Ted Haggard article

[David Timm]

Here's a link to the new article on Presence. It is well written.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/per-gods-heroes.php

http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1337

David

[davo]

Good thoughts indeed David, especially these:

Though David suffered extreme consequences for his sin, God never removed him for a single moment from serving as Israel’s king.Grace never says there aren't temporal consequences etc, but our stance before God remains forever, Rock solid.

It was Chuck Girard who wrote "Don't shoot the wounded, they need us more than ever..." -- how true.

[lynn]

If the Law has passed, as in Matthew 5:17-18, then why would homosexuality be wrong? :confused: I’m not homosexual, but my heart goes out to them. Their struggle, their rejection by Christians, must feel intolerable at times.

[Lou]

Ted Haggard was very active in anti-homosexual activities. It is unlikely he will get much support from his congregation, associates or “Christians.”

“Christians” may reject homosexuals but Christ rejected the self-righteous religious. I believe He called the self-righteous religious a family of snakes.

[Amie]

David,

Why do you believe that homosexuality is wrong?

Amie

[Lou]

Even through the law has past homosexuality is still wrong; just as cheating on a spouse, lying, murder, stealing, etc. are still wrong without the law. These things are against the way God desires us and created us to be. Because the law is gone these things can no longer give birth to sin and seperation from God but they still cause serious problems in multiple ways in this life.

David





But does any of this separate someone from being a child of God and His love?

Did Christ fulfill the penalty that separates us from God or is there requirements that God demands from us?

[Barry]

Lynn, we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water with fulfilled grace. My heart goes out to many of them too. A friend of mine still has struggles from years ago when he was a homosexual, and my wife's uncle is often made fun or condemned to hell by some of his Baptist family members because of his homosexuality. Even through the law has past homosexuality is still wrong; just as cheating on a spouse, lying, murder, stealing, etc. are still wrong without the law. These things are against the way God desires us and created us to be. Because the law is gone these things can no longer give birth to sin and seperation from God but they still cause serious problems in multiple ways in this life.

David

Personally speaking, I'm not fully convinced of this David.
The scriptures used in regards to homosexuality may be fully misunderstood by us today.
Paul's use of the word "nature" for example. [IE "the natural function"]
Here:
"Were by nature children of wrath". Paul's use of "nature" does not IMHO mean scientific nature but rather the nature of that age.

Again:
"does not even nature teach you"
Biological or scientifically regarded nature does not IMHO teach anything of the sort. [1 Cor. 11:14] Paul may appeal to the nature of that age and the customs (1:16) that showed that nature.

It is however a vast subject and a "delicate" one.
Human sexuality is an even vaster (LOL) topic in general. One that we have touched upon here at talk-grace.

All views are of course well-come just as not everyone will see things as I have just posted.

One thing is for sure, I will find a way to tie into the conversation the subject of our false ego idol. That you can be assured of. You can rest assured that it fits in somewhere! :rofl: :rofl:
His name might be Satan. [get behind me Satan for you seek the things of men and not of God]
The serpent even looks like a reproduction organ. (The mark of the beast upon the head (circumcision)(Gen. 3:15 "the head"). Yes, the wisest beast of the field (James 3:15 "natural, demonic"). Is it any wonder at all that human sexuality is so very tied up with our image??????
Oh but the new idol the serpent in the desert was after the seed of King David. (the one who brought true circumcision)
The seed of the women (Gen. 3:15) [the serpent eat up the other serpents (Moses in Egypt)]



Just a thought or two. And a couple of opinions thrown on top.
blessings,
Barry

PS, Non of this (anything I have said here) however negates the enormous responsibility and stewardship that we have centered around this subject, whatever one's views are as to what is wrong or not.
There are many consequences revolving around human sexuality and I did not nor intend to minimise such consequences.
We are stewards of our relationships and this importance should never be minimized.
To abandon integrity and loyalty is IMHO folly which will bring dier consequences IMHO.

[Lou]

PS, Non of this (anything I have said here) however negates the enormous responsibility and stewardship that we have centered around this subject, whatever one's views are as to what is wrong or not.
There are many consequences revolving around human sexuality and I did not nor intend to minimise such consequences.
We are stewards of our relationships and this importance should never be minimized.
To abandon integrity and loyalty is IMHO folly which will bring dier consequences IMHO.



Any destructive behavior can damage our relationship with God and our fellow man. Personal ethics are important in living a full life but I can’t force my ethics on others in the name of God.

What happened with Ted Haggard may show that homosexuality is not just a choice but that he, and others, may be “wired” to be attracted to the same sex.

