There is some evidence that a homosexual desire with many gays may actually be in their genes, which then begs the question that if one believes God created all, then might not their desire simply reflect their creation?  BTW, we even see homosexual activity with some monkeys and apes, so it's not just a human thing.  What I am not suggesting, however, is that we must act on our "desires" even if they are genetically based.  If we all did what we simply desired, this world would undoubtedly be far worse off than it is already.

Shalom,
Vern

I didn't know sin made genes. 

I'm merely trying to straighten out the path.  Priorities are important, don't you think?  I believe that in watching this debate through the years that some priorities are mislaid by some people.  Not all.  Some, such as yourselves, have very good, well reasoned arguments.


In all humility, I agree.  We should try as much as possible to rectify any wrong we have done.  We are to make peace with each other.  This is a good thing.

Gracie

I'm very sorry, Elluminati, but it looks to me as though all you want to do is throw stones.  The story--a beautiful one--teaches far more than that.

When Jesus saw the men preparing to stone her to death for her sin, he told them, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

None did.

When the crowd had dispersed, when there were none there but himself and the woman, he said quietly to her, "Go and sin no more."

He still does this to this day.  We all called to love each other, to be compassionate, forgiving, non-judgmental, without any hypocrisy--and he still works with us privately to change our ways.

If sin matters, Elluminati--and this has been my point all along--then the accusers have no leg to stand on as an excuse to continue to live in sin.  We either toss the book on sin completely or we live by it ourselves.  Otherwise we are odious . . .

Please note that I am GraceByFaith, so not to cause confusion
with Grace/gracie.

The Scriptures used by Elluminati, Accumen and Gracie directly
addressed the "sin" issue.  Somehow they were forgotten or
overlooked with an appeal to our emotions.

Repentance is foundational to biblical Christianity.  Forgiveness
was granted based on repentance.  Reconciliation was accomplished
not only by the cross, but repentance on the part of the sinner.
Repentance is not merely a feeling, but a change of heart.  Thus,
"fruits worthy of repentance" which John preached as a prerequisite
to baptism.  This is death, burial, and resurrection to NEW life - the
Gospel message. 

You have a new Master.  Because we suffer with weaknesses
and/or addictions doesn't excuse our behavior and give us reason
to accept it as "this is just who we are."  We have no excuse to
play the victim anymore.

Sodomy was condemned and homosexuality is just a prettier name
for it.  We don't like to think of what happens in the bed of a
homosexual.  Let's get plain.  Calling it an abomination didn't
originate with those accused of hating homosexuals - GOD says
this sin is an abomination to HIM.  We should be thankful the
Scriptures are so clear. 

Another claim was that some Christians hate homosexuals, and
this is causing division in the body.  Why is the behavior of an
individual (homosexual) and it's consequences blamed on the
Christian who says it's a sin?  Just because a Christian calls sin
sin, doesn't mean he hates the sinner.  Is the homosexual now
a victim of one who claims truth?  I don't think so.  A person is
judged based on their own behavior whether a liar, adulterer, thief,
etc...  The motive with speaking truth is to give people a standard
and hope they choose to turn from their sin, not to condemn them. 
You can't lump all Christians into haters.  I'm sure you'll find some
who lack compassion or mercy, but that doesn't change the truth
of God's Word.

With Christ all things are possible, yes, even overcoming homosexuality. 
Gracie claims to know homosexuals who couldn't deny who they are. 
Well, I know some who did repent and change and now minister to
those caught in the same trap they were delivered from.  There are
Christian organizations who focus their efforts on reaching out to
homosexuals (not to accept their sin) but to give them hope for a
better future in Christ. 

The New Covenant didn't make obsolete God's purpose for His creation. 
God did not create man to go against what He ordained from the very
beginning.  We don't throw away the principles and laws of God when
we accept the Cross of Christ.  They're one in the same, there is no
controversy.  Christ's sacrifice didn't change Who He was.  It changed
how sins were paid for.  He redeemed us, bought us back.  We are
no longer a slave to sin, but "slave unto righteousness."  If we deny
the truth, I agree with Accumen, you will be turned over to your lusts
and believe a lie.  Christ's blood is not to be trampled on as Paul teaches.

The Scriptures say "To whomsoever WILL."  There is a choice in
repentance, no one is a victim to their sinful nature any longer.   

