David McKay - 01 May 2008 12:05 PM

There is also a passage (I’ve forgottten where!) that says there is no point to tell a person the good news if they are hungry and you don’t feed them first - apart from the hypocrisy.

Hi David
I’m reasonably familiar with the Bible, but I don’t think there is a single passage which says this. I think you could make a case for it, but based on looking at an overall view of the Bible’s teaching, rather than a chapter and verse thingy.

But I’m happy to be proved wrong. Keeps me humble.

I wonder if you could have been thinking of James 2?

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Yep, that’s the one.

I realise (now!) that this refers to christians caring for christians, but the principle extends to non-christians. It’s like having a bumper sticker on your Mercedes saving “God loves you”.....

But this passage doesn’t quite say that we can’t share the gospel without firstly feeding a person, as far as I can see.

Just a little observation on this one.

If homosexuality is the heinous sin that some claim it is, how is it that ones I know who profess faith in Jesus not only claim to live a life of faith but seem to manifest fruit of the Spirit in their lives, and indeed could be regarded as agents of God’s grace in the lives of others.

We can argue theory and theology till the cows come home, but the test I follow is “by their fruit you shall know them.” I know a number of gay men and women who are devout Christian people, and the fruits of the Spirit are as manifest in their lives as I would see in many a straight person’s life.

How easy it is to underestimate the extent of God’s grace.

Hi John.
I’ve known some perfectly nice atheists, gays, Christians, non Christians, liberal Christians, Muslims, etc.

But I would expect that the fruit of the Spirit would be seen in a person living according to the standards set in the Spirit’s book, the Bible. That book tells us that homosexuality is not pleasing to God. How can we discern something to be the fruit of the Spirit, if it is in defiance of the word of the Spirit?

john clapton - 01 May 2008 11:46 PM

Just a little observation on this one.

If homosexuality is the heinous sin that some claim it is, how is it that ones I know who profess faith in Jesus not only claim to live a life of faith but seem to manifest fruit of the Spirit in their lives, and indeed could be regarded as agents of God’s grace in the lives of others.

We can argue theory and theology till the cows come home, but the test I follow is “by their fruit you shall know them.” I know a number of gay men and women who are devout Christian people, and the fruits of the Spirit are as manifest in their lives as I would see in many a straight person’s life.

How easy it is to underestimate the extent of God’s grace.

Col. 1:10 (ESV)
so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 

1 Cor. 6:9-11 (ESV)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

What do you mean by devout? There is no compromise on this one.

I’m with DM
I’ve known plenty of gays who were very devout. I wonder at a condemnation of their faith on the strength of the above verse.
Jesus said we committed adultery when we looked on a woman with lust. Idolatory I have been told a thousand times is one of our most frequent sins placing money, prestige and wot not over God. How then, on the strength of that does a gay get special attack? Don’t get me wrong, I can see how cos the Biblical view is they are abomination etc. But just a page or two back DA, you were arguing no diff between homosexuality and any other sin. But your above post allows no room. Or have I read you wrong?

My post was simply saying that no matter what the words of Scripture seem to say to us, there are times when the evidence before our eyes contradicts that.

You say that Scripture unequivocally condemns homosexuality, and yet there are gay people whom I know are devout followers of Jesus and in whose life the fruit of the Spirit are clearly manifest.  This is not an illusion and no, I am not talking about “perfectly nice gay people”.

I am simply saying that when confronted with such evidence I am caused to consider that there may in fact be another way of understanding what the Bible refers to as homosexuality; that the Bible may be talking about something quite different from what we understand about same-sex relationships today.

It could be, you know.

Owen Atkins - 02 May 2008 09:59 AM

Idolatory I have been told a thousand times is one of our most frequent sins placing money, prestige and wot not over God. How then, on the strength of that does a gay get special attack? 

Owen,
I dont think there are any ‘special attacks’ as you say.
Great to hear you acknowledge that you have been told many times to flee idolatry too.
Just to make it clear and keep the balance.... Owen, John, everyone else reading -dont be idolatrous!

John,
It really makes no sense to claim someone is a follower of Jesus or bearing the fruit of the Spirit if their behaviour is in open rebellion to God and they are unrepentant. By the fruit of their lives they make clear that they are not true followers, but rather impostors.

