heal me of anxiety and depression. I have been begging God every day for the last 6 years to heal me of crushing depression. One of the things he told me to do is to avoid negative people especially those who suck the life out of me. Those threads qualify. I want healing enough that I am quite willing to avoid these joy sucking threads.

[Paul DeBaufer]

That comes from a strong desire and prayer that God heal me of anxiety and depression. I have been begging God every day for the last 6 years to heal me of crushing depression. One of the things he told me to do is to avoid negative people especially those who suck the life out of me. Those threads qualify. I want healing enough that I am quite willing to avoid these joy sucking threads.

I need to learn to leave them alone.

[Hans Deventer]

We all know the others' position. We know we are not going to change anyone's mind. We turn on each other like in no other topic. Again, why do we continue with fighting over this one particular topic?

Actually, with some I never fight, whatever the topic, and with others I always fight, whatever the topic. So I don't think it has anything to do with the topic.

As to why I subject myself to this, that is the very question I am trying to answer for myself. Can't answer it for anyone else anyway.

[Hans Deventer]

Paul, I at least have a theory as to the why. Through time, NazNet has changed from a mere group of people who only wanted to have fellowship and learn, to a battle ground where ideas have to be defended and perceived heresies attacked. In that sense, NazNet's popularity has become its downfall.

This topic is the prime example. Some feel NazNet should reflect the CotN, which of course was never the idea. So they get alarmed when they read stuff they'd never hear in their neck of the woods and rush in to defend whoever tries to voice the more traditional approach.
Others used to see NazNet as a place of learning, where new ideas and developments could be discussed. Some accepted, some discarded.
Obviously, the two approaches are like a toxic drink, indeed turning into hateraid.

So for me, the solution would be to limit NazNet's visability to those who actually enjoy participating, thus diminishing the idea that this is place where anything needs to be defended and perceived heresies attacked because others read along.

Or we eventually have to replace NazNet by closed FB or Google+ groups, invitation only. Where we can once again just listen to one another without fear being the destructive factor.

[Randy Wise]

As I read the last few posts on the Naz Ally thread I began to wonder why is it we even begin such threads. I mean the same people say virtually the same things over and over. Stuff we've all heard in the myriad of threads on the subject. So much so that we are predictable. In one thread it was assumed that I was heading to a particular conclusion. That is my fault because in other threads that is what I have done. Is there anyone here who doesn't know where I stand, what my position on this particular topic is? I am not the only one who is consistent in his/her position. Our positions never change. So why then do we do this to ourselves? We beat up on each other, get beaten up on, whether in actuality or perception? Why do we subject ourselves to this?

What's worse is that when I read a post from some, when I know well in advance what they will say and can love them dearly even having that knowledge. When it is in writing I run to the fridge and grab a bottle of the purple or blue haterade (thank you Cam for such a great and descriptive portmanteau) and drink deeply. Sometimes it shows, mostly I delete the posts that are written under the influence of haterade. (though it oft doesn't seem that way.) Am I the only one who reaches for that bottle when we have these conversations? I don't think so, but can't really speak for anyone but me.

We all know the others' position. We know we are not going to change anyone's mind. We turn on each other like in no other topic. Again, why do we continue with fighting over this one particular topic?

I don't know. Why did you start this thread?

I think some want the "church" to give their blessing. So they ask and ask. (not meaning you Paul).
My answer in regard to something that is declared "immoral in scripture" would reflect what is written because I accept by faith that teaching is from above. Either way Jesus is the judge. It would be much easier for all to state "that lifestyle is ok with God". The problem with that is I don't think that is the truth I see in scripture. I have and do work with those who practice that lifestyle. I treat them with the same respect as anyone else. But if they ask me as you wrote Paul you know my answer. My answer won't change even if a "church" gives its blessing.

Randy

[Marsha Lynn]

Through time, NazNet has changed from a mere group of people who only wanted to have fellowship and learn, to a battle ground where ideas have to be defended and perceived heresies attacked. In that sense, NazNet's popularity has become its downfall.

Hans, you (and others) have a tendency to view NazNet's past through rose-colored glasses. Have you forgotten the early rounds on the topic of homosexuality? There was definitely conflict and a couple of people were banned.

Still, I'm glad you have fond memories of those early times to offset your current discouragement.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, you (and others) have a tendency to view NazNet's past through rose-colored glasses. Have you forgotten the early rounds on the topic of homosexuality? There was definitely conflict and a couple of people were banned.

Still, I'm glad you have fond memories of those early times to offset your current discouragement.

Marsha

I don't recall these topics when I started posting on NazNet, Marsha. I do recall the thread about God's foreknowledge, but I don't remember we were also discussing homosexuality in those days.

I do remember we used to have a Hot Topic forum that I used to moderate, which worked because it kept the rest pretty clean.

[Cam Pence]

Some feel NazNet should reflect the CotN, which of course was never the idea.

Some of it could be needed clarification in this area. Honestly this is how I have always thought of Naznet. I mean you can't really blame me. Most of the people here are Nazarenes and NAZ is right in the title.

[Hans Deventer]

Some of it could be needed clarification in this area. Honestly this is how I have always thought of Naznet. I mean you can't really blame me. Most of the people here are Nazarenes and NAZ is right in the title.

Sure, we are a forum meant for Nazarenes and friends of the CotN. No misunderstanding there. But where is it written that our opinions must reflect the constituency of the CotN? I have never heard that. Now I have been around for only 14 years so I may have missed a few things here or there.
But I would say it is no secret that NazNet does not reflect the general constituency of the CotN. It has always been a place where new ideas could be discussed and not immediately shot down by a thought police.

[Cam Pence]

Sure, we are a forum meant for Nazarenes and friends of the CotN. No misunderstanding there. But where is it written that our opinions must reflect the constituency of the CotN? I have never heard that. Now I have been around for only 14 years so I may have missed a few things here or there.
But I would say it is no secret that NazNet does not reflect the general constituency of the CotN. It has always been a place where new ideas could be discussed and not immediately shot down by a thought police.

I don't doubt you here Hans. You have arguably been here longer than most and I trust what you are saying. What I am saying is I don't think this is as clear to everyone who posts here as you might think. It is possible that I could be the only one who has misunderstood, but our arguments do seem to come to a point where this is an issue. All I am saying is that making it official, somehow, that this is not necessarily a place for Nazarenes to come to defend the stances and doctrines of the CotN should they be challenged might be helpful. If I had known this, I probably would not have ever participated in the last thread on homosexuality as my participation was based solely in our on denominations stance and working from that framework. Once again I may be the only person who has falsely understood "Nazarene friendly" in this way, but I doubt it. If that is what NN was always meant to be then it might be a helpful thing to lay it out for everyone in some official capacity, probably every few years, so everyone is on the same page. Just a suggestion.

[Sarah Smith]

Hmm--not sure a closed forum where everyone agrees with me would ever grow me in Christlikeness.

[Hans Deventer]

Hmm--not sure a closed forum where everyone agrees with me would ever grow me in Christlikeness.

Agreed. Therefore I did not suggest it.

[Hans Deventer]

All I am saying is that making it official, somehow, that this is not necessarily a place for Nazarenes to come to defend the stances and doctrines of the CotN should they be challenged might be helpful.

I agree. Now do understand, the problem is not that people defend the views of the CotN. That would turn the world upside down. The problem is that NazNet has become a battleground, where some feel they need to defend the views of the CotN because everybody is watching. Compare a one on one discussion with a presidential debate. The former is about listening to and learning from one another. The latter has no such goal. It is a battle with the sole purpose of gaining support. And THAT is what I think is the problem.

Therefore, Sarah, I would like to get rid of the audience, in order for us to be able to get back to simple listening and learning from each other.

[Susan Unger]

I need to learn to leave them alone.

Keep praying and asking God for the strength and desire to leave them alone. In time, it will come.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't doubt you here Hans. You have arguably been here longer than most and I trust what you are saying. What I am saying is I don't think this is as clear to everyone who posts here as you might think. It is possible that I could be the only one who has misunderstood, but our arguments do seem to come to a point where this is an issue. All I am saying is that making it official, somehow, that this is not necessarily a place for Nazarenes to come to defend the stances and doctrines of the CotN should they be challenged might be helpful. If I had known this, I probably would not have ever participated in the last thread on homosexuality as my participation was based solely in our on denominations stance and working from that framework. Once again I may be the only person who has falsely understood "Nazarene friendly" in this way, but I doubt it. If that is what NN was always meant to be then it might be a helpful thing to lay it out for everyone in some official capacity, probably every few years, so everyone is on the same page. Just a suggestion.

I think the title of your thread framed the question within the bounds of the CotN. While the dissenting opinion should still be allowed, it should probably come from within and not from a former or never has been Nazarene.

[Cam Pence]

I think the title of your thread framed the question within the bounds of the CotN. While the dissenting opinion should still be allowed, it should probably come from within and not from a former or never has been Nazarene.

Actually I framed the OP out of curiousity thinking that it would be a short thread, however of I had thought more about it, I probably could have seen where it was going to go. I get your point though

[Susan Unger]

Actually I framed the OP out of curiousity thinking that it would be a short thread...

Cam, Cam, Cam...

[Cam Pence]

Cam, Cam, Cam...

I know, I know

[Jim Chabot]

Still, you make a good point. When there is apparent conflict between truth and grace, we may need to rethink either our truth or our grace.

Marsha

It's not that hard;

Truth:

Lev 20:10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Jn 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?”

Grace:

Jn 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Truth, Grace and Clear Instruction:

1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.


1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?


1Cr 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

No one gets stoned or even punished. Our instruction is to convey Jesus thought, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It's Grace and Truth.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It's not that hard;

Truth:

Lev 20:10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Jn 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?”

Grace:

Jn 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Truth, Grace and Clear Instruction:

1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.


1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?


1Cr 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

No one gets stoned or even punished. Our instruction is to convey Jesus thought, "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It's Grace and Truth.

This kinda brings us back to the OP

[Billy Cox]

Truth:

Ex 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.

Luke 13:14bThe synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

Grace:

Luke 13:15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

------------
Truth:

Lev 20:10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Jn 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?”

Grace:

Jn 8:7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

---------
The law was the law and those people were accurately quoting it. They had airtight arguments. And yet, our great Example chose compassion and grace over the truth of the lawkeepers, humiliating them in the process.

Still, you make a good point. When there is apparent conflict between truth and grace, we may need to rethink either our truth or our grace.

Marsha

We may deny it until the cows come home, but holiness people are the theological descendants of the Pharisees.

[Jim Chabot]

As I read the last few posts on the Naz Ally thread I began to wonder why is it we even begin such threads. I mean the same people say virtually the same things over and over. Stuff we've all heard in the myriad of threads on the subject. So much so that we are predictable. In one thread it was assumed that I was heading to a particular conclusion. That is my fault because in other threads that is what I have done. Is there anyone here who doesn't know where I stand, what my position on this particular topic is? I am not the only one who is consistent in his/her position. Our positions never change. So why then do we do this to ourselves? We beat up on each other, get beaten up on, whether in actuality or perception? Why do we subject ourselves to this?

What's worse is that when I read a post from some, when I know well in advance what they will say and can love them dearly even having that knowledge. When it is in writing I run to the fridge and grab a bottle of the purple or blue haterade (thank you Cam for such a great and descriptive portmanteau) and drink deeply. Sometimes it shows, mostly I delete the posts that are written under the influence of haterade. (though it oft doesn't seem that way.) Am I the only one who reaches for that bottle when we have these conversations? I don't think so, but can't really speak for anyone but me.

We all know the others' position. We know we are not going to change anyone's mind. We turn on each other like in no other topic. Again, why do we continue with fighting over this one particular topic?

I don't get it Paul, really I don't. You and I disagree. Ok. Since when does hate enter in just because of a theological disagreement? Yes we do say the same things over and over again, and yes we do talk right past one another. What's the big deal?

Still your observation is valid and I do appreciate your honesty. In fact I really appreciate your honesty and transparency. Your right, vitriol and animus do raise their ugly heads when this conversation rages on. To make matters worse, some attempt to introduce characterizations of others indicating that they must harbor hate, otherwise they would affirm. And then sometimes we even see threads where folks try put their own compassion on parade here. It all works together to fuel the frustration of some. And it's really counterproductive, because from there, the "compassionate" folks start talking about limiting who can participate and who can even view our conversations. "If you won't play with me in the exact manner that I want you to play, then I'm taking my bat and ball home with me." And to what end? We already have a forum for controversial theological conversations and those who participate there must stay in line. Isn't that enough? Bring the conversation over there if you don't like us.

I do know that to allow hate and animus to form over this is to over react. Sure would be nice if we could learn to engage these topics on the merits, rather than on an emotional level. Like Susan I'm turned off by the level of vitriol here. Unlike Susan, it doesn't affect me all that much, bring it on, I've learned to shrug it off, after all it's reflecting on the hateraid drinker not me.

I'm also in agreement with Cam, or he with me, I don't know which. The position of our church is that we do not affirm the homosexual lifestyle, we do believe that it is sin and we do believe that those trapped in it are destined to an eternity in hell. This is a Nazarene friendly site, and while it need not necessarily reflect the CoTN, and neither should folks be required to toe the line, still it is stated to be Nazarene friendly. Those who embrace our stated positions should be absolutely free to say so at any time without criticism from anyone here. Otherwise the term "Nazarene friendly" loses any meaning.

Anyways, I'm glad to talk with you anytime Paul. Even on this topic.

[Jim Chabot]

This kinda brings us back to the OP

I was glad to leave it alone, but as Scott has said over on another thread.

It's hard to stop swinging when people keep putting the ball on the tee for you.

[Jim Chabot]

We may deny it until the cows come home, but holiness people are the theological descendants of the Pharisees.

Well there ya go! Billy throws in something designed to be incendiary. I'm shocked I tell ya!

[Paul DeBaufer]

I was glad to leave it alone, but as Scott has said over on another thread.

Oh I know, I know. It is my weakness that had me ask the OP question.

[Jim Chabot]

Oh I know, I know. It is my weakness that had me ask the OP question.

But still, it's quite all right.

[Billy Cox]

We all know the others' position. We know we are not going to change anyone's mind. We turn on each other like in no other topic. Again, why do we continue with fighting over this one particular topic?

First of all, I don't accept the idea that people's minds are forever made up on every issue. I therefore don't see the perennial threads as a waste of time.

As to why this topic keeps coming up, I think there are some valid reasons:

1. Someone with a conservative viewpoint will likely never encounter someone who dares express a moderate or liberal viewpoint in a Bible study or adult Sunday School class. NazNet is most likely the only place that conservatives are going to find other Nazarenes who have a different point of view. I extend the benefit of the doubt that some conservatives are genuinely curious as to how moderates/liberals justify their position, although some surely see NazNet as a sparring opportunity.

2. Someone with a moderate or even liberal viewpoint likely lives in fear that they will be outed as a 'gay-sympathizer' in their local congregation. NazNet, by comparison is a safe place for them to work out their views with far less risk of breaking fellowship with people they see on a weekly basis. And to be fair and balanced, I'm sure that some moderates/liberals see NazNet as a sparring opportunity as well.

3. The questions of homosexuality and how followers of Christ should think/respond to it is a legitimate field of inquiry. A plain reading of the Bible seems to indicate that homosexuality (orientation and/or action) is incompatible with Christian belief and practice. Those who suggest an interpretation other than what the plain reading suggests have their work cut out for them.

4. Other denominations have split (whether hard split or by steady attrition) over the hermeneutical question, and there is no good reason to believe that the issue will pass the Nazarenes by.

5. No matter how well the CotN insulates itself from the very real social pressure to 'normalize' homosexuality, the issue will gain a human face - gay sons/daughters of prominent Nazarenes or even respected/ordained clergy 'coming out' - and the caricature of homosexuals as disgusting, in-your-face activists seeking to shock and annoy will fall away. At the very least, a collision is coming.

In my opinion, it is not wise to write this off as a non-issue on which minds will never change. I contend that this issue is not simply going to fall out of vogue. I contend that minds will change in a way that only the humanizing of an issue can do.

The interesting question for me is whether those changed minds will be driven away before they can raise the question in a way that divides the denomination.

[James Johnson]

I have come to the conclusion that when discussing homosexuality on this site it is clearly argued from two totaly different angles. 1. as I discuss it here, it is with the act in mind (sin). 2. I see those with differing arguments than my own viewing homosexuality here with the person in mind (brotherly love). When I discuss the subject I am condeming the act not the person, while I do this the opposing view sees me as an attacker of the person even though I have no such person in mind, just the act (sin). I think perhaps we're both right??? That being said I probably just offened many people on this site!

[Paul DeBaufer]

First of all, I don't accept the idea that people's minds are forever made up on every issue. I therefore don't see the perennial threads as a waste of time.

As to why this topic keeps coming up, I think there are some valid reasons:

1. Someone with a conservative viewpoint will likely never encounter someone who dares express a moderate or liberal viewpoint in a Bible study or adult Sunday School class. NazNet is most likely the only place that conservatives are going to find other Nazarenes who have a different point of view. I extend the benefit of the doubt that some conservatives are genuinely curious as to how moderates/liberals justify their position, although some surely see NazNet as a sparring opportunity.

2. Someone with a moderate or even liberal viewpoint likely lives in fear that they will be outed as a 'gay-sympathizer' in their local congregation. NazNet, by comparison is a safe place for them to work out their views with far less risk of breaking fellowship with people they see on a weekly basis. And to be fair and balanced, I'm sure that some moderates/liberals see NazNet as a sparring opportunity as well.

3. The questions of homosexuality and how followers of Christ should think/respond to it is a legitimate field of inquiry. A plain reading of the Bible seems to indicate that homosexuality (orientation and/or action) is incompatible with Christian belief and practice. Those who suggest an interpretation other than what the plain reading suggests have their work cut out for them.

4. Other denominations have split (whether hard split or by steady attrition) over the hermeneutical question, and there is no good reason to believe that the issue will pass the Nazarenes by.

5. No matter how well the CotN insulates itself from the very real social pressure to 'normalize' homosexuality, the issue will gain a human face - gay sons/daughters of prominent Nazarenes or even respected/ordained clergy 'coming out' - and the caricature of homosexuals as disgusting, in-your-face activists seeking to shock and annoy will fall away. At the very least, a collision is coming.

In my opinion, it is not wise to write this off as a non-issue on which minds will never change. I contend that this issue is not simply going to fall out of vogue. I contend that minds will change in a way that only the humanizing of an issue can do.

The interesting question for me is whether those changed minds will be driven away before they can raise the question in a way that divides the denomination.

I agree with the principles herein. However, with the exception of Marsha and maybe Gina, has the opinion of anyone who actively participates in these discussions shifted? We seem just to dig ourselves in deeper into our own position as we feel it under attack from the other side. The discussion quickly becomes debate with each side trying to win. When it devolves such then there is no longer any benefit to the participants or the readers.

[Billy Cox]

I agree with the principles herein. However, with the exception of Marsha and maybe Gina, has the opinion of anyone who actively participates in these discussions shifted? We seem just to dig ourselves in deeper into our own position as we feel it under attack from the other side. The discussion quickly becomes debate with each side trying to win. When it devolves such then there is no longer any benefit to the participants or the readers.

My opinion has changed. Surely that counts for something. I acknowledge that some people argue the same position time after time, but the joke is on them. The more they are exposed to other points of view, the less reflexive their view becomes, especially if they have opportunity to dialog with someone who transcends the sparring-impulse.

I try to be a transcending influence, with varying levels of success.