Ruth Institute Blog

that believers would think that homosexuality was sinful comes against the principles of the new covenant of christ. it is escribing sin to physicalities of gender pairing and choice of errogenous zones to express sexual intimacy. these have nothing to do with the spirit that is within a person or marriage, or the spirit they are given over to.

in essence it is no different than racism, which denegates out of another physicality, ethnicity

This argument has been around since at least the time Paul wrote his letters to the Saints in Corinth.

Here is another view from a noted New Testament scholar at Duke University.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Homosexuality-Rebellion-Against-God.aspx

Of course, determining who speaks authoritatively in interpreting the Gospel is an argument that has been around at least as long and is a subject that Lutherans have particular views on.

@feetxxxl

You are confusing behavior and identity. Christians are called to love God’s holy decrees, and to hate sin. Someone who loves sin, and hates God’s laws, is not in Christ.

All Christians are sinners, but they hate the sin they do. They are repentent, they feel deep sorrow for their sins. They ask forgiveness for their sins. Christianity is incompatible with any system which flaunts and celebrates sinful acts.

By artifcially imposing identity politics onto peoples sinful predilections, you are creating a false worldview in which resisting evil is itself evil because it is morally equivalent with racism. It is also stupid. An argumentum ad absurdum can be made if this identity politicking is extended to domains that are not clouded in the gray-haze of cultural delusion. Consider if people identified thus: “I am an alcoholic-American”, “I am a serial killer-American”, “I am an untaxable-American”, “I am a skateboarding-American”.

In these ridiculous examples behaviors or desires are deliberately conflated with being and essence. To rebuke alcoholism becomes an act of genocide, any moral argument against alcoholism is not allowed to be brought. The fact that such a moral argument exists makes it reprehensible before it can be spoken. Through the magic of identity politics, arguing against alcoholism now becomes the moral equivalent of arguing against people of japanese decent, or arguing against the jews.

Monogamous sexual intimacy between two consenting adults who are harming no one else is not sinful. To believe otherwise is to despise God’s own creation, which includes gays and lesbians. There is nothing evil about the love that I share with my partner, who would be my wife in a heartbeat if we could legally marry in our home state. We were blessed by God to find one another, and our family is a beautiful gift from above. It makes me so sad that so many so-called Christians can’t see the simple truth of love.

Heidi,

Have you found a church that will consecrate your union?

@Heidi
“…who are harming no one else…”
When we choose to act according to our own impulses, however strong those might be, instead of preferring God’s way, how can we say we are harming no one else?
We are not being all we could be; the blessing we could be to others.
Yeshua, who gave His life for us, said that anyone who preferred their father or mother, husband or wife – or even their own life – to following Him, could not be His disciple.

Well Ruth, I don’t believe that following Jesus and being in a same-sex monogamous relationship are mutually exclusive. I don’t think being gay or bisexual is a sin, anymore than I think having brown hair or being left-handed is a sin. Jesus tells me to love one others as I love myself. Jesus tells me to care for the poor, the sick, the hungry, the imprisoned, the elderly. Jesus tells me not to judge others. So many Christians don’t understand the basics of their own faith!

As for me, I’ll let Jesus decide whether or not I can be his disciple, not you.

Leo, there are churches that will consecrate same-sex unions, although I don’t necessarily feel the need to have a church blessing of mine. God already exists within my partner’s and my relationship. I believe that God brought us together. We just really want equal protection under the civil law.

@Ruth
If God says something is sin, then who are you to say it is not?
Certainly, Jesus tells us to make judgments that will keep us from those who would misrepresent Him.

Ah, but God has never told me that being gay is a sin. Some man wrote that down thousands of years ago, based on his own primitive beliefs, back in a time when there was not even a scientific concept of homosexuality. Sorry, but I can’t ignore what my heart tells me to be true in favor of someone else’s interpretation of ancient words. God speaks to me daily through my conscience and my heart. And I know with the full force of both that God brought me to the woman that I love, brought my niece to both of us for us to care for her and raise her, and that God blesses and loves us. I think Jesus would weep with how his life, message and death have been used to mistreat others.

“How can it be wrong if it feels so right”, right?
Jesus is alive, and invites you into His life.

Ruth, Jesus is already in my life and I am in His. We speak on a daily basis, so don’t worry about me honey. But your condescending attitude is what gives so many Christians these days a bad name. You think you have all the answers and everyone else is so lost. Get over yourself already.

Christians have always had a bad name. Jesus had a bad name, too.
I would be completely lost without His love, so I don’t mind sharing His bad name.

Tell me something Ruth: when exactly did Jesus decide to represent the beliefs and attitudes of the Pharisees?

@Heidi
If you are implying that I am a self-righteous, unloving person you are correct. The only reason I am not headed straight to a well-deserved eternity in hell is that the Son of God has, because of His love for me, given His life to include me in His kingdom.
The Pharisees made this mistake; they worshiped the position they had been given instead of worshiping God. They wanted to be honored, not saved.
If we are not lost, we cannot be found.
If we are not sick, we cannot be healed.
If we are not sinners, we cannot be saved.

@feetxxxl
Horatio is correct. Jesus didn’t speak directly on many things, of course, since his audience (being primarily Jewish) would not have accepted to begin with. However, His statements on the nature of sin, God’s Law, and how His followers should act are quite clear. When St. Paul and the other Gospel writers speak against “sexual immorality”, homosexuality was quite specifically included.

Jenn : Ah, but God has never told me that being gay is a sin.
Just read His word, he is quite explicit on the subject. See also the various passages regarding the “fruits” that a Christian is expected to bear. For instance, Luke 3:8 “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance”. Paul is quite clear: yes, we are not saved by following the Law, we are saved by belief in Christ. However, since we are saved, we are expected to demonstrate this by our actions which will follow the guidance that God has given us: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:3).

Some man wrote that down thousands of years ago, based on his own primitive beliefs, back in a time when there was not even a scientific concept of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a set of actions, not a matter of science. You are confusing (as noted by Horatio) cause and result. When Jesus stopped the Pharisees from stoning the woman caught in adultery (John 8), he stopped them and forgave her, yes – and then said “go, and sin no more“.

Heidi :
Tell me something Ruth: when exactly did Jesus decide to represent the beliefs and attitudes of the Pharisees?

Again, Heidi, Jesus was not a “do as you please” liberal, nor can Christians do as they please in all things. The Law is, among other things (and not confusing the Jewish ceremonial laws with the natural law, e.g. the 10 Commandments) a guideline for a functional and desirable human society. Given that it is based on the flaws of human nature, which haven’t changed much in the past 10,000 years or so, it is still just as valid now as it was then. The Pharisees’ mistake was in believing that they could follow the Law perfectly and please God by doing so; in their pursuit of the Law, they lost track of God. This does not mean that the Law is no longer valid. (See most of Paul’s letter to the Romans).

Ah, but Ruth and Paul, but that is YOUR interpretation. I was raised in an evangelical/fundamentalist church. I know the way that you are all taught to believe, so I really don’t need you to quote scripture or preach to me. I simply disagree with your narrow-minded understanding and I believe that you all have missed the forest for the trees. I will continue to pray for all of the hard-hearted Christians out there who fail in the test of love.