Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Comments Continued
This is the continuing discussion going on between myself and Feetxxxl, which you can further read about under the comments section of the post This Is For Scott, concerning whether or not homosexual behavior is right or wrong for a Christian to engage in. Anyone wishing to join in on the conversation, please feel free to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Andrew,
I'm not too familiar with Mormonism. However, if you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, then yes I'd consider you to be a fellow Christian, and I would accept you as that.
Would the MCC church accept you? I don't know. Maybe. I personally believe that all people should be welcome in any church so long as that person isn't there to create unrest or disturbance among the other believers, or to attempt to destroy the church or change it's theological doctrines. If a person believes differently from a particular church, they can go to another one.
I would welcome any homosexual to my church, including homosexual couples. I would want that because of the truth I know they'd hear there. I would hope they would accept that truth, but even if they do not, so long as they don't attempt to change the message my church preaches, I would still want them to attend. I would not want to exclude them. Nor would I ever want to exclude any Christian of any type from our services, or exclude anybody from being able to come to Christ.
Feel free to comment any time, Andrew. Glad to hear from you.
Feetxxxl,
What are my options? Well, I'm going to seek first and foremost the kingdom of God, try my best not to sin in order to please God, and to live more honestly around others. I understand what you mean about acceptance and people not trying to "fix you". That does feel good. However, I would never want people to accept what sin they see in my life. I would want them to accept ME, but at the same time to, kindly, help me see what sin is in my life. On the subject of homosexuality, God never asks a person to change their temptations or attractions. All He asks is for us to live a Holy life, free of sin. So, a person should be able to go to church and be themselves and be honest with where they are in life, but they should always as well, be encouraged to give up their sin.
In my case, I suppose I'll live a celibate life, or if I find a woman who I can love and think I can be with, I might get married someday. I don't know. I'm not going to worry about my future though. I am going to focus on living my life daily for Christ. And wherever He leads me I'll follow. That's the option I'm going with. Live honestly, in love, trust God, do my best not to sin, and stop worrying so much.
You've mentioned my suffering. Yes, I have suffered my fair share, but I have also rejoiced a great deal as well. I know my life is so much better when I live my life for God rather than living it for my attractions. I rejoice for what God is doing for me in my life.
Thank you for praying for me. I really do appreciate that. I am praying for you as well.
God bless ya.
Brandon
Brandon,
I read Andrew's post who says he is a gay Mormon and was wondering if you guys would consider him a Christian and he was wondering if the MCC would accept him.
Mormons do not believe in the doctrine of the trinity, the believe that Jesus is the Archangel Michael and spirit-brother of Lucifer. Mormonism also teaches that you have earn your way to heaven and if do do enough good works then you will become a god and own your own planet. So, if Andrew says that he has "accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior" because he does not believe in the same Jesus that you do these words don't mean the same thing.
What is interesting is that Feetxxl wouldn't answer his question as to whether or not he would consider him a Christian or if he would be accepted as a Christian in the MCC. If he affirms Andrew then Feetxxl has to dismiss what Scripture teaches about Jesus. If he denies Andrew then he has to deny his premise for what he believes which is the constant reference to his experiences and a subjective definition of 'love" being THE determining factor.
I have noticed that much of your conversation with Feetxxl has turned to the sharing of experiences, the affirmation of homosexuals as Christians rather than what Scripture teaches on the subject. So, the exchange has become your experiences with homosexuality which are negative vs. his experiences which he claims are good.
So, where is his argument going? He believes that Homosexual sex between consenting Christians isn't bad or wrong, it is just your experiences that were negative and hence you need to go to an MCC where you can have good homosexual Christian experiences. So long as experiences and seemingly good intentions is what determines right and wrong rather than the objective moral law of God then you will not be able to counter his claims. This is the seduction of a cult.
Ironically, Mormonism has the same sorts of claims. They have their "testimony" and their "burden in the bosom" and they are very family-oriented and have strong communities. But does that make them Christians? Can they deny what Scripture objectively teaches about God and Jesus Christ and still be considered Christians? Is it their acts of "love" that determines whether or not they are truly Christians or is what the believe and DO that determines the genuineness of their claim to faith?
Don’t get me wrong. I am sure Andrew is a really nice guy and I am sure feetxxl is a nice guy too. But for the true Christian the issue is always, “What do the Scriptures teach concerning matters of faith and life, of doctrine and ethics?”
Rik,
I didn't know that about Mormonism. Based on that, I'm not sure I would say that I accept Andrew as a Christian. At least not in the same sense that I am. I would still, none the less, welcome him, or anyone else like him, in my church. I would accept him, but maybe not his beliefs, I guess.
You make a good point about the current discussion. Of course one's experiences (either good or bad) never determine what is right or wrong. God alone makes that decision, and He's told us what He thinks is right and wrong through His written word. We can either accept what God tells us or not.
I will admit that I wouldn't call all of my past homosexual experiences, bad experiences. I think they were definitely all sinful experiences, but I'd be lying to say that there were certain experiences I didn't enjoy at least in some way. Usually, that enjoyment was always temperary though and had it's long term effects which followed. But as you mentioned, my view on right and wrong isn't based on myself or my past experiences so much as on what I believe God is telling me through His word and through the Holy Spirit.
hey brandon.
just wanted to see how you were doing. i'm still catching up on your blog entries (i've just been insanely busy lately)
anywho - i know it sucks that the blog has gone down but if you still wanna keep in touch, drop me an email: dayzdnkonfused@hotmail.com
hope to hear from ya soon.
Wow, lots to read, but it seems you are basing all your arguments on only one take on what the scriptures teach. A book that was very helpful to me (as the gay son and grandson of church of Christ preachers) was "What the Bible Really Teaches about Homosexuality." Being from a fundamentalist, literalist background, it was important to resolve my beliefs about the scriptures.
I could post here what this book teaches, but it would take up too much space. If you're interested, follow the links to my email and I will email it to you.
Suffice it to say I have resolved my internal conflicts, and feel at peace with God in a committed gay relationship.
I actually posted the summary on my blog, so you can read it there.
http://mikeydsmusings.blogspot.com/
Hey PD! Good to hear from you. I hope the move went well and all. I'll definitely try to keep in touch.
Mikey,
I think I have read some excerpts from that book before. I think I should say at this point that I hold my beliefs very firm. I know a lot of the arguments that's out there in favor of homosexuality, I know most of the positions to this subject, and I've tried hard to believe a lot of those things in the past. However, I find that they just don't work for me. I feel deep down in my heart that God does not want me engaging in homosexual activity. I feel closer to God because I resist such things. But also, I view the Bible as only having one position on the subject of homosexuality, and that is to condemn homosexual acts--to call such things sinful. I personally can't see how anyone could think otherwise, and what arguments I've read in the past just don't seem to hold up. I've always been able to unravel such claims.
I am interested in hearing further about what that book talks about though. I tried to view your blog and wasn't able to do that. I couldn't pull it up due to a security problem or something. Is the link you provided the correct one?
Thanks by the way for commenting.
Brandon
I read the book, “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” by Daniel Helminak as well as 28 others books and the errors in this book are so numerous it boggles the mind.
For example, on page 101 he states, “Paul’s terminology in Romans 1 presents homogential acts as socially unacceptable or impure - but not as ethically wrong.”
The funny thing is even other Gay apologists have refuted this claim, such as Dan O. Via, for Paul clearly sets the context for the condemnation of men having sex with other men (and women with women) against the background of the order of creation. Paul also says that people who do such acts are storing up for themselves the wrath of God and that such acts are worthy of death. This is not a mere local socially unacceptable action. He says that such acts are unrighteous, not merely ceremonially unclean. They are in error - a sin. This is an act of defiance against the created order for which God will judge and is judging even now.
This is why there are about a half dozen different Gay apologist twists on the standard texts, because none of them can be held consistently and they all contradict each other
RIK - "This is why there are about a half dozen different Gay apologist twists on the standard texts, because none of them can be held consistently and they all contradict each other"
Hmmm. Sounds like Christians in general who have hundreds of views on any given scripture and none can be held consistenly because they all contradict each other...
So whos the one who's really right???
Anyways, Brandon, just wanted to say thanks for always reading my blog and commenting :)
Hey Pomo,
Wouldn't do it if I didn't love it. Good to hear from you. :)
POMO,
The difference is the church has been unanimous on this issue for 2,000 years as it has on all other universally held doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity etc.
Also, you have to take into account the pagan practices and damnable heresies that always accompany Gay Theology that I have discussed on my blog.
RIK, what about justification and the atonement? Those seem pretty big to me. My point is that Christians have disagreed. And I believe that Chrsitians who believe and practice different than I are still celebrating wtih God in Heaven.
As I reread alot of the passages prohibiting homosexuality, I see how alot of times beacuse the practice was associated with idolatry and pagan worship as you said. I dont think that necessarily speaks to Christians who are gay. But I understand thats based on a different interpretation of Scripture than you have. :)
Here's something I don't get. If certain homosexual activities can be okay in committed, loving relationships, then why is this only recent news? How come, at least up until this last century, ALL forms of homosexual behavior was considered sinful? You'd think if people had it wrong way back, Jesus would have corrected people about the matter and those who so strongly believed in Him at the time would have carried on his message, would they not? And if he had said anything about it being okay, wouldn't all of Christiandom have accepted it? I mean, if the Jews couldn't suppress what Jesus had to say, wouldn't heterosexuals have not been able to suppress what he would have had to say about homosexuals? Wouldn't the homosexuals of the day have stood up and voiced what Jesus would have taught if he did think that committed homosexual relationships were okay? Wouldn't his disciples have stood up and made the same claims? I think so. The problem is that, because all of Christiandom, at least mainstream Christianity has always upheld the view of homosexual activity being sin, I believe Jesus must have upheld that view as well. If he hadn't upheld it, I believe things would have been different for many centuries now. He would have said committed homosexual relationships are okay, his disciples would have proclaimed that message, along with other followers of Christ, and today we wouldn't think anything other than that. But, because that's not how things are (as it's been for over 2000 years), I'm inclined to believe that Jesus upheld the teachings of the Old Testament concerning homosexuality, and that's that. Anything modern to the contrary is nothing more than people trying to reinvent the past to suit their own needs, and being fooled into believing misinterpretations of the Bible.
I have to agree with Brandon and say the complete absence of "gay" (the label is modern but the idea behind it isn't) affirming commentary from any Christian church or denomination until the modern era is hard to ignore.
Some Christian communities have turned a blind eye to same-sex couples in the past but none have officially endorsed or defended these relationships. Gay rights is a product of the secular world (nobody would have argued otherwise 20 or 30 years ago).
Post a Comment