homosexuals

sorry for three posts in one day! but people keep sending me stuff! i guess i shouldn't feel so lonely with justine iming me and g emailing me. she sent me a forward, saying, "Here is something that IV is doing for community service. It sums up
their views on homosexuality, esp. in the somewhat complicated (for
Christians) position of thinking about homosexuals who consider
themselves Christian. I think that I agree with the stance, for the
most part. It at least succinctly sums up my thoughts, as far as they
have gotten, although it doesn't really answer all of the nuanced
questions that will always arise out of the discussion of
homosexuality/religion/Christianity. What do you think?"
then the article says:
"what is IV's stance? According to what we see clearly presented in the Bible, IV currently understands that homosexual behavior is sinful (see passages such as Romans 1:26-27.) However, to quote from a report put out by IV in 1995: "Homosexual orientation (that is, psycho-sexual attraction to persons of the same gender) is not the same as homosexual behavior. While homosexual orientation is not in and of itself sinful, it is a distortion of what God originally intended resulting from the fall. As such it is also a point of temptation and a possible doorway to sinful behavior." But I think that another statement in that same report can help us understand exactly why, though disapproving of homosexual behavior, we should partner with a group like QueeReligious: "Homosexuality is not to be considered differently from other categories of distortion and sin insofar as Christ's redemptive work is concerned. Our true identity is given to us by God's creative and redemptive activity and is not to be derived from how we view ourselves. We must not root our core identity in our brokenness or sinfulness. Therefore, homosexuality cannot serve as a basis of true identity." Homosexual behavior is no different from other forms of sexual sin, or sin in general, that everyone experiences. It is another possible form of the general brokenness experienced by all mankind. Our goal, then, should be to overcome our brokenness in general, not to emphasize certain forms of sin as more deviant, and in doing so alienate some of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus approached sinners as people, not identifying them as synonymous with their sin--it was never "'Prostitute'" this or "'Tax Collector'" that. Instead, He addressed them as people, often by name ("'Zacchaeus!'" [Luke 19] for example). In the same way, I believe that Christ would never have addressed a practicing homosexual by his or her sin, but would have approached them as people in need of His love and grace. Along with this, Christ understood the needs of the people around Him, and also understood the reality of their situation. If we are to attempt to emulate His love and grace, we must also emulate this understanding. Our chapter has posed the question this quarter, "What is the Christian life at the U of C?" And for some students at the U of C, the Christian life is one of trying to understand themselves as homosexual and as Christian. If we are to understand the broader answer to our question, it would serve us well to see also the varied, more specific forms the Christian life might take." ¶ WHAT DO I THINK? WHAT THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO THINK? i can't even get into what i'm feeling/thinking right now. please, dear blog readers, if any of you ever think of posting comments, this is the one to do it on. what is my response to this supposed to be?