[Barry]

Hi David.

This is a very worthwhile discussion we are having here and while it needs to be approached delicately, (and I think that it is) it is good to know that it can be done. (After all if not by us then who.)

Also, thank you very much for posting Tim’s article link here.
Also, you have IMHO raised some very good points indeed.
Thank you for allowing me to express myself from my own vantage point concerning these points.

David said (emphasis mine):
“I believe the law gave us a picture of morality from God's perspective and even though we are no longer held spiritually accountable for doing the things that would have transgressed the law, their had to be a reason that certain actions transgressed the law.”

And:
“Even more so because of the biblical accounts of the Gentiles of Sodom and Gomorrah and statements such as Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination". This verse is surrounded by verses that condemn beastiality, child sacrifice, and adultery. It is clear that all these things are still immoral without the law so why would homosexuality now be moral?”

And:
"How do we know what is right and wrong if we can't look to the scriptures? Morality would be whatever seems right to a person. One person's view of morality would be different from another in all actuality. This is becoming accepted by many and leads to chaos. Their has to be a supreme truth in regards to morality and I believe it comes from God."

Leviticus 18:19-23 emphasis mine.
19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Some points from the context.
Is it immoral today to have relations with your wife while she is having her period? And if I did that, would that be like (immoral equivalent) having sex with an animal? [not trying to be gross or funny or anything, just saying that morality may not be able to be figured out from the law :)]

Also, since there are laws concerning males with males and males with animals, women with animals but no apparent law (that I can find, in the “law”) about women with women is lesbianism immoral?
Since neither King David nor Solomon could have physically satisfied 100’s of wives and concubines, is it possible since there is no law against it (that I have found, I may be wrong) that they took care of each other?

1 Tim. 1:9-11
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Now this is where things get a little more complicated. At least from the perspective that I see them in regards to how they are usually understood.
Paul's point concerning "sound doctrine" is not morality but revelation toward the conscience. The gospel was not about proving one to be a sinner. It was a revelation of "go and sin no more". Which is equivalent to "go in peace your sins are forgiven".

The question therefore is, "is the law a moral guide?".

Now imagine that one were to say "no it is not". Where would that leave us? And is that not the question that you are asking?
What lead to chaos was having people decide morality for themselves. That's why the law was given. But not to decide morality. Morality is the experience of good and evil. That experience is what killed Adam.

Appropriate and inappropriate behavior has nothing to do with morality. The law is not for a righteous man but for a sinner. Adam was in the physical world but morality killed him.
Morality defines a person in value and worth.
Here is my point (which I know is very hard to follow).

The law was given to self-righteous man and is not a direct indication of a universal morality that God desires for mankind to determine right and wrong. Then where does that leave us? That is what is scary and that is why few will every agree with me LOL.

The law was spiritual because it had a indirect indications of deeper truths hidden within it.
You shall not covet is not a problem for the inner man. A righteous man is not bound by it. Not because he is free to covet. [Shall I sin that grace may abound? God forbid.] But because he is free from coveting. He is free from coveting because he doesn't own anything (1 Cor. 7:29-31)!
The law is not for a righteous man it is for the ego-centric man.

IMHO this is why we run in circles in Romans Chapter 6,7 and 8. In Gal. 5, and in many other areas. When we are not trying to define sin for us today, we are trying to define morality for us today. Both terms IMHO relate to ownership which is God's alone. He alone is good.

Would this view lead us to chaos? Not IMHO.
A righteous man does not relate to good and evil which determines characteristic identity for his characteristic identity is preset and predetermined. This has nothing to do with freedom as in individual will and choice. It has to do with identity of value and worth.

Once identity is set in value and worth, identity becomes comprehensive within the whole. Choices begin to reflect common value and worth. IMHO morality implies in its very nature a possible variance of worth and value in the human mind.

We may ask, what then is to stop us from "sinning" against our common value and worth. Well, shall I go on sinning that grace may increase?
No for sin is the mindset of the sinner.
What then is there to control us and prevent chaos? The ethics of common value and worth.
Do these ethics have to be set in stone? No, if they are then we are all sinners. They can only be set in the heart. Which means that they can only be set within the individual.

But would they not be universal within each heart?
They would have very common themes but not identical clone copies. What is written on the heart must be expressed in temporal time in individual growth and experience as part of a whole.
I am willing to explore it further and its conclusions further if that would beneficial.

Blessings, Barry

[Amie]

David, I'm grateful for your openness and honesty. I like to understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree :).

Barry,

You made some really good points - really good. I think that the reason the laws were so rigid concerning blood, was their very literal interpretation of the law (I think that Jesus afforded them "eyes of the spirit" with which to interpret it).

They believed that the life was in the blood, which was passed generationally and biologically. If it spilled from a woman, it was treated the same as touching the dead (unclean). Blood and the bloodlines were a big deal.

Homosexuality was contrary to their continuing "life" (gained by offspring). In Genesis 38, Onan was supposed to go into his brother's wife and raise offspring unto his brother (it was law). He did go into her, yet he spilled his seed on the ground. What Onan did was evil in the eyes of God and God took his life for it. IMO, this story offers insight into why homosexuality would be seen then as an "abomination", just as understanding why menstration was considered unclean back then.

Before you mentioned "nature" not meaning "scientific nature, but the nature of that age". Paul does use men lying with men as an example (or type?) for the nature of that age. IMO, they were "adam lying with adam" in that they were in love with their own image. Those were the "homosexuals" outside the gates.

Paul's example is of that which is "unnatural". As I've said before, two-headed turtles are unnatural as well. This doesn't make them abominable.

I hope that understanding what made homosexuality abominable under the Old Covenant as well as the type for "adam lying with adam" (aka "sodomite") also illuminates why lesbianism is never mentioned.


What happened with Ted Haggard may show that homosexuality is not just a choice but that he, and others, may be “wired” to be attracted to the same sex.

So often homosexuals do condemn homosexuality and wish to be something else. My heart goes out to them.

Amie

[Amie]

For even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for what is unnatural.

This doesn't mention specifically "female lying with female". What has been unnatural intercourse for females leading up to this point biblically? I would guess that would identify his meaning.

Amie

[christyG]

Man this is a GREAT discussion. And I echo my belief that it is a very importnat one.:clap2: For all involved in this discussion:clap2: .

Barry,
You truly blow me away.:bow: I know, I'm bowing to your false self(ego-man) but I just must. I hope I am not too bold in saying that I even see a tremendous growth in your thoughts over the last year. Do you feel that or maybe it is my own growth allowing me to see your growth or the growth of our universal oneness;)? Whatever it is, I feel truly in awe of your insights and feel that they are very important and that you should be sharing them en mass!!! The world needs to hear what you have to say IMHO. Or maybe I just need to hear it (sometimes it is hard to distinguish these two.)

Amie,
What you are saying here:
Homosexuality was contrary to their continuing "life" (gained by offspring) seems to tie into what you are saying in another thread and I am intrigued as to what your thoughts are along these lines...I will be catching up with this topic on the other thread.:)

I will let Barry and Amie and the others give their Biblical insights, but I would like to relate some "heart matters". I use to see little worth in matters of the heart, but my mind has changed as of late. Matters of the heart can inspire the uncovering of truth and that is life changing and important. In my heart I feel love, love for all. When someone places homosexuality in the category of "unnatural" then you have to wonder how that might cause someone who is homosexual to feel. Whether the "cause" of homosexuality is biological or environmental or other, labeling them as unnatural has a very negative effect IMHO. Seeing the behavior as unnatural makes one want to change the behavior and reform it into something that is "natural". I liken it to seeing someone with a physical challenge (be it something they were born with or something that was a result of an action taken in their life -- for ex.-- mental dificiency due to drug use) as being "unnatural". If we would view them in this way (and "we" have in our world in the past) then we try to "fix" them. We try to make them into something more "natural". This really does not meet their needs. This only forces a square peg into a round whole and that does little but make the person feel more "inadequate".

This is what I hear is happening to Haggard. I heard that he is being asked to work with a group of elders whose goal I assume is to show him his inadequacies as they see them and conform him to what they feel is adequate.

What seems to work best is when we open our minds and our hearts and conform ourselves to them. We build hadicap accessible bathrooms. We put braille door plates and signs throughout our environment. We try to make life easier for them as they try to live in a world that is predominately different from them. I see homosexuality as the same. We need to make accomodations for all people. I am not condoning anything sexually explicit as that can be damaging in many ways, but what I mean is just acceptance. To accept something we must confirm the truth of what it is we accept. To accept homosexuality we must see it as true, not unnatural. A matter of fact that may or may not need dealt with.

David, I am not trying to say that you have in any way come across as unloving, I did however pick up on the use of the term "unnatural" and am just trying to show what some of the implications of that term might be. This was not meant in any way as a lecture for you or anyone else for that matter, just some thoughts I felt like sharing. Ideals can be very dangerous things IMO. The only ideal I might say that God has is that of love. And while love may not be dangerous it certainly can be scary and unpredictable and can take us to dangerous places if we have the courage it takes to love fully. Please continue to share your thoughts, David, truth can be learned from all views. IMO.

Christy

[Barry]

Hi Christy, (and all)
What is so incredible is how we all are approaching this subject from different angles.

What is more incredible is how much all of us that have posted so far actually see in common. We may focus on our particulars but the common points are spectacular.

Everyone so far has confirmed the common perspective that Christ died for all. And that nothing is separating us from God.

Now that does not mean that we would not well come another view. It does mean that the differences that we have discussed so far are very different indeed from almost any other forum that I have ever seen.

Such topics have very strong feelings behind them. It is good that we may speak our mind and thoughts and still come together in love.


The ultimate truth to uncover is that we are all one.
The only specialty possible is service.
Barry

[Amie]

Well said Barry.

Christy,

Matters of the heart are at the upmost importance because it is there that God had written his law. Because of your great point, I want to clarify what I mean by "unnatural".

Homosexuality is "natural" per genetics. It would be normal and to be expected for some people to be born gay. There are some people who are born without sexual identity at all even. So relevant to nature, it is normal, just like the uncommon two-headed turtle, or even a white lion ie.

Homosexuality is not "natural" for heterosexuals. The majority of people are heterosexual. As well, by in large no one can deny that the human species was designed to couple as male and female for the purpose at least of procreation. It is understandable then, what Paul said when he mentioned that man lying with man was going against that which was natural.

So, in one case there is no need to fix anyone, it is normal and even to be expected. In the other there is still no need for fixing, it is simply comparing one orientation to another more familiar one.

Haggard could have been completely honest in his opinions on gay marriage and other matters. It may have just reflected his view of himself. If he used the drugs that he bought (gimme a break), I could certainly understand why.. NOT that I condone drug use, I just understand.


To accept homosexuality we must see it as true, not unnatural. A matter of fact that may or may not need dealt with.

I agree. Let's say that a person wasn't "born gay", but chose the lifestyle because of his/her own life experiences. Even if it were a choice, it is a reality. It is a reality that person doesn't want fixed because he/she chose it. That will become more and more apparent as time passes imo.

I have quite a few gay friends. I see how they are treated when I'm with them. People can be cruel and when my friends walk away, they assume that I'll laugh along just because I'm not gay - even if I don't know them.

One young man is very dear to my heart and I see him as a tortured spirit. He, like Haggard, believes that homosexuality is a sin and is against "gay marriage", yet he is gay. He is a beautiful person and an absolute warm ray of sun when he enters a room. I just wish for him that he could feel his own warmth.

Whether he decides to go the route that David's friend did, or to accept himself as is (only he truly knows if he has that choice), I pray for his healing - and those like him.

Amie

[Lauri]

Hi all,
I know I have used this comparison before but I thought I would share it again here, about homosexual being unnatural to us who are heterosexual. My mother-in-law is deaf, so I have learned a little about the deaf community. One thing I've learned is that for most deaf people being deaf is not just an aspect of who they are but defines who they are. Most deaf people if they had a chance to have surgery and be able to hear would not get that surgery. In fact cochloler implants are a big controversy in the deaf community and people who get them or allow their kids to get them are often ostricized because they believe if you are deaf that is who you are and that's how you should stay. Now being a hearing person that is hard for me to understand, I wasn't born deaf, I have never been deaf so for me I would think that if a deaf person had a chance to hear of coarse they would choose to hear. Wouldn't they want to be "normal" and fit in to the hearing world? I relate that to being homosexual. I wasn't born gay, have never been gay so I can't understand how someone could choose (if they choose) to be gay or why they wouldn't try to become heterosexual and be "normal" if they could. I'm sure being heterosexual is just as unnatural to them as being homosexual is to me. I hope someday we can celebrate each other's differences and learn from each other, rather than try to make everyone to be just like us.

Lauri

[Amie]

I'll watch for your reply to follow David :).

In the meanwhile, I thought this a funny and seasonal quote:


It wasn't easy telling my family that I'm gay. I made my carefully worded announcement at Thanksgiving. It was very Norman Rockwell. I said, "Mom, would you please pass the gravy to a homosexual?" She passed it to my father. A terrible scene followed.

[Amie]

Revisting the article for a sec, Tim points out (rightly imo) that "We should lift up the divided communities in our nation—the gay and lesbian community, the evangelical community, and everyone in-between and intertwined."

On this I think we all agree. As well I am going out on a bit of a limb and thinking that we would all agree on this: "Now is the time to recover an ancient truth: Though David suffered extreme consequences for his sin, God never removed him for a single moment from serving as Israel’s king."

However, I'm suspecting that a large part of our disagreement may be based on how we see this statement: "Evidentially God knows how to differentiate between sin and sinner."

That statement is not too complicated when we consider a "smoker", an "addict", or even a "murderer". It is very easy in those cases (for the most part) to distinguish sin from sinner.

However most homosexuals claim that "gay" is who they are and not what they do (and they could be right in some cases!). Therefore it would seem that to hate the sin, is also to hate the sinner. Whether or not you agree with that statement I assure you that people who see gay as who they are receive it that way.

I am interested David, in what your reply will be. I also know that we may walk away from this just plain old disagreeing - and I would still be a member of "Apples to Apples Ministry" either way ;).

So, perhaps we could unite to focus on the issue of demonstrating love to homosexuals - especially if we disagree with actually being gay. What do ya think?

Amie

[lynn]

Ted Haggard was very active in anti-homosexual activities. It is unlikely he will get much support from his congregation, associates or “Christians.”

“Christians” may reject homosexuals but Christ rejected the self-righteous religious. I believe He called the self-righteous religious a family of snakes.I agree, Lou. :) In addition to the above, if in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mat. 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:20:35), and if they are no longer differentiated as either male or female (Gal. 3:28), and if they are not now bound by Old Covenant Law (cf. Lev. 20:13 and Mat. 5:17-18), then why would homosexuality be a sin anymore? Granted, the homosexual lifestyle may not be my “cup of tea” lol; however, if God is no longer offended by it then maybe I should try not to be offended either.

Someone said earlier that talk like this is unusual in Christian forums. I agree!:eek:

[Paige]

(Cautiously entering the discussion...)

I'm very hesitant about saying God isn't offended by (fill in the blank w/whatever). Is that our place to say? When someone is hurting because they have been harmed by another, I would find it hard to tell them that what was done to them was just fine with God. I can't see that it would be any different for those who harm themselves.

My mom is an RN, and she has shared some of the gory details with me about what happens to the human body when it is used in ways that God did not intend it to be used. This is part of the story that is mostly kept out of the news and public info. Mind you, it can happen to heterosexuals as well when they choose to adopt the same practices.

It may be valid that a small portion of practicing homosexuals have some genetic difference that gives rise to the way they feel. It may also be valid that our current culture's sexualization of its young children is giving rise to a growing number of ills that we are not picking up on.

I don't believe that holding up picket signs with "God hates fags" and screaming or shouting is the way to help healing. I do think that healing needs to happen. Families and individuals are hurting, young children are confused, struggling with so many different hormonal and emotional issues. Many times they must suffer through broken relationships and betrayal by loved ones at the same time. So many kids make decisions about what they "are" before they could possibly know how to properly assess. (How many folks are still trying to figure out who and what they are in their 40's?)

For all those out there who are happy practicing homosexuality, we also have those who aren't, and are searching for a way out. I feel we (those in the church and heterosexual) have much to learn. In saying that, that doesn't mean that those on the other side of the issue have nothing to learn.

I pray for healing and wholeness, and I feel we have a ways to go.

Paige

[Amie]

So many kids make decisions about what they "are" before they could possibly know how to properly assess. (How many folks are still trying to figure out who and what they are in their 40's?)

I think that the problem of defining who we are is a problem only because who we are changes all of the time. I'm sure that any kindergartener could tell you who they are at that moment, and might be confused when that doesn't play out in the next. There is no permanent me imo, regardless of age.


For all those out there who are happy practicing homosexuality, we also have those who aren't, and are searching for a way out.

Good point. Can they desire help without having seen homosexuality as "sin"? I think so. Which still leaves a need for discussion along the lines of whether there even is a distinction between "sin" and who they are, if someone is gay.

Lynn made some really good theological points. So is labeling them and their lifestyles as "sin" even necessary in lending aid to those who choose to have it? What would it mean for those who don't feel that they need help, ya know?

Amie

[lynn]

Hi Paige, :)

Since I too am an RN, I appreciate your concerns for the infectious and physiological risks of certain sexual behaviors. I’ll admit that when our first four sons displayed interests in girls rather than guys, I was pleased. (Our latter two sons are not yet pubescent.) I was pleased because I know that their lives as heterosexuals, rather than homosexuals, will be more accepted by our current society.

At issue in this discussion, though, isn’t the above, IMO. Our attitudes and medical science’s observations must be secondary to God’s Word, I think.

Instead, given the fulfilled view, I’m wondering if Ted Haggard sinned or not. Similarly, did Amy’s gay friend, who called himself a “sin,” sin? Various behaviors, true, may be more healthful and culturally accepted than others. However, since the Jewish Law passed away in 70 AD, “where no Law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). “Sin is not imputed where there is no Law” (Romans 5:13). “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin . . .” (Daniel 9:24). God also seems to have said that people who were “born of God,” as were those who escaped 70 AD’s judgment including us future to it, cannot sin anymore (1 John 3:9, 5:18). That may be because there is no Law against which to sin (Matthew 5:17-18). For these reasons, as well as those I mentioned in a previous post, I’m thinking that the Bible indicates that homosexuals do not sin.

Another comment: I believe that even if homosexuality causes not just illness but also death, God sees all as alive, even if they physically die.
Luke 20:37-38 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him. I'm enjoying this good and important discussion. Thanks to you all for sharing and for listening. :)

[Paige]

Hmmm...


Can they desire help without having seen homosexuality as "sin"? I think so.


Instead, given the fulfilled view, I’m wondering if Ted Haggard sinned or not. Similarly, did Amy’s gay friend, who called himself a “sin,” sin?

I've read and re-read my post and haven't been able to find where I used the word "sin".

Can something still be damaging, and destructive post-70 AD? If so, this is the issue I speak to. I'm not comfortable telling others that God has no problem with behavior that harms others or themselves. I guess thats all I really have to say.

[lynn]

Yes, Paige, homosexuals don’t always act in beneficial ways. Some of their behaviors, like ours, can even be harmful.

Here’s an idea I’ve had: human nature is odd in that whenever a line is drawn, and we are commanded not to cross it, even for our good, what is the first thing we wish to do? Cross it! We want to cross it even if doing so may be harmful to ourselves or to others.
Romans 7:5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
Romans 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;
But if the line is removed and we are free to move about anywhere we wish then maybe at that point our intelligence, our common sense, or whatever, can choose paths which are not harmful, as you mentioned, Paige.

I think that’s what homosexuals need. They need to see that the line has been removed. They need to see that the sin-arousing biblical commandments are gone. They need to understand that they are free from the Law of sin and of death (Romans 8:2). Perhaps then they may have the clarity of mind to understand how some of their behaviors may not be beneficial.

Maybe people like Ted Haggard and Amy’s young friend will learn these things and be comforted . . .

I’ll be out of town for the next few days. I’m eager to visit with you all when I return. :)

[Barry]

Some really good points have been brought up.
And I won't say, "on both sides" because IMHO "siding" has not really been the intent thus far. Considering the topic, WOW! Great group of people here.

I am willing to say that much of sexuality in humans is potentially damaging.
A lack of sexuality in humans may also has its issues.
Also some sexual practices are very risky for the health from the information that I have seen.
So then homosexuality may be on the whole more risky health wise.
Personally speaking I would not want to make that a blanket statement to classify it in totality.

What upsets God and does not upset God today is an interesting question.

Molesting children IMHO upsets God and is destructive to everyone involved on a horrific level.

Is skydiving upsetting God?

The question became "different" somehow.

We divide risk taking activities into different categories automatically IMO.

In the end however the question is how we feel toward others on the whole.
I would rather tell a heavy smoker that "God loves you" than tell them that "God is upset with you".
If you smoke in my face, I might tell you that it is not appreciated (depending of the circumstance).

So then, sometimes we bring in "God", to make our own "upset" a valid point or an even more valid point in our mind and to help set straight the person we may have some issues with. Not that anyone here has, only that it is often our habit to do so as humans.

There are more heterosexual "sinners" in high church places in north American than homosexual "sinners" in high church places. But this again touches on how we categorize things in our mind.
Some of that categorization is warranted, and some is IMHO not (on a general social bases I mean).

The greater question is, "are these people sinning in their own minds?"
If yes, then what is our response.

IMHO one of love and balance as we look to the concerns of what is health and positive and uplifting and what is potentially destructive.


Very good discussion. Just a few opinions of my own.
Barry

[Amie]

Paige,

I didn't mean to imply that you used the word sin, I apologize if that's the case. I brought the word into discussion via the article where separating sin and sinner is mentioned.

Do you believe that homosexuality in general is damaging and destructive? If so, I'm interested in learning from you. Like, I didn't know that harm could come to the human body and am interested in what way, though I realize that may be a discussion for private email.. or maybe a link to medical info?

Lynn,

You make a really good point about the "removal of the line". People tend to make different decissions when they are free of condemnation (even if given to themselves).

Barry,

One way that I've read "upset" to be defined is as "non-acceptance". If we are refusing to accept/feel an emotion or the truth of a situation, we feel "upset". In that context, I don't think that anything could upset God.

However, if God is love, then there are behaviors which work against it, right? This reminds me some of the thoughts I've been having on repentance and whether or not it's for today.

How to we deal with unloving behaviors, if at all? And would homosexuality itself be considered an unloving behavior (I don't think so), or like Lynn said, their choices and issues mirror our own per deciding what is or is not loving.

It's good to have you back :)

Amie

[Barry]

Those are good points Amie, (and everyone).
(And I believe that Paige has brought up some very important points)
Is it possible that we are still before our time as to really know for sure on some issues? Meaning that hard fast "lines" may not be able to be "concluded" so easyly yet.
Genetics may have something to say or not. And who really knows for sure at this time?

I'm willing to look at all sides. And I do believe that there are many "issues" around human sexuality in general.
It is also my feeling that "homosexuality" cannot be fully addressed without addressing sexuality as a whole.

It is also my view that sexuality as a whole is plagued by the same general problem as false self image. Sexuality and sexual feelings says a lot about who and what we see ourselves to be. And this IMHO is an important "pre-study" to the disscussion we are now having.

It is good that we can have this discussion here without the usual "breakdowns" LOL.

It is also my feeling that everyone here is expressing the love of God, from their own perspective. And we are all really interested in the benifit and the relationship fundamentals as opposed to "drawing lines" just for the sake of drawing them.

IMHO we really do have more in common than we have differences. And such differences can also be appreciated.

No one is an island to themselves.
And that is a good thing. We have each other. I really like it!!!

Love Barry

[christyG]

Paige, IMO you bring up some very good points. I do see the possibility of problems with some sexual behaviors, but I would not label them as strictly homosexual problems, which I believe you also emphasized.

We as humans choose to harm our bodies in many ways from smoking to eating at McD's every day. Some of these harmful habits are cultural as much as they are biological, and sometimes it is very hard to distinguish the two. I am very interested in holistic medicine and doctors who practice holistic medicine realize the interconnectedness of our mind, body and spirit. Thus holistic medicine treats the whole body, mind and spirit. So, my point is that anyone who is having a problem in one of these areas is really having a problem in all of these areas, from heart disease to lung cancer and the best pratice is to treat the whole body, mind and spirit to achieve total healing.

Barry's mention of compartmentalizing everything is a very important one IMO. Barry said:
We divide risk taking activities into different categories automatically IMO. I am currently taking a class about infant/toddler development and have learned that the human brain develops connections based on the information it takes in. As our brain grows and takes in more and more information these connections form into categories and the information we bring in is first put into a category. We do this unconsciously. Like when a child sees a picture of a dog and you tell him that is a dog. Then you show them a pisture of a horse and they call it a dog. The horse has similar features---four legs, fur, etc...They can tell that the horse is different from a ball for instance and thus they put it in a category of something they are familiar with and is similar to what it is they are seeing. They eventually learn to tell the difference from a dog and a horse and we as humans continue this process of compartmentalization throughout our lives.

Thus what I believe is important to this discussion is that we subconsciously judge and label everything. That seems to be the only way our brains can handle the vast amounts of information it takes in on a daily basis. Everything we encounter we judge using our prior knowledge and experiences. This greatly affects how we behave. These subconscious judgements can become conscious judgements and affect how we behave. But ultimately our judgements we hold are based completely on our life experiences and the information we have taken in.

That is why I believe it is very important to break down some of the barriers in our minds that we have created uncounsciuosly throughout our lives.

Lynn brings up a very good point about realizing grace and love and the power that has to change us. I also think Barry is on to something when he says that we as a society in general are growing and we may not be ready as a whole to completely grab ahold of some issues. BUT, we are moving in the right direction IMO.

Christy

[Paige]

Christy wrote:


I am very interested in holistic medicine and doctors who practice holistic medicine realize the interconnectedness of our mind, body and spirit.

I am too, and am interested in holistic medicine also.


I am currently taking a class about infant/toddler development and have learned that the human brain develops connections based on the information it takes in. As our brain grows and takes in more and more information these connections form into categories and the information we bring in is first put into a category. We do this unconsciously. Like when a child sees a picture of a dog and you tell him that is a dog. Then you show them a pisture of a horse and they call it a dog. The horse has similar features---four legs, fur, etc...They can tell that the horse is different from a ball for instance and thus they put it in a category of something they are familiar with and is similar to what it is they are seeing. They eventually learn to tell the difference from a dog and a horse and we as humans continue this process of compartmentalization throughout our lives.

Thus what I believe is important to this discussion is that we subconsciously judge and label everything. That seems to be the only way our brains can handle the vast amounts of information it takes in on a daily basis. Everything we encounter we judge using our prior knowledge and experiences. This greatly affects how we behave. These subconscious judgements can become conscious judgements and affect how we behave. But ultimately our judgements we hold are based completely on our life experiences and the information we have taken in.

Sounds very fascinating and I can see the logic in what you're sharing. Does this overlap a bit with the nature/nurture issue as well?


Lynn brings up a very good point about realizing grace and love and the power that has to change us. I also think Barry is on to something when he says that we as a society in general are growing and we may not be ready as a whole to completely grab ahold of some issues. BUT, we are moving in the right direction IMO.



Agreed :)

Paige

[christyG]

Hey Paige, I'm glad you decided to jump back in. These kind of discussions can be very scary, and I speak for myself also, but this is such a loving place to be able to have them.

As for your question about nature vs. nurture, we did not really get into that as per brain development. It seems, that unless there is a pysical condition which could inhibit proper brain development, all brains are affected by their environment and develop, or don't develop accordingly.

As for homosexuality, I really have not studied it much, but it does seem that human sexuality can be genetically influenced, thus a cause of nature. I believe Amie brought up the point about chromosomes and children of one sex being born with more chromosomes of the opposite sex. It also seems from my very amature understanding of the human body that hormone levels play a big part in sexual development and that would be nature also.

Having said that, I also believe that there is overwhelming evidence that our brains develop through our experiences. Much of who we are inside our heads is imprinted on us as we grow. But I am not a professor of the "blank-slate" mentality. This line of thought would say that a child of school age is a blank slate that needs to be written on. I actually learned in my class that the connections formed in the brain that enable us to function throughout our lives ALL form in the first three years of life. I am again referring to connections that allow us to grow and learn, not the categorization that I believe to continue and become more complex as we grow. I am referring to the synapses that form between neurons in the brain. All the synapses that we will ever have form in the first three years of life! From that point on we begin to lose them! This would then prove that children of school-age are not blank slates, but products of their environment, full of information, eager to put it to use.

What I think this means for homosexuality, I do not know. I see it as much a product of nature as nurture. Either way I do not see it as unnatural. Acting out a behavior that you have learned through your experience is natural the evidence seems to suggest.

Christy

[christyG]

Quick side note I thought worthy of mentioning. I am a director of a preschool and was informed by my State Licensing Board that I must add sexual orientation to the list of things we would not discriminate against when enrolling a child. You know in the application where it says we will not discriminate according to race, religion, creed, etc... Now this is in reference to the child, so my first reation was...Do children have a sexual orientation? Evidently at least some in our State Health and Human Resources Dept. feel they do, or are just wanting to cover their butts in case someone claims that they do.

Christy

[Amie]

Christy,

I agree completely that we are all products of our enviroment physiologically! (If that's what you're saying, lol!) I see even 'nature vs nurture' as a forced argument. IMO, it is both because one actually causes the next (nurture effects nature). A person can develop a certain way, and raise the next generation similarly, where-as their environments may remain very similar. As well, because they develop physiologically due to environment, they are also passing on biological tendancies. That would explain, I think (haha), how alcoholism can be behaved out of a family tendancy-wise, yet before it is such, the genetic tendancy will be a reality.

If that doesn't make sense, and I hope it does lol, consider why a family of short-haired squirrels moving to a cold environment will eventually produce offspring with not only long hair, but the appropriate behavior for the climate as well. It's adaptation at work.

I think that there are genetics apart from adaptation though, which explains, for serious lack of a better word, different mutations. IE, white lions, two headed turtles, six toed dogs, etc. If a homosexual were produced that way, then it would be entirely nature. There are hermaphrodites with visible evidence per their dis-usual sexuality.


Do children have a sexual orientation?

Maybe the reason for the clause is that it has been observed in their "sexual play"? (I am referring to healthy sexual play: http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/family/12/120 Some on differences: http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/child_behavior/sexdev.html)

Of course, it would be logical to cover their rears soley on a legal basis too.

Amie

[Amie]

Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article
By DAVID CRARY
AP

NEW YORK (March 15) - The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified. ...

To read the rest of the article: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/furor-over-baptists-gay-baby-article/20070315023809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001