ARCHIVE: My niece is gay and I love her for it. So does God.

[Nathon Detroit]

Thread split...

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by aquamulier
Eight months ago, when I started posing here, I really did believe in the twisted crap that is Christianity. Sense then I realized that it really is just twisted crap and am now seeking the truth. Bad news, ya'll don't have it. I don't think anybody does. If anyone did, what would ya'll spend your time arguing about? Homosexuality is not wrong and I'm not a Christian. There it is... the truth, the whole truth, and nothng but the truth...

The "truth" you are looking for is that homosexuality is ok. If you're looking for that around here, of course you won't find it.

You want your emotions and feelings to be true, and if that's the case, you'll never find real truth. You have to learn Aqua, to give up things you want in order to find true happiness. True love is only found through sacrifices. And if you can't give up your lustful desires to find the Truth in God, you'll never be happy.

 

[taoist]

Z Man

The "truth" you are looking for is that homosexuality is ok. If you're looking for that around here, of course you won't find it.

You want your emotions and feelings to be true, and if that's the case, you'll never find real truth. You have to learn Aqua, to give up things you want in order to find true happiness. True love is only found through sacrifices. And if you can't give up your lustful desires to find the Truth in God, you'll never be happy.

I know, it's a long thread and difficult to follow all the opposing arguments, but I believe I refuted this position a couple of pages back in post #362 ...

And frankly, the "because it feels good" arguments are just as bogus. Do any of the proponents of this position find themselves fighting urges to homosexual behavior? Are they denying themselves the "pleasure" of homosexual activity?

I don't date men, but it's not because I'm denying myself anything. It just doesn't rock my boat. Aqua doesn't either. I can't see why I'm justified in refusing to behave in a way that would cause "chaos and personal unfulfillment" and she's not.

Why isn't that obvious?

I've had this discussion before on ToL, though as I'm feeling a bit under the weather today I'm not up to looking it up. The most honest response I've seen was from Wiseman, who acknowledged that homosexuals may be called to a higher devotion than those of us who don't feel homosexual urges.

Freak, of all people, came up with an interesting response on the basis of the natural or "immutable law" of moral philosophy suggested by the principle of mobility.

At my request, Knight split the subsequent discussion. Please join us there if you can find the time, Z man. I'm willing to answer any reasonable responses.

 

[o2bwise]

Aqua

Aqua

Hi aquamulier,

As one who was once substantially homosexual in inclination and is now quite heterosexual in inclination and who has been around many homosexuals and am privy to their past, I can say with some level of awareness that homosexual inclination is the result of some kind of brokenness of heart.

There is some kind of unwellness. Homosexual acts are merely that, outward acts. God wants our hearts.

It is impossible to submit to homosexual thoughts and actions and to be "well."

One needs to look deeper than to the outward act. The inward brokenness, in the vast majority of cases, isn't even about sex or sexuality.

Anyway, I would bear false witness were I to call something "well" which is "unwell."


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

 

[LightSon]

Tony. I commend you for your courage in making yourself vulnerable by sharing. This is one of the weaknesses of the church, IMO, that we are too busy trying to look good, and thus conceal our past. Scripture directs us to confess our faults one to another. If we are unable to be a little more transparent or to share about the dark places we've been, we can rob others of certain levels of encouragement.

I'm not arguing that we ought to wear our past on our sleeve. There is a time and place to share.

Thanks.

 

[o2bwise]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Hi LightSon,

Thanks! and I appreciate your words.

For the record, my "private hell" was one where I expressed my inclinations in solitude. I was unwilling to "go there," but lacked the wherewithal to contain what were, for me, desires of a magnitude that was severe.

As for disclosure, I am mindful of the following:

Isaiah 1:27-31
27 Zion shall be redeemed with justice, And her penitents with righteousness. 28 The destruction of transgressors and of sinners shall be together, And those who forsake the Lord shall be consumed. 29 For they shall be ashamed of the terebinth trees Which you have desired; And you shall be embarrassed because of the gardens Which you have chosen. 30 For you shall be as a terebinth whose leaf fades, And as a garden that has no water. 31 The strong shall be as tinder, And the work of it as a spark; Both will burn together, And no one shall quench them.


Shame and embarrassment are destructive emotions, especially shame, I think. They do not aid one to repent. I do not think God wants me to be ashamed, He simply wants me to repent.

For too long, I was embroiled in seething emotions of guilt, shame, and embarrassment. They do not heal, rather they perpetuate bondage. Likewise, for too long, the church has and still does perpetuate a predisposition to be shamed by its very unwillingness to invite disclosure. People aren't comfortable leaving the closet because the church doesn't encourage them out of it. Perhaps a paradox, but even if the goal is repentance, the person afflicted with homosexual desires is much better off outside of the closet, rather than inside. Of course, care in when and with whom to be in disclosure ought not be abandoned.

My willingness to disclose is, in part, the practise of no longer being ashamed.

I do believe things like shame and guilt are inherent in a sinful mentality. If homosexuality is a sin, once all of such a person's "personhood" is disclosed to them by the unveiled presence of the love of God, shame, embarrassment, and guilt will rear their ugly heads.

They will consume the sinner with the sin. The fact of this is unarbitrary and according to realities innate to moral intelligence itself.

Thanks Again and God Bless,

Tony

 

[resurrected]

So I was wondering if the preponderance of homosexuality threads was a recent thing. :think:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

My niece was gay the day she was born. I don’t know what caused it - maybe she’s got too much or too little of this hormone or that one. All I know is that every picture I look at of her from the day she started to look like one sex or the other, she always looked a little less than female. I can’t put my finger on it now, I just know she was different. That doesn’t make her a sinner.

When she was 4 years old she used to dress up in her dad’s work clothes and work boots. For Halloween she was always an army man or a Star Trek captain. All of her friends were little boys. She choose them because she had the most in common with boys. When boys decided they didn’t like girls, she had no friends. She was devastated. Her best friend Patrick told her one day girls were “icky.” It changed her attitude about life forever.

Sometimes I wonder if it was something I did or said or something her mom or dad did or didn’t do. When it comes right down to it, it doesn’t matter. Whether it was environment or genetics, nevertheless, she had no control over what happened to her and in her. It just was. Either way, no loving God would send her to Hell for it. Of this I am sure.

So tell me that God thinks she’s an “abomination.” But this time, use your head. Don’t quote from your famous book. Give me a logical reason from your very own head as to why God is going to send her to Hell for being gay. I challenge you to give me one good LOGICAL reason. She is not harming anyone, she is not even harming herself. What harmed her the most was when she tried to fit in and be straight.

She’s much happier now that she is openly gay. She and her girlfriend are not sexually involved right now. They want to keep their relationship plutonic for now. When I see them holding hands and enjoying being together so much, I think “how could this be wrong?”

When you objectify your beliefs it is much easier to hold them sacred. When something comes and knocks on the door of your house, then it’s different. God is that way too. Do you think he/she looks at you and says “you know, if you just weren’t so critical of everything, I would let you come to Heaven.” Or “if you didn’t get so angry in traffic, I would love you.” Or “if you didn’t spend so much time gossiping with your friends you would be alright in my book.”

No, God isn’t like that. People who believe this person or that person is going to Hell don’t really know those people they condemn. The make them objects and categorize them in the “bad” category. They don’t feel personally attached to the “bad” ones because if they did, they wouldn’t be able to keep them on the “bad” list. That’s why God doesn’t have a “bad” list. He/she does know each of us personally and he/she could never send anyone to Hell.

Now I’m talking to all of you who believe there is a Hell and that there are people who will go there someday: “As long as you keep your ears shut, your house of cards will not fall. As long as you refuse to let a logical thought enter your head, you will continue to swallow whatever the preacher tells you is right. You don’t have to think, you’ve got the Bible, the preacher, the Sunday school teacher. Is that what you really believe? But if one little doubt enters your head, your whole system of beliefs will begin to fall. It’s time you started thinking for yourself. Give it a try.”

Sorry, WW, but no one is born gay! Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh and unacceptable to God, the creator of all that is!
The Bible tells us that; there'll be no homosexual in His kingdom!

In fact, no sin will be allowed into God's kingdom! One must,
place their faith in Christ as their only Lord and Savior and become
Born again Spiritually, before they can enter the kingdom of God!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Sorry, WW, but no one is born gay! Homosexuality is a sin of the flesh and unacceptable to God, the creator of all that is!
The Bible tells us that; there'll be no homosexual in His kingdom!

In fact, no sin will be allowed into God's kingdom! One must,
place their faith in Christ as their only Lord and Savior and become
Born again Spiritually, before they can enter the kingdom of God!

 

[resurrected]

GM - this is an old thread - Wickwoman no longer posts here.

Best we can do is pray for her niece and her too. :thumb:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

GM - this is an old thread - Wickwoman no longer posts here.

Best we can do is pray for her niece and her too. :thumb:

Thanks. I didn't look at the timeline!

 

[Eeset]

Res was necromancing (reviving long dead threads).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well... I'd just like a few people to understand Hartiology (Sin-ology) so Christians can actually answer these kinds of questions scritpurally and structurally.

The problem comes from not knowing the difference between sin/s (hamartia), sin/s (hamartano), and sin/s (hamartema). And Augustine didn't help much, either.

The epidemic ignorance of sin, repentance, faith, grace, and other foundational terms relative to salvation is appalling. Maybe I should start a thread.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well... I'd just like a few people to understand Hartiology (Sin-ology) so Christians can actually answer these kinds of questions scripturally and structurally.

The problem comes from not knowing the difference between sin/s (hamartia), sin/s (hamartano), and sin/s (hamartema). And Augustine didn't help much, either.

The epidemic ignorance of sin, repentance, faith, grace, and other foundational terms relative to salvation is appalling. Maybe I should start a thread.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Well... I'd just like a few people to understand Hamartiology (Sin-ology) so Christians can actually answer these kinds of questions scripturally and structurally.

The problem comes from not knowing the difference between sin/s (hamartia), sin/s (hamartano), and sin/s (hamartema). And Augustine didn't help much, either.

The epidemic ignorance of sin, repentance, faith, grace, and other foundational terms relative to salvation is appalling. Maybe I should start a thread.

 

[rocketman]

Well... I'd just like a few people to understand Hamartiology (Sin-ology) so Christians can actually answer these kinds of questions scripturally and structurally.

The problem comes from not knowing the difference between sin/s (hamartia), sin/s (hamartano), and sin/s (hamartema). And Augustine didn't help much, either.

The epidemic ignorance of sin, repentance, faith, grace, and other foundational terms relative to salvation is appalling. Maybe I should start a thread.

Please do, having the terms defined as the Bible presents them would be edifying.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Please do, having the terms defined as the Bible presents them would be edifying.

Until I make the time for a thread, he's a hint:

Hamartia is a noun, and is utilized in both singular and plural.

Hamartano is a verb, representing acting.

Hamartema is a noun, representing individual acts of hamartia via hamartano.

Hamartia is from "a" and "meros"; "a" being no/not, and meros meaning "share" or "part". Hamartia is "no share or part".

So... hamartia is NOT a something, it's a somethinglessness. It's a lack or deficiency. Something which is not present or is missing.

What's missing is communion, because the spirit of man died (thanatos). Thanatos is a cessation of communion with environment of origin. When communion was diverted by Eve beginning to hear another Rhema, the cessation began. That which fully ensued was spiritual death as separation of communion of man's spirit with God's Spirit (which did NOT indwell men).

Because of that lack of communion that onset in Eden, we were all born with disarranged constitution. Our spirit "buried" and in need of resurrection, with our soul in ascendancy of primary function. Living by our own mind/will/emotions rather than them be subjected to God's Spirit via our own spirit and its communion faculty.

The "no share or part" that is hamartia is the lack of righteousness that can only come by communion of our spirit with God's Spirit. So rather than sin (hamartia, the noun) being a "something", it's a giant strip mine in us. It's not something that can be removed, rather it's something that must be filled because it's a lack.

The verb cannot help but be action that "misses the mark", because all action of the verb is relative to the noun and its inherent deficiency. And that deficiency is a lack of righteousness that comes from there being no communion. Only a resurrected and vivified spirit can provide the restored communion necesssary to fulfill righteousness (which is God's standard of conduct and condition). And that resurrection is by the last Adam, a quickening Spirit.

So hamartia in the singular is the inner condition, while hamartia in the plural is the aggregate outward conduct of that inner condition. NEVER is hamartia the individual acts for which the Mosaic Law required the blood and goats to be spilt. Jesus Christ ONLY deals with the source OF any individual acts, and only the general outward conduct relative to the inner condition that was from a disarranged constitution as spiritual death (that resulted in physical death).

For salvation, we repent of hamartia plural (the outward conduct), which includes the singular (the inner condition). That repentance must be metanoia/metanoeo, which is a complete change in condition of the entire comprehension, apprehension, and understanding of our consicous cognition, and all relative to moral reflection. It includes a paralleling of our mind with God's mind relative to righteousness and sin/s (hamartia); and in this agreement, there is a turning away from hamartia and towards God.

This is a one-time onset as an event that represents a changed mind as a metonym for heart. We let this mind be in us that was also in Christ Jesus, and have a renewing of the mind that is our consistent and continuous mindset.

We do NOT lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works. The hamartema that are individual acts are NOT to be repented of repetitiously, as so many do. All hamartano and hamartema were included in our salvific repentance, and to continue to repent of individual acts is to treat the blood of Christ as the blood of bulls and goats. He was the once-for-all sacrifice to atone for all sin/s (hamartia), which is the inward condition and the outward conduct of our lives before Christ.