Grace without works is dead, that's not law - that's TRUE grace.



Sincerely,
GraceByFaith

I just noticed this and I would like to say that I certainly hope that your healing is fast and thorough and that your faith becomes even stronger yet.

Thank you.

Hi Acumen,


No, I am trying to establish the difference between someone like Bishop Robinson and the intent and meaning of the passage.  To begin with, and perhaps to simplify things somewhat, in all its vagueness, this passage sets clear parameters.  We can say very simply that sex period has/had rules.  There is a time and place and means that make heterosexual sex is wicked.  Obviously, this passage does refer to possible sexual sins--that are not all clearly spelled out.

Take a look at the overall outline.  The first paragraph establishes that we are talking about divine retribution for "godless wickedness of men".  The second begins very clearly, "For this reason . . . " tying it in with the previous paragraph.  And states they have bartered away the true God for a false one.  The third begins, "In consequence . . ." again tying it to the previous paragraph very clearly.  Earlier I pointed out the debauchery, the orgies the Romans had, the decadence of that society to which Paul is actually addressing this Epistle--and time and place and intended audience cannot be ignored.  It gives us some insight into what he is talking about.  Then and now it is a fact that heterosexual men do have intercourse with other men as in my prison example.  What is natural needs to be considered.  We can continue to talk about this one paragraph later if you like, it is quite vague and has few specifics which makes it very easy to work in all sorts of understandings.  The next paragraph does tie into the previous three and this is what I am trying to point toward, most of all--because we are not talking just homosexuality--as homosexuality would at the very least be under the same general rules as heterosexuality, or, in other words, sin can result.  Again this fourth paragraph ties in with the previous three.  "Thus, because they have not seen fit to acknowledge God, he has given them up to their own depraved reason."  A laundry list of horrors ensues.  In short, the fruit of their faith--or, in this case, lack of it.  I've tried several times to remind someone here, it may not have been you, that our fruit, our outward sign of inward grace is telling.  I can't say that all homosexuality is okay by God!  I can't say that all heterosexuality is!  It is the context of the act, perhaps.  Or it is some other ameliorating factor--but the fruit of an openly gay bishop that doesn't stink should alert us to some hint as to the will of God and his justice.  What could that be?

I have been deeply moved by sermons delivered by Bishop Robinson.  I was surprised at first.  He shows a beautiful understanding of the Gospels that I found to be inspired--despite the fact that I didn't want to like him at first.  Because I do listen, because in order to not sin, I must listen to my brother in Christ as though he is Christ, I did.  And I don't see the laundry list of vile and evil evidence of God turning him over to sin.  Romans 1 does not fit.  The case does not meet its parameters, the evidence does not agree with the evidence we should see. 


Note that I didn't either, but the scripture does indicate that they turn away from the natural.  If homosexuality was unnatural, then it wouldn't be a constant in all societies in all histories.  Vern truthfully pointed out that science has suggested that it may be attributed to genes, genes that change during pregnancy, a little key that is turned off or on.  Some want to claim Satan created homosexuals, but most of us don't attribute Satan with any powers of creation and neither does scripture.  Vern also observed that homosexual acts are also committed by other species.  I think he used monkeys as an example.  I would choose to use cattle--because I've seen it happen so much.  Or wolves because I have studied wolves social organization extensively.  Very interesting, btw, and makes me wonder as the value and the purpose, perhaps, for having homosexuals in our societies. 

An example of natural:  My 16 year old son is always asking me if I think a certain girl he likes is attractive.  I have repeatedly tried to explain to him that my own standard of feminine beauty would be very different than his own.  I have no hormonal reason to see a woman the way he would.  I do think that some women are lovely, but my standards for beauty are more inspired by standards prescribed by my culture--a colder appraisal.  By the same token, pornography appears to be easy to come by for his peers.  He tells me everything!

Earlier I gave you a an example of a present day situation where those who live godless lives are openly and proudly committing all sorts of sexual perversions.  And so, where is the evidence of Bishop Robinson's godlessness or idolatry?   In fact, he began by trying to deny his sexuality.  He was married and had children, a priest, a man of God, a well loved and respected man of God.  What brought about the change of heart?  Even his wife blessed his decision publicly.  Again, it does not fit Romans 1 for whatever reason God may have. 

For the record, I don't believe that myopic study of the scriptures is necessary so long as we have at least one good translation.  For those that are very skilled at it, perhaps--but the problem is that it is so often poorly done and done without an eye to the context of the entire passage.  This is more important in St. Paul's Epistles than in almost any other scripture because of the way he builds his thesis.  In other words, it becomes a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.  Unless, I could do it very well, which I can't, I won't.



I don't feel that the story of Adam and Eve suffices due to the fact that it is very short and is unclear as to most of the purposes God had pertaining to human kind and in the creation of the world itself.  I take it as a very meaningful myth.  We could speak of the effeminate as the feminine, or of his intent for companionship rather than sex partner/mindless machine/object of derision.  Then we could get into my favorite argument, there are two versions--why do so many Christians still use it as an excuse to make women second class citizens.  That's a more important argument in my books!  Etc.  No, it does not suffice.  It says nothing at all about sex. 

{quote]If you question the basis of my understanding, you can refer to Paul's statements about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9.  That particular passage doesn't reference an unnatural exchange, but rather gives a wholesale condemnation of the perversion.[/quote]

Okay, if we are going to talk about all your favorite passages, then we must give equal measure to my arguments based on priorities, what we as Christians are to do, why Christ died and who is meant by "all" and what constitutes sin!  Okay?  Fair enough? 

I hate it when more hateful Christians use this particular passage by simply quoting 9b(?)--excluding the part about the unjust--through 10--and use this to mean that God hates homosexuals while ignoring every other type of sin that is herein listed.  IN CONTEXT with the passage:  The thrust of it is going to law against our brothers--which is terribly forgotten about!  Court case after court case . . . theives--stealing from the Church and those faithful to it . . . and slanderers--some people really need to think about what constitutes that sin!  At any rate, then following the verse in question, he speaks about those who have gone through the purifying waters--baptism.  The next paragraph, referring to this one, begins, "I am free to do anything,", but Paul merely counters, "Yes (which is important) but not everything is for my own good."  Then he goes on to explain why which has to do with being spiritual.  I might briefly refer to Christ's and Paul's own injunctions about choosing to forgo sex for the kingdom of God--even in marriage or avoiding marriage for the kingdom of God.  In other words, to be spiritual is another case and most Christians these days ignore all that stuff.  I would be the first to say we should avoid sin for our own good reasons--however, the passage is clear--then we are back to speaking of how we overcome sin, one of my priorities in this discussion.

This is the same case as with Genesis in that we can't hang our hat where specifics most likely have been excluded.  It can be argued that when Paul gives a list of examples, he is not thinking of Christians who will read his Epistles 2000 years later and split hairs over it!  Perhaps he should have been more diligent and written EVERY sin that could have been included in this list.  I could name more sins--but the reader is aware of those sins, or should be! 

{quote]But my real focus is exactly on the fact that it refers to those God has given over to sin.  If the Bible is true, then it is applicable and we can see its truth in our lives.  Those given over to sin would hardly reflect the grace of God in any way in their lives--there would be none.

Not sure what your point is here.[/quote]

I've I have tried to answer it above.


I'm sorry--my answer here seemed to have thrown us off track.  Hopefully, I've answered better above.


By the same token, he plainly tells us that the OT lies under a veil and we can only see it now through Christ--he says Christ abrogated the Old Testament (Covenant)!  We are not under Jewish Law.  We are not under the Law period.  He was also very clear about that, too.  When Christ died, he died for the sin of the whole world!  He died for ALL who believe in him--he came to save sinners--Paul never denies this.

I'm sorry to say that this is one of my pet peeves with the Evangelical spin on our faith.  I'll give it as an example of telling lies:  If I know a truth, but I don't say it, it is a lie.  That which is omitted is still, in reality, true and in all honesty must be included.  If I hide a candy bar, it doesn't mean that I do not have one!  This, again, I say is important in the discussion as a priority.  Paul says other things and they balance particular verses some wish to use.  We can't cut up the verses of scripture and shuffle them and deal them out like a deck of cards!

