# Same text, different religion:



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 18, 2015)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/presbyterian-church-includes-same-sex-in-its-definition-of-marriage/


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 18, 2015)

I posted this "upstairs".  This is the beginning of the end for the PCUSA.

I agree on the "different religion" part, but I'm not so sure about "same text".  From what I see, many mainline churches abandoned the Bible for _People_ magazine a long time ago.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 18, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I posted this "upstairs".  This is the beginning of the end for the PCUSA.
> 
> I agree on the "different religion" part, but I'm not so sure about "same text". * From what I see, many mainline churches abandoned the Bible for People magazine a long time ago*.



 Fair point.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 18, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/presbyterian-church-includes-same-sex-in-its-definition-of-marriage/



According to some stats I have seen, gays, on average, are higher income earners. 
The church is just expanding their 'tax' base. 
Or, just evolution.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 18, 2015)

660griz said:


> According to some stats I have seen, gays, on average, are higher income earners.
> The church is just expanding their 'tax' base.
> Or, just evolution.



Maybe Creflo should ask them for his new jet.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 18, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe Creflo should ask them for his new jet.



What is a Presbyterian anyway????


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 18, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> What is a Presbyterian anyway????



This decision has a lot of Presbyterians asking the same question.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 18, 2015)

Well they are not baptists, so it's iffy if they count or not.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 18, 2015)

> group to formally recognize gay marriage as Christian and allow same-sex weddings in every congregation.


It really is an outright rejection of that part of the Bible.
But that's really nothing new throughout the denominations.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 19, 2015)

I am sure most gay folks can read. Why would they insist on being part of a culture that doesn't want them? Go to the justice of the peace and get r done.
I mean, if I like to rape, and the Bible says I couldn't. I would just not be a Christian. Of course raping is fine so rapist can be Christian. But, if it was forbidden...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> I am sure most gay folks can read. Why would they insist on being part of a culture that doesn't want them? Go to the justice of the peace and get r done.
> I mean, if I like to rape, and the Bible says I couldn't. I would just not be a Christian. Of course raping is fine so rapist can be Christian. But, if it was forbidden...



It's not "the gays". It's the church responding to market pressure. They're the first ones in the door and will get tons of donations and utilization fees out of this move, I would surmise.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not "the gays". It's the church responding to market pressure. They're the first ones in the door and will get tons of donations and utilization fees out of this move, I would surmise.



I know. Why is there pressure? If no gays wanted to get married in a church...no pressure. 
My point is, no gay person should want to be married in a church. Pointless, according to the Bible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> I know. Why is there pressure? If no gays wanted to get married in a church...no pressure.
> My point is, no gay person should want to be married in a church. Pointless, according to the Bible.



I don't think it's about them wanting to get married in a church, yet. They just want to be able to get the license. Then it's a matter of who will perform the ceremony. Sure, a JP can do it right there, but it's not very intimate. Being the only church in the country that will do it, the same day as your state says it's okay to do so, will bring business. 

This is a political and financial move, more than a religious move, IMO.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't think it's about them wanting to get married in a church, yet. They just want to be able to get the license. Then it's a matter of who will perform the ceremony. Sure, a JP can do it right there, but it's not very intimate. Being the only church in the country that will do it, the same day as your state says it's okay to do so, will bring business.
> 
> This is a political and financial move, more than a religious move, IMO.


Yeah it would be interesting to know the real motivation.
Its probably a combination of reasons.
They could make the case that God loves everybody and ignore the parts where he doesn't.
And then of course the bills have to get paid and money is green no matter who drops it in the basket.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah it would be interesting to know the real motivation.
> Its probably a combination of reasons.
> They could make the case that God loves everybody and ignore the parts where he doesn't.
> And then of course the bills have to get paid and money is green no matter who hands it to you.



Yup. People keep telling us the OT is dead, and the NT preaches love not judgment, even though it lays out sins in other ways. This, on the surface seems to be a logical move based on the text. The "why now" and "why only them" speak to the other motivations.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> I know. Why is there pressure? If no gays wanted to get married in a church...no pressure.
> My point is, no gay person should want to be married in a church. Pointless, according to the Bible.


Its definitely an attestment to the power of the mind job that religion has done on folks throughout the years -
wanting the Church to bless your marriage knowing full well the same Church condemns you to he11.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> I know. Why is there pressure? If no gays wanted to get married in a church...no pressure.
> My point is, no gay person should want to be married in a church. Pointless, according to the Bible.





WaltL1 said:


> Its definitely an attestment to the power of the mind job that religion has done on folks throughout the years -
> wanting the Church to bless your marriage knowing full well the same Church condemns you to he11.



Believe it or not there are some Christian gays.  They do the same thing that a Primitive Baptist (or any Christian for that matter) does, they ignore the parts of the Bible that they think are stupid and concentrate on the parts that they like.   But they are attached to the pomp and circumstance of religion like anybody else.  I play tennis with a Christian gay guy who went so far as to allude to how sexy all the "brotherhood" that goes on in the Bible is. 

It's evolving like society.   Christians are just always the last to know.  

Look at how the sanctuaries are decorated.  Straight out of the 80's.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I play tennis with a Christian gay guy who ...



... should find a church that cares about his soul.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Believe it or not there are some Christian gays.  They do the same thing that a Primitive Baptist (or any Christian for that matter) does, they ignore the parts of the Bible that they think are stupid and concentrate on the parts that they like.   But they are attached to the pomp and circumstance of religion like anybody else.  I play tennis with a Christian gay guy who went so far as to allude to how sexy all the "brotherhood" that goes on in the Bible is.
> 
> It's evolving like society.   Christians are just always the last to know.
> 
> Look at how the sanctuaries are decorated.  Straight out of the 80's.





> I play tennis with a Christian gay guy who went so far as to allude to how sexy all the "brotherhood" that goes on in the Bible is.


He's definitely gonna burn for that one


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... should find a church that cares about his soul.



He likes his church.  You keep ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like and he'll ignore the parts he doesn't like.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> He's definitely gonna burn for that one




Interpretation, my friend.  I can't say that his magic discernment power is better or worse than anyone else's. 

From my heathen interpretation of the Bible I would say that what he and his lover do is OK by Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Interpretation, my friend.  I can't say that his magic discernment power is better or worse than anyone else's.
> From my heathen interpretation of the Bible I would say that what he and his lover do is OK by Jesus.


I would agree.
Darn near any interpretation can be justified. If it isn't, just flip ahead a few more pages and it will.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> He likes his church.



His church doesn't like him.




ambush80 said:


> You keep ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like ...



I don't ignore any part of the Bible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> His church doesn't like him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> His church doesn't like him.


Its refreshing to see admittance that the whole "love the sinner hate the sin" thing is a crock of carp that most of us know it to be.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> His church doesn't like him.



How can you say that? Do you know him or them? Your church might not like him if he were attempting to be a member, but all you can do is speculate on what others think.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> His church doesn't like him.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore any part of the Bible.




The only one doing any "not liking" is you.  You don't like his church and that's fine.  If you went to a a snake handling church and they told you that if you didn't take up the serpent that you are worshiping wrong what would you do?  I imagine you would leave and go to a place more in line with your beliefs.  That's what he does, and what my UCC inlaws do.  

I'm amused and saddened by how one religion can say how another religion is wrong and how people of the same religion can say how others of the same religion are doing it wrong and never think that you might ALL have it wrong.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How can you say that? Do you know him or them? Your church might not like him if he were attempting to be a member, but all you can do is speculate on what others think.



According to CPF, if they don't tell him to stop being gay they are teaching the Bible wrong and they don't love him.  For someone else, if you don't make your women wear head coverings, you are teaching the Bible wrong.  Who's right?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The only one doing any "not liking" is you.



You are mistaken, but it's not the first time.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How can you say that? Do you know him or them? Your church might not like him if he were attempting to be a member, but all you can do is speculate on what others think.



If a church denies a sinner repentance, they do not love him.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> You are mistaken, but it's not the first time.



Do you like that his church teaches that  it's ok to be gay?  Anything more than a yes or no is unnecessary.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> His church doesn't like him.





centerpin fan said:


> If a church denies a sinner repentance, they do not love him.



Okay, here's what you originally said, in response to him having a church. Then when asked how you could say that, you spoke about the church denying him repentance. 

I don't get how you're able to say that he's not liked or that he's being denied repentance. Perhaps you're saying that because he's still gay, but that could equally be about him not wanting to repent as much as it is them not accepting it. 

Moreover, whom does a sinner repent to? I thought it was always to God, via the proxy of a priest, so it's not really on anyone but God to accept, isn't it?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you like that his church teaches that  it's ok to be gay?  Anything more than a yes or no is unnecessary.



I don't like it when someone is in an abusive relationship.  Your friend is in an abusive relationship.  I don't care if it's the case of a husband beating his wife or someone like your friend whose church is telling him "peace, peace" when there is no peace.

Sorry for all the necessary words.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, here's what you originally said, in response to him having a church. Then when asked how you could say that, you spoke about the church denying him repentance.
> 
> I don't get how you're able to say that he's not liked or that he's being denied repentance. Perhaps you're saying that because he's still gay, but that could equally be about him not wanting to repent as much as it is them not accepting it.



I seriously doubt he's being told he needs to repent.  It's a sin of omission on the part of the church.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't like it...




You mean "No".

I took care of the unnecessary words for you.  

I was right.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I seriously doubt he's being told he needs to repent.  It's a sin of omission on the part of the church.



Or they've chosen to hate the sin, but embrace the sinner.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't like it when someone is in an abusive relationship.  Your friend is in an abusive relationship.  I don't care if it's the case of a husband beating his wife or someone like your friend whose church is telling him "peace, peace" when there is no peace.
> 
> Sorry for all the necessary words.



You call their relationship "abusive".  They may call your relationship something else.  But you're right, of course.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or they've chosen to hate the sin, but embrace the sinner.




I think his point is that his church doesn't call it sin anymore or they look passed it like shacking up or eating too many pieces of chicken at Wednesday supper.   

As long as you feel guilty then it's OK.  Well, it's not OK.  You're supposed to try to stop but you will fail so it's OK.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think his point is that his church doesn't call it sin anymore or they look passed it like shacking up or eating too many pieces of chicken at Wednesday supper.
> 
> As long as you feel guilty then it's OK.  Well, it's not OK.  You're supposed to try to stop but you will fail so it's OK.



As far as I remember it's not his friend or his church, so I don't know how you could presume one way or the other and think yourself accurate. 

Maybe the guy is lying to the church and hides his awful gayness while he's there and somehow insulates himself from being found out outside. 

Maybe he's honest about it to them and they've embraced him anyway and do in fact try to get him to repent. 

Maybe he's honest, and they've tried to get get him to repent but have realized it's a lost cause and have agreed to disagree in pursuit of larger goals. 

There's a ton more to the story that hasn't been told here so it's a little premature to say that he isn't liked, or that X, Y or Z are going on. 

Centerpin was speculating, and said as much through implication, if not outright confession, so this point is pretty well


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As far as I remember it's not his friend or his church, so I don't know how you could presume one way or the other and think yourself accurate.
> 
> Maybe the guy is lying to the church and hides his awful gayness while he's there and somehow insulates himself from being found out outside.
> 
> ...




When I said "his" earlier I meant my friend.

My friend goes to St. Mark in Atlanta.  I don't think they expect him to repent for being gay.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> My friend goes to St. Mark in Atlanta.  I don't think they expect him to repent for being gay.



This one:

http://thegavoice.com/sunday-atlantas-saint-mark-one-largest-gay-friendly-churches-nation/


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This one:
> 
> http://thegavoice.com/sunday-atlantas-saint-mark-one-largest-gay-friendly-churches-nation/





> First Baptist hired guards on horseback to keep the marchers off the property. They barred the doors to keep everyone out but their congregants, who jeered the marchers with homophobic comments before entering to worship God. But on the other side of the street, parishioners were handing out water to the marchers, along with fliers that said “Everyone is welcome at Saint Mark.”


If a Christian were to be asked which actions most reflect what Jesus would have done, I have to wonder how they would get around the obvious answer.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This one:
> 
> http://thegavoice.com/sunday-atlantas-saint-mark-one-largest-gay-friendly-churches-nation/



Yeah.  That one.  He invited my family to go with him.  It's so strange, even though progressive people understand the bigoted, misogynistic history of the Christian religion, they still want to cling to it and reshape it rather than just abandon it and start with something new.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If a Christian were to be asked which actions most reflect what Jesus would have done, I have to wonder how they would get around the obvious answer.



Good question. Let's see if someone responds. 



ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  That one.  He invited my family to go with him.  It's so strange, even though progressive people understand the bigoted, misogynistic history of the Christian religion, they still want to cling to it and reshape it rather than just abandon it and start with something new.



It is interesting, that's for sure.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  That one.  He invited my family to go with him.  It's so strange, even though progressive people understand the bigoted, misogynistic history of the Christian religion, they still want to cling to it and reshape it rather than just abandon it and start with something new.


Im not sure reshaping it and starting something new cant be one in the same.
Anything new but still involving God is actually reshaping.
God would have to be dropped from the picture all together to be new. No?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If a Christian were to be asked which actions most reflect what Jesus would have done, I have to wonder how they would get around the obvious answer.



Baptist churches should offer a "Come get your gay feet washed" day on every 3rd Sunday of the month.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not sure reshaping it and starting something new cant be one in the same.
> Anything new but still involving God is actually reshaping.
> God would have to be dropped from the picture all together to be new. No?



According to some that's exactly what the progressives are trying to do.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> According to some that's exactly what the progressives are trying to do.


Of course those "some" more than likely belong to a denomination that branched off to do their own "new" thing too.
The "some" probably wouldn't see it that way though.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You mean "No".
> 
> I took care of the unnecessary words for you.
> 
> I was right.




You find out a friend of yours beats his wife.  Would you tell him to stop?  Would your opinion of him change if he did not?

A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or they've chosen to hate the sin, but embrace the sinner.



No, they are _affirming_ the sin.  

Google "affirming churches" or "inclusive churches" and see for yourself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> No, they are _affirming_ the sin.
> 
> Google "affirming churches" or "inclusive churches" and see for yourself.



Now that we know it's St. Marks, I'd agree with you. Unless you knew the church before Ambush posted it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> You find out a friend of yours beats his wife.  Would you tell him to stop?  Would your opinion of him change if he did not?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.


When are you guys going to figure out what an incredibly ignorant comparison that is?
Do you not realize that anybody with even a partially working brain immediately sees the difference?
Its just dumbfounding.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This one:
> 
> http://thegavoice.com/sunday-atlantas-saint-mark-one-largest-gay-friendly-churches-nation/





ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  That one.



There are two "St. Marks" in Atlanta, one UMC and one Episcopal.  I read the article but I don't think they mentioned the denomination.  Which one is it?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now that we know it's St. Marks, I'd agree with you. Unless you knew the church before Ambush posted it.



I didn't know the specific church, but I know the churches who take this position.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> When are you guys going to figure out what an incredibly ignorant comparison that is?
> Do you not realize that anybody with even a partially working brain immediately sees the difference?



The only difference is that one is physical abuse, and the other is spiritual abuse.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> You find out a friend of yours beats his wife.  Would you tell him to stop?  Would your opinion of him change if he did not?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.



No. Yes. 


See how easy that is?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> When are you guys going to figure out what an incredibly ignorant comparison that is?
> Do you not realize that anybody with even a partially working brain immediately sees the difference?
> Its just dumbfounding.



Yes.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> There are two "St. Marks" in Atlanta, one UMC and one Episcopal.  I read the article but I don't think they mentioned the denomination.  Which one is it?




My friend said his church is Methodist.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> The only difference is that one is physical abuse, and the other is spiritual abuse.


Apparently you don't see the difference in those either.
Look we know the point you are trying to make but that comparison is just ridiculous and does far more damage to your case than the point you think you are making.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> The only difference is that one is physical abuse, and the other is spiritual abuse.



And we all know who the arbiter of what constitutes spiritual abuse is. It's the one with the mightiest super discerning powers.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> There are two "St. Marks" in Atlanta, one UMC and one Episcopal.  I read the article but I don't think they mentioned the denomination.  Which one is it?





> It’s rare that a church service begins with an announcement asking worshipers for nominations for an upcoming drag show. But not many churches are like Saint Mark United Methodist.



First paragraph.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> First paragraph.


I wonder if back in the day when it was normal for boys to wear girls clothes if that would have been considered an "in church drag show"?
Probably not because nobody considered it "creepy" back then.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> You find out a friend of yours beats his wife.  Would you tell him to stop?  Would your opinion of him change if he did not?
> 
> A simple yes or no will suffice.



Does the Bible condemn wife beating?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I wonder if back in the day when it was normal for boys to wear girls clothes if that would have been considered an "in church drag show"?
> Probably not because nobody considered it "creepy" back then.



And how you can bless many things with a celebration of wine, even in the Bible, but it's illegal to buy it before church on a Sunday.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No. Yes.
> 
> 
> See how easy that is?



So, we agree then (at least on the "yes" part):  abusive relationships are bad.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And how you can bless many things with a celebration of wine, even in the Bible, but it's illegal to buy it before church on a Sunday.




It's not wine.  It's grape juice.  Ask the Baptists.  They're the only ones that are right about everything.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> First paragraph.



Doh!

I'm not sure how I missed that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> And we all know who the arbiter of what constitutes spiritual abuse is. It's the one with the mightiest super discerning powers.



... or the one with the ability to read black print on white paper.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently you don't see the difference in those either.
> Look we know the point you are trying to make but that comparison is just ridiculous and does far more damage to your case than the point you think you are making.



Sure I see differences.

One is corporeal, and one is spiritual.

One is finite, and one is eternal.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... should find a church that cares about his soul.



Presbyterians believe in total depravity and election. What better church than this for your soul?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Interpretation, my friend.  I can't say that his magic discernment power is better or worse than anyone else's.
> 
> From my heathen interpretation of the Bible I would say that what he and his lover do is OK by Jesus.



Like my belief as an example. I believe God is referring to straight people who have gay sex. Straight Christian men who abandoned their heterosexual ways for gay ways. They were formerly practicing heteros.
The women folks too. They were already having hetero sex when they "turned."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's not wine.  It's grape juice.  Ask the Baptists.  They're the only ones that are right about everything.



That was some very full bodied grape juice when I took communion then. 



centerpin fan said:


> Doh!
> 
> I'm not sure how I missed that.



It happens to the best of us.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

Eleven people reading this thread.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Eleven people reading this thread.



And most seem to be members. 

Fascinating.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Like my belief as an example. I believe God is referring to straight people who have gay sex. Straight Christian men who abandoned their heterosexual ways for gay ways. They were formerly practicing heteros.
> The women folks too. They were already having hetero sex when they "turned."



I think you are correct. Based on what I have read of the practices around that time, it was rather common for grown men to have 'boy toys'. And there may have been some 'experimentation'. I am not sure they turned rather just exploring. ewww. 

Surely, Jesus wouldn't have an issue with folks he made(born) that way.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> So, we agree then (at least on the "yes" part):  abusive relationships are bad.



I would tell the wife to leave him.  If she doesn't that's her fault.  If he hit her in my presence I would take issue.

I don't think you are qualified to make the judgement on whether or not St. Mark's is spiritually abusive.

I guess that's the crux of the matter.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... or the one with the ability to read black print on white paper.


 

Everyone can read it.  It's the discerning part that seems so elusive.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Like my belief as an example. I believe God is referring to straight people who have gay sex. Straight Christian men who abandoned their heterosexual ways for gay ways. They were formerly practicing heteros.
> The women folks too. They were already having hetero sex when they "turned."



Maybe they were pretending to be straight out of fear or societal pressure but were really gay all along.

You're a great example of how one can discern different things from the same simple text that supposedly is simple enough for a child to understand.  In fact, isn't childlike faith a virtue?  Isn't it weird that childlike faith would be virtue except for every other part of your life?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think you are qualified to make the judgement on whether or not St. Mark's is spiritually abusive.




This is just one priest's opinion, but I think he is spot on:




> The principle in Scripture and Tradition is that that homosexual sex is inherently sinful. How one pastorally deals with a homosexual who acknowledges his sin, and wishes to repent of it is an entirely different question. Whether the priest will tell him that he needs to repent, or tell him that homosexuality is natural and that he can go on engaging in homosexual sex is a question of the basic moral principles of the Christian Faith. Any priest who suggests that homosexual sex is not inherently sinful, and must be repented of is in fact a heretic... a man who slams the doors of repentance in the face of sinners, and seeks the ********* of those who wishes to persuade.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Everyone can read it.  It's the discerning part that seems so elusive.



Nobody had a problem discerning the meanings of these passages for 2,000 years.  The interpretation that AD mentions above is an innovation, completely unknown in church history.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> This is just one priest's opinion, but I think he is spot on:



Cite source please.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Sure I see differences.
> 
> One is corporeal, and one is spiritual.
> 
> One is finite, and one is eternal.


One existence is fact, and one existence is opinion.....


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Nobody had a problem discerning the meanings of these passages for 2,000 years.  The interpretation that AD mentions above is an innovation, completely unknown in church history.



I don't want to call anyone out but it is clear that other Christians here on this little ol' forum have interpreted it differently.  I guess you will just have to come out and tell them that they are just plain wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Nobody had a problem discerning the meanings of these passages for 2,000 years.  The interpretation that AD mentions above is an innovation, completely unknown in church history.



http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

From the link: 





> Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

> Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).





> These absurd methods of "re-reading" history are not only being tolerated, but accepted and praised in mainstream academia. Since we have been supposedly "liberated" from the "coercive" idea of truth and reality, why shouldn't feminists, homosexuals, and every kind of revisionist with an agenda seize the moment to exploit their interests?
> 
> That is exactly what John Boswell did. The past Chairman of Yale's history department was gay and a convert to Catholicism. He resided in New Haven with his long-time companion, and died not too long ago [1994] at age 42 of an AIDS-related illness. Now, in "history according to Boswell," homosexuality was tolerated in the first centuries of Christianity and homosexual marriages were celebrated liturgically in the Middle Ages.
> 
> If you have a child enrolled in a Medieval History class at a university, you might check out the reading list------there is a good chance he will be exposed to Boswell's "scholarship." His 1980 book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality has become the standard reference for those who want the Church to reverse its traditional teaching against homosexual unions and activities. This book, which Boswell admitted was written to "prove" there was acceptance of homosexuality in the Western Catholic tradition from the beginning of the Christian era until the 14th Century, won the American Book Award for History in 1981




http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may23tru.htm


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Cite source please.



I don't have it.  I had copied the quote into an email.

He's an Orthodox priest from Texas.  I will try to find link.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> ... it is clear that other Christians here on this little ol' forum have interpreted it differently.



They sho nuff be some crazy ideas on this forum.




ambush80 said:


> I guess you will just have to come out and tell them that they are just plain wrong.



They are just plain wrong.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> One existence is fact, and one existence is opinion.....



That is your opinion.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 19, 2015)

Bad news: homosexuality is a sin like any other sin that would surely condemn the guilty party to he11.

GOOD NEWS!! : The blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient to wash the sin of homosexuality whiter than snow,taking that condemnation away.

AIN'T GOD AWESOME?!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may23tru.htm


http://clgs.org/resource-library/bouquets-and-brickbats-reactions-john-boswells-book-same-s


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> That is your opinion.


That's as lame as your comparison.
Your entire belief in religion/God is based on faith. Which it has to be because it is NOT fact. Except in YOUR opinion.
Its a fact that physical abuse exists regardless of opnion.
Your comparison and argument is so ridiculous that any thinking person figures if you are going to use ignorant examples to make your point then your point must be based on ignorance too.
Underneath the ignorance of your example you have a valid point according to Christian beliefs. Unfortuantely the ignorance of your example negates that.
But go ahead keep on using it.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Like my belief as an example. I believe God is referring to straight people who have gay sex. Straight Christian men who abandoned their heterosexual ways for gay ways. They were formerly practicing heteros.
> The women folks too. They were already having hetero sex when they "turned."



Please post the scripture and highlight the part that shows how you came to this belief.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That's as lame as your comparison.
> Your entire belief in religion is based on faith. Which it has to be because it is NOT fact. Except in YOUR opinion.
> Its a fact that physical abuse exists.
> Your comparison and argument is so ridiculous that any thinking person figures if you are going to use ignorant examples to make your point then your point must be based on ignorance too.
> But go ahead keep on using it.


But this thread is about the Christian faith and what that entails as it pertains to homer-sexuals. The comparison is 100% legit as far as his(and my) faith is concerned.

Beating your wife= bad

Not telling your church members to repent from ALL their sins= bad

Unless I'm not understanding your point. Turkey season is in two days, so it's hard to concentrate.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may23tru.htm



What this shows is that people come to different conclusions from their "discernment" of scripture.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> But this thread is about the Christian faith and what that entails as it pertains to homer-sexuals. The comparison is 100% legit as far as his(and my) faith is concerned.
> 
> Beating your wife= bad
> 
> ...





> The comparison is 100% legit as far as his(and my) faith is concerned.


Sure and if you were talking to each other that would be fine because you both share the same OPINION.
But the example completely falls apart when talking to us because they are in FACT not the same.
If God and religious beliefs didn't exist, beating your wife would still be classified as "bad" (to most people).
If God and religious beliefs didn't exist neither would the concept that the gay person needed to repent.
One is dependent on God existing.
One is not.
Big difference.


> Turkey season is in two days, so it's hard to concentrate.


Ive packed and repacked my vest and oiled and re-oiled my shotgun at least 10 times this week


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Please post the scripture and highlight the part that shows how you came to this belief.



Let's pick up at Romans 1:21;
Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.

(These people knew God but didn't worship God. It would appear illogical that a totally depraved sinner could worship God. Therefore they knew God, not of God.)

verse 23;
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

(That was their first exchange, turning, or change. Again a depraved lost sinner couldn't exchange, turn, or change.)

verse24;
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies.

(God allowed them to go hog wild, to do whatever their hearts wanted to do. Even though they were straight, they started lusting after men. We know they were straight because only heteros were allowed to marry. We know they were married because they were having sex. Unmarried people who know God don't have sex.)

verse25;
They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

(this is the exchange or trade they made mentioned earlier. They exchanged worshiping God for worshiping idols.)

verse26;
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.

(Even their women EXCHANGED natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. They would have to be heterosexual married women in order to do this. )

verse27;
In 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.

( The men likewise gave up natural relations with women. To GIVE UP relations, one would already be performing these hetero relations.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman. They left the natural use of the woman. They GAVE UP relations with women. 
They ABANDONED relations with women.
They committed indecent acts with males. Some of the same acts heteros commit with each other. Heterosexuals also commit indecent sexual acts.)

verse28;
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

 (God abandoned them to their foolish thinking. God gave them over to a reprobate mind. Again they had to KNOW God in order for God to abandon them. They could not have already been depraved in order to become depraved. You can't turn a depraved sinner into a depraved sinner.)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

Their fate was sealed when they quit worshiping God and started worshiping Idols. They were turned over by God. They became very depraved when they were turned over to a reprobate mind. They started doing all kinds of evil wickeds.                                                                                                 God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.

This is explaining some terribly evil idol worshipping, formerly God worshipping, heteros having gay sex.                                                                                                  We could also add pederasty, male temple prostitutes, and married hetero males who have gay sex. None of this is common in our society as it is in the middle east.
It isn't describing two gay individuals in a loving relationship who never abandoned or exchange hetero sex for gay sex.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> But this thread is about the Christian faith and what that entails as it pertains to homer-sexuals. The comparison is 100% legit as far as his(and my) faith is concerned.
> 
> Beating your wife= bad
> 
> ...



But Churches don't use the same discernment for all the sins. I've never known of a preacher to not marry a fat couple who drank too much.
Christians spend too much discernment on the sins they will never struggle with instead of focusing on gluttony, drunkardness, lust, anger, hatred, the ability to forgive, cheating, stealing, lying, gossiping,etc.
Some of these sins are on Paul's list that will keep someone out of the Kingdom. 
The sins that each individual Church members struggle with is what the Church needs to focus on. Focus on the Christians that have lust and hate in their hearts. Don't marry those Christians until they repent. Repent mean change. Once the glutton changes then he can get married. Once the drunkard repents then he can get married. Once the lust is gone, then he can get married. Treat each sin with the same discernment.
Once the hetero repents from having gay sex or the homo quits having hetero sex, then they can get married. Once the hetero male quits having gay sex on the down low, he can get married.
If we all repent of all of our sins, then we can get married.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Bad news: homosexuality is a sin like any other sin that would surely condemn the guilty party to he11.
> 
> GOOD NEWS!! : The blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient to wash the sin of homosexuality whiter than snow,taking that condemnation away.
> 
> AIN'T GOD AWESOME?!!


Well that all depends.
Is homosexuality a choice?
Were they born that way?
Do the chemicals in their brain tell them who to be attracted to through no fault of their own?
Did God make them that way?
Since we don't know yet you are basing your awesomeness on nothing other than opinion.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Well that all depends.
> Is homosexuality a choice?
> Were they born that way?
> Do the chemicals in their brain tell them who to be attracted to through no fault of their own?
> ...



So am I correct in assuming that you believe the homosexual ACTS of homosexuals are not sinful.(not talking about just a chemical imbalance here)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Well that all depends.
> Is homosexuality a choice?
> Were they born that way?
> Do the chemicals in their brain tell them who to be attracted to through no fault of their own?
> ...



I think what Welderguy is saying that once God elects the homosexual that the blood of Christ washes away his sin.
God doesn't elect someone based on the individuals actions.
Once elected the homosexual is granted salvation. Grace  works the same way for heterosexuals too. Even the ones with lust in their hearts.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure and if you were talking to each other that would be fine because you both share the same OPINION.
> But the example completely falls apart when talking to us because they are in FACT not the same.
> If God and religious beliefs didn't exist, beating your wife would still be classified as "bad" (to most people).
> If God and religious beliefs didn't exist neither would the concept that the gay person needed to repent.
> ...


That's was my point when I said "as it pertains to our faith", I can see how someone of the A/A persuasion could see it differently. 




> Ive packed and repacked my vest and oiled and re-oiled my shotgun at least 10 times this week


Lol, maybe we can get together with JB again this year and do another hunt, breakfast is on me of we go.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So am I correct in assuming that you believe the homosexual ACTS of homosexuals are not sinful.(not talking about just a chemical imbalance here)


"Sin" is a religious concept. I am not religious so no I don't think its sinful.
Nor do I think its "wrong".
What two consenting adults do with each other is none of my business and doesn't affect my life in any way.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

660griz said:


> I think you are correct. Based on what I have read of the practices around that time, it was rather common for grown men to have 'boy toys'. And there may have been some 'experimentation'. I am not sure they turned rather just exploring. ewww.
> 
> Surely, Jesus wouldn't have an issue with folks he made(born) that way.



Yes, it's pretty common in the middle east. Also when Christianity was being spread in the Roman empire, the God of Abraham wanted to remove the sex that was part of the pagan's worship. This included Holy orgies, temple prostitutes, etc. 
God wanted to clean up the morals the pagans didn't have. He knew it would be better if men stayed home with their wives instead of having boy & mistresses on the side and fornicating at orgies.
He wanted man to worship him instead of "self." He wanted man to stop doing whatever felt good and think of others instead of self.
I'm amazed at how many Christians miss what the point of all this really meant. We truly are blind.

Like the story of the rich man. God didn't want the rich man to give up his riches to enter Heaven, he wanted him to give up "self."
He wanted the rich man to realize he couldn't do it himself. That he needed Jesus.
It's all about that grace, bout that grace!


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Let's pick up at Romans 1:21;
> Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
> 
> (These people knew God but didn't worship God. It would appear illogical that a totally depraved sinner could worship God. Therefore they knew God, not of God.)
> ...


Can you read that and come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is in any way natural? Are homosexuals unnatural humans?

What verses are you using to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is ok with God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Can you read that and come to the conclusion that homosexual sex is in any way natural? Are homosexuals unnatural humans?
> 
> What verses are you using to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is ok with God?



I'm picking and choosing this one story in Romans for the moment.
I don't see the need or connection of knowing what natural sex is. In this episode, Christian heteros stopped having natural sex with each other. They abandoned their worship of God and they abandoned their hetero lifestyle. They started worshiping idols and having gay sex.
Whether or not homo sex is not natural isn't their demise.
Their demise is all about abandonment of God, their natural spouses, their changes, and "self" worship.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm picking and choosing this one story in Romans for the moment.
> I don't see the need or connection of knowing what natural sex is. In this episode, Christian heteros stopped having natural sex with each other. They abandoned their worship of God and they abandoned their hetero lifestyle. They started worshiping idols and having gay sex.
> Whether or not homo sex is not natural isn't their demise.
> Their demise is all about abandonment of God, their natural spouses, their changes, and "self" worship.


Ok.
My questions still stand. You're telling me that homosexual people are not natural humans, yet they are born just like you and me, naturally and in the image of God. You're also telling me that God is ok with homosexuality, I can't find any verses that substantiate that claim.

You're reading something into those verses that just isn't there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Ok.
> My questions still stand. You're telling me that homosexual people are not natural humans, yet they are born just like you and me, naturally and in the image of God. You're also telling me that God is ok with homosexuality, I can't find any verses that substantiate that claim.
> 
> You're reading something into those verses that just isn't there.





> You're also telling me that God is ok with homosexuality, I can't find any verses that substantiate that claim.


Been a while since I read the Bible but I don't think you are going to find any 
I think Arts point is the Bible, in the example he used, isn't talking about "homosexuals" but is talking about otherwise heterosexual people performing homosexual acts.
Which I guess technically would make them bisexual.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> "Sin" is a religious concept. I am not religious so no I don't think its sinful.
> Nor do I think its "wrong".
> What two consenting adults do with each other is none of my business and doesn't affect my life in any way.



What if YOU started doing homosexual acts?
(we're all capable of it)
Would that be wrong in your opinion?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What if YOU started doing homosexual acts?
> (we're all capable of it)
> Would that be wrong in your opinion?


First I am not homosexual or bisexual so I wouldn't "start doing it" