No one seems to be addressing Matt’s question.  He stated, “The arguments I always hear against homosexuality is that God intended man for woman, not man for man. But just because someone renounces their homosexual desires...that does not mean they can just turn around and love women?”

First of all Matt I know that the Bible says that homosexual behavior is unnatural. The natural order is man and woman, however, just because God created woman for man does not mean that every man has to have this companionship.  Many heterosexuals have remained single as Paul did and accepted this as God’s will for them.

You also asked,

....can your desires be reversed? And if not (which in the VAST majority of homosexuals will be the case)...what does that mean for them?

Yes! Many of the desires I had before salvation have changed drastically, as many of your probably have as well.  The ones that haven’t changed I have to deal with regularly. I, like all believers can only overcome these desires if I fix my eyes on Jesus and choose to trust him for victory.  I don’t always succeed, but I keep trusting anyway.

Hope this helps.

Ed.

The early tone of the comments on this thread seems to feel loving and redemptive in nature (at least it seems so to me).  Does it feel so to you Joe . . . Matt . . . Larry?

Matt, I think you raise a good question about what if the sexual bias never changes.  How do we search out and live out God’s redemptive plan in these cases.  A number of years ago a Christian friend of ours and local para-church leader “came out of the closet,” left his family and is now living with a partner and part of a gay church in San Francisco.  His wife worked through this with the help of a gay recovery ministry whose leader claims to be a gay man living a celibate life in order to honor God’s commands.  As I recall, he likens his gayness to Paul’s thorn in the side or an alcoholic who is “hard-wired” with addictive DNA and can never - - - never have even a glass of wine.

Also, as I’m thinking of Matt’s question, I’m thinking of all the single heterosexual Christians I know.  God hard wired them to be heterosexual, but outside the context of marriage between a man and woman sex is still off limits, just as “sinful” as homosexual sin.  Certainly they have to resist the same temptations, temptations which those of us who are married do not face and cannot really understand.

I saw a piece on Pastor Phelps this morning on GMA (thread “One More Dead Soldier”).  Those of us who posted on that thread pretty unanimously found his methods abhorring.  For me the other abhorring thing is the way many on the Christian right, even if they don’t use Phelps’ methods (picketing veteran funerals), have made this sin somehow greater or worse, the hierarchy of sins others have mentioned here - - - with homosexuality on the top of the list.

My theology of grace tells me that no particular sin condemns any of us to hell, rather our sinful condition which separates us from God.  When I was saved the Holy Spirit didn’t convict me of every sin in my life at the same moment.  As Larry has so beautifully testified, it sometimes many years for the Holy Spirit to lovingly and patiently draw people out of the complicated and dysfunctional lives that have trapped them in homosexuality (or many other “sins” for that matter).  I’m pretty sure there will be people in heaven who found Jesus but never repented of their homosexual lifestyle before their physical death, just as there will be Christians who kept up their out-of-marriage heterosexual habits, or alcoholic binges, or habitual lying, or ego driven leadership, or . . . “

Wendi

Let’s take one foundational thing into consideration.  When God created a helper for Adam, he created a woman and obviously not a man.  In other words - God’s original plan was that a woman would be the suitable companion for man.

God’s command of fruitfulness and multiplication can only be fulfilled by heterosexual unions not homosexual ones.  I believe that God did not create homosexuals, otherwise it would’ve been accounted in the creation story of Genesis.

Also I believe that it must be insulting to God to be engaged in a homosexual relationship because it would be telling God the mate you gave me is inadequate for my needs.

We cannot defend one sin over another as i see in some of our posts.  Sin is sin.  Homosexuality along with other sins are clearly stated as such in both the Old and New Testaments. 

Let’s do our best to do what Jesus recommended to many people - Go and sin no more.

1 Cor. 6:9-10

[I believe that Homosexuals are born that way, so why would we condemn someone for what is not their fault?]

Are you suggesting God is unjust in ANY point of His Creation?  We are ALL born into condemnation and the law points that out to ALL of us!  The law judges the action to be sinful and blatant.  Jesus judges the motives.  So what is the motive of murder?  Bitterness and anger (envy).  What is the motive of adultry?  Lust.  What is the motive to say it’s not “their fault”?  Whose “fault” is it?  Does God not have a “Right” to judge the homosexual?  Ever?  Oops to Sodom and Gomorrah.

When we are Born Again, we no longer live for ourselves but Christ.

Homosexuality is living for the fleshly sexual desires suggesting you were “born that way” is to not take responsability for your actions but rather blame God.

In one breath you’ll suggest you Praise God for loving you then deny Him as being “unfair” or unjust for ever condemning homosexuality.

[I taught Bible Study with a 50 year old Lesbian (you’d never know by looking at her) and she 1) never chose to be gay and 2) was one of the most devout, charitable and scripture-knowledgeable people I know.]

She chooses everyday to be gay and NOT be more like Christ.

Knowledge does not equal understanding or wisdom.  The beginning of knowledge is.....

OK… let me step in as moderator here.  Thanks to all those who have kept the tone nice on this post.  I’ll step in here so that we don’t get off track.  I don’t want this to turn into personal attacks or condemnation.

That said, I’ve declared my colors on this topic.  I believe that the Bible does condemn homosexuality as sin.  That doesn’t mean that I can’t discuss civily with those who disagree.  Let’s keep that civility, please.  If not; my moderating (deleting) will begin.

I find a couple of points interesting.  One is the seemingness that some people have natural homosexual tendencies and how they are to deal with these.  I thought Laura’s post about the fall of man and how that changed everything (including our genes) to be interesting.  Not sure I totally agree, but it made me really think.

The main reason I posted this is the first place is this:  I think the writer of this doctrinal statement started with a presupposition that homosexuality was A OK with God.  I think that’s dangerous.  I think we first need to look at what the Bible says and start from there; rather than taking who we are or what we feel and finding scripture to try to back up our position or lifestyle.

That’s my own 2 cents.

Let’s keep it civil though… I think our respectful conversation will be most beneficial.

Todd

The current debate (or lack thereof) reminds me that the Baptist Church split in 1845 over the issue of slavery and the Southern Baptist Convention endorsed slavery as being scripturally sanctioned in 1845 and didn’t disavow and apologize for it until 1995.  150 years from now I don’t want to look back and say I was on the wrong side of the homosexuality issue and guilty of bigotry or intolerance.  So my mind is still open on this issue.

Having been told at one point that I had committed a sin so grievous to the Lord that I should no longer be welcomed in church, and then to have scripture quoted which seemed to back up the individual’s point, has led me to believe (or hope) that not all scripture is as condemning as some would have us believe.

Specifically, at the age of 45 my wife and I decided we were happy with the number of children we have and we decided that I would have a vasectomy (better than continued artificial birth control hormones or invasive surgery for her).  Shortly after that I was told, by a very conservative Christian friend of mine, that that I had committed a sin so grievous to the Lord that I should no longer be welcomed in church.  And he quoted Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Now, I’m not buying this by any means, but if someone can quote this verse and tell me “By your own actions you have made yourself unwelcome in the congregation of the Lord” then you can see why I’m skeptical when someone quotes scripture and says it means a certain thing. 
There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are mistranslated in many English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

qadesh means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple . This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. It is often mistranslated simply as “sodomite” or “homosexual.” (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as “whore” or “prostitute.” A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the pagan temples. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

to’ebah means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but is usually simply translated as “abomination.” Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is “to’ebah”. A Jew eating with an Egyptian was “to’ebah.” A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment would be “to’ebah.”

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:
“Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:
“Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman’s bed; it is ritually unclean.

So, again, my mind is still undecided on the issue.  My church’s doctrine states that there is no such thing as a “homosexual”, there are only heterosexuals who are depraved, perverted, and unrepentant sinners.  I’m not ready to accept this, yet, and so I continue to study the scriptures, and evaluate the accuracy of the translations, in an effort to gain a better understanding of the issue and applicable scriptures.

Daniel (the first!) mentioned the position of Baptists on slavery.  Recently in my hermeneutics class we talked about three specific areas where there seems to be movement from the OT to the NT to today: slavery, homosexuality, and gender roles.  In class we looked at every NT passage that talks about slavery and found that out of perhaps two dozen passages that are not metaphorical (e.g., “slave to sin") but actually speak of human slavery, only two clearly suggest that slavery is not good; all of the others were, at best, tolerant of slavery.  Thus, the question was raised: If the weight of the NT dealings with slavery doesn’t condemn it, is it really wrong?  The argument used by many until far too recently has been that no, slavery must not be wrong, since the NT doesn’t condemn slavery.  It is likely, however, that Paul’s tolerance of slavery is an accommodation to the culture; for him to have overtly renounced slavery would have hindered the progress of the gospel at that time.

Gender roles:  We found that even in the OT, where women had few rights and were often little more than property, the biblical dealing with women was far beyond (and better than) their treatment outside of Israel.  In the NT, Jesus took that even farther by his frequent contact with women and by his teachings - even on divorce.  Paul’s teachings are more difficult and have some very strong arguments on either side that I’ll not attempt.  But at the very least it must be acknowledged that Paul did allow women to prophecy in church by his use of terms like “when women pray...”.

In both slavery and women’s roles, there is a progression from the OT to the NT, a gradual shift toward rejection of slavery and acceptance of women.  But what about homosexuality?  There is no such movement in scripture.  The OT says it’s wrong; the NT says it’s wrong.  And to suggest that the Hebrew or Greek words mean specifically such-and-such places as undue and inappropriate emphasis on words.  Words have ranges of meaning and only gain a more precise meaning within their specific historical and literary context.  Thus, to say that homosexuality is okay because some word means only a “male temple prostitute” is an example of a poor semantic argument.

Randy,
Thank you for that concise summary of William Webb’s excellent “slaves, women and homosexuals”.  I’m fairly confident this is the textbook you’ve been using.  I’m quite aware of the material.  My problem with it however, is that it makes certain unqualified assumptions about what Scripture is and what it isn’t.  Nor does it tackle the very difficult question of whether talking about ‘homosexuality’ in Scripture is anachronistic in any sense, or if the kinds of condemnations (they are there, I don’t deny it) we find in the NT are relevant (and WHY they are relevant) to committed monogamous homosexuals today.
Layne, thank you for your input.  I do, in fact, strongly believe that God is the best judge of what is right and wrong.  But I also strongly believe that this is divine discernment, not divine diktat.  God does not randomly determine what is right and wrong, but he purposefully discloses what is right and wrong.  That is to say, things are right and wrong (and in between) regardless of what God says about them (though as Christians we believe that God will necessarily be correct about what he says concerning moral issues).  They are wrong BECAUSE of X (where X is NOT “God says so").  Does that mean humans always have the discernment to see WHY something is specifically right or wrong?  No.  But the fact remains that morality is not some hidden feature of God’s mind that we are at his every whim for.  The wages of sin are death.  This is a profoundly concrete biblical truth.  This is why sex addicts, alcoholics, and various forms of extremists never exhibit the full (or any!) fruit of the Spirit.  Their sin works its way into the fabric of their lives--they tend to become hateful, gossipy and selfish.  The nature of the behavior is revealed in its effects.  Sinful behaviors harm the self and harm others.  This is why some of us struggle so much with what the Bible supposedly says about ALL homosexual behavior: we know of homosexuals who bear the fruit of the Spirit.  And this is more than just saying, “oh yeah, so and so’s a drug addict, but they’re a nice person”.  No.  I’m talking about the Fruit of the Spirit.  Not some weak half-baked nice-personness.  Jesus said you will be known by your fruits.  Regardless of what you think of homosexuality, this is why committed, monogamous homosexual couples who follow Christ closely are such a challenge to the traditional view.
The two key issues here seem to me to be: the relationship between what God says and what Scripture says (and I disagree that the two are one and the same), and what, specifically, Scripture says.  I think on both of these counts, I disagree with the traditional assessment on the issue of homosexuality.
Peace,
-Daniel-

["She chooses everyday to be gay and NOT be more like Christ.”
BeHim, do you know this woman? Can a celibate homosexual not be like Christ? Will it take you personally meeting a Christ-like celibate homosexual for you to get off your high horse? Brother, we are called to be humble. Leave the judging to God.]

Daniel the content didn’t suggest she was celebate but again it still begs the question.  Is homosexuality wrong, ie. a sin?

I ask that because as Todd says here:
[The main reason I posted this is the first place is this: I think the writer of this doctrinal statement started with a presupposition that homosexuality was A OK with God. I think that’s dangerous. I think we first need to look at what the Bible says and start from there; rather than taking who we are or what we feel and finding scripture to try to back up our position or lifestyle.]

This is the key.  Homosexuality IS wrong and a sin.  By what authority would we suggest homosexuality is not wrong, ie a sin?

Daniel Farmer, I’ve been pondering this comment from within your post: [Their sin works its way into the fabric of their lives--they tend to become hateful, gossipy and selfish. The nature of the behavior is revealed in its effects. Sinful behaviors harm the self and harm others.]

I love that comment, and am deeply convicted by it.  I think part of the problem with our evangelical stance on so many issues is our focus on sinful behavior (of those who unregenerate at that) and miss the whole issue of sin nature (including our own) which indeed “works its way into the fabric of OUR lives.”

I can’t see God looking down and shaking his head, thinking “homosexuality (abortion, drug addiction, fill in the blank) is sin, look at all those people sinning, how shameful.” We (western evangelicals) seem to think that if we can stop the sinful actions of others by legislating the gay agenda or abortion rights, we are dealing appropriately with sin nature which has worked its way into the fabric of our lives (individually and corporately).  Just perhaps, God is much more offended by our wrongheaded way of dealing with the issue of sin among the pagans around us (and in our own hearts) than he is all the sin and decadence in the world.

Focusing on the behavior others is keeping me from looking at what has what sin has worked its way into the fabric of my own life.

Wendi

Al and Wendi...From what I know of both you from reading your comments here over the past months, I think you’re both saying essentially the same thing, just in different terms.  Yes, Al, Jesus went to the cross for our sin.  And yes, he went to the cross for our “wrong-headedness”, which, I submit, is sort of a definition of sin. 

I would also point to the example of Jesus prior to the cross and note the difference in his words toward the religious leaders versus the “sinners”.  His harsh words (e.g., “you white-washed tombs") were spoken to the religious leaders; his gentle words (e.g., “neither do I condemn you") were spoken to the likes of the adultress. 

At the cross, though, he died for the sins of both the religious leaders and the “sinners”.

Randy,

Thank you for your comments.  I hope I didn’t sound like I was dumping on Wendi in any way.  She seems to be a bright woman with some very good things to say.

I also appreciated your final thoughts: “At the cross, though, he died for the sins of both the religious leaders and the “sinners"."

Amen to that!

Blessings,
Al