1 Tim 4:1-2

2 Tim 3:14-16

Mat 7:15

Gal 5:16-21

john clapton - 02 May 2008 10:56 AM

My post was simply saying that no matter what the words of Scripture seem to say to us, there are times when the evidence before our eyes contradicts that.

I believe this is best understood not by defying the testimony of Scripture as to what lies within the human heart, but by the doctrine of common grace. There are beautiful and noble characteristics in even the most depraved individuals.

I always think it is strange that by those who are apologists for homosexual sex, various good behaviours and characteristics are routinely trotted out as redeeming features. It reminds me of those people who come on TV and talk about their next door neighbour (who was a serial killer) as a lovely, quiet, gentle person. Possibly they were, and still are. But we don’t excuse sins of other varieties on the grounds that the person is otherwise thoroughly decent and kind, and even professes some sort of spiritual commitment. Why single out homosexuality as the sin which is covered over by niceness? There’s an irony here, too, as it is usually Bible-believing Christians who are told that they are singling out one sin as different from the others.

John
Are you addressing that one to me?
If so, let me be clear; I do not at all consider homosexuality to be the obstacle that many consider it to be. I wonder about the bible’s outright condemnation to gays and lesbians and compare that to my daily experience (both clients and peers for the past thirty or so years have been gays.)
Despite what has been said about the value of personal experience (ie; not much value really) I think it is of import and reconciling personal experience vs the dictates of theology is important.
My previous post is addressing the fact that on the one hand some folks say homosexuality is no more a sin than any other, then the stance is taken as did DA in his post, where the gauntlet is thrown and the bible used to demonstrate that gays cannot be devout etc. (to be fair, I think he means practising gays)
I think this is a problem that has yet to be resolved for those whose theology is essentially anti-gay.

Just a reminder; the OP is about whether we should be into “curing” gays.

My post was simply saying that no matter what the words of Scripture seem to say to us, there are times when the evidence before our eyes contradicts that.

I agree wholeheartedly, John, but are we going to accept the Word of God, or are we going to allow our own experiences to tell us what to believe?

I’ve just read Howard Marshall’s Beyond the Bible in which he argues that we must stand above the Bible and with 21st century presuppositions and then evaluate what Jesus and the Bible writers and speakers would have said if they lived today.

Now that we know that homosexuality is not really not an abomination, now that we know that slavery is wrong and the world hasn’t fallen apart, now that we have female leaders in church, now that we know that genocide is always wrong, we must reinterpret the Bible in the light of our superior knowledge.

If Jesus lived today, he would have been less harsh and would not have condemned everyone who did not believe in him to hell.

And so on.

And I have to admit, all of this sounds perfectly reasonable to a 21st century geezer like me.

But it is clearly opposed to many of the things that are unambiguously stated in the Bible. It is so easy to read it as if i am standing at the end of history and know so much more about things than Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, Luke and the bloke who wrote the second largest number of letters in the New Testament, Timothy [check it out].

Viewing the world from

the evidence before our eyes

would show that Jesus’ crucifixion was the world’s greatest non-event. But God says differently.

Owen Atkins - 02 May 2008 09:59 AM

I’m with DM
I’ve known plenty of gays who were very devout. I wonder at a condemnation of their faith on the strength of the above verse.
Jesus said we committed adultery when we looked on a woman with lust. Idolatory I have been told a thousand times is one of our most frequent sins placing money, prestige and wot not over God. How then, on the strength of that does a gay get special attack? Don’t get me wrong, I can see how cos the Biblical view is they are abomination etc. But just a page or two back DA, you were arguing no diff between homosexuality and any other sin. But your above post allows no room. Or have I read you wrong?

Yes you are reading me wrong. Homosexuals and lesbians deserve no special attack and I am not making one. David Clarke put it better.

It’s just as contradictory to ignore the plight of others, or gossip, or commit adultery. What would we say to son and mother committing incest?

In the “Who is Dean Geyer” forum we’re having a similar discussion. Apparently it’s ok to claim to be christian and pose for photos in your undies for public consumption.

I do not say these things because I’m particularly holy or think myself one.

There’s something else we’ve forgotten in this discussion - dealing with sin is not a private matter, we are to help each other to struggle with our sinfulness.

Galatians 6:1-5 (ESV)
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.  [2] Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.  [3] For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.  [4] But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 

Part of the modern christian’s problem is that we attempt to do this alone. We are commanded to love each other and help each other in our walk in righteousness. We can’t do this if we keep our sins to ourselves.

