Common Myths about Gay Christians - Page 26

Orthodoxy · #**251** 02-03-2012, 06:38 AM

This entire thread has devolved into splitting hairs over terminology. Is this what Jesus would have called "straining at gnats and swallowing camels"?

Instead, I wish we could be talking about all of the ways our own local churches are actively seeking to reach out to the GLBT communities where we live.

Orthodoxy · #**252** 02-03-2012, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The last few pages have now shifted to accepting those "Christians" who are practicing the abomination (in a monogamous, committed relationship of course) ... you know - like Christians with different views of the rapture...

No thank you.

The rapture analogy is not a very good one.

If someone has a different view of the rapture, he is not sinning. Not true with homosexual behavior, imo.

bbyrd009 · #**253** 02-03-2012, 07:00 AM

Ortho, good points. It seems to me that the "gay" struggle becomes defined as getting society to accept them, and not them to accept their sin. I've read pages of "attracted to the same sex" but I've yet to see a post that's "scared of the opposite sex," or call it what you like, but as this thread is about "myths," and I wonder if, since we've prolly gone about as far down this "gay struggle" road as we can, which I also have to note in passing always seems to turn into "the Christian struggle to accept homosexuals," we might explore what strikes me as the real homosexual struggle, that of getting a homosexual person to examine why they are not attracted to the opposite sex, or, if you will, move the conversation from society accepting abomination (death)(no judgement meant here), to homosexuals facing themselves, like we all have to do, and owning up to myths of their own (life). I understand that homosexuals dislike the following analogy, but I am attracted to my hand, and can only see parallels?

No "preview" here, so please understand that I mean this in love; we are under Grace, and I am determined that I will not judge here.

Falla39 · #**254** 02-03-2012, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

An active homosexual can't truly call themselves Christian.

1 Cor.6:9-11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul calls them the unrighteous! BUT he also reminds them that such were some of them, BUT they have been washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Paul gave the unrighteous HOPE! Jesus didn't come to condemn mankind, but to save them. After we have been delivered and empowered by the name of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit (Holy Ghost), then they become one of those that Paul called "such WERE some of you".

There is no condemnation to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

If any man be IN Christ Jesus, he is a new creature. Old things are past away, behold all things are become new.

There is HOPE in the LORD JESUS CHRIST! No matter what the sin, there IS A REMEDY! Get IN CHRIST JESUS!

Walk in the SPIRIT (HOLY GHOST), and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.

Blessings,

Falla39

houston · #**255** 02-03-2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falla39

Walk in the SPIRIT (HOLY GHOST), and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.

Blessings,

Falla39

That IS the answer!

Aquila · #**256** 02-03-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falla39

1 Cor.6:9-11

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul calls them the unrighteous! BUT he also reminds them that such were some of them, BUT they have been washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Paul gave the unrighteous HOPE! Jesus didn't come to condemn mankind, but to save them. After we have been delivered and empowered by the name of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit (Holy Ghost), then they become one of those that Paul called "such WERE some of you".

There is no condemnation to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

If any man be IN Christ Jesus, he is a new creature. Old things are past away, behold all things are become new.

There is HOPE in the LORD JESUS CHRIST! No matter what the sin, there IS A REMEDY! Get IN CHRIST JESUS!

Walk in the SPIRIT (HOLY GHOST), and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.

Blessings,

Falla39

I fully agree Falla.

Perhaps my questions or position is too nuanced. Because evidently the words I'm using aren't conveying the concept I'm trying to express.

The point is reality. We can disagree with the term "gay Christian" and be right theologically and technically. However, the truth remains, many born again Christians who have a proclivity towards same gender attraction and have chosen celibacy out of their love for Jesus have chosen to occasionally use the term "gay Christian". Do we anathemize them over a term? Or do we seek to understand the term they've chosen to use and disciple them as fellow Christians???

I know in a perfect world we'd re-educate everyone to use the correct terms. But this world isn't perfect. The point I'm making is that everyone's opinion against using the term is well and good. However, there are always two aspects to a teaching or concept:

Theoretical
Applied

The theoretical logic is sound and biblical. The question is... can it be practically applied? Do we disfellowship someone who is born again and obedient who uses the a term we disagree with because they are approaching the topic from another direction? Or do we... as I contend... continue to fellowship those obedient Christians who use terms we might dislike and continue discipling them to Christ... even if they choose to never drop the label.

Aquila · #**257** 02-03-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

The rapture analogy is not a very good one.

If someone has a different view of the rapture, he is not sinning. Not true with homosexual behavior, imo.

Context. The liberal theological bent doesn't see it as a sin. I believe it was being discussed in the context of those who believe in a more liberal interpretation of Scripture.

Now... regarding the "rapture". False doctrine is sin. Only one eschatology is truth. All others are false doctrines, distortions, and lies.

Orthodoxy · #**258** 02-03-2012, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Context. The liberal theological bent doesn't see it as a sin. I believe it was being discussed in the context of those who believe in a more liberal interpretation of Scripture.

Correct, sincere Christians from "Side A" honestly claim that they believe that God blesses same-sex marriages. Although I do not agree with them on that issue, I still consider many of those same people my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I am not trying to make an excuse for them or downplay sin or repentance. We all have to work out our own salvation.

When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, he said that (because of their faith) they were "washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." This was a very sexually deviant church (even after their conversion), but Paul still considered them brothers and called them back to repentance.

bbyrd009 · #**259** 02-03-2012, 07:52 AM

Hmm, funny, I do see parallels (to gay and rapture). I found a reflection of "gay church" (to me) on another thread:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne
"I see a cause and effect relationship there, but it is usually the exact opposite. I see those who already have very little sense of humor becoming the UC types."

I see a reflection of this in many churches, and rail against it, lol, but I wonder if it's not all for the best.
My theory would go something like, "Well, the only people you are going to get with that kind of message are some pretty messed up...oh."

DaveC519 · #**260** 02-03-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

There is a very good reason for rejecting the term. There is at least one 'gay church' in my area. Their are others who do not care what your lifestyle is as long as you attend that church. This leads people who are actively participating in the homosexual lifestyle to call themselves 'Christian'. This is an ever growing movement made especially popular by our wonderful secular media (heavy sarcasm). I do not know how many articles I have seen claiming that a person can be 'gay' and Christian.

Call me what you want, but when the term 'gay' is used to describe an active homosexual lifestyle, the last thing on a Christian's mind should be anything that will identify them with that life. Words and identity matter, and it is highly indicative of our spiritual status when we cease to care about who we are identified with.