After salvation, we confess our sins (hamartia plural); which is our outward conduct of the old man we've declared dead. Confession is homoleggeo, which literally means same-speaking; and is the same term always translated "profess". So in confessing our sins, we are professing Christ who became sin for us. We profess that our outward conduct is His as we are confessing the old man's conduct as lacking in comparison to the righteousness of God in Christ.

In regard to the OP, homosexuality is only part of hamartia, and results in individual actions that are hamartema from the verb hamartano. Railing on hamartano (sinning) and hamartema (individual sin acts) doesn't have anything to do with salvation. This sinning and these sins (hamartema) already condemn whoever is committing them. It's the inward condition and the outward conduct that are in need of the goodness of God bringing repentance, which is His grace.

Unbelievers don't have any comprehension of this because believers have no comperhension of it. All focus is generally upon individual acts of sin with sinning, rather than being focused on the overall condition of all men relative to the disarranged constitution we are all born with that disallows communion with God's righteousness, and ultimately gives us all a giant strip mine that's in need of being filled.

The only thing that can fill that strip mine is the Holy Spirit of promise. So any attention to individual acts of sin and sinning is just pointing to symptoms of the incurable disease.

We need an entire paradigm shift of understanding to address sin (hamartia, both singular and plural) instead of focusing on hamartema (individual sin acts) and hamartano (sinning). Those are inevitable when there is hamartia as an inward condition and outward conduct. And since the blood of bulls and goats is no longer valid, then addressing hamartema/hamartano is fallacious.

Sinners will have sinning and sins. The focus should be on sin, the condition and the conduct overall that comes from the condition. Too much time is spent in condemnation for that which already condemns sinners. And the practice of the Christian faith has too heavily codified grace with Law directed toward individual sins instead of dealing with the condition of sin and its inevitable conduct in sinners' lives.

Christians are codifying grace and turning it into the Law. We'll never effectively deal with groups such as homosexuals until we learn to deal with the Gospel relative to sin rather than sins. The way to Calvary isn't about acts of sin. It's about the condition of sin and its overall conduct. Man too easily justifies acts of sins individually to ever be convicted by calling attention to acts rather than sin itself.

The Gospel is that the "no share or part" is filled by Jesus Christ. It's not about falling short of the Law with individual acts of sin. And that's the probelm with the OP's perspective about homosexuality, which is only a symptom of hamartia like any and all other acts of sin.

 

[rocketman]

Until I make the time for a thread, he's a hint:

Hamartia is a noun, and is utilized in both singular and plural.

Hamartano is a verb, representing acting.

Hamartema is a noun, representing individual acts of hamartia via hamartano.

Hamartia is from "a" and "meros"; "a" being no/not, and meros meaning "share" or "part". Hamartia is "no share or part".

So... hamartia is NOT a something, it's a somethinglessness. It's a lack or deficiency. Something which is not present or is missing.

What's missing is communion, because the spirit of man died (thanatos). Thanatos is a cessation of communion with environment of origin. When communion was diverted by Eve beginning to hear another Rhema, the cessation began. That which fully ensued was spiritual death as separation of communion of man's spirit with God's Spirit (which did NOT indwell men).

Because of that lack of communion that onset in Eden, we were all born with disarranged constitution. Our spirit "buried" and in need of resurrection, with our soul in ascendancy of primary function. Living by our own mind/will/emotions rather than them be subjected to God's Spirit via our own spirit and its communion faculty.

The "no share or part" that is hamartia is the lack of righteousness that can only come by communion of our spirit with God's Spirit. So rather than sin (hamartia, the noun) being a "something", it's a giant strip mine in us. It's not something that can be removed, rather it's something that must be filled because it's a lack.

The verb cannot help but be action that "misses the mark", because all action of the verb is relative to the noun and its inherent deficiency. And that deficiency is a lack of righteousness that comes from there being no communion. Only a resurrected and vivified spirit can provide the restored communion necesssary to fulfill righteousness (which is God's standard of conduct and condition). And that resurrection is by the last Adam, a quickening Spirit.

So hamartia in the singular is the inner condition, while hamartia in the plural is the aggregate outward conduct of that inner condition. NEVER is hamartia the individual acts for which the Mosaic Law required the blood and goats to be spilt. Jesus Christ ONLY deals with the source OF any individual acts, and only the general outward conduct relative to the inner condition that was from a disarranged constitution as spiritual death (that resulted in physical death).