Anyone wanting to make a special case for themselves will of course encounter criticism, which is what the homosexual lobby is doing. We all need to reminded that none of us come to Christ clean, and that we begin to conform to His image when we become His.

1 Cor. 6:13-16 (ESV)
“Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.  [14] And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.  [15] Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!  [16] Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

What we do affects the rest of us.

Did anyone fine Abp Jensen’s comments on recent legislation changes a little odd?

Dr Peter Jensen said while he remained opposed to gay marriage, a number of legal “injustices” need to be fixed.

“Personally I remain concerned about the impact of the gay lifestyle on our community, and I don’t believe any of us should be forced to accept it,” Dr Jensen said on ABC radio.

“But, on the other hand, I think there are various injustices that did need to be attended to.
“There are relationships in which there is some discrimination in our laws.”

If you were opposed to gay marriage, and concerned about the impact of the gay lifestyle, wouldn’t you want the law to act as a disincentive for people in comparable relationships? If you think gay relationships are inherently unjust in God’s eyes, how can the law unjustly discriminate against them?

Howard Marshall is echoing the words of St Paul to Timothy “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.”

Some texts can be taken on the plain reading of them, but others have to be interpreted because of the special literary form they conform to, or because the particular historical and theological context in which it was written requires some special analysis to enable us to understand what the text is saying to us today.

We will all draw a line in the sand, so to speak, by which we say we can go this far in moving away from the plain meaning of the text to better understand it AND NO FURTHER.  I get the sense from David that Marshall goes further than he might like.  But we all do it - even those who may seem to be absolute literalists.

In referring to “the evidence before our eyes” I was doing no more that saying that such a situation invites us to reexamine the text to see if indeed something other than the plain meaning of the text to me today was intended by the author.

I suspect that this is the case when we are looking at texts in the Scriptures that refer to the abomination of homosexuality.  From my reading of them, they are referring to something quite different from the consenting and loving relationships that many same-sex couples live in today.

They seem to relate universally to sacral homosexuality - temple prostitution of adults and minors - and the abuse and degradation of those over whom the offender seeks to exert power.  The homosexual rape of people in a country overtaken by foreign forces was as common in the Ancient Near east as it is today - Abu Ghraib in Iraq being a glaring contemporary example.  Such behaviour is abominable by any standards, not just those of Almighty God, and it is clear that this is behaviour of a very different order to what we understand of homosexuality today.

By all means condemn promiscuous and abusive homosexual behaviour, just as you should condemn promiscuous and abusive heterosexual behaviour, but do not categorise those in loving same-sex relationships as the same.  Otherwise you are abusing and not rightly explaining the word of truth.

john clapton - 02 May 2008 05:45 PM

Howard Marshall is echoing the words of St Paul to Timothy “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.”

Some texts can be taken on the plain reading of them, but others have to be interpreted because of the special literary form they conform to, or because the particular historical and theological context in which it was written requires some special analysis to enable us to understand what the text is saying to us today.

We will all draw a line in the sand, so to speak, by which we say we can go this far in moving away from the plain meaning of the text to better understand it AND NO FURTHER.  I get the sense from David that Marshall goes further than he might like.  But we all do it - even those who may seem to be absolute literalists.

In referring to “the evidence before our eyes” I was doing no more that saying that such a situation invites us to reexamine the text to see if indeed something other than the plain meaning of the text to me today was intended by the author.

I suspect that this is the case when we are looking at texts in the Scriptures that refer to the abomination of homosexuality.  From my reading of them, they are referring to something quite different from the consenting and loving relationships that many same-sex couples live in today.

They seem to relate universally to sacral homosexuality - temple prostitution of adults and minors - and the abuse and degradation of those over whom the offender seeks to exert power.  The homosexual rape of people in a country overtaken by foreign forces was as common in the Ancient Near east as it is today - Abu Ghraib in Iraq being a glaring contemporary example.  Such behaviour is abominable by any standards, not just those of Almighty God, and it is clear that this is behaviour of a very different order to what we understand of homosexuality today.

By all means condemn promiscuous and abusive homosexual behaviour, just as you should condemn promiscuous and abusive heterosexual behaviour, but do not categorise those in loving same-sex relationships as the same.  Otherwise you are abusing and not rightly explaining the word of truth.

No no no no.

In the face of such erudite argument, I yield.  You win.