It could be argued that Paul seems to contradict himself on the general subject of sin at times.  Yes, Paul is an old Jew.  I think he loves the Law.  But, despite trying to encourage us to keep it in mind, he does not ever say we are under the law.  When he is clear on the overall gist of why Christ died and what he did for us, he is very clear about the role of sin.  He was very plain and clear in Romans.  No other Epistle is as clear about the gist of the whole faith because he had personally met with all the other churches before writing any of these Epistles. 


So what were you trying to say?  I'll try again:  WE are to free the oppressed.  We are to keep the Great Commandment and the Second.  We are not to judge.  All these things tell me that nobody should be downtrodden or oppressed on account of their sin!  Not for any kind of sin.  In fact, if somebody is a sinner in my opinion, I should open the church doors wide and call him in!  That is why Christ came!  To save sinners.  If I love him, I help him save them.  That is evangelism.   If we oppress or hate or in any way cause a group of people to suffer, we sin ourselves.  And then we are back to the subject of sin and how God guides us . . . and why it is that we all seem remain sinners with sin to confess day in and day out.  I asked you once if you had ever tried confessing your sins to God every day--I find it very revealing to remember what I have done each day . . . and why has he allowed me to continue to commit the same stupid sins! 


Gracie

You have CLEARLY ignored the point that I tried to make.  I said we could consider the SIN later in another discussion.  The point that I have tried to make THREE TIMES now is blowing right over your head.  Scripture is TRUE.  You are focused on only ONE thing and, although you are spewing the same old spin that I've heard a thousand times, you are forcing the passage to say what you want it to say.  That passage is saying so much more.


No, because each passage makes a different point.  No we can't argue about the intent of "nature" when it isn't clear.  That is reading something into the text that is not there. 

 
That is not a presumption.  You ignored the point which is that in any case, sex and sexual perversions outside of marriage are a sin.  Which broadens Romans 1.  I'm terribly sorry to say this, but your fixation on homosexuality looks terribly like what I fear most--the tendency to toss the book on sin as long as one scapegoat can be found to carry the load.  I really don't care if you consider sex between to members of the same sex a sin or not.  I care deeply that people are preaching hate in the name of God, sinning themselves, nurturing hate in others and denying our Lord's work on the cross to some perceived sinners, causing oppression and unnecessary suffering.  It is an injustice to our faith.  Thank God I am not an Evangelical.  Thank God I am not excusing my own hatred of somebody.



I see.  So, you see scripture apart from real life, and you believe that God's promises don't hold true.  While I see that Robinson's situation doesn't fit the passage for a reason:  he is neither a idol worshiper nor is he godless.  Why on earth do you study the scriptures if you don't believe that what they say will hold true in your life?!  When the right criteria are presented, then the passage will hold true. 

I said, we need to continue to talk about sin and the role of sin in faith.


He never healed a homosexual.  I think it is extremely rude to continue to make the claim that "its a perversion" and that it is a "defect".  I consider it a sin and a breaking of the second commandment for you to do so.  Whether you think homosexuals are sinners or not, hate is not an option if you claim to follow Christ.


They are your favorites because you are using them to build your case.  Then every point I make you create rules like a spoiled child making up his own game:  You can't do that.  You can't consider his historical audience, who he was writing it to, the situation he was dealing with.  Anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable!  Hey!  Wait a hot little minute there, Bud!  You are  on a Christian forum and you have invited people from different faith traditions ergo you must tolerate the practices and habits of those from those other traditions and show others the same respect that up to this point I have shown you.  By the way, that particular fact about Romans being the most complete and why was from Barclay in his book on Paul's Epistle to the Romans.  But I'm not here just to listen to you talk to yourself.  I've heard it a thousand times.  I think you are teaching hate in the name of God.

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT ALL WHO BELIEVE IN HIM WILL NOT PERISH BUT WILL HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.
Yes, even sinners like you!  You'll have to live with it, you know.  I might not think that you are worthy of our Lord's love, but I'm afraid I have to leave it up to him--at least, if I want to have any hope whatsoever.

*deleted a lot of blather that had nothing to do with the points I so inconveniently made*  I believe that by the way you are intepreting 1 Cor 6:9 you are actually denying the cross to somebody else.  Don't be a slanderer, then.

I think it might be good for you to read up on the term homosexual, when it was coined, by whom and for what reason:

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm


Funny.  I resented the fact that you were doing it, first.

A.