For salvation, we repent of hamartia plural (the outward conduct), which includes the singular (the inner condition). That repentance must be metanoia/metanoeo, which is a complete change in condition of the entire comprehension, apprehension, and understanding of our consicous cognition, and all relative to moral reflection. It includes a paralleling of our mind with God's mind relative to righteousness and sin/s (hamartia); and in this agreement, there is a turning away from hamartia and towards God.

This is a one-time onset as an event that represents a changed mind as a metonym for heart. We let this mind be in us that was also in Christ Jesus, and have a renewing of the mind that is our consistent and continuous mindset.

We do NOT lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works. The hamartema that are individual acts are NOT to be repented of repetitiously, as so many do. All hamartano and hamartema were included in our salvific repentance, and to continue to repent of individual acts is to treat the blood of Christ as the blood of bulls and goats. He was the once-for-all sacrifice to atone for all sin/s (hamartia), which is the inward condition and the outward conduct of our lives before Christ.

After salvation, we confess our sins (hamartia plural); which is our outward conduct of the old man we've declared dead. Confession is homoleggeo, which literally means same-speaking; and is the same term always translated "profess". So in confessing our sins, we are professing Christ who became sin for us. We profess that our outward conduct is His as we are confessing the old man's conduct as lacking in comparison to the righteousness of God in Christ.

In regard to the OP, homosexuality is only part of hamartia, and results in individual actions that are hamartema from the verb hamartano. Railing on hamartano (sinning) and hamartema (individual sin acts) doesn't have anything to do with salvation. This sinning and these sins (hamartema) already condemn whoever is committing them. It's the inward condition and the outward conduct that are in need of the goodness of God bringing repentance, which is His grace.

Unbelievers don't have any comprehension of this because believers have no comperhension of it. All focus is generally upon individual acts of sin with sinning, rather than being focused on the overall condition of all men relative to the disarranged constitution we are all born with that disallows communion with God's righteousness, and ultimately gives us all a giant strip mine that's in need of being filled.

The only thing that can fill that strip mine is the Holy Spirit of promise. So any attention to individual acts of sin and sinning is just pointing to symptoms of the incurable disease.

We need an entire paradigm shift of understanding to address sin (hamartia, both singular and plural) instead of focusing on hamartema (individual sin acts) and hamartano (sinning). Those are inevitable when there is hamartia as an inward condition and outward conduct. And since the blood of bulls and goats is no longer valid, then addressing hamartema/hamartano is fallacious.

Sinners will have sinning and sins. The focus should be on sin, the condition and the conduct overall that comes from the condition. Too much time is spent in condemnation for that which already condemns sinners. And the practice of the Christian faith has too heavily codified grace with Law directed toward individual sins instead of dealing with the condition of sin and its inevitable conduct in sinners' lives.

Christians are codifying grace and turning it into the Law. We'll never effectively deal with groups such as homosexuals until we learn to deal with the Gospel relative to sin rather than sins. The way to Calvary isn't about acts of sin. It's about the condition of sin and its overall conduct. Man too easily justifies acts of sins individually to ever be convicted by calling attention to acts rather than sin itself.

The Gospel is that the "no share or part" is filled by Jesus Christ. It's not about falling short of the Law with individual acts of sin. And that's the probelm with the OP's perspective about homosexuality, which is only a symptom of hamartia like any and all other acts of sin.

Your assessment is valid here and I agree with it. Too many Christians and denominations that they subscribe teach law & grace in the same sentence when the two are mutually exclusive. The teaching that a Christian should try to polish up that dead flesh to be acceptable before God I believe to fallacious also, for the reason that if there were a way for humankind to make themselves acceptable Christ He would have never borne the cross. Certainly we as new creatures should aspire to live as he lived and turn from that which we know to be evil but, we do not move into and out of salvation like a revolving door which seems to be a common theme of many professing Christians on this site. There is a misunderstanding of the cross and the meaning Christ's sacrifice in general, sadly.

Thanks for taking the time to post such a lengthy reply, there is a lot to swallow for some but, worth the effort. :thumb:

 

[rocketman]

Your assessment is valid here and I agree with it. Too many Christians and denominations that they subscribe teach law & grace in the same sentence when the two are mutually exclusive. The teaching that a Christian should try to polish up that dead flesh to be acceptable before God I believe to be fallacious also, for the reason that if there were a way for humankind to make themselves acceptable Christ He would have never borne the cross. Certainly we as new creatures should aspire to live as he lived and turn from that which we know to be evil but, we do not move into and out of salvation like a revolving door which seems to be a common theme of many professing Christians on this site. There is a misunderstanding of the cross and the meaning Christ's sacrifice in general, sadly.

Thanks for taking the time to post such a lengthy reply, there is a lot to swallow for some but, worth the effort. :thumb: