# "I don't care....."



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

I made the following post in the political forum:

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7905091&postcount=244

And one of our regular posters took issue with it.  Instead of trying to have a spiritual discussion down there, which would be rapidly derailed, and really out of place in that forum, I figured I would bring the debate up here.

Anyway, here's the issue: I don't care what people do in their own home.  I don't believe it is my business unless the individual doing the thinigs makes it my business.  Until that point, any efforts on my part to "create morality" would only serve to increase resistance to the faith basis for which I am judging the act.

The Biblical support for this position is 1 Corinthians 5:12-13.  

Second, from a political perspective, I cannot force my beliefs on other people, because I do not want other people's beliefs forced on me. It's a "do unto others" sort of thing, and this is a very appropriate application.  In our political system, anything is possible once a majority is achieved (witness the gov'ts influence in private markets based on popular opinion).  This can also have cosequences in spiritual matters.  For instance, the majority can one day determine that baptizing kids is "child abuse."  What then?  Who will we blame when other people try to influence our actions based on their morality?  We will have no footing to do so if we continually try and make folks walk the straight and narrow through force.

So, my "hands-off" political position is based on scripture, I believe, and I am open to learning where I am wrong....what do y'all think?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 1, 2013)

I agree with you 100%. I would rather see God's children try to change how homosexuality is viewed through the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than try to legislate it.

My main problem with this gay "marriage" thing is the redefining of the word marriage.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> My main problem with this gay "marriage" thing is the redefining of the word marriage.



Spiritually speaking, I might ahve the same issue.  However, many heros of our faith were polygamists, and the Bible does not seem to turn on that practice until the NT.  I am quite certain gay folks were not getting maried in the Bible.  I am not sure what the historical context is for such things.  Perhaps we are in new territory.  As always, though, I would prefer these things be left to the individuals.  The gov't has zero authority to define marriage, and it only does so with our permission.  I would rather them stop trying.

For the record, I am not a gay marriage "supporter."  I am a "supporter" of freedom, even when that means people doing things I believe are wrong.......because I don't want the gun turned on me one day.  If there is no victim, then, from a political perspective, there is no crime, and the gov't should keep out.

Let the Church, and God, do the work.  Anything else is jsut forced conformity, and zero spiritual ground is gained through such action.

Thanks for jumping in String.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2013)

You could just tell him to go pound sand.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> You could just tell him to go pound sand.



Now, that wouldn't be very Christian of me 

Anyway, your the one who took issue with the position.  I am hoping we could have a good discussion on the topic.  I am definitely open to being wrong, but, I have reasons for my position, "uninformed" as they may be


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 1, 2013)

Are we not told to love our neighbors?  Are we not told to love our enemies?

How is "not caring" loving?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

GM, RJ!  Thanks for jumping in.



rjcruiser said:


> Are we not told to love our neighbors?  Are we not told to love our enemies?



Yes.



rjcruiser said:


> How is "not caring" loving?



It seems to be the approach Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 5:12.  We can dig a little deeper into the "neighbor" aspect, but I do not define gays as my enemies.  Is there an application I am overlooking here?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I made the following post in the political forum:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7905091&postcount=244
> 
> ...




FWIW, here's my perspective on the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage.  It's a sin.  That's obvious.  Should the government regulate what we do in our own home?  No, but we don't live in a vacuum and this issue is not confined to the personal and private confines of the home.  Homosexuality and all the issues that flow from it have far reaching ramifications that extend well into public life and the issue of gay marriage is only one.  I have a hard time imagining one institution that has not been affected by the secular acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle including the Church and the Family, so I think it's a mistake to take the narrow view that it's repercussions on only felt inside the bedroom and therefore outside the reach of legislation.  
    I feel if one wants to engage in homosexual activity within the confines of the home government should remain silent, but any aspect of homosexuality that extends past the front door of the home should be legally challenged and discouraged in every instance.  Today this type of thought is almost unspeakable despite our First Amendment.  This tolerant, politically correct society in which we live and are in essence governed by would never 
even remotely consider allowing a proud and actively practicing drug user, racist, adulterer, bigot, drunkard,  or even, may I suggest Conservative Christian, to a high office or CEO of a company, yet will not only bend over backwards to not only do so for a homosexual, but scorn anyone who questions it.  THAT, my friend is how morally twisted we as a nation have become.  
  If there is any hope at all for us as a society and a Nation it must come from Christians who are willing to see and call sin out for what it is , but just as important, maybe even more so, show these sinners the love of God through our actions.  Legislation to cure any social ill is only palliative at best.  The cure must come through Christ because by nature the true cause of the illness is a Heart problem.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Now, that wouldn't be very Christian of me
> 
> Anyway, your the one who took issue with the position.  I am hoping we could have a good discussion on the topic.  I am definitely open to being wrong, but, I have reasons for my position, "uninformed" as they may be


I responded to your comments because I found them to be in opposition to the Christian worldview. About 25 yrs ago, a man knocked on my door and confronted my rebellious lifestyle. He cut me to pieces with the word of God. This man knew my thoughts, my secrets and my desires and he went straight to the heart of the matter. He never asked me to make a profession of faith or to say a prayer. Others that heard him, made fun of him and mocked him. I was not as able to do so. He had a message for me. I heard it and I fought it for a time. Thank God this man was minding his business. Thank God that he cared enough to confront me.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I responded to your comments because I found them to be in opposition to the Christian worldview.



I understand that you feel that way, but can you explain why?  I believe I have built the case for my position to be in line with a Christian worldview.



gemcgrew said:


> About 25 yrs ago, a man knocked on my door and confronted my rebellious lifestyle. He cut me to pieces with the word of God. This man knew my thoughts, my secrets and my desires and he went straight to the heart of the matter. He never asked me to make a profession of faith or to say a prayer. Others that heard him, made fun of him and mocked him. I was not as able to do so. He had a message for me. I heard it and I fought it for a time. Thank God this man was minding his business. Thank God that he cared enough to confront me.



In my life, it seems the more folks try to say "don't do that," the more I want to do that.  I have also witnessed the same reaction in most people I encounter.  My preference to to explain why I have hope.....the gospel.  Convicting is not my job, most of my life has been a terrible example for "godly living" to start with, and we all know that hypocracy is the first thing folks look for.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, but we don't live in a vacuum and this issue is not confined to the personal and private confines of the home.



We will disagree on this point, as I am certain that I am not influenced to be gay by my gay neighbors.  No matter how gay they get, I ain't gettin' a gay marriage any time soon.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Homosexuality and all the issues that flow from it have far reaching ramifications that extend well into public life and the issue of gay marriage is only one.  I have a hard time imagining one institution that has not been affected by the secular acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle including the Church and the Family, so I think it's a mistake to take the narrow view that it's repercussions on only felt inside the bedroom and therefore outside the reach of legislation.



Could you please elaborate, with specifics?  If the church is influenced by homosexual actiity, is that not the church's fault?  How is the line for regulated morality drawn with homosexuality?  Why not other sins which have a way of corrupting the church....gossip?  We have freedom of speech in this country, but dang if that freedom doesn't do some serious harm in local institutions.  Should we regulate against gossip?

NExt up....divorce?  I think divorce is very harmful to the local family, and the local church, but should we also make it illegal because it is unbiblical?

The point is that you can really take it to any extreme once you start assigning indirect guilt to an act.



SemperFiDawg said:


> I feel if one wants to engage in homosexual activity within the confines of the home government should remain silent, but any aspect of homosexuality that extends past the front door of the home should be legally challenged and discouraged in every instance.



See above.  Do you extend that to divorce?



SemperFiDawg said:


> Today this type of thought is almost unspeakable despite our First Amendment.  This tolerant, politically correct society in which we live and are in essence governed by would never
> even remotely consider allowing a proud and actively practicing drug user, racist, adulterer, bigot, drunkard,  or even, may I suggest Conservative Christian, to a high office or CEO of a company, yet will not only bend over backwards to not only do so for a homosexual, but scorn anyone who questions it.  THAT, my friend is how morally twisted we as a nation have become.



For you to be free, everybody else must be also.  Even those of opposing beliefs.



SemperFiDawg said:


> If there is any hope at all for us as a society and a Nation it must come from Christians who are willing to see and call sin out for what it is , but just as important, maybe even more so, show these sinners the love of God through our actions.  Legislation to cure any social ill is only palliative at best.  The cure must come through Christ because by nature the true cause of the illness is a Heart problem.



SFD, do you not recognize that there are many, many sins which are directly relevant to the effectiveness of the church which do not carry near the derision that homosexuality does?

I mentioned it above, but, my family and friends have been directly harmed by gossip, as well as an absolute failure of christians to practice christian conflict resolution (regardless of my attempts at such).

Should we make that illegal?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I understand that you feel that way, but can you explain why?  I believe I have built the case for my position to be in line with a Christian worldview.


I am not sure that I can explain it any better than my original response to you.




JB0704 said:


> In my life, it seems the more folks try to say "don't do that," the more I want to do that.  I have also witnessed the same reaction in most people I encounter.  My preference to to explain why I have hope.....the gospel.  Convicting is not my job, most of my life has been a terrible example for "godly living" to start with, and we all know that hypocracy is the first thing folks look for.


A Christian proclaims, the Holy Spirit convicts. The man who confronted me did not convict me. He proclaimed the truth of God's word and the Holy Spirit applied it. This man did not need to condemn me, I was condemned already.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I am not sure that I can explain it any better than my original response to you.



In light of the fact that those outside the faith are beyond my scope (1 Corinthians 5), as well as the fact that I do not want alternative belief systems forced on me (do unto others), I am somehow missing the point, I guess.





gemcgrew said:


> A Christian proclaims, the Holy Spirit convicts. The man who confronted me did not convict me. He proclaimed the truth of God's word and the Holy Spirit applied it. This man did not need to condemn me, I was condemned already.



Proclaiming would also include my sentence "hetero is the way to go."  Perhaps not as pointed as some would prefer.

When discussing these issues with my gay friends, my perspective on the subject is clear.  I have tried to find an "out," but it does not exist.  I also recognize that I am no better than they are.  The problem is when we say "this is bad, but that's REALLY bad."  However, my effetiveness is only as good as the weight a person assigns to my opinion on the subject.  To force conformity would have zero effect, and be a huge waste of time.  I also believe it would have a negative impact spiritually speaking.

Maybe we are debating preference in approaching the subject?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> It seems to be the approach Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 5:12.  We can dig a little deeper into the "neighbor" aspect, but I do not define gays as my enemies.  Is there an application I am overlooking here?



Sin is an enemy to God....so, all non-christians would be enemies...right?  Not saying that they're evil or anything...just saying that they're not for God...therefore, they are against Him.

But...if that sounds too offensive...just use the neighbor definition 



I agree with you to a point about defining right and wrong through legislation.  Rather than focusing on a list of rights and wrongs, we need to focus on preaching the message.  The actions will change based on the change in the heart.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> So, my "hands-off" political position is based on scripture, I believe, and I am open to learning where I am wrong....what do y'all think?



JB,

Help me understand the OP.  Are you saying you have a "hands off" political standing on homosexuality because of the 1 Cor. passage you referenced?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Madman said:


> JB,
> 
> Help me understand the OP.  Are you saying you have a "hands off" political standing on homosexuality because of the 1 Cor. passage you referenced?



More the "do unto others" concept.  

Here's an example:

I believe gayness is a sin.  So, I can vote to curb such activity through force (having zero spiritual impact).

My atheist neighbors might believe baptizing children is a "sin" (citing consent laws, psychological research indicating children are not capable of informed life-altering decisions), and vote to curb such activity.

If I don't want my atheist neighbor forcing his morality on me, I will not force mine on him.

The 1 Corinthians 5 reference is to those who do not believe....Paul says God will handle that, and they are not his concern.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

rjcruiser said:


> Sin is an enemy to God....so, all non-christians would be enemies...right?



That's not how Jesus approached the matter, if we are discussing personal approach, beyond the definition.  So, I will disagree on that point.  He said "go and sin no more," but the "sinners" were not treated as enemies.

Additionally, we are all sinners, so, by your definition, we would all be enemies of God.  Let's use the gossip example....any gossiper in a local church would be just as much an enemy as the local gay couple.

Without sounding condescending here, I think personal humility is required in the application of our beliefs.  I am "one of them"....."sinner."



rjcruiser said:


> Not saying that they're evil or anything...just saying that they're not for God...therefore, they are against Him.



If that's the case, the 1 Corinthians 5:12 puts them outside my influence.



rjcruiser said:


> But...if that sounds too offensive...just use the neighbor definition








rjcruiser said:


> I agree with you to a point about defining right and wrong through legislation.  Rather than focusing on a list of rights and wrongs, we need to focus on preaching the message.  The actions will change based on the change in the heart.



ABSOLUTELY!!   The gospel is what it is, and it is much more effective than my vote.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2013)

JB, I have to limit my time on the computer, due to my eyes. My first surgery is tomorrow. I hope to be able to contribute more in a couple of days.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> JB, I have to limit my time on the computer, due to my eyes. My first surgery is tomorrow. I hope to be able to contribute more in a couple of days.



I didn't know.  I hope it all goes well, and I look forward to your input then.  Good luck / get well.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> More the "do unto others" concept.
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> ...



Another way to look at it is that homosexuality is more than a sin.  The lifestyle is detrimental to society, just as single parenthood and divorce are.  

Drug addiction, alcoholism, depression, disease, etc., are rampant in the homosexual community, all of which have a negative effect on society.

On the other hand, I know of no one hurt by baptism.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2013)

I believe that the govt shouldn't be involved in marriage in ANY form.  The govt should not be sanctioning straight marriage, homosexual marriage or any other type for that matter.

There are only citizens as far as the constitution is concerned.  Not married people and single people.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Madman said:


> Another way to look at it is that homosexuality is more than a sin.  The lifestyle is detrimental to society, just as single parenthood and divorce are.



For about 5 years, I was a divorced single parent.  In the end, there was a much more positive outcome than what would ahve happened had the divorce never occurred.  

I am probably the exception, rather than the rule, but I still do not see a case for such actions being illegal.



Madman said:


> Drug addiction, alcoholism, depression, disease, etc., are rampant in the homosexual community, all of which have a negative effect on society.



These are also rampant in many hetero communities.  Particularly in those social circles where inhibitions are removed.

Do we need to outlaw extra-marital sex as well?  How many of us would have gone to prison under those circumstances (98% of the people I know).  However, that activity leads to disease, and single-parenthood.



Madman said:


> On the other hand, I know of no one hurt by baptism.



We could probably drag a few atheists into the discussion who would say that they see no harm in homosexuality, but childhood baptism sets children up for life-long expectations.

My point is that this is all perspective.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> I believe that the govt shouldn't be involved in marriage in ANY form.  The govt should not be sanctioning straight marriage, homosexual marriage or any other type for that matter.
> 
> There are only citizens as far as the constitution is concerned.  Not married people and single people.



^^^Agreed.  Surprisingly......


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> In my life, it seems the more folks try to say "don't do that," the more I want to do that.  I have also witnessed the same reaction in most people I encounter.  My preference to to explain why I have hope.....the gospel.  Convicting is not my job, most of my life has been a terrible example for "godly living" to start with, and we all know that hypocracy is the first thing folks look for.



Proverbs 28:23 says this:

"Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor
than he who flatters with his tongue."

Convincting?  No, perhaps not your job.  Rebuking when you see wrong doing?  Biblically....absolutely it's your job.  And it's in more than just this one spot.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2013)

What really gets me about this whole thing is just the litmus test that it's showing me about our govt and our society.  The actual defeat of DOMA is not that big of a deal to me because I don't like the fact that the govt is wading into something that is God's domain.

The fact that it indicates that most of our country believes that gay people are "normal" and should be accepted as so grieves me greatly.  It's what the supreme court decision indicates that bothers me...not what it does.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Biblically....absolutely it's your job.  And it's in more than just this one spot.



Who do I rubuke in light of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13?

Am I outside of Biblical parameters by keeping my thoughts "in house?"


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2013)

Nope.  Your post seemed a blanket statement that you choose not to confront people because your experience says they'll just buck against it.  You're right, we are to judge and rebuke believers.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> It's what the supreme court decision indicates that bothers me...not what it does.



The decision actually made it a state issue.....which, if anything, that's what it should be.

As far as grieving over where we are, I think Christians (me) have failed at presenting an acceptable alternative to instant gratification which comes along with "guilt-free" living.

How many Christians disregard our beliefs in favor of "relations" outside marriage?  There is a solid case for monogamy, without religion, yet we fail to live according to our convictions.  How can we expect one thing from "them," if we cannot hold ourselves to a similar standard?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Huntinfool said:


> Your post seemed a blanket statement that you choose not to confront people because your experience says they'll just buck against it.



Apologies.  For clarity, my Christian friends who have this struggle are aware of my position on the matter.  We discuss it regularly.  The differnce with me is that I know who I was 10-15 years ago.......and am no better than anybody (wasn't gay, but I wasn't very "christian" either).

But, if they are to ask "what does the Bible say about x,y,z" I will tell them my perspective.  However, I keep in mind that I am a beneficiary of grace, as are they.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Could you please elaborate, with specifics?



Sure.  
Justice system: re-writing laws to let Gays adopt
                        : special protection under hate crime laws
Educational system: teaching our children it is a perfectly 
                                   acceptable life-style
Media and Entertainment: glamorize the gay life-style and 
                                            scorn/ridicule anyone who even 
                                            Remotely suggest it is a sin.
Political system: same as media.  
Churches: abandoning Biblical principles for the sake of 
                  Attendance.





JB0704 said:


> If the church is influenced by homosexual actiity, is that not the church's fault?



Absolutely. It is.



JB0704 said:


> How is the line for regulated morality drawn with homosexuality?



Are you speaking within the Church or Legislative/Judicial system?



JB0704 said:


> Why not other sins which have a way of corrupting the church....gossip?  We have freedom of speech in this country, but dang if that freedom doesn't do some serious harm in local institutions.  Should we regulate against gossip?



I don't see anyone within the Church condoning those.



JB0704 said:


> NExt up....divorce?  I think divorce is very harmful to the local family, and the local church, but should we also make it illegal because it is unbiblical?



No, but again the Church is not condoning divorce, but I would agree it is as destructive to the family as homosexuality.  Both result in the destruction of it.



JB0704 said:


> The point is that you can really take it to any extreme once you start assigning indirect guilt to an act.



Unsure what you mean with regards to indirect guilt




JB0704 said:


> For you to be free, everybody else must be also.  Even those of opposing beliefs.



Yes to a degree, but not at the expense of labeling evil as good.  Once you do that where do you draw the line?  Pediphilia?, Beastiality? Rape? Murder?  With freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom without responsibility leads to anarchy.





JB0704 said:


> SFD, do you not recognize that there are many, many sins which are directly relevant to the effectiveness of the church which do not carry near the derision that homosexuality does??



No.  I'm sorry, but I don't.  Homosexuality is defiant, open rebellion against God.  I'm not sure what could harm the Church more than to condone such behavior.  You make save the Church, but you will lose the doctrine in the process.  It that point you are left with a social hall.



JB0704 said:


> I mentioned it above, but, my family and friends have been directly harmed by gossip, as well as an absolute failure of christians to practice christian conflict resolution (regardless of my attempts at such).
> 
> Should we make that illegal?



What can I say to that?  Honestly?


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I am probably the exception, rather than the rule, but I still do not see a case for such actions being illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> We could probably drag a few atheists into the discussion who would say that they see no harm in homosexuality,



Looking at the data that would be hard to defend.




> but childhood baptism sets children up for life-long expectations.



So does not keeping score in little league ball games. 



Society has always limited actions that were detrimental to it's self. Those restrictions are being removed at a rapid pace, "no fault" divorce, homosexuality, drug use, illegitimate births, drug abuse, etc.  

We have set this nation up for financial ruin not to mention spiritual ruin.

Robert Bork said it well; "Slouching toward Gomorrah"


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sure.
> Justice system: re-writing laws to let Gays adopt
> : special protection under hate crime laws



I'm against hate crime legislation also.  However, I have seen gay folks be much better parents than foster care, and many other hetero or single parent families.  

Are gay parents less than alcoholic parents?  Neglectful parents?  Absentee parents?

Each situation is unique, and each house ahs problems.  I am not against gay adoption because of the fact that the parents are gay.  God can use any situation for good.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Educational system: teaching our children it is a perfectly
> acceptable life-style
> Media and Entertainment: glamorize the gay life-style and
> scorn/ridicule anyone who even
> ...



I would suggest anybody who take issue there remove themselves from those situations where they can.  FWIW, both my kids are in private schools (not because of any gay agenda, but so I can control the education).



SemperFiDawg said:


> Churches: abandoning Biblical principles for the sake of
> Attendance.



The church's fault.



SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you speaking within the Church or Legislative/Judicial system?



Within the judicial system.



SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't see anyone within the Church condoning those.



It is practiced with regularity.  Nobody is running to chik-fil-a for "no gossip" day.



SemperFiDawg said:


> No, but again the Church is not condoning divorce, but I would agree it is as destructive to the family as homosexuality.  Both result in the destruction of it.



Yes they are.  Many divorced people exist among you at your local congregation.  Not all of these folks were in adultering marriages, not all of them were abandoned by unbelievers.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Unsure what you mean with regards to indirect guilt



The by-products you listed in paragraph 1.






SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes to a degree, but not at the expense of labeling evil as good.  Once you do that where do you draw the line?  Pediphilia?, Beastiality? Rape? Murder?  With freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom without responsibility leads to anarchy.



Nobody is labeling evil as good (at least not in this thread).  I draw the lines where victims are created.  Everything you list above involves a victim which can be objectively identified.








SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I'm sorry, but I don't.  Homosexuality is defiant, open rebellion against God.  I'm not sure what could harm the Church more than to condone such behavior.  You make save the Church, but you will lose the doctrine in the process.  It that point you are left with a social hall.



I would argue that is about all that's left of the church anyway.  But will just ahve to disagree with you on the point at hand.  I think adultery is extremely harmful to all parties invovled, the family, church, community, etc.  I do not see gayness as any worse than that.

Gossip tears churches apart.



SemperFiDawg said:


> What can I say to that?  Honestly?



Whatever you want   The point is, I have never been harmed by gay folks.  But, I promise you I have been harmed by gossiping Christians who have zero interest in following Biblical mandates.  In my life, one has had a much more detrimental affect on my family.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Madman said:


> Looking at the data that would be hard to defend.



Again, the point is perspective.  The next argument would be for all of the harm done in the name of Chirsitianity over the last 2k years.  Folks use good for evil.....it's just the way it is.



Madman said:


> So does not keeping score in little league ball games.



Subjective.  I coached for years, and that score was a motivator 






Madman said:


> Society has always limited actions that were detrimental to it's self. Those restrictions are being removed at a rapid pace, "no fault" divorce, homosexuality, drug use, illegitimate births, drug abuse, etc.
> 
> We have set this nation up for financial ruin not to mention spiritual ruin.
> 
> Robert Bork said it well; "Slouching toward Gomorrah"



Financial ruin is a different subject all-together (and I would argue that those of us who have blindly voted for "less-evil" are just as guilty as those who vote for democrats).

Are you willing to make illegitimate births illegal?  If not, I am not following your point.


----------



## Madman (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Are you willing to make illegitimate births illegal?  If not, I am not following your point.



I'm for the return of "boy's town".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I'm against hate crime legislation also.  However, I have seen gay folks be much better parents than foster care, and many other hetero or single parent families.
> 
> Are gay parents less than alcoholic parents?  Neglectful parents?  Absentee parents?
> 
> ...



JB may I respectfully point out to you that you are comparing homosexuality to other examples of sin and saying that it is no worse, and I agree.  But may I point out that is not the standard we are to judge by.  Our standard is The Word.  We are called to be Holy and resist Evil in ALL forms.  We don't have the option of picking and choosing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

Well since most Church members aren't gay, it's not one of the most destructable sins in the Churuch. Those would be sins hetero Christians perform such as pride, lust, adultery, cheating/stealing, gossip, jealousy, rivalry, & envy. Part of a long list of not loving others as ourselves. Just the amount of Christians who cheat on their income tax far outway the destruction of gays in the Church. I've never heard much talk in the Church on not cheating on your income tax.

Proverbs 6:16-19There are six things the LORD HATES, seven that are DETESTABLE to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> JB may I respectfully point out to you that you are comparing homosexuality to other examples of sin and saying that it is no worse, and I agree.  But may I point out that is not the standard we are to judge by.  Our standard is The Word.  We are called to be Holy and resist Evil in ALL forms.  We don't have the option of picking and choosing.



You say that and hopefully we don't but Christians in general do. I guess I feel more like JB does on Homosexuality. I know it is a sin but I think it's way overblown.
We've got enough really bad sins among ourselves as Christians to worry about first. There is nothing wrong with telling gay people it is a sin but stop by the buffet  at Golden Corral and witness to the glutton. Tell the preacher to quit gossiping. I've noticed preachers do that a lot. Do a Harper Valley PTA routine before going after the Gay person.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> JB may I respectfully point out to you that you are comparing homosexuality to other examples of sin and saying that it is no worse, and I agree.  But may I point out that is not the standard we are to judge by.  Our standard is The Word.  We are called to be Holy and resist Evil in ALL forms.  We don't have the option of picking and choosing.



I agree.  I think somewhere along the way, the purpose of the thread may have gotten lost.  Perhaps our disagreement is over the manner of resistance?

I don't think marriage should be defended or defined by the gov't.  I don't think it's my business if my non-believing neighbors are gay.  If my Christians friends are having issues with this area, or any, it is my place to offer input according to my beliefs.   However, my beliefs are not relevant to society at large, only fellow believers.  Additionally, I do not think it is "ok" to pass laws which reflect Christian morality beyond those which prevent people being victimized (objectively).  Doing such opens us up to losing the majority, and being subjected to opposing belief systems.....the baptism point demonstrates this.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 1, 2013)

Madman said:


> I'm for the return of "boy's town".



Ok, I'm totally lost now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

What are the biblical rules or requiremnets for who we witness to?
Do we only witness if the Holy Spirit guides us? Do we need to go door to door? How many people load up and go into a rough neighborhood? Do we wait outside gay nightclubs? Do we go in?
Can Gays come to the Church for five Sundays or ten Sundays before repenting? Can they sit together or should their partner sit on a different pew? How many would welcome them if they were truly trying to repent?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 1, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> You say that and hopefully we don't but Christians in general do. I guess I feel more like JB does on Homosexuality. I know it is a sin but I think it's way overblown.
> We've got enough really bad sins among ourselves as Christians to worry about first. There is nothing wrong with telling gay people it is a sin but stop by the buffet  at Golden Corral and witness to the glutton. Tell the preacher to quit gossiping. I've noticed preachers do that a lot. Do a Harper Valley PTA routine before going after the Gay person.



Again, you're making excuses to ignore one sin in light of all the others.  Where do you find the justification to do so in the Bible?  You won't, but what you will find is the exact opposite.  Then why are you doing it?  I don't understand?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 1, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> What are the biblical rules or requiremnets for who we witness to?
> Do we only witness if the Holy Spirit guides us? Do we need to go door to door? How many people load up and go into a rough neighborhood? Do we wait outside gay nightclubs? Do we go in?
> Can Gays come to the Church for five Sundays or ten Sundays before repenting? Can they sit together or should their partner sit on a different pew? How many would welcome them if they were truly trying to repent?



You should know the answers to these questions if you are a mature believer.
1) you don't need rules and requirements.  It's done out of love
2)The question to ask is "Should we seeks the HSs guidance before witnessing?"  Yes
3)Yes you should
4) I do, and my family does.  What does "rough neighborhood" have to do with anything.  The only reason you shouldn't be there is if they are all saved or its empty.  You think Jesus would start his ministry today in Beverly Hills or Harlem.
5)As far as night clubs go, I don't suggest it.  People there are not going to be receptive to the Gospel.  They are in the act of actively shopping for evil.  
6)Gays in the pews?  Best place for them.  The more times the better.  Who cares where they sit.  The point is they are there for answers.  Same with drunks, drug users, you and me.
7)Everyone should.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Who do I rubuke in light of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13?


JB, the context is church discipline. We are not to discipline those who are not among us. If Paul was saying not to judge(evaluate) unbelievers, he already violated that in referring to them as fornicators. To "judge outside of the church" would include disciplinary action.

When we judge, we are not to judge inaccurately or hypocritically.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 1, 2013)

Several things came to mind as I scanned (no, I didn't read every post) through this thread.

Before that though, I would direct all to read Micah 6:8.

1. Does keeping silent about sin, any sin, constitute keeping our "light under a basket? We have the Hope of the world, yet we withhold it from those who most need Him. Do we just omit the simple fact that some things are detestable to a holy God? Scripture openly and consistently condemns sexual sin to a greater degree than other sins because of the very nature of such actions..... taking sin into our own bodies while defiling the other party or parties, too.  

2. Is it loving to see someone heading over a precipice to certain death and not warn them? 

3. Is it scriptural to compartmentalize our faith in Christ from the secular world in which we live? Followers of Christ one minute and secular "realists" the next? I can't see where God's perspective of our relationship to Him allows us the opportunity to set aside those things we find difficult, unpleasant, or painful because someone might take offense. For the most part, we have no concept of what some have suffered for the truth God has given. John, cousin of Jesus and known as John the Baptist, blasted the incestuous and adulterous relationship between Herod Antipas and Herodias, after ditching her husband, Phillip. Was beheaded, as I am told. There are so many passages that illustrate the timid and uncommitted, who missed a king's wedding banquet or who were dismissed as unworthy of be counted as disciples. You get the idea.

In closing, JB0704, I would suggest that you are in error, not through a desire to take the easy way out, but because the depth of the subject is far deeper and more serious than can be grasped by a cursory examination. I urge you to look deeper into this matter. You may have missed something. Happens to me all the time and God keeps telling me to dig deeper.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, you're making excuses to ignore one sin in light of all the others.  Where do you find the justification to do so in the Bible?  You won't, but what you will find is the exact opposite.  Then why are you doing it?  I don't understand?



Actually that was the point of my post. I'm not ignoring gay sex. It's just as wrong as any other form of fornication. But Christians tend to not look at adultery or unnatural hetero sex acts as aggressively as gay sex.
We as Christians have far more sins that really truly affect  us than gay sex. Why don't we reprimand the unrepentant income tax cheater as we do homosexuals? We need to worry about sins that affect us personally like lust, pride, envy, unforgiveness, hatred, anger, not helping people, etc. REAL sins that we do, not murder or gay sex.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

I would like to reiterate that homosexuality is a sin. To some Christians a gay person could be saved, repent, backslide and never lose their salvation. 
Or is this the one sin that you don't get a "free grace card" for? God only gives those to hetero cheaters, adulterers, or gamblers. They all keep trying but they just can't get over their sins. To some repentance is a LIFETIME event.
Come to think of it I can't get over my repeatable sins either and I don't believe in OSAS. I just keep repenting and hope it works. I do hate that I keep sinning and feel truly guilty when I sin. I hope free grace is enough.
Do OSAS's look the other way for certain equal sins? We are all trying to repent. The gossipers and the repeat income tax cheaters alike.


----------



## Israel (Jul 1, 2013)

Do whatever He tells you.

In GT's post, above...if you care for folks headed off a cliff...you may just have to lay down in front of them, and be a speed bump...some may come back to see how much damage they've done.

You wanna tell people they are going to - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - for being evil...mostly what I see is attempting any sort of intercourse at all with someone you don't really care about...is just about as evil as it gets.

When God showed me I loved my soapbox a little (OK, a lot) more than I really cared for the souls I thought I was addressing...well...basically I believe you can understand what was said...to me.
I keep hearing this over and over...can't seem to escape it...especially when I am like a dog on a trail on the tail of the "evil"...if you can't show them the better way...in yourself...of what the power of God's love can do...better stop and pray...for you are already a prey. And you been caught.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You should know the answers to these questions if you are a mature believer.
> 1) you don't need rules and requirements.  It's done out of love
> 2)The question to ask is "Should we seeks the HSs guidance before witnessing?"  Yes
> 3)Yes you should
> ...



I'm not a mature believer so I do need help. We might be talking about two different topics, witnessing & reputing sinners. This is probably more in line with the OP.
Witnessing has many avenues one being witnessing by example. If door to door gets more stars in our crowns then the JW's will have a heavy crown. 
Gemcgrew's witness was a special witness called by God to witness directly to him even having knowledge of secrets. That would take a special gift from the Holy Spirit.
Reputing sins of others especially unbelievers might be totally different and might not be a requirement.
That was the initial topic and I do need guidance with verses on reputing sins of others.
If that is a requirement we're all gonna be very busy. It'll take me a couple of weeks with my own family.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 1, 2013)

Israel said:


> Do whatever He tells you.
> 
> In GT's post, above...if you care for folks headed off a cliff...you may just have to lay down in front of them, and be a speed bump...some may come back to see how much damage they've done.
> 
> ...



It's amazing how much of Christianity is spiritual and what's in our hearts yet we try to make it something else.
Your quote on intercourse is what brought me to say that. 
We all know right from wrong. This is supposedly a gift to the whole world even natives who've never heard the word of God. I don't need a written Law to tell me cheating on my wife is a sin. It is written on my heart.


----------



## Israel (Jul 1, 2013)

Yeah. 
I hope you understand that, and I trust you do...that there are many ways for us to have intercourse.
Me trying to penetrate your consciousness with anything but the love of God, and salvation through Jesus Christ...well...it's just me poking around where I got no business. Just for fun. I don't like the children I create that way.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 1, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Gemcgrew's witness was a special witness called by God to witness directly to him even having knowledge of secrets. That would take a special gift from the Holy Spirit.


Art, This man proclaimed the Gospel and proclaimed it with authority. The Holy Spirit applied it to my heart. The Holy Spirit revealed me to me. It did not have the same effect on others.

He does not know how the Lord used him in my life. He was a missionary for several years in the remote villages of Mexico. He raised his family there, while preaching and establishing local assemblies. He moved back to Texas and held meetings in garages. Eventually a church was built. He knocked on my door. He cared. He is what some refer to as a "Sovereign Grace" preacher. He is a Calvinist.

I always find it somewhat amusing when folks tell me "if you really believed what you claim to believe, you wouldn't witness" and "why bother". Isn't it ironic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 2, 2013)

gtparts said:


> Several things came to mind as I scanned (no, I didn't read every post) through this thread.
> 
> Before that though, I would direct all to read Micah 6:8.
> 
> ...




Well said


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 2, 2013)

Good morning, everybody 



gemcgrew said:


> JB, the context is church discipline. We are not to discipline those who are not among us. If Paul was saying not to judge(evaluate) unbelievers, he already violated that in referring to them as fornicators. To "judge outside of the church" would include disciplinary action.



What action did he take beyond assigning a label to the activities?  The point is not to avoid calling it for what it is, but, rather, figuring out what action is appropriate for the Christian.  Do we hold a gun to somebody's head while saying "Christ is love, repent?"  No.  However, evertyhing accomplished through government is done so at the point of a gun.

Morality is not accomplished that way.



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> 1. Does keeping silent about sin, any sin, constitute keeping our "light under a basket? We have the Hope of the world, yet we withhold it from those who most need Him. Do we just omit the simple fact that some things are detestable to a holy God? Scripture openly and consistently condemns sexual sin to a greater degree than other sins because of the very nature of such actions..... taking sin into our own bodies while defiling the other party or parties, too.



I see what you are saying, but we are discussing what action is appropriate.  There is no quarrell with proclaiming truth. 

I think one nuance of this debate has to be clarified that there is a difference between politics and religion.  I can believe something is wrong religiously, but politically, recognize that in order for me to be free, the next guy must be also.  Which means I CANNOT force my faith/beliefs through the vote.  



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> 2. Is it loving to see someone heading over a precipice to certain death and not warn them?



No.  But, as I stated previously in this thread, people will resist force.  The gospel is the message.  Until it is accepted, the rest is irrelevant.  "Sin" doesn't matter to the individual who does not believe in it. 



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> 3. Is it scriptural to compartmentalize our faith in Christ from the secular world in which we live? Followers of Christ one minute and secular "realists" the next?



We are to be seperate from the world, yes.  However, I clarified above that my beliefs cannot be forced.  I will be in the minority one day, and I want to remain free when that happens.  In order to do so, I must recognize the freedoms of all belief systems......even those I disagree with.



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> I can't see where God's perspective of our relationship to Him allows us the opportunity to set aside those things we find difficult, unpleasant, or painful because someone might take offense.



It's not about offense.  It's about actually doing good instead of beating our heads against a wall trying to force submission from an unwilling population.  Again, the gospel is the mesage.  Grace, love, redemption....regardless of the action, person, or crime.

I am a hypocrit.  I am a sinner.  I have done an awful lot of bad stuff in my life.  I am a Christian.  What gives me hope?  It's not that I believe because I was bad, I believe because the gospel is good.



			
				gtparts said:
			
		

> In closing, JB0704, I would suggest that you are in error, not through a desire to take the easy way out, but because the depth of the subject is far deeper and more serious than can be grasped by a cursory examination. I urge you to look deeper into this matter. You may have missed something. Happens to me all the time and God keeps telling me to dig deeper.



I appreciate your syaing that, and thanks for the perspective.  I hope I have clarified above some of the perceptions.  If not, I hope to continue the dialogue.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 2, 2013)

"Borrowed" from the political forum......just some perspective.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-30/putin-signs-law-banning-gay-propaganda-among-children.html



I you actually read the article, it's not as bad as it seems.  He's just stopping folks from talking to kids about it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What action did he take beyond assigning a label to the activities?  The point is not to avoid calling it for what it is, but, rather, figuring out what action is appropriate for the Christian.  Do we hold a gun to somebody's head while saying "Christ is love, repent?"  No.  However, evertyhing accomplished through government is done so at the point of a gun.
> 
> Morality is not accomplished that way.


I think we have left our original discussion... entirely.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 2, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> I think we have left our original discussion... entirely.



As is often the case on this board.  But, I am enjoying the discussion.  If you would prefer to reorient to the OP, I can do that too.

I was informed I was uniformed for not caring what people do in their homes.  That is a statement of a political position, as it was made in the political forum.  There are many variables to the statement, which is why I brought it up here.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I was informed I was uniformed for not caring what people do in their homes.  That is a statement of a political position, as it was made in the political forum.  There are many variables to the statement, which is why I brought it up here.


JB, we would not be having this discussion, had you not invoked the title of "Christian". When you did that, you left the "political context" of your position... IMO.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 2, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> JB, we would not be having this discussion, had you not invoked the title of "Christian". When you did that, you left the "political context" of your position... IMO.



Yes, I did.  But, I have spent this entire thread explaining why a "Christian" should not use the government to advance their beliefs on others.  In the political forum, I have been very consistent in stating that I think the gov't should not recognize any marriages.  Also, I have been consistent in stating I am a Christian.  From a political perspective, I don't care what a person does in their home.  It's not my business.  If they come to my house, declare their gayness, and ask my opinion on the matter, I will explain I am a Christian and believe accordingly.

My political position has to do with my faith.  I don't want alternative morality forced on me, so I won't do the same to others....I can't.  If I do, then neither party is free.  Forced morality is not morality at all.  Nothing is accomplished by such action.

I am having difficulty understanding where I am missing the point here.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 2, 2013)

One day many years ago it was revealed to me that I am no longer a citizen of this great nation, but am indeed a citizen of God's holy kingdom.  It is in God that my true allegiance lies.

The homosexual's activities is no longer what concerns me, it is the homosexual's opportunity to find true life in Christ that concerns me.  It isn't 'justice' that I seek for the murderer, it's that the murderer might find grace and new birth in Christ.

As an American I seek to vote with God's great influence in my life.  I encourage other Christians to vote with the same motivation.  That's all.

Sunday night, I had a "heated" conversation with a lady who says she expects me to be teaching people of the congregation about political matters that affect Christ's church in America.
I explained that political matters of America shouldn't affect the church here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    She disagreed.

This nation may self-destruct and collapse from within.
Christ's church will stand strong.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 2, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> The homosexual's activities is no longer what concerns me, it is the homosexual's opportunity to find true life in Christ that concerns me.



Somehow, it always sounds better when a preacher says it.


----------



## Israel (Jul 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, I did.  But, I have spent this entire thread explaining why a "Christian" should not use the government to advance their beliefs on others.  In the political forum, I have been very consistent in stating that I think the gov't should not recognize any marriages.  Also, I have been consistent in stating I am a Christian.  From a political perspective, I don't care what a person does in their home.  It's not my business.  If they come to my house, declare their gayness, and ask my opinion on the matter, I will explain I am a Christian and believe accordingly.
> 
> My political position has to do with my faith.  I don't want alternative morality forced on me, so I won't do the same to others....I can't.  If I do, then neither party is free.  Forced morality is not morality at all.  Nothing is accomplished by such action.
> 
> I am having difficulty understanding where I am missing the point here.



Here is a point at which the scriptures are not inadequate to address...but...until it is recognized and understood...all discussion on the topic remains moot.

The VOTE. The ability to politically agitate for change. For the individual to "seek" to influence others with a right...really never guaranteed by God...at all.
Either our light is our sole influence...or we may be found declaring we have rights to which the Lord may say "really?"
Whence this right? Oh...when a bunch of men decided they could rebel against the authority of a King (by force of arms and imposition of death)? And by that rebellion..."establish their own" domain?

Surely the scriptures mention the "christians" prescribed attitude toward Kings, yet I find not one recommending insurrection, rebellion, killing of his enlisted authorities...regardless of what injustices are either practiced, imagined...or just "burdensome".

Perhaps a bit fundamental to consider.
Really?
It is not that one need judge those who have gone before and in their best attempts (perhaps) stand before the righteous judge of all for themselves...but the simple recognition...law provokes wrath.
And even the best attempt of man...always leave him resorting to law to seek to control what he cannot approve...and always...regardless of its origins...provokes wrath...and by that restriction...provokes rebellion.
You need to see more of sin? Create more laws against what you believe it is.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 2, 2013)

Israel said:


> Whence this right? Oh...when a bunch of men decided they could rebel against the authority of a King (by force of arms and imposition of death)? And by that rebellion..."establish their own" domain?



The American Revolution appears to be in direct conflict with scriptural teachings.

However, the philosophical point remains that the vote represents force, and using it to advance a personal morality tends to go against what I believe in about our faith.....it must be chosen (or given, depending on one's predes position).



Israel said:


> You need to see more of sin? Create more laws against what you believe it is.



Perhaps I am missing your point, Israel, but doesn't that also support what I am saying about using law to advance morality?

There is clear scriptural teachings instructing people to submit to ruling authorities.  However, in our republic, we are those authorities, and we submit each other to our whims......

I don't want to be submitted to "theirs," so I will not force them to submit to "mine."  

It's a "do unto other's" thing.


----------



## Israel (Jul 2, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The American Revolution appears to be in direct conflict with scriptural teachings.
> 
> However, the philosophical point remains that the vote represents force, and using it to advance a personal morality tends to go against what I believe in about our faith.....it must be chosen (or given, depending on one's predes position).
> 
> ...


Sorry, you are not missing my point at all. At the end I wasn't addressing you in particular...by the time I reach the conclusion, I'm headed for the fly on the warning track in left field.

Since we, of all people, should know that law does nothing to restrain the impulses of the flesh...and rather indeed provokes them, or, just as bad...promotes the conception that if one has the power to enforce one's good intentions...then one must be a good person.

Although it's true, the Lord has allowed men the concession of governing themselves..but what do we again...(of all men) see continually if we have the slightest bit of discernment and enlightenment...men cannot even keep "their own" laws.
Therefore God has every right to sit in judgment of us...for at all points...we prove ourselves lawbreakers.

If I understood GT correctly, he was less speaking from a place of "enforcement"...as from warning. To use whatever liberty we may yet enjoy amongst men should never be compromised in a fear that if used to the offense of others...it may at some later date be denied us. 
Indeed his example of John speaking out against Herod's behavior could very well be an example to us...for us...of a righteous boldness. 
But here is something we don't see at all in that...John going door to door, or synagogue to synagogue  saying "c'mon...let's all get together and take our torches and  pitchforks up to Herod's palace and condemn him".
No...he spoke of what he was convicted was the truth in the situation...very much seemingly unconcerned with whether any agreed, disagreed, or thought him a crazy locust eater. Of course...we know where his exercise of "free speech" got him. 

And he probably had a very reasonable expectation that "speaking truth to power"...rarely brings anything but a response...by that power...to preserve itself. Unless God has prepared hearts for repentance.
But he, as we , should be unconcerned with anything but the message we have received...not "how" "whether" or "should I gather a greater number of folks with me to make this a little more 'effective'..."

Truth alone is power.
And as we come to understand "the way" "the truth" the life"...we also discover our previous inclinations to wonder "what will those others do" or "shouldn't "we all" be doing this thing of which I am convinced is the way of righteousness"...for perhaps we have heard the Lord ask us...without regret...without pleading...without fear at all in him "will you leave also?".
Alone, or in a troop...Jesus stands. 
And he alone is able to free us to respond...to stand with him...or leave.
And in any and every situation in which we are given to see him standing...either for...or against anything...we are free to speak for him...when we stand...with him.
And for each man...according to his conscience, the standing with...or the leaving will be defined by his revelation of the Christ.

At the same time the Lord can reveal himself to one as shouting from the rooftops...to another man he is revealed as a sheep before its shearers...dumb.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 3, 2013)

Israel said:


> Here is a point at which the scriptures are not inadequate to address...but...until it is recognized and understood...all discussion on the topic remains moot.
> 
> The VOTE. The ability to politically agitate for change. For the individual to "seek" to influence others with a right...really never guaranteed by God...at all.
> Either our light is our sole influence...or we may be found declaring we have rights to which the Lord may say "really?"
> ...



I have something to say. I don't know how to say it. I am haunted.

I think my Lord gave his law in order to teach. I think it says so in Exodus. And I think it is in the heart of man to use the law to show up sin or transgression and he thinks this is the lesson.  I think this is self evident. The protector of the Kingdom is a soldier, a conquorer of sin, a christian Ephriam, I think this is evident. But is this God's lesson, is it good christianity?

But what is the purpose of the law for God? To teach man to sin? I think not. Now I am not at all one to speak for my Lord. No. But I am haunted by my simple relationship with Him, that the law's purpose, according to the rightieousness of my Lord, is to champion justice.

In our hearts that the law points to sin because we are as Ephraim, the warrior who conquored Canaan and rid it of the sinfull, and yet as we know to Ephraim now my Lord is silent. He is now to Ephraim but a shade tree. Ephraim the warrior whom God used is now in his borders...and does not know what to do with himself, especially regards that which is beyond the lines of his borders....

Ephraims  we still are him, warriors of sin,  and only will the Lord speak to us again when we know that the purpose of the law is justice and that this is plain speaking and visibly fullfilled in Christ. What Ephraims needs to be is a prophet now ( your sons will prophecy).

In the mean time God is our silent tree, his branches waving silently in the wind, we are safe for his shade. We still see the lesson is the law and sin, He sees our lesson is justice. Ephriam is in recess. The teaching soon will resume. Perhaps?

-------------------


Hosea 14:7-9

King James Version (KJV)


7 They that dwell under his shadow shall return; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine: the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon.

8 Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found.

9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 3, 2013)

Israel, I follow the point now.  Thank-you for clarifying.  

With this one particular subject, there seems to be clear lines drawn as to who's side one is on.  Those of us who tend to have a "liberal" perspective when it comes to social freedoms are often thought of as "calling evil good."  That is not the case.....at all.  

Politically, I am "liberal" when it comes to personal freedoms because I want as much as I can get (freedom), so I have to make that position apply to others as well, even those who I believe are "wrong."  It's not my place to take from them what I want for me.  If I want to people to leave me alone, I have to leave them alone......"not care."  

Spiritually, Inside the faith is a different subject.  While I have great issue with the manner in which sin is rebuked (very uneven), I recognize this is a function of faith.  I tend to avoid this unless I am directly asked because I am terrified of going beyond my scope of responsibility.  What am I not seeing in my own life?  Am I qualified to make such a judgement?  These are personal questions that people don't ask enough.  We all want to grab the pitchforks and run the "sinners" out, but we very rarely sit down and ask "do I gossip?"  We are all guilty to some extent, and each rebuke would be more effective in such a context.

That's not calling evil good.  I am not saying the church should be performing gay marriages any time soon.  I am just saying the gov't has no place preventing them.  Very big difference.


----------



## formula1 (Jul 3, 2013)

*Re:*

Thoughts after reading these posts:

No one is ever free outside of the gift of Jesus Christ that set men free.  Earthly freedom is very deceptive in the way it feels and is applied. It feels so right and my way is justified. But is it?

There is one thing common to all peoples, that they will stand before the judge and face His sentence without comment. His judgement will be final without an Advocate!

Christians should be about the business of spreading the Gospel and making disciples.  Every stance taken and every word spoken should be for this purpose.  We who are redeemed, of all people, should know just how badly others need Christ.  As a fireman who runs into the flame or the Marine who runs to the battle, so we should run to those who need Him.

Yet we must remember that the cry should be to 'Come Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues'(Rev 18:4). Those who hear will come!


----------



## Israel (Jul 3, 2013)

Walking circumspectly, not allowing our liberty to become a stumbling block to others, neither taking for granted that what the Lord may grant toward us in our "witness" at his discretion in one situation, may be forbidden us in another...is a path we learn daily...and continually. 

It is indeed the difference between walking with a person who knows the precise measures needed to break bonds, and my predilection to formula-ize everything. I am always being "won" away from cruise control, in one sense...to being awake, alive, aware...with purpose.
As addressed severally in the posts above and by JB in particular...I am too easily given to correction...the fixing of things (usually I discover, to my own approval), and a meddlesome bent I do not see in the Lord, ever. 
As I said, and am reproved for not living up to, is my oft discovery that I relate less of true care, and a desire to be shown right. I see in the Lord every word, a blessing, every instruction a pleading, every reproof and rebuke, a healing promised...because these were spoken by him who truly counted himself dead to his own will...finally plainly shown to us in the cross.

"Keep yourselves IN the love of God"...perhaps especially when iniquity seems abounding...the manifest provocations against what we consider the righteousness of God abound.

I often suffer a form of self righteous amnesia...as though I proceeded fully formed in all things...and forget anything I have I received...and anything I think I know, can just as easily condemn me...when the heart that has purposed mercy to triumph over judgment...is abused.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 3, 2013)

formula1 said:


> Thoughts after reading these posts:
> 
> No one is ever free outside of the gift of Jesus Christ that set men free.  Earthly freedom is very deceptive in the way it feels and is applied. It feels so right and my way is justified. But is it?
> 
> ...



I agree.  The freedom I seek should not be a national freedom, but a freedom from the things of the nation and the physical.
I can be nonjudgmental, but I cannot blindly aid another to do what I know to be ungodly.
.


----------



## gtparts (Jul 4, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Actually that was the point of my post. I'm not ignoring gay sex. It's just as wrong as any other form of fornication. But Christians tend to not look at adultery or unnatural hetero sex acts as aggressively as gay sex.
> We as Christians have far more sins that really truly affect  us than gay sex. Why don't we reprimand the unrepentant income tax cheater as we do homosexuals? We need to worry about sins that affect us personally like lust, pride, envy, unforgiveness, hatred, anger, not helping people, etc. REAL sins that we do, not murder or gay sex.



Let's face it. We are challenged or enticed by the messages shoved (dangled?) at us. Pre-marital and extra marital are the more obvious, yet subtle forms of sexual sin (dare I say "more tolerated"). The unnatural sex is still mostly concealed from the general public, but slang references are becoming common in all mediums of expression.... the screenwriters'/writers'/playwrites' "art" of the _double entendre_. 
Only gay sex is being overtly shoved down the thr.... well, there is an example. Is it any wonder that those who are lost or lacking in spiritual maturity and who oppose such behavior regardless of their motivation, respond with rebukes. The question may well be, "Who is the offender?". I should think both. The gay, for thinking it right to confront non-gays in the hostile and in-your-face way that encourages retaliation. The straight, for the retaliation and for seeking to repress gays simply because they're gay.

I don't flaunt my sexual activities publicly. It isn't in the best interest of anyone. Our culture (for the most part) still regards such activity as private behavior and repulsive or unfit for public display.

So it should be with some gay sexuality. The place for such is in the privacy and seclusion of ones bedroom. Or at least, out of public view.

Dined at a restaurant in Decatur several weeks back. Patrons included mixed couples (m/f, f/f, and m/m). While some showed interest, even affection for their companion, no one seemed to take note or care. Other than holding hands while entering or leaving, no one made a spectacle of themselves. Dinner was delicious, my company was pleasant, and everyone seemed content to keep their sexual feelings (if any) to them selves. It is called civility.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 4, 2013)

gtparts said:


> So it should be with some gay sexuality. The place for such is in the privacy and seclusion of ones bedroom. Or at least, out of public view.
> 
> Dined at a restaurant in Decatur several weeks back. Patrons included mixed couples (m/f, f/f, and m/m). While some showed interest, even affection for their companion, no one seemed to take note or care. Other than holding hands while entering or leaving, no one made a spectacle of themselves. Dinner was delicious, my company was pleasant, and everyone seemed content to keep their sexual feelings (if any) to them selves. It is called civility



Good post.  I think one major flaw in the gay community is the over reaction which leads to the "in your face" mentality.  This is the same with any counter culture movement.  The more abrasive it becomes, the more folks resist recognizing it.

Then again, I often see truckers with mud flaps that have the outlines of nude women on them.  People of all persuasions lack dignity.

Like you, I think these things are private.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2013)

Decatur does have a very eclectic blend of people. We ate in an Indian restaurant and were probably the only Christians in there. We didn't stand up and pray out loud to our God. I guess some would say we should have. I see extremes in everything. Take that abortion topic/video in the political forum. I felt like both sides were sick. We have radicals on both sides of issues.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2013)

I do understand the flaunting but why the acceptance of unmarried sex and unnatural sex acts among heterosexuals. How did the acceptance of these sneak into our society? We do watch movies and television with the double entendres. We listen to cheating songs. 
The unmarried couple living together doesn't get the looks the gay couple get even though we know they are having sex. Most extended Christian families have unmarried couples that live together attend family functions without ridicule yet the gay couple is frowned upon. This double standard is what upsets me and others.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2013)

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Paul is warning that many were guilty of worshipping man instead of God and therefore was becoming an idol. The love for that idol is an unnatural love called lust. Some men and women allowed sex to become their god (vile affections) and the result is turning the natural love for sex into something unnatural (verse 26). Paul does not specify what that unnatural sexual conduct is, but it is something not natural for those that have made sex their God. He could have been talking about both the male and female sex goddess prostitutes in the Temple like he was clearly discussing in 1 Cor. For homosexuals this part of the passage should not apply. To a Christian, God is first in their lives and not sex so they would not fall under this condemnation.
This would be straight couples performing unnatural sex acts. It wouldn't be unnatural for a gay person to have sex with another gay person. It would be unnatural for a gay person to have sex with a straight person. Either way the key is the false idol and the lust. 
HOWEVER, the issue is that Paul describes men as naturally preferring women. For men whose natural preference is for women, to have sex with a man would violate this, as in the case of pederasty. It is also interesting to note that these men must "katergazomai" the act of sex with other man. In Greek this means extreme energy is required to accomplish the deed referred to. This would also support the view that it was heterosexual males having  intercourse with heterosexual males such as to degrade those captured in battle which was a common practice under pederasty. For a gay male, clearly this extreme energy is not required so it does not appear to have that meaning. Many heterosexual couples also enjoy unnatural sex acts, which is naturally enjoyable to them, not just to homosexuals. 
From this same understanding of Paul's use of the term "natural" there are many churches who would condemn a man whose hair is too long, based on 1 Cor 11:14. Or "natural" can mean what is customarily observed (cp. Romans 11:24). Certainly in Paul's day the usual preference of people was for the opposite sex. It appears more and more that homosexuality is a redundant characteristic of birth just as is being left-handed. If heterosexuality is the norm, that doesn't mean those naturally born homosexual are any less blessed by God. 
 Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" -- a group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to. He gives a laundry list of "sins" and the Christians are probably going "yeh, yeh, those bad people, we are better". Then, after having caught them in their judgementalism, he says "by judging, you pass judgement on yourself." By using a pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, in effect-GOTCHA! Do not judge! He said, "God shows no partiality" (2:11).

Romans 1 is being misused today to bash homosexuality much as the Jewish and Greek Christians were bashing each other in his day. He did not write Chapter 1 to be used apart from Chapter 2. His point was not to reinforce judgementalism but to say stop judging. 

http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 4, 2013)

Physiologically God has given the male and female organs for sex and reproduction and to abuse the functions of these is tantamount to an act against nature. Anything else is unnatural sex.
We can't call gays on unnatural sex if hetero Christians do it to. Oh by the way pierced ears and tattoos are unnatural.
Pederasty or being on the "down low" is sinful. Heterosexual men having unnatural sex.


----------



## Israel (Jul 6, 2013)

There is a militancy mentioned that is at the heart of the matter.
The flaunting of sin really IS something quite apart from sins committed in ignorance...the "glorying in that of which one should be ashamed" quite a bit apart from losing your temper when cut off on the road.

All sin is an offense against God's righteousness, and there is never any excuse...for any...the sacrifice has been made to free us from the lusts of the flesh...whether they be sexual or a matter of temperament in nature.
But...there is a reason certain things are presented so stridently, a reason that the flaunting and "in your face attitude" is plainly manifest.

Destroying the image and likeness of God from among men is always the evil ones primary concern. There is a reason he seeks to undermine anything that speaks to him of God's goodness, God's purpose, God's manifest presence among men...and that is because it speaks to his torment. He is tormented by beholding any order at all, for in his chaotic fury, he seeks relief...from what he knows awaits in the outworking of "all things being put in order"...the rebel will take his place under the feet of all creation...as even now he feels the Lord's foot firmly across his head. "Have you come to torment us before the time?" they asked.
They know what awaits..."woe to you who DWELL upon the earth, for the devil has come to you having great fury, knowing that his time is short".

It is no matter of accident that the usurping of God's order in the most fundamental of relationships for the purposes of elevating physical pleasures is abounding... "the head of every man is Christ, the man is the head of "the" woman, and the head of Christ is God..."

Do you wonder about the stridency of many women today? (I know a man who "took" his wife's last name...the prevalent keeping of many women of their "own" last names in marriage) "We will eat our own bread" comes to mind...
And now the elevation...not only of homosexual predilections to equality...but in many cases "Superiority" of relationship.

Christ relationship to his church is not a metaphor...it IS the true marriage that WE exercise as the metaphor. "That" order...of a man and a woman in relationship...the fitting, the deposit of seed to produce life in a nurturing womb...is a manifestation of REALITY...especially the particular reality of God's relationship to mankind through Jesus Christ.

Behold the bridegroom...is neither poetic, nor symbolic...it is the truth of God's administration of life to mankind, and wise are the virgins whose eye is single for Him...for "out of their bellies shall flow rivers of living water".

The degrading here touches not at all the reality of the relationship...for...as he who glories...that glories only in the Lord...discovers...all things taking place after the flesh, religiously, politically, sociologically, even "philosophically"...in this realm...remain the outworking of a lie...devoted to by one who cannot abide the reality of the outcome inherent in the simplest of confessions...Jesus is Lord.
And the deceiver...is not.


----------



## leemckinney (Jul 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I made the following post in the political forum:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7905091&postcount=244
> 
> ...



Does the story of King Josiah shed any light on the use of laws against sin?  See IIKings 22:1 thru 23:30 and IIChronicles 34:1 thru 35:27.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 8, 2013)

leemckinney said:


> Does the story of King Josiah shed any light on the use of laws against sin?  See IIKings 22:1 thru 23:30 and IIChronicles 34:1 thru 35:27.



Without reading your context (I will after this post and adjust my response accordingly), a knee-jerk reaction indicates that OT actions (law) are not an applicable model under grace (Jesus).  For instance, the OT Jews lived in a theocracy, and morality was the law.  Jesus seems to pursue a different model in the NT (woman at the well, and the adulteress woman....and yes I know that the authenticity of that story is in question).


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 8, 2013)

One thing that is happening in our country is the issues under discussion are becoming more complicated.  Take, for instance, the homosexuality issue.

Those in front on the homosexual issue are not just asking us to "let us do what we want to do".  They're demanding that we (Christians) endorse their lifestyle... and publicly state that it is just as valid as "traditional marriage."

Since many advocate (wrongly so) that homosexuality is an inherited trait, it's receiving more and more support as a "minority"... and thus its receiving protection from the government under "civil rights".  As a result, government will likely be able to (one day) step in and tell religious institutions they can't speak against homosexuality.  As a result, OUR religious liberty and freedom of speech is going to be jeopardized.

When everything is rolled together, what you have is an issue that has become more than an issue (like say, the abortion issue).  This issue is more than right/wrong... it is something that carries with a threat to religious freedom that we hold dear to our hearts.

It's funny in America that many liberals say "religious folks shouldn't legislate morality".  Funny because they're doing the same thing... they want to legislate THEIR morality on everyone else when it comes to homosexuality.  The very disturbing thing for me is that if homosexual issues get pushed through using this process, what will be next?  I'm very concerned it's going to open Pandora's box.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Without reading your context (I will after this post and adjust my response accordingly), a knee-jerk reaction indicates that OT actions (law) are not an applicable model under grace (Jesus).  For instance, the OT Jews lived in a theocracy, and morality was the law.  Jesus seems to pursue a different model in the NT (woman at the well, and the adulteress woman....and yes I know that the authenticity of that story is in question).



JB's right here... the law of Moses was a theocracy (both religion and government was blended together).  As God's chosen race of people, He created the religious/social laws which governed the nation of Israel until captivity times (though many kings chose not to follow them).

Under Christ, there is no theocracy... just religion.  Realize when I say this I'm not saying our religious views cannot or should not influence government.  However, Jesus didn't seek to establish a kingdom which included the role of government in it.  

I believe a study of Romans 13 will show this to be true.  In the same passage, you'll see an example of how Christian values should affect someone living under the umbrella that government provides.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Without reading your context (I will after this post and adjust my response accordingly), a knee-jerk reaction indicates that OT actions (law) are not an applicable model under grace (Jesus).  For instance, the OT Jews lived in a theocracy, and morality was the law.  Jesus seems to pursue a different model in the NT (woman at the well, and the adulteress woman....and yes I know that the authenticity of that story is in question).



Starting at Mat. 5:21 Jesus gives us seven examples of law under grace.  Makes me wonder, do we have an example of theocracy under grace that we fail to recognize?

Could it be that Bama has pointed us in that direction?  Are there parallels between the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 13 culminating in Mat. 7:12 and Rm. 13:10?  Reliance on God is required, near the end of both passages.


----------



## leemckinney (Jul 8, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> JB's right here... the law of Moses was a theocracy (both religion and government was blended together).  As God's chosen race of people, He created the religious/social laws which governed the nation of Israel until captivity times (though many kings chose not to follow them).
> 
> Under Christ, there is no theocracy... just religion.  Realize when I say this I'm not saying our religious views cannot or should not influence government.  However, Jesus didn't seek to establish a kingdom which included the role of government in it.
> 
> I believe a study of Romans 13 will show this to be true.  In the same passage, you'll see an example of how Christian values should affect someone living under the umbrella that government provides.



It seems that both are you are referring to Mosaic Law.  This is not the context of what King Josiah did.


----------



## Israel (Jul 9, 2013)

It's learning that being in the world...but not of it...has more to teach than just "what can I do?"...but "what would you have me do?"


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 9, 2013)

Israel said:


> It's learning that being in the world...but not of it...has more to teach than just "what can I do?"...but "what would you have me do?"


----------



## pstrahin (Jul 9, 2013)

There is absolutely nothing Christian about anybody that supports or encourages homosexual relationships and same sex marriage.  If you read and understand the bible, you can clearly see that God will not allow those heathens to enter Heaven.  

Scientifically, just think about how the mans body and the woman's body are designed.  They fit together as intended.  If you can't understand that, then you are challenged to begin with.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 9, 2013)

pstrahin said:


> There is absolutely nothing Christian about anybody that supports or encourages homosexual relationships and same sex marriage.  If you read and understand the bible, you can clearly see that God will not allow those heathens to enter Heaven.
> 
> Scientifically, just think about how the mans body and the woman's body are designed.  They fit together as intended.  If you can't understand that, then you are challenged to begin with.



Will straight people who practice unnatural sex acts also be excluded from Heaven? They sometimes make their parts fit as not intended.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 9, 2013)

leemckinney said:


> It seems that both are you are referring to Mosaic Law.  This is not the context of what King Josiah did.



King Josiah lived and reigned during the time period the children of Israel were accountable to the law of Moses.  Their government at this time was supposed to be based on the principles found in the Law.  Evidence for this can be seen when the books of the law were found by Hezekiah... Josiah restored observance of the Passover. 

I realize that every king of Judah/Israel didn't follow the law during the reigns... but that doesn't imply they were not accountable to God for their transgression.  According to Colossians 2:14, the children of Israel were accountable to the law of Moses until Jesus died on the cross.  Thus, all Josiah did, he did under the umbrella of authority provided by the law of Moses.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 9, 2013)

hummerpoo said:


> Starting at Mat. 5:21 Jesus gives us seven examples of law under grace.  Makes me wonder, do we have an example of theocracy under grace that we fail to recognize?
> 
> Could it be that Bama has pointed us in that direction?  Are there parallels between the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 13 culminating in Mat. 7:12 and Rm. 13:10?  Reliance on God is required, near the end of both passages.



The "theocracy under grace" is that we obey the laws of the land in which we are a citizen.  When you look at both Christ's and Paul's teaching on the subject, Christians have a moral obligation to obey our government... even if we're not in agreement with everything it stands for.  Jesus told people to render taxes to Rome... even though there was much evil and wrongdoing supported/advanced through that particular government.

The only exceptions will be when government asks us to do something which contradicts Scripture.  Peter/John were living under the umbrella of the authority of the Sanhedrin Court (Acts 3-4).  However, when that court demanded that they stop speaking to people in the name of Christ, Peter /John answered, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."  Later, they would tell the same court, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

That's what I'm afraid is coming with the homosexual issue.  The government is going to tell churches "you can't speak out publicly against homosexuality... and if you do, you'll face government-led punishment".  It's happening in other places in the world and unless something veers off course, it's probably going to happen here.  The worst of it is that there will likely be other things following behind it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

Good converation happening here.



			
				pstrahin said:
			
		

> There is absolutely nothing Christian about anybody that supports or encourages homosexual relationships and same sex marriage.



I will agree with you on this point.  However, as I have tried very hard to articulate in this thread, I see a difference between supporting it, and refusing to use force to prevent it.  I view the vote as force, and I believe that an indivdual is no more or less moral if force prevents an action.  It is the heart which matters, right?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> That's what I'm afraid is coming with the homosexual issue.  The government is going to tell churches "you can't speak out publicly against homosexuality... and if you do, you'll face government-led punishment".  It's happening in other places in the world and unless something veers off course, it's probably going to happen here.  The worst of it is that there will likely be other things following behind it.



Under our system of government there is a dillema.  Such speech should not be prevented because of the 1a.  However, the same freedoms which allow our speech, also allow for speech which contradicts us.  Freedom must extend to all, or it extends to none.  Even those we might believe are "immoral."


----------



## pstrahin (Jul 9, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Will straight people who practice unnatural sex acts also be excluded from Heaven? They sometimes make their parts fit as not intended.



Yes.  Those freaks are sexually immoral.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

pstrahin said:


> Yes.  Those freaks are sexually immoral.



I think there is something in the NT which says all is good when inside a marriage.....will have to research a bit.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 9, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Under our system of government there is a dillema.  Such speech should not be prevented because of the 1a.  However, the same freedoms which allow our speech, also allow for speech which contradicts us.  Freedom must extend to all, or it extends to none.  Even those we might believe are "immoral."



True... but this movement is unlike other movements that religious groups have opposed in the past.  Take abortion for instance.  Most religious groups oppose abortion even though it's legal.  Proponents of abortion say "let women do what they want with their body".  To religious people, they say "leave us alone and let us do what we want."

The homosexuality agenda in America is more aggressive than this... they don't just want to have the right to do as they wish, but they want (1) government recognition as a legitimate marriage and (2) government to treat them as a group who's civil rights are being infringed upon.

Because of the second idea especially, that translates into this message - "we don't just want you to allow us to do as we wish, but we demand that you recognize it as being a model just as worthy as heterosexual arrangements... and if you don't, our government will punish you."  For anyone who's not studied this issue, you need to do so.  In this one issue, the rights of religious people to speak their beliefs is going to be threatened.  It's already happening in several other countries... and it will happen here if something isn't changed in the future!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 9, 2013)

The "Love of Money" agenda is a bigger threat to Christianity than government legal gay marriage. It's even accepted and pushed by some preachers.
When there are more Muslims in America will you be OK with the majority putting religion into legislature?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 9, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> True... but this movement is unlike other movements that religious groups have opposed in the past.  Take abortion for instance.  Most religious groups oppose abortion even though it's legal.  Proponents of abortion say "let women do what they want with their body".  To religious people, they say "leave us alone and let us do what we want."



I think we make a mistake when we turn abortion into a religious debate.  It is a simple human rights issue, where one person's right to personal domain is in conflict with another's right to life.  I believe a person's right to live is the most fundamental right of civilization.....so, abortion should be illegal, regardless of religious perspective.

Now, I think that woman should be free to do whatever she wants with her body.  But not free to take the life from another person (unborn in this scenario).

How the procedure was ever legalized is beyond me.  



Bama4me said:


> The homosexuality agenda in America is more aggressive than this... they don't just want to have the right to do as they wish, but they want (1) government recognition as a legitimate marriage and (2) government to treat them as a group who's civil rights are being infringed upon.



I understand your point.  I think the disconnect between us is that I do not think the gov't has any place recognizing any marriage.  I do not see how the gov't, which cannot choose sides on religious grounds, can avoid recognizing the union.  Next up has to be polygamy.....and then the whole thing becomes a huge mess because the gov't did something it has no business doing in the first place.




Bama4me said:


> Because of the second idea especially, that translates into this message - "we don't just want you to allow us to do as we wish, but we demand that you recognize it as being a model just as worthy as heterosexual arrangements... and if you don't, our government will punish you."  For anyone who's not studied this issue, you need to do so.  In this one issue, the rights of religious people to speak their beliefs is going to be threatened.  It's already happening in several other countries... and it will happen here if something isn't changed in the future!



I understand your point, and agree.  Again, this is because of over reach of the government.  Forced recognition is also forced morality.  Individuals and businesses are not free if the do not have freedom of association.  The market should determine who the winners and losers are.  Not the gov't.

As above, the argument is with the gov;t restricting freedoms.  Not adding to the gov'ts ability to restrict them.  If I am free to associate with whomever I choose, so are "you."  

Then, once we clear out the gov't, we can all live free, and choose our morality.  And us, as Christians, can focus on the "good news" message instead of focusing on the laws mandating adhereance to our sense of morality.  Those choices are much more effective when accepted freely, and not through coercion.


----------



## leemckinney (Jul 10, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> True... but this movement is unlike other movements that religious groups have opposed in the past.  Take abortion for instance.  Most religious groups oppose abortion even though it's legal.  Proponents of abortion say "let women do what they want with their body".  To religious people, they say "leave us alone and let us do what we want."
> 
> The homosexuality agenda in America is more aggressive than this... they don't just want to have the right to do as they wish, but they want (1) government recognition as a legitimate marriage and (2) government to treat them as a group who's civil rights are being infringed upon.
> 
> Because of the second idea especially, that translates into this message - "we don't just want you to allow us to do as we wish, but we demand that you recognize it as being a model just as worthy as heterosexual arrangements... and if you don't, our government will punish you."  For anyone who's not studied this issue, you need to do so.  In this one issue, the rights of religious people to speak their beliefs is going to be threatened.  It's already happening in several other countries... and it will happen here if something isn't changed in the future!


----------



## leemckinney (Jul 10, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> King Josiah lived and reigned during the time period the children of Israel were accountable to the law of Moses.  Their government at this time was supposed to be based on the principles found in the Law.  Evidence for this can be seen when the books of the law were found by Hezekiah... Josiah restored observance of the Passover.
> 
> I realize that every king of Judah/Israel didn't follow the law during the reigns... but that doesn't imply they were not accountable to God for their transgression.  According to Colossians 2:14, the children of Israel were accountable to the law of Moses until Jesus died on the cross.  Thus, all Josiah did, he did under the umbrella of authority provided by the law of Moses.



I agree that is was during the Law but does that mean we can disregard everything in the OT under that premise?  By "everything" I mean any instruction on morals given to Israel ?  If so, then we have to disregard the ten commandments.  One thing we do know for sure, when King Josiah died, Israel fell as a nation and disappeared from history as a nation until the 20th century.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 10, 2013)

leemckinney said:


> I agree that is was during the Law but does that mean we can disregard everything in the OT under that premise?  By "everything" I mean any instruction on morals given to Israel ?  If so, then we have to disregard the ten commandments.  One thing we do know for sure, when King Josiah died, Israel fell as a nation and disappeared from history as a nation until the 20th century.



Romans 15:4 states that we can learn from the OT. However, no principles in the law of Moses are valid for people today unless they are restated in the NT. Jesus nailed the law to the cross (Colossians 2:14) and the writer of Hebrews claimed it was obsolete (8:13).

In fact, had I been alive during the time when the law of Moses was in effect, I wouldn't have been accountable to it because I'm not a descendant of Abraham (Jew).  With that understanding, the Ten Commandments have no authority over me today... but I follow 9 of the 10 ideas today because they're restated in the NT.  The only one not restated is the Sabbath observance.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 10, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
> 
> Paul is warning that many were guilty of worshipping man instead of God and therefore was becoming an idol. The love for that idol is an unnatural love called lust. Some men and women allowed sex to become their god (vile affections) and the result is turning the natural love for sex into something unnatural (verse 26). Paul does not specify what that unnatural sexual conduct is, but it is something not natural for those that have made sex their God. He could have been talking about both the male and female sex goddess prostitutes in the Temple like he was clearly discussing in 1 Cor. For homosexuals this part of the passage should not apply. To a Christian, God is first in their lives and not sex so they would not fall under this condemnation.
> This would be straight couples performing unnatural sex acts. It wouldn't be unnatural for a gay person to have sex with another gay person. It would be unnatural for a gay person to have sex with a straight person. Either way the key is the false idol and the lust.
> ...



Wow... thought I had heard it all.  That's some serious twisting of Scripture right there.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 11, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Romans 15:4 states that we can learn from the OT. However, no principles in the law of Moses are valid for people today unless they are restated in the NT. Jesus nailed the law to the cross (Colossians 2:14) and the writer of Hebrews claimed it was obsolete (8:13).
> 
> In fact, had I been alive during the time when the law of Moses was in effect, I wouldn't have been accountable to it because I'm not a descendant of Abraham (Jew).  With that understanding, the Ten Commandments have no authority over me today... but I follow 9 of the 10 ideas today because they're restated in the NT.  The only one not restated is the Sabbath observance.



I believe scripture says otherwise (Rm. 4)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Wow... thought I had heard it all.  That's some serious twisting of Scripture right there.



Many passages are about individuals, churchs, cities & nations returning to a life of sin. They go hog wild in all sorts of evil deeds. It would be like a married man who started cheating on his wife and partying every night. Then he starts using drugs and gambling. Then before long he is so deep into a sinful lifestyle Satan has taken over his life. He might at that point even sleep with another man. His mind is totally depraved. 
This is an example of the stories in the Bible where people follow  sinful desires of their hearts. In this Romans story God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity. They went as far as worshipping idols. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
It's more than a couple of bad deeds. It's about idols and a terrible way of life.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

A spiritual person is guided by the Spirit of God. He will love his neighbor as himself. This person might be overcome by Satan and start living a life of sin & debauchery. 
It's more about what's in an individuals heart between that person and God. God and that person knows, we don't. God has tattooed his law on the hearts of every man. We all know right from wrong. We know in our own heart when we do something natural or unnatural. I really don't even need a book to know as my heart tells me. 
Being a Christian is about love not organized religion or who the government allows to marry.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Many passages are about individuals, churchs, cities & nations returning to a life of sin. They go hog wild in all sorts of evil deeds. It would be like a married man who started cheating on his wife and partying every night. Then he starts using drugs and gambling. Then before long he is so deep into a sinful lifestyle Satan has taken over his life. He might at that point even sleep with another man. His mind is totally depraved.
> This is an example of the stories in the Bible where people follow  sinful desires of their hearts. In this Romans story God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity. They went as far as worshipping idols. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
> It's more than a couple of bad deeds. It's about idols and a terrible way of life.



Sorry... don't buy the explanation.  Romans 1:26-27 is as clear of a picture as you can get of showing homosexuality is not acceptable to God.  It's "against nature"... "shameless acts"... something which leads to a "due penalty".  

And even if folks try to find a way around this passage, there's still 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Those practicing homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Some in the Corinthian church DID this... but they changed. 

In all three of the time periods of the bible, God condemned (s) homosexuality.  I've heard many of the arguments for and even looked into the "Queen James Version"... but no attempt man makes to try to justify this lifestyle by God's word can succeed.  A very dangerous warning is given in Romans 1:32 to all of us.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

hummerpoo said:


> I believe scripture says otherwise (Rm. 4)



Scripture claims that we are "spiritually" sons of Abraham through faith... not that we are physically descendants of Abraham.  The law of Moses was not in effect for people of all heritages... Deuteronomy 4:44-45 claims this law was for "the people of Israel".  In fact, it seemed to be a very popular source of boasting for the Jewish nation per Romans 2:17-18.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 11, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Sorry... don't buy the explanation.  Romans 1:26-27 is as clear of a picture as you can get of showing homosexuality is not acceptable to God.  It's "against nature"... "shameless acts"... something which leads to a "due penalty".
> 
> And even if folks try to find a way around this passage, there's still 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Those practicing homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Some in the Corinthian church DID this... but they changed.
> 
> In all three of the time periods of the bible, God condemned (s) homosexuality.  I've heard many of the arguments for and even looked into the "Queen James Version"... but no attempt man makes to try to justify this lifestyle by God's word can succeed.  A very dangerous warning is given in Romans 1:32 to all of us.



I have said this before on this forum, but, because I have friends who struggle mightily with this issue (and they do struggle against it), I searched for a Biblical "out," because, from a human perspective, I feel awful for them.  Such an out does not exist.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I have said this before on this forum, but, because I have friends who struggle mightily with this issue (and they do struggle against it), I searched for a Biblical "out," because, from a human perspective, I feel awful for them.  Such an out does not exist.



Well said... I too know many people who struggle with all kinds of things that the bible calls "sin"... and I'm included in that group.  "Human nature" usually leads to a desire to justify one's actions.  If we give in to that desire, we have done exactly what is mentioned in Romans 10:1-4... we're seeking to establish our own righteousness rather than submitting to God's righteousness.  In matters like these, I wish I could change what God says, but I don't have that freedom unless I'm willing to incur the penalty observed in Revelation 22:18-19.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Sorry... don't buy the explanation.  Romans 1:26-27 is as clear of a picture as you can get of showing homosexuality is not acceptable to God.  It's "against nature"... "shameless acts"... something which leads to a "due penalty".
> 
> And even if folks try to find a way around this passage, there's still 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Those practicing homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Some in the Corinthian church DID this... but they changed.
> 
> In all three of the time periods of the bible, God condemned (s) homosexuality.  I've heard many of the arguments for and even looked into the "Queen James Version"... but no attempt man makes to try to justify this lifestyle by God's word can succeed.  A very dangerous warning is given in Romans 1:32 to all of us.



Considering only about 10 % of society is gay those verses in Romans are pertaining to straight people who became evil. Doing unnnatural sex acts was just one of the many manifestions of their evilness. Idoltry was the main focus of their evil wickeds. Unnatural sex was just a part of their debauchery.
Romans 1:29  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
(how can one read those verses and assume it is just about being gay?)
Romans 1:32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
(does this verse let us know also that an envious or arrogant person deserve death? What about people who disobey their parents, do they deserve death?)
No that's not what this story is about. It's about people who are so evil they "invent ways of doing evil."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 would be better to use against gays than the above Romans verses. Even that list contains way more than gays as to who won't inherit the Kingdom of God. That list contains about half us Christians. OK all of us. Lucky for us if you read on in Corinthians you read about grace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

Point being out of a long list of evil sins people continue to isolate homosexuality form the list. they leave out cheating, lying, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, sexually immoral, idolaters, and adulterers.
In fact Paul starts out with just wrong doers. Then we fail to read about grace and forgiveness that takes care of that list.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

we should acknowledge the difficulty of interpreting into English the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai found at 1 Corinthians 6:9 without sensing an abandonment of proper Christian sexual ethics. 
Noted New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays explains that the "word malakoi is not a technical term meaning 'homosexuals' (no such term existed either in Greek, or in Hebrew), but it appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the 'passive' partners -- often young boys -- in homosexual activity."1 In this sense, then, the malakoi are not necessarily homosexual in orientation, or attraction, but are exploitively used for the gratification of another.
The arsenokoitai may refer to male to male sexual activity when one considers that its use in the Septuagint at Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, as well as in rabbinic texts, refers to homosexual intercourse.2 But both words -- malakoi and arsenokoitai respectively -- are plural masculine in the Greek text. One wonders why, then, only men are singled out in this proscription, since female to female sexual activity is explicitly named and condemned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Rom. 1:26).

One wonders, as well, if this particularity in the 1 Corinthians 6:9 text bears any weight contextually on the referents. Why, for example, did some English translators (noted above) choose to translate malakoi as prostitutes in lieu of effeminate?

http://www.classicalarminian.com/2012/11/malakoi-arsenokoitai-and-homosexual.html


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Point being out of a long list of evil sins people continue to isolate homosexuality form the list. they leave out cheating, lying, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, sexually immoral, idolaters, and adulterers.
> In fact Paul starts out with just wrong doers. Then we fail to read about grace and forgiveness that takes care of that list.



Not this person... you can't isolate one of those ideas from all the rest.  The key being in the text is that they WERE doing these things until they obeyed the gospel.  Grace indeed takes care of sin, but the sinner must be a person who's willing to submit to God's definition of "godly living" - not being guided by his/her personal desires any longer.

Romans 6:1ff clearly affirms that just because people are recipients of grace, they can't continue living lives of sin that were present before their conversion.  A practicing homosexual who has an attitude of "I'm going to practice this sin regardless of what God says" is not a person who is able to receive God's forgiveness.  JB used a term above that's important here - "struggle".  A practicing homosexual who is trying to break that tendency is one who can receive God's grace and forgiveness... we all are in that boat if we're Christians.  But notice 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "you were washed/sanctified/justified".  They had put to death the old man and were raised to walk "in newness of life" (Romans 6:4).

The exact thing is true of every other sin mentioned in the passage.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

But we do isolate homosexuals from the rest as dfrom this mans' blog:
Note our inconsistencies: do we ever have church discussions about letting greedy people join the church, or about greedy people being deacons, or greedy people getting married in the church? 

Here's my translation of the two Greek sentences in Romans 1.24-27:
For this reason [idolatry], God surrendered them in the desires (epithymiai) of their hearts to uncleanness so that they would dishonor (atimazo) their bodies among themselves--these people who exchanged (metellaxan) the truth of God for the lie and revered and worshiped the creation instead of the Creator, who is blessed forever, amen. (1.24-25) 

On account of this [the sin of idolatry], God surrendered them to passions (pathos) of dishonor (atimia), for their females exchanged (ellaxan) the natural use for that over against nature (para physin) and in the same way the males too, having left the natural use of the female, burned with their desire (orexis) for one another, males accomplishing shamelessness (aschemosyne) with males and receiving the due recompense (antimisthia) of their error (plane) among themselves. (Rom. 1.26-27) 

6. What does Paul mean by recompense and error? The common interpretation is that the error is homosexuality, and the recompense some evil which punishes it. Two problems are unsolved by this interpretation: first, what is the recompense? Hemorrhoids and STDs have been suggested, but these are not confined to homosexuals or Gentiles. Secondly, in every other use of plane by Paul, he uses it to mean a wrong belief rather than a desire or action. I (and many others) think a better understanding is that the error is idolatry and recompense is the uncleanness of Gentile culture. So the meaning is something like this: Because the Gentile forsook the true God to worship idols, God visited on them and their children a kind of uncleanness, namely the desire and practice of homosexual relations. 

7. Paul concludes in Rom. 1.28-32 with a list of sins Paul thinks the Gentiles practice. There are no sexual sins on this list; all listed are sins of social disruption.

http://www.collegeparkchurch.com/homosexuality_study.htm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

For an opposing view from mine ya'll might be interested in this book:
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics
Gagnon offers the most thorough analysis to date of the biblical texts relating to homosexuality. He demonstrates why attempts to classify the Bible’s rejection of same-sex intercourse as irrelevant for our contemporary context fail to do justice to the biblical texts and to current scientific data.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Homosexual-Practice-Hermeneutics/dp/0687022797/ref=pd_ybh_1


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> we should acknowledge the difficulty of interpreting into English the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai found at 1 Corinthians 6:9 without sensing an abandonment of proper Christian sexual ethics.
> Noted New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays explains that the "word malakoi is not a technical term meaning 'homosexuals' (no such term existed either in Greek, or in Hebrew), but it appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the 'passive' partners -- often young boys -- in homosexual activity."1 In this sense, then, the malakoi are not necessarily homosexual in orientation, or attraction, but are exploitively used for the gratification of another.
> The arsenokoitai may refer to male to male sexual activity when one considers that its use in the Septuagint at Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, as well as in rabbinic texts, refers to homosexual intercourse.2 But both words -- malakoi and arsenokoitai respectively -- are plural masculine in the Greek text. One wonders why, then, only men are singled out in this proscription, since female to female sexual activity is explicitly named and condemned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Rom. 1:26).
> 
> ...



And the noted New Testament scholars Danker, Arndt, & Gingrinch all disagree with Hays.  The word "arsenokoites" comes from two words - "arsen/arren" (a male) and "koite" (bed).  Putting the two together and you literally have "one male in bed with another male."

By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it too in this discussion.  The words of the very same article say "I think a case against same-sex sexual relationships can be made from Romans 1:26-27 more so than 1 Corinthians 6:9."

So you're going to side with him on his view of 1 Cor. 6:9, but not his view of Romans 1?  As I mentioned before, I have seen many of the arguments (similarly stated), and at the end of the day there's still the facts that I cited in my earlier post.  God, simply put, does not condone the practice of homosexuality - no matter how many people try to twist His words.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

I still say the gay issue or any others is related to our Holiness and our view of Holiness. In other words how much of Christianity is spiritual vs living/works/laws. I say it's a little of each.
I was reading about Holiness and gays and ran across this preachers views. Not that he is right or wrong just one man's view.
He divides Christians into two groups A is holiness is about correctness and B is Holiness as a state of the heart.

Depending on how you view holiness will have a bearing on your view of The Gay Marriage Debate.

To me, the real issue that God is exposing here is that many Christians demonstrate a complete aloofness to Paul’s teaching about justification by faith with the way that they define Christian discipleship and use the Bible. To understand holiness as the pursuit of correctness is exactly like the gospel that Paul’s opponents were preaching to the Galatians and Romans. You cannot betray Paul’s teaching more perfectly than to take Paul’s words and make them into the new “law” that saves us. And yet so many evangelicals have basically become modern-day Galatians substituting a new “law” for the old “law,” not recognizing that putting all our trust in God’s mercy and renouncing the self-justifying pursuit of correctness is the only means by which our hearts can be conquered for Christ, who then gains the access to crucify our sinful nature and resurrect us into new life. It’s understandable that we’d rather be correct than under God’s mercy, but correctness is - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ation in those terms.

http://morganguyton.wordpress.com/2...liness-and-the-gay-marriage-debate/#more-7459


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> And the noted New Testament scholars Danker, Arndt, & Gingrinch all disagree with Hays.  The word "arsenokoites" comes from two words - "arsen/arren" (a male) and "koite" (bed).  Putting the two together and you literally have "one male in bed with another male."
> 
> By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it too in this discussion.  The words of the very same article say "I think a case against same-sex sexual relationships can be made from Romans 1:26-27 more so than 1 Corinthians 6:9."
> 
> So you're going to side with him on his view of 1 Cor. 6:9, but not his view of Romans 1?  As I mentioned before, I have seen many of the arguments (similarly stated), and at the end of the day there's still the facts that I cited in my earlier post.  God, simply put, does not condone the practice of homosexuality - no matter how many people try to twist His words.



I do struggle with Paul's teachings as they are sometimes different from the other apostles. Then we have various interpretations, and influence of the Roman government and the Catholic Church. 

"Many religious people have misinterpreted the Bible based on their beliefs not what it actually says.

Short answer - Leviticus, Romans and Corinthians

The main passages misquoted against gay folk are Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Leviticus 18-20.

Romans 1, in context, is referring to pagan same-sex temple prostitution in the worship of idols and false gods. Both in Corinth (where the apostle Paul was writing the letter) and in Rome (where it was being sent) there were prominent temples to Cybele, the mother goddess. The Greeks and Romans were abandoning the invisible Deity taught by their own philosophers, and were turning instead to worship Cybele using idols of women, lions and serpents.

Her male priests, the Galli, castrated themselves (what a terrible penalty for their error!), dressed as women, and played the part of women in same-sex prostitution in honor of the goddess.

Even the women likewise, who worshiped Cybele, dressed as men, were fitted with artificial phalli / dildos, and played the part of men in same-sex temple prostitution.

The context is rejecting God and turning to idols. None of this has anything to do with nice Jewish or Christian boys who love God but who fall in love with another boy.

The 1 Corinthians verse began to be badly translated as "homosexuals" in 1946. But five centuries earlier, Martin Luther translated the word as "child molesters". And it seems that arsenokoites referred to men who abducted boys to make them sex slaves.

First, this section of the bible was written to ancient Hebrews, not modern Gentiles. It is no more binding on Christians than the parts about not eating ham or shellfish.

But at any rate, there are two different Hebrew words used for "male" -- the normal "ish" and the unusual "zakar", which often has priestly connotations. This is confirmed by the fact that the word abomination "toevah" is used, which 85% of the time in the Torah has to do *not* with sin, but with taboos relating to idolatry.

It seems likely that male Canaanite priests (zakar) were trying to lure Jewish men (ish) into same-sex temple prostitution to worship Baal, Astarte, and the other abominable gods of Canaan.

The original in the Hebrew Bible says: (Leviticus 18:22) And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed; it is an abomination (to'evah). A taboo, therefore, like not shaking hands with a woman in case she is menstruating. A woman's bed was her own property and even her husband was not always allowed into it. 
“To’evah“ is explained by rabbinical authorities as "making a mistake" - hardly a sin).
 Subsequent translations into Greek, Latin and English translate it wrongly and manage to include a condemnation of homosexuality into it. The Emperors Theodosius II and Justinian picked this up and included the condemnation in Roman law, primarily so that they could use it against men they wanted get rid of, the first one being a gay bishop of Alexandria.sexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
 New Living Translation (1996): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
 A “mistake” has become an “abomination” (meaning something Jewish priests should not do).
 Then “abomination” becomes “an enormous sin” 
and “a detestable sin” all In stages easily swallowed by the gullible, who couldn't or wouldn't read for themselves.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I still say the gay issue or any others is related to our Holiness and our view of Holiness. In other words how much of Christianity is spiritual vs living/works/laws. I say it's a little of each.
> I was reading about Holiness and gays and ran across this preachers views. Not that he is right or wrong just one man's view.
> He divides Christians into two groups A is holiness is about correctness and B is Holiness as a state of the heart.
> 
> ...



Respectfully Art, I'm not into reading commentaries on a lot of biblical subjects... especially ones that are written w/ a bias included (many religious books out there).  What we believe and practice needs to come from "the book"... and men routinely misrepresent God's word to people.

In forming my belief system, I utilize two things mainly... the word of God and tools to help me better understand the bible languages.  As an example, I read Titus 2:11-13 and I come up with this idea - "because I've received the grace of God, I renounce ungodliness/worldly passions and strive to live a self-controlled/upright/godly life."  I don't care if some "so-called scholar" comes forward w/ a new "interpretation" of the passage - it still says exactly what it says.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do struggle with Paul's teachings as they are sometimes different from the other apostles. Then we have various interpretations, and influence of the Roman government and the Catholic Church.
> 
> "Many religious people have misinterpreted the Bible based on their beliefs not what it actually says.
> 
> ...



Art... no matter how much historical stuff you present on the subject, I know what the Hebrew/Greek says about the subject... and I'm not going to change my mind even if the vast majority of scholars agree it's ok (they don't).


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 11, 2013)

Biblically, homosexuality is speaking of two people of the same gender having sexual relations together.  It is deemed to be an ungodly act and must not be swept under the rug by Christ's church today.
In the contemporary world, it might not seem to be such an ungodly act.  It might even seem 'natural'.  But the Bible still says what it says!
The fact that there's a debate concerning the subject is proof of church problems today.

Here's a scripture to consider.

Philippians 2: 

1Therefore 
........if there is any encouragement in Christ, 
........if there is any consolation of love, 
........if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, 
........if any affection and compassion, 

2 make my joy complete by 
.......being of the same mind, 
.......maintaining the same love, 
.......united in spirit, 
.......intent on one purpose.

The four things Paul hoped for in verse 2 aren't very prevalent in the church today.
The reason??????  Probably found in verse 1!
.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 11, 2013)

So y'all are willing to take one word arsenokoites used twice in the Bible, never meant homosexuality and use it to describe every gay & lesbian relationship. Arsenokoites was not used by Greeks to mean homosexuality in ancient times. 
You have read about Corinth and what was happening and still arsenokoites is the main concern of Corinth? 
Arsenokoites is a compound Greek word, formed by joining arseno - man and koite - bed. A compound word does not always equal the sum of its parts. 
We cannot take the composite parts of arsenokoites and based on the meaning of those parts, insist that arsenokoites means homosexual when our ancient Greek ancestors did not use arsenokoitai or arsenokoites with that meaning. 
Mandate - A date with a man?
Butterfly - A dairy product with the ability to defy gravity?
Mankind - A man noted for his generous, always sympathetic, warm-hearted spirit?
Chairman - A man who makes chairs?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 12, 2013)

Bama4me said:


> Scripture claims that we are "spiritually" sons of Abraham through faith... not that we are physically descendants of Abraham.



Correct


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 12, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> So y'all are willing to take one word arsenokoites used twice in the Bible, never meant homosexuality and use it to describe every gay & lesbian relationship. Arsenokoites was not used by Greeks to mean homosexuality in ancient times.
> You have read about Corinth and what was happening and still arsenokoites is the main concern of Corinth?
> Arsenokoites is a compound Greek word, formed by joining arseno - man and koite - bed. A compound word does not always equal the sum of its parts.
> We cannot take the composite parts of arsenokoites and based on the meaning of those parts, insist that arsenokoites means homosexual when our ancient Greek ancestors did not use arsenokoitai or arsenokoites with that meaning.
> ...



No... what I'm not going to do is take the words of one or two "scholars" who tell me that this was the usage of the Greek world in the first century. You accept what has been written as gospel truth - when the vast majority of our lexicon authors have clearly defined the term. Love the way you try to compare word etymology of the Greek to the English language today. Again, you can bring as many objections to the table as you want - the fact remains that it is condemned in NT Scripture, in more than one place.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 12, 2013)

Ok homosexuality is a sin that reqires repentance like all the other sins that will keep us out of the Kingdom of Heaven. 
How many times is the greedy cheater allowed to repent before not being allowed to enter the Kingdom of God?
Can a Christian cheat on his income tax every year and ask for repentance? Does he at least have to feel guilty? 
What about a Christian who struggles with gambling? If he never makes a full recovery will he enter Heaven? 
Maybe something of a lesser sin like a prideful envious person who doesn't help the poor. How many poor people can a Christain turn away before being allowed in Heaven? How many people can we not forgive before God doesn't forgive us?
How much of this becomes a Legalistic issue getting farther from Grace? Does it have anything to do with our heart or spiritualism or is it all physical? 
Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
(at one time I believed this verse was to let me know I couldn't excape sin)
Wow, it looks like we've got our work cut out for us if we are going to enter the Kingdom of God. There is no once save always saved.
 The message to the Corinthians and again repeated to the Romans lets me no this. No mention of repenting of sins but one must stop sinning. Those homosexuals will have plenty of company with the other sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, & swindlers. 

We all know what Jesus said about homosexuals: "__________."
Funny thing is, as terrible as we  make homosexuality out to be,  it isn't mentioned in the Bible that much especially the New Testament.
Even in the lesson to the  Corinthians in verses 13-16 about sexual immorality Paul uses a prostitute to show men abusing their body.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 12, 2013)

Let's take the subject of adultery, rather than the other subject.
Can an adulterer be forgiven by God?  Surely.  Right after he repents.  
What if the person commits adultery again? 
He must again admit his sin and seek to never commit adultery again.  And he does that and so is forgiven.
What if, months later, he sins the same sin again?  "If" he can repent and confess the sin God will forgive him.

How many times will God forgive that person?  Forever, if that person is able to confess that he has sinned, and repents.
Could there every be any extenuating circumstances that would make adultery acceptable in God's site?  Nope, even though society might think there are.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 12, 2013)

Let's take the subject of any and all sin. I would say it is a safe bet I sin every day. I ask God for forgiveness at the end of the day. 
I know a lot of Christians who struggle with what I think are far worse sins than mine like adultery, love of money, drunkenness and other physical sins.
My sins are sins of the heart. My sins hurt other people. Is there any difference in my sins vs a person who performs physical sins upon his own body or another body which in reality is God's property? 

So even with Grace Christians can sin and won't get into God's Kingdom unless they repent daily or every three days? What are the laws of grace & repentance? Do we have to do this at Mass?
I would like to hear what an eternal salvation person believes about this subject.
Some Christians don't believe Christians even sin. I don't understand that concept. If that's true then I know I'm lost.
I understand we must have some type of atonement & sanctification. If it's all from God and election is from God then he just dammed a whole group of people to He!! for being gay even if they do have a choice. I can't see a jealous Christian getting dammed just because he has a problem that he might not ever overcome. The overeater is going to He!! because he has an eating disorder? 
Maybe it's what's in our hearts and between us and God as individuals instead of the physical aspects of an individual person. It's more spiritual than physical. Maybe if we love our neighbor as ourselves we can make it into Heaven if we believe Jesus died for our sins.


----------



## Israel (Jul 12, 2013)

We will have our own pleasures at any and all costs.
We just aren't quite as used to hearing it said so plainly and with such a perverse denying of all consequence.
Everything is coming to fruition.
The complete and utter "earthiness" of earth is being manifest as the light draws ever closer.
Be mindful of that for which you wait to appear.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 12, 2013)

I wish everyone would read this preacher's page on homosexuality. It is somewhat unbiased. He is presenting it from just what is Biblical.

However, regardless of how we interpret the Bible's teachings about homosexual acts, it is important to note that the Bible does not condemn people for having homosexual tendencies. It is certain actions that are prohibited by Bible teachings, not tendencies or feelings.

The only mentions of qualifications for clergy are in 1 Timothy 3:1-13, and homosexuality is not mentioned there. All of us, including clergy, are imperfect and sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8). The question seems to be whether homosexuality should disqualify a person from ministry while other sins (e.g., evil thoughts, greed, deceit, envy, arrogance and folly, Mark 7:20-23) do not disqualify a person. There are obviously different opinions. 

Will Homosexuals go to Heaven?
The Bible does not make any distinction between homosexual people and anyone else in this regard. We are all sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8), and the Bible says God will forgive any sin if a person sincerely repents and also forgives other people.

Church Doctrine
Here is a sampling of official church positions on homosexuality from the three largest denominations in the United States:

Roman Catholic:
 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Southern Baptist:
We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy - one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.

United Methodist:
 Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. Although we do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God's grace is available to all. 

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm


----------



## Israel (Jul 13, 2013)

God knows how convenient it is to find the sins of "others" far more an offense than our own. Our "blind spots" are never quite so plain as we when we feel totally at ease picking up stones to hurl at others:

 "ooops...sorry Jesus...didn't see you standing there, I bet that's gonna leave a mark..."

No...with sin comes grief, and with grief either comes anger when it is short circuited, or true mercy when left to its final work. Getting derailed at anger and self righteousness is always a believers hurdle..."just how merciful is Jesus..." often presents a chasm at which we fail...for the depths of it require our "own" plumbing...dare I see just how merciful Jesus has been to me? Must I know? I'm not sure I want to find out just what's "down there..." in that place where I will find I am truly not unlike any other man...seems I always prefer my own feelings of specialness over the Lord's esteem.

In the most ridiculous reversal of truth, not in its verity...but in its operation, I discover in this, that EVERY one of you truly are better than me...because this is true of me...in regards to ALL of you...YOU are ALL the same...out there, different than me...not "me"...yes...all men are to some extent "other" than me. (Don't let my wife read this!)

Now, I admit...I embrace some others far more easily than some others...(oh, how I love the ones that love me!) and pick and choose among "you all" in my halls of judgement, who is allowed to approach the throne. 
(You bristly ones that carry inside themselves the knowledge that I am not all I present myself as...stand to the rear please...I know I "must" love you...but that will be at a distance...but generally I find christians no less easily fooled than most).

NOPE. That things speaking above...is the very thing that always proves by its having the light shined upon it...it is just vermin.

The moment I seek to rise above this chasm of mercy...to avert its beckoning, its depths...its horrible to truth...to me..."I am no different...than the pedophile, the molester, the most sincerely devoted and depraved "buggerer" (or whatever title the degenerate du jour wears in my mind...) I fall in. The thing I would seek to escape knowing by my attempts at self righteousness...is, by it's attempt to secure...the very thing that cuts the ledge out from under me. And, tumbling head long I go.

Seems a pact was made...the outworking of something I didn't know was part of the package. When I realized, by some miracle of God, some ineffably deep and most often unseen (by me) helper has been enlisted when I was forced to admit...(and it took some mighty dunamis to blow up a whole of a world)...that although I could admit I really didn't like God and his ways...that Jesus was really someone I "know" I should love...but could somehow admit I really didn't...as I believed I should...but I know I needed to...and at least thought I wanted to...and asked for help...he took me at my word.

Little did I know this "helper" would be the shover...over you go! Enjoy the adventure!

"He who is forgiven little, also loves little, but he who is forgiven much, the same also loves much..."

Lord...I know I really should love you with my whole heart...but is it really necessary to see the "all" of which I have been forgiven...?

We will each answer according to what we desire...

I consider how much is left of me in this:

When I say "God is good..." 
But I really mean "God is good to christians..." 

Is it any wonder that my "pushing away" in spirit and truth...is the very thing that leaves me feeling condemned?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 13, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish everyone would read this preacher's page on homosexuality. It is somewhat unbiased. He is presenting it from just what is Biblical.
> 
> However, regardless of how we interpret the Bible's teachings about homosexual acts, it is important to note that the Bible does not condemn people for having homosexual tendencies. It is certain actions that are prohibited by Bible teachings, not tendencies or feelings.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 13, 2013)

Art... I'm detecting one of the things that give you some difficulties here is the perceived notion that Christians have somehow taught against homosexuality while many other sins are "swept under the rug."

Though that may happen, it's not biblically acceptable. Sin is sin - no matter if it's homosexual practices, adultery, lying, cheating, etc. and all should be taught against and handled appropriately. IMO, one of the things that might have caused your perception is the attention this issue is receiving in our culture - and the danger that it currently is posing to a Christian's freedom of speech/religion (I have touched on it earlier in the thread).

Ronnie did a good job pointing out a proper approach to any sin. Whatever "tendencies" we may have, we aren't guilty of sin until we allow our minds to dwell there or take action toward committing the sin. For the Christian who wants to be right with God, the proper thing to do is acknowledge our sin to God (1 John 1:7-19) and repent of that sin (Acts 8:22-24). Repentance includes realization that our actions were wrong, that we "clear ourselves" in the matter, and attempt to do better in the future than we have in the past (2 Corinthians 7:8ff) - in short it's a change of heart reflected in a change of action.

I know Christians who struggle with the temptation to practice homosexuality... but I also know Christians who struggle with infidelity, stealing, lying, etc. However, through the grace/strength that God provides and the help given through loving brethren, these brethren are doing their best to "walk in the light" (1 John1:7).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 13, 2013)

We need to remember the story of Jesus and the woman at the well. Jesus didn't defend her adultry but he did defend the woman. True enough he did tell to to sin no more but that's not the main point of the story. The point being Jesus defened the woman/sinner. We should do the same. We should stand with Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 13, 2013)

From a blog relate to the woman at the well story:

Jesus never says a word about homosexuality, but there was one kind of sin that he spoke out against all the time. There was one kind of sin that got Jesus really mad. This was the sin of religious people who shut out those in need of mercy. This was the sin of people who used the Bible as a weapon. You hear Jesus saying this on page after page of the gospels. Why? Because this type of sin has the potential to damage people like few other things do. It is particularly damaging because they claim to be speaking for God. So if we really want to speak out against sin, we as Christians need to speak out against the kind of sin that Jesus did, and side with the kinds of folks he did.

What this all comes down to is we, as Christians, acting like Jesus. It's about discerning what Jesus would want us to do right now, and the answer is clear: We need to change our priorities and focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to people -- especially the very people our society so often ostracizes, condemns and rejects. Because that is exactly what Jesus did. Jesus was known for hanging out with "sinners" and was frequently accused of being a sinner himself because of it. But that did not stop him because he cared more about those people than he cared about being judged.
If we want to follow Jesus, then we need to have that same reputation of loving to a fault. We need to be so radically accepting that we are misunderstood and judged like Jesus. If we really do love Jesus, then we need to love like he did, so much so that it seems "scandalous" in the eyes the religious folks of our day, just like it did in his day. 
Now you may have noticed that I didn't ever say what I thought about whether homosexuality was wrong or right. I didn't say because this is not about me and what I think. It's about us as Christians learning to care about what Jesus cares about. This is not about gay rights. It is about about human rights, and that starts with the least. It is about us having the courage to stand with those who are vulnerable. It is about us saying "no" to hate, even when it is done in the name of God -- no, especially when it is done in the name of God. It's about having the guts to draw that line in the sand like Jesus did. Even when that means facing that mob ourselves.

So let's stand alongside of LGBT individuals. Let's let them know they are loved, they are welcomed, they are not alone. I think when we do, we will find that Jesus has been there with them for a long time now. It's time we joined him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derek-flood/jesus-homosexuality_b_1442195.html


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 13, 2013)

Jesus neither condemned nor defended the woman brought to Him by the scribes and Pharisees.  He simply pointed out the ones who were trying to trap Him in His words needed to look at their own sins before condemning the woman - the gospel accounts are full of information regarding their various sins.  His place at that time, also, was not to serve as judge/arbitrator (Luke 12:12ff)... it was the scribes/Pharisees who were in a position of authority (Matthew 23:1). When the chose not to condemn the woman, Jesus followed suit - then told the lady she should change the way she lived her life (go and sin no more).  Which, by the way, IS part of the point because Jesus said it.

Regarding what Jesus said or didn't say about homosexuality, He definitely defined marriage in Matthew 19:1ff.  For those who may claim, "he didn't say anything about a homosexual relationship", he did - claiming that God created marriage for a man and woman from the beginning.  BTW, the same Jesus who said many things in the gospel accounts was also the same Jesus who said that He'd send the Holy Spirit to guide people to all truth (John 16:7-14).  Thus, Jesus had a direct hand in what Paul penned in places like Romans 1:26ff and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.  Jesus, plainly put, isn't going to "be with" people who don't recognize His Lordship in their lives - Matthew 7:21-23 claims "He's never known them."


----------



## Israel (Jul 14, 2013)

There could be a difference between our attitude/understanding toward "a" homosexual, and homosexuality.

The one is a person, the other an activity. It may well be true that our attitude toward the second will influence our ability to view the first as the Lord does, but I do know this, the Lord is able to reach adulterers and fornicators. 

Maybe not venturing to places for which, or in which we have not seen nor received grace is a caution to us? Or perhaps the very reverse is true...we end up dealing with those we believe are farthest from God...for a very good reason?

Ya ever wonder why of all people...the big shot Pharisee got sent to the gentiles?


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 14, 2013)

Israel said:


> There could be a difference between our attitude/understanding toward "a" homosexual, and homosexuality.
> 
> The one is a person, the other an activity. It may well be true that our attitude toward the second will influence our ability to view the first as the Lord does, but I do know this, the Lord is able to reach adulterers and fornicators.
> 
> ...



The old adage applies - hate the sin, love the sinner.  A guy I know always says "refer to people as 'those who practice homosexuality' rather than term it "homosexuals".  Doing so places the emphasis on the sin.


----------

