A Homosexuality "Fact Checker" for Born-again Christians

The Christian Post ^ | November 1, 2013 | James R. Aist

[James R. Aist]

I believe that it is incumbent upon born-again Christians to become well-informed about homosexuality, even though this is not a topic that is either enjoyable or entertaining to deal with. To help you get an idea of how well-informed you are, or are not, about homosexuality, I have developed this quick and easy–to-use “Fact Checker”. It will not only show you your current level of knowledge of the facts and truth about homosexuality, but it will also point you to key resources that will correct any misperceptions that you may have picked up from the liberal media or well-meaning, albeit misinformed, friends, relatives or co-workers.

[dangerdoc]

Somebody once said “ye must be born again,” can’t quite put my finger on it but I think is was somebody important.

[ravenwolf]

Over 80% of homosexuals were sexually abused as children.

---

That is something we will never know because it is always the excuse of any problem, it is always the fault of some one else.

[mdmathis6]

Is the first “warmth of feeling” towards an attractive woman or man(same sex or opposite sex) the sin or does sin occur when one mentally starts to “peel off their clothes”?

I think if one has a good inner thought life, that first rush of ‘warmth’ should be a warning that “sin is at the door” and that one should “change the subject” mentally immediately!

[wizkid]

Great post on an important topic.

I would much rather read something like this than the soul rotting garbage spewed out by the mass media.

Great set of links too! Here is an example of one that I enjoyed.

rethinkingtheology - Links Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia

Thank you for taking the time to share this excellent alternative to the poison that is typically served up by our minders.

[x]

This is better than I thought it would be. Don't know about this one, though:

God gives “same-sex attractions” to some people, making them homosexual.

That's a theological assertion, not a biological one. You can't disprove it by arguing that homosexual attraction isn't innate or hereditary (indeed, innate and hereditary aren't quite the same thing either, as all the recent talk about epigenetics indicates).

In any case, you can't reduce God to DNA. When people say God did something, they aren't necessarily saying that it's an unavoidable result of something material that science can identify or explain.

[Scrambler Bob]

Missed my point. I used KJ as close to the Greek. Let's look at the Greek -- As πρὸςτό with the infinitive (e.g. Matthew 6:1), primarily denotes purpose; this may be equivalent to "looketh in order that he may lust, looketh to stimulate his ... The verb form denotes lustful purpose, as opposed to just 'looking'.

[ravenwolf]

The only thing i can think of with out first looking up scripture is that God destroyed two cities because of men lusting after each other, i do not see any scripture of this happening because of a man and woman lusting after each other even though that has been the case since Adam and Eve.

If there were no lust between a man and woman how could we expect to multiply?

So, no i do not believe it is the same thing.

Homosexuality is an abomination, it is a sin against nature,
Just the same as worshiping idols, can anyone worship idols and believe in God at the same time?

It is not the homosexuals that bother many people, it is their Agenda which separate them from God.

[ravenwolf]

What you describe in that sentence is indeed sin. But that is not the same as opposite-sex attraction. Attraction is not the problem, opposite or same. It is what the individual does with that attraction.

---

Jesus said if a man lusts after a woman in his heart he has already committed adultery.

Why would,nt it also apply to another of the same sex?

[ravenwolf]

Homo/bi/a-sexuality is a choice as we were created heterosexual.
God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

---

Exactly.

[ravenwolf]

The KJV is not the entire Bible as it was at the beginning. It has been added to and subtracted from by Luther, and then the KJ followed.

---

You are right, Bibles which changes some meanings brings in many millions of dollars to some one so i think we will see many more different translations.

[ravenwolf]

Thus, it is not necessary to commit any overt act - experiencing “lust” (sexual desire) is sufficient to speak of “sin.”

---

Well yes but the American standard is not the only version and even though the KJV says it too but there must be one that says it differently... sarc.

[Robert Burkholder]

I certainly am not free from sin— Neither am I self Identified as homosexual. I am born anew—and sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ.And when I sin— I do repent but do not continue in sin, as does one who identifies him/ her self as homosexual.

[newheart]

Why would,nt it also apply to another of the same sex?

Of course it would apply. The problem is that equating attraction with lust is a category error. The kind of thing that leads to a complete denial of the worth of the human body (ala gnosticism). It is a profoundly Islamic concept that leads to things like treatment of women like a necessary evil.

You are attracted to food but the sin comes in what you do with that attraction. If it turns into an obsession and you fixate on cheeseburgers you have sinned. But simply because a cheeseburger whets your appetite it does not man you have sinned.

God created men and women and and all things beautiful. I can say that both Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are physically attractive human beings without doing anything more than recognizing God's handiwork. But if I were to take that to the next level via lust (toward either of them), I would be sinning.

[redleghunter]

Before his conversion Saul of Tarsus said the same thing about “The Way.” As a matter of fact, The Way is made up of “born from above” regenerated in the Blood of Christ believers. Don’t take my word for it examine Acts and the epistles.

[redleghunter]

Nancy Pelosi keeps getting communion and her public statements on killing babies in the womb are clear. Yet priests keep giving her communion.

[AppyPappy]

It’s OK to admire God’s handiwork but not to want to shoplift it.

[redleghunter]

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28 (New American Standard Version, 1995) No... Christ says that merely looking at a woman and experiencing desire is equivalent to committing adultery with her - if not de facto, then at least in "one's heart." Thus, it is not necessary to commit any overt act - experiencing "lust" (sexual desire) is sufficient to speak of "sin."

I believe you are most correct. What depraved creatures of flesh are we! But there is Hope indeed! Jesus Christ!

[redleghunter]

The KJV is not the entire Bible as it was at the beginning. It has been added to and subtracted from by Luther, and then the KJ followed.

LOL, you do try don't you? While you are into changing things around in the Bible, you may want to take a look at the DRA (Roman Catholic Bible) vs. all those Prot versions when it comes to Genesis 3:15:

Here is the DRA Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15:

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Here is the KJV of Genesis 3:15:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Who is tampering with Scriptures?

What INSPIRED Scriptures did the Prots throw out? Please don't go down the Apocrypha rabbit hole. That has been addressed many times.

Finally what does the verse quoted by the gentlemen above have to do with Luther or the Reformers. Is it your claim that the verse quoted on lust is not found in Prot Bibles or RC Bibles? Or did you just have a rainy afternoon wanting to stir the pot up a bit?

I will note, constantly changing the subject and dragging old arguments into new threads is a troll technique.

I love our 1st Amendment rights, but you continuously yell "FIRE" on every RF thread.

[redleghunter]

James you may not be privy to the pendantic Roman Catholic argument that the original Greek does not say "born-again" but has "born from above." For you and me, there is apparently no difference even though most scholars say "born-again" is the most accurate translation to English. Apparently, the RC apologetics sites all have this snippet to use in forums to trollfully interdict the actual subject.

I might note that our good Roman Catholic friends need to look at their DRA Bible for this is what it says for John 3:3:

3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Even in their NABRE the footnote from John 3:3 says either term can be used but the commentary writer prefers the use of "from above."

So you have stumbled on a petty, ignorant argument their own church in their own Bibles don't argue.

[redleghunter]

Have we remained completely free of sin since we were born again and justified? Or, are we being sanctified as we walk out our salvation with fear and trembling? Are we really any different in that regard from one whose sins include homosexuality?

I fully understand what you AND Robert are saying. Let's shift to a different kind of lust. How about the repentant regenerated former adulterer. If he is continuously having sex in this mind with the pastor's wife, that dude is sinning big time. We are told in Romans 8 that God The Father continues to conform us to the image of His Son. That means transforming our minds. Will this corruptable flesh ever be perfect--no, only when He replaces the corruptable with the incorruptable at Resurrection.

So if a homosexual who is repentant and saved continues to have sex with the same sex in his mind, then he or she really needs to examine themselves as Peter and Paul tell us to do. I think that is what Robert is alluding to, but don't know for sure.