What the Bible says about Homosexuality...

[Rich Schmidt]

Are you gay? If not then how can you say that what that young man feels is wrong? As a matter of fact isn't it emotional abuse to tell people that what they feel is wrong? I have seen gay couples who have a love that is every bit as great and committed and long lasting as the best of the hetero couples I've known.

I think you might need to step back and re-read what Kevin wrote.

1. He didn't say what the young man feels is wrong. He challenged the idea that the young man is asserting.

2. While Kevin isn't gay, he's basing his assertions in part upon the testimony of gay friends (and in part upon reason/psychology).

[Todd Erickson]

I think you might need to step back and re-read what Kevin wrote.

1. He didn't say what the young man feels is wrong. He challenged the idea that the young man is asserting.

2. While Kevin isn't gay, he's basing his assertions in part upon the testimony of gay friends (and in part upon reason/psychology).

Actually, Kevin's post seems to indicate that based on the gay male he knew who could not find a lasting relationship, this somehow denies the monogamous folks that both Paul and I know. Ancedotal vs.

[Benjamin Burch]

Actually, Kevin's post seems to indicate that based on the gay male he knew who could not find a lasting relationship, this somehow denies the monogamous folks that both Paul and I know. Ancedotal vs.

I would agree that Kevin's post reads this way.

[Rich Schmidt]

Actually, Kevin's post seems to indicate that based on the gay male he knew who could not find a lasting relationship, this somehow denies the monogamous folks that both Paul and I know. Ancedotal vs.

1. It was based on his gay male friend and the shelf of pro-gay books his friend had on the subject that supported his view.

2. He wasn't denying that some gay and lesbian people find happiness in lasting monogamous relationships. He was stating that (a) they find it more difficult, perhaps because (b) the nature of their relationship is different from heterosexual ones that involve the "otherness" of gender.

I would agree that Kevin's post reads this way.

Perhaps it does. It didn't to me. I'll bow out now and let Kevin respond for himself.

FWIW, I haven't chimed in on the thread yet because I haven't had time to watch the video or read the transcript. My basic stance is in agreement with that of the Church of the Nazarene... which shouldn't be surprising, since I'm an ordained elder.

Thanks, Dana, for opening up this conversation. I hope that (eventually) there will be some things in this thread that you and your friends find helpful.

[Todd Erickson]

Something else which seems to be an issue within this discussion:

Somebody stated that measurably, at least as many Christian marriages are failing as secular marriages, if not more.

However, at the same time, there is something holy about marriage, despite the fact that over half of them are failing, and if gay people could get married, it would soil that practice.

This despite the fact that, statistically, there are many secular marriages happening at any given point than Christians ones in the world as a whole, and that for most of history, marriage has been about property and security, not love or holiness.

Which means that it's a mythology vs. reality. Which is always dangerous, especially when we try to build theology around it.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

In any event, being a Nazarene Pastor, I will defer to the Manual on the issue.

Me too.

Homosexuality is one means by which human sexuality is perverted. We recognize the depth of the perversion that leads to homosexual acts but affirm the biblical position that such acts are sinful and subject to the wrath of God. We believe the grace of God sufficient to overcome the practice of homosexuality (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). We deplore any action or statement that would seem to imply compatibility between Christian morality and the practice of homosexuality. We urge clear preaching and teaching concerning Bible standards of sexual morality.

[Hans Deventer]

My basic stance is in agreement with that of the Church of the Nazarene... which shouldn't be surprising, since I'm an ordained elder.

I sometimes wonder how automatically these stances change, after a GA has made changes to the AoF. Like deleting "meritorious", eradicating "eradication". Seems at least those who advocated for a change, were not in agreement before. Just perhaps, some still are not after.

Just recently, I've come to wonder if the basis of our unity isn't so much in the agreement on everything in the Manual, as in the determiniation to stick together in working out differences, even if they mean agreeing to disagree, but still accept one another.

We have an issue on this very subject among the pastors of our district. I don't think the letter of the Manual is what really matters. It is the question, do we belong together?

[Dwayne Petry]

The research, the case studies, the neuro-anatomical research consistently demonstrate that gayness is NOT a choice.

I would argue that my attraction to the opposite sex in an addictive and destructive way was NOT a choice. I was "playing doctor" before I was old enough to "enjoy the research"! (I don"t how else to phrase the situation, I hope y"all understand) All the studies in the world do not change the fact that we are all born with a sin nature (I think we can all agree with that), but not all with the same attraction, addiction, propensity, etc. to the same expression of that sin nature. Some may be addicted to food, drugs, alcohol, money, homosexual sex, heterosexual sex outside the bond of marriage, gambling, workaholic, power, personal looks and body build and many other displays of the destructive nature of sin that we have seen in our lives as well as the lives of others. Sin is Sin! We are all born with it, just a different propensity to sin.

The CHOICE I have is how I address my sin nature. Do I CHOOSE to give in to attraction and temporary pleasure of my propensity to sexual immorality (as I did until age 32), or do I CHOOSE to accept the forgiveness of a gracious God through the shed blood of His Precious Son, Jesus Christ, and allow the Holy Spirit to work in my life to deliver me form my sin nature! He desires to break the bondage of all sin! PRAISE GOD! PRAISE GOD! PRAISE GOD!

We on NazNet, nor Christians anywhere, have the task or privilege to determine what is sin. God has established that. Our problem is that we want to live as close to the world as possible and are afraid to hurt some ones feelings by showing them in God's word where their behavior is a sin in God's eyes. When they stand before a HOLY GOD, they will curse us for NOT sharing the GOOD NEWS!

Sorry if I sound aggravated. I am. My life changed when I came face to face with the fact that I was a sinner, doomed for hell if I did not accept God's gift of Salvation and all the great things that He had in store for me (restored marriage and family and PEACE in my soul).

We on NazNet and Christians every where should be spending our energy and effort on how to live a HOLY life before a HOLY GOD!

[Dwayne Petry]

The gays who live alone and in torment for the rest of their lives,

GOD CAN break the bondage of all sin, whether it be homosexual of heterosexual immorality, or any other sin. NO ONE has to live a life tormented by the bondage of sin.

SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS! JESUS SAVES! DON"T LIVE A DEFEATED LIFE!!!!

[Todd Erickson]

[QUOTE=Dwayne Petry;137106]

The gays who live alone and in torment for the rest of their lives,

GOD CAN break the bondage of all sin, whether it be homosexual of heterosexual immorality, or any other sin. NO ONE has to live a life tormented by the bondage of sin.

SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS! JESUS SAVES! DON"T LIVE A DEFEATED LIFE!!!!

I'm a straight man in a marriage living the defeated Christian life, actually. So much fun...

[Dwayne Petry]

I'm a straight man in a marriage living the defeated Christian life, actually. So much fun...

What does that mean?

[Todd Erickson]

What does that mean?

It means that listening to other Christians talk about the victorious christian life makes me angry, because it feels like the only way to find it is to stop being me.

[Dwayne Petry]

makes me angry,

Just don't go to bed angry!

"Life is Gooood! On NazNet, eating a pound of spicy boudin, drinking a DrPepper TEN (the one for men)!

[Dwayne Petry]

yet the worst of society, the tax collectors and prostitutes, loved him.

They loved Him because He made them aware of their sin and shared the "GOOD NEWS" that they could be forgiven and become a "NEW CREATION"! How could you not love someone who loved you enough to share the "GOOD NEWS"!

[Todd Erickson]

They loved Him because He made them aware of their sin and shared the "GOOD NEWS" that they could be forgiven and become a "NEW CREATION"! How could you not love someone who loved you enough to share the "GOOD NEWS"!

At no point in the conversation with Zaccheus do we see Jesus say "you're wrong and evil for what you're doing". it doesn't happen. But Zacheus acts anyway.

In fact, we don't see any conversations where Jesus specifically addresses sin and people then have a glorious altar call experience. Instead, the people that he confronts almost universally defend themselves and walk away.

Though, they're also all almost universally the religious elite.

[Dwayne Petry]

At no point in the conversation with Zaccheus do we see Jesus say "you're wrong and evil for what you're doing". it doesn't happen. But Zacheus acts anyway.

In fact, we don't see any conversations where Jesus specifically addresses sin and people then have a glorious altar call experience. Instead, the people that he confronts almost universally defend themselves and walk away.

Though, they're also all almost universally the religious elite.

I would never have repented if I had not been made aware (convicted) of my sin. We know that we cannot convict anyone of sin, that is the work of the Holy Spirit! Maybe Jesus had that ability, I don't know. I was trying to say that we are responsible for sharing the "GOOD NEWS"!

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think you might need to step back and re-read what Kevin wrote.

1. He didn't say what the young man feels is wrong. He challenged the idea that the young man is asserting.

2. While Kevin isn't gay, he's basing his assertions in part upon the testimony of gay friends (and in part upon reason/psychology).

You may be right. I may have read Kevin wrongly, misunderstood. If so I will gladly apologize to him.

[Doug Ward]

But your predelicition would be, would it not, that unless God spelled it out on the genes in microscopic fiery letters "gay gene here ...I put this here -God" that nothing will be good enough, correct?

No, absolutely not. If the research showed nature, then I am quite comfortable with it. Yet that is not what we have. I am perfectly comfortable with what the research currently shows. I expect people to inherit fallen tendencies, and these tendencies are different from person to person. Yet is we are to discuss an issue, I think it is helpful to accurately present pertinent information.

[Doug Ward]

I disagree with your conclusion. Monozygotic twins do posses the same DNA, nuclear and mitochondrial. However, once they separate at the 8 or 16 cell stage they become individual organisms and as such experience the in utero environment differently. There is also developmental timing which is affected by environmental factors (I am speaking in utero biological development. Different genes turning on at different times leads to individual differences, especially in the realm of neurodevelopment. So, while twin studies are useful they are no the be all and end all we have made them out to be.

OK. So your argument is nurture plays a role in utero. Fine. And nurture plays a role out of utero - fine as well. Looks like we agree.

[Paul DeBaufer]

They loved Him because He made them aware of their sin and shared the "GOOD NEWS" that they could be forgiven and become a "NEW CREATION"! How could you not love someone who loved you enough to share the "GOOD NEWS"!

I'm not so sure about this. Jesus loved them in spite of their shortcomings, accepted them when others wouldn't. There is something healing in that kind of love and acceptance. No amount of telling me I am a sinner, that I was wicked and evil ever brought me closer to God. Matter of fact that kept me away. It was love that opened my eyes. Love set me on the path to being open to believing in God.

[Paul DeBaufer]

OK. So your argument is nurture plays a role in utero. Fine. And nurture plays a role out of utero - fine as well. Looks like we agree.

No, that is not my argument. My argument is entirely biological and has nothing to do with nurture.

[Doug Ward]

So your argument is that we are nothing more than biological impulses, switches turning on and off. Everything is programmed, and there is nothing to alter our path?

[Kevin Rector]

This seems to pit the very worst of gay relationships against the very best straight relationships for it's proof.

I think we often ignore the underlying sociological realities behind the promiscuity in the LG culture.

(1) The promiscuity exists in heterosexual culture, also. I find it hard to suggest it is any less.
(2) There is no prospect of marriage, seriously undercutting any hopes of lasting monogamy - they're prohibited from it
(3) Promiscuity offers a way to create a counterculture to the dominant culture which has rejected them

If the prospect of marriage existed, I believe we'd see a change in this culture, over a due period of time.

Are you gay? If not then how can you say that what that young man feels is wrong? As a matter of fact isn't it emotional abuse to tell people that what they feel is wrong? I have seen gay couples who have a love that is every bit as great and committed and long lasting as the best of the hetero couples I've known.

I think that you've missed the point of my post. The information about my gay friend was definitely anecdotal, but it was the closest I could come to describing what a gay man told me about the nature of the gay culture. I was purposefully trying not to (as an outsider to the gay community) describe the male gay community myself.

But that wasn't really my point. I was referencing a statement made in the presentation that is generally accepted by a lot of people, but I think upon further psychological and even theological reflection doesn't stand up to greater scrutiny. My opinion is that the emotional bond that gay couples share is not the same as the emotional bond that straight couples share because of the lack of "other-ness" in the relationship.

[Dan Henderson]

Are you gay? If not then how can you say that what that young man feels is wrong? As a matter of fact isn't it emotional abuse to tell people that what they feel is wrong?

Because right vs wrong does not depend on ones feelings. What is right is right regardless of feeling or opinion. What is wrong is wrong regardless of feeling or opinion.

[Greg Farra]

Roger Olson has some interesting thoughts:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/

[Rich Schmidt]

Roger Olson has some interesting thoughts:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/

Are you talking about his most recent post? A Few Thoughts about Science and Technology

Just checking, because your link just goes to his blog, not to a specific post/article.

[Todd Erickson]

Because right vs wrong does not depend on ones feelings. What is right is right regardless of feeling or opinion. What is wrong is wrong regardless of feeling or opinion.

The problem I have with this is that if we take it like you're saying it, then the OP needs to distance herself from her gay friends until they repent, doesn't she?

If we loved gossips or alcoholics like we love homosexuals, our churches would be empty.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Because right vs wrong does not depend on ones feelings. What is right is right regardless of feeling or opinion. What is wrong is wrong regardless of feeling or opinion.

I understand that perhaps one might act wrongly based on feelings, but saying one's feelings are wrong seems to misplace blame.

[David Pettigrew]

If we loved gossips or alcoholics like we love homosexuals, our churches would be empty.

Often we do and often they are.

[Greg Farra]

Are you talking about his most recent post? A Few Thoughts about Science and Technology

Just checking, because your link just goes to his blog, not to a specific post/article.

Yes, that is the most recent post on the blog.

[Kevin Rector]

If we loved gossips or alcoholics like we love homosexuals, our churches would be empty.

This is a red herring. As a general rule of thumb, alcoholics don't expect the church to be open and affirming towards their alcoholism - nor do gossips.

Of course they all need to be loved, but love is not always affirmation.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Matthew 19:9 - "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

If we stay with the text, all we can really say is that the marriage began with adultery. When Jesus says, "and marries another" in that same verse, he implies that the second marriage is in fact a true marriage. Jesus does not say, "and lives outside of marriage with another", but "and marries another." The second marriage cannot be thought of as continually living in adultery, the man and women are married to each other, not to anyone else.

This is completely different, not even remotely similar, to your comparison of persons living a homosexual lifestyle within the confines of "marriage".

Wow...

I, of course, disagree. If the second marriage constitutes adultery and one remains in that union one remains in adultery. Jesus doesn't legitimize the second marriage He actually uses it to condemn the divorce.

It is exactly the same as the situation if one believes homosexual activity within the confines of a same sex marriage a sin. You have not demonstrated that there is any difference. I believe that Hans is spot on, it is emotion that causes us to see these as difference. Maybe I am wrong about that.

In the context of Matt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18, divorce and remarriage is an act of unfaithfulness to the marriage covenant. In that sense, to remarry is adultery. The marriage should not have been done, but now that it is done, it should not be undone. It is a real marriage. Illicit. Adulterous to enter into, but real. Valid. And that real covenant of marriage may be purified by the blood of Jesus and set apart for God. A couple who repents and seeks God's forgiveness, and receives his cleansing, should NOT think of their lives as ongoing adultery, even though, in the eyes of Jesus, that's how the relationship started.

Deut. 24:1-4 speaks of a divorced women being "defiled" in her second marriage so that it would be an abomination for her to return to her first husband, even if her second husband died. This language of defilement is similar to Jesus' language of adultery and yet the second marriage stood. It was a real, valid marriage.

I'm sure we all know of marriages in the church that are second marriages for one or both partners, marriages that should not have happened, yet today are clean and holy marriages. Forgiven, justified, Spirit-led husbands and wives who are pleasing God by the way they relate to each other. They are NOT committing adultery in their marriage. It began as it should not have, and has become holy.

Attempting to correlate 'remarriage after divorce' and 'homosexual marriage' is pure poppycock.

[Dan Henderson]

Roger Olson has some interesting thoughts:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/

I got ought (theology's purview) vs is (science's purview). Did I get the gist?

[Dan Henderson]

I understand that perhaps one might act wrongly based on feelings, but saying one's feelings are wrong seems to misplace blame.

I did not say feelings were wrong, rather that they are unreliable. How you feel about something has no bearing on whether it is right or it is wrong.

We debate about what is right and what is wrong, but regardess of our opinions, right and wrong, remain constant. I do not say that in all cases there is only one right answer, but there is at least one right answer and at least one wrong answer on any subject.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think that you've missed the point of my post. The information about my gay friend was definitely anecdotal, but it was the closest I could come to describing what a gay man told me about the nature of the gay culture. I was purposefully trying not to (as an outsider to the gay community) describe the male gay community myself.

But that wasn't really my point. I was referencing a statement made in the presentation that is generally accepted by a lot of people, but I think upon further psychological and even theological reflection doesn't stand up to greater scrutiny. My opinion is that the emotional bond that gay couples share is not the same as the emotional bond that straight couples share because of the lack of "other-ness" in the relationship.

I am sorry I misunderstood, misread what you were saying. More I am sorry I reacted to my misunderstanding. Please accept my apologies.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Because right vs wrong does not depend on ones feelings. What is right is right regardless of feeling or opinion. What is wrong is wrong regardless of feeling or opinion.

In the context of the exchange this post makes no sense, none at all. The context was the emotions, feelings that exist between same sex partners in a loving relationship. Right and wrong had absolutely nothing to do with it. Now if the context was the conclusion reached and the young mans feelings about it, then this might make a tad bit of sense, but that wasn't the case.

[Paul DeBaufer]

In the context of Matt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18, divorce and remarriage is an act of unfaithfulness to the marriage covenant. In that sense, to remarry is adultery. The marriage should not have been done, but now that it is done, it should not be undone. It is a real marriage. Illicit. Adulterous to enter into, but real. Valid. And that real covenant of marriage may be purified by the blood of Jesus and set apart for God. A couple who repents and seeks God's forgiveness, and receives his cleansing, should NOT think of their lives as ongoing adultery, even though, in the eyes of Jesus, that's how the relationship started.

Deut. 24:1-4 speaks of a divorced women being "defiled" in her second marriage so that it would be an abomination for her to return to her first husband, even if her second husband died. This language of defilement is similar to Jesus' language of adultery and yet the second marriage stood. It was a real, valid marriage.

I'm sure we all know of marriages in the church that are second marriages for one or both partners, marriages that should not have happened, yet today are clean and holy marriages. Forgiven, justified, Spirit-led husbands and wives who are pleasing God by the way they relate to each other. They are NOT committing adultery in their marriage. It began as it should not have, and has become holy.

Attempting to correlate 'remarriage after divorce' and 'homosexual marriage' is pure poppycock.

You are simply restating your original position. A plain reading of the text clearly suggests that the marriage is adulterous. Never does it indicate that the subsequent marriage is in anyway sanctified. Demonstrate to us biblically that the subsequent marriage is sanctified. Now, I have personal reason to want to believe you are right. I think that tradition may teach this, and I hope so. If we can do this for remarriage why can't we for gay marriage? Is it simply that we refuse?

It is only "poppycock" because you emotionally reject it. I reject your rejection as rationalization.

[Hans Deventer]

You are simply restating your original position.

No kidding!

[Todd Erickson]

This is a red herring. As a general rule of thumb, alcoholics don't expect the church to be open and affirming towards their alcoholism - nor do gossips.

Of course they all need to be loved, but love is not always affirmation.

I'm not clear on how this is a red herring.

Our churches are generally filled with gossips who share juicy details in the form of prayer requests and other contexts. We, in fact, have active sinners of all sorts in the church, but it's only inasmuch as their sin happens at church, or they come to the pastor's office to specifically struggle with a particular sin, that it comes up.

However, we are immediately disgusted by homosexuals, especially gays. Many here have talked about how just the idea of a man being attracted to them, or kissing another man, is immediately offensive and disgusting, and it makes them uncomfortable to be around them. Which is likely evident.

Our model is the good Samaritan, but for all intents and purposes, we are just really good at finding reasons to act like the Levite who crossed by on the other side of the road so as not to be unclean. I do not see how this is not germaine at all. If we practiced the same disgust and discomfort toward all of the other sinners that we practice toward gays (as well as jokes, and judgement, and outright hatred) there would be no church at all.

[Hans Deventer]

However, we are immediately disgusted by homosexuals, especially gays. Many here have talked about how just the idea of a man being attracted to them, or kissing another man, is immediately offensive and disgusting, and it makes them uncomfortable to be around them. Which is likely evident.

To clarify, I have shared some of this, but the latter part is not true for me. I don't have a problem hanging around with a colleague who is gay and lives with his man, nor with my brother in law who is gay but celibate. I just don't want to think about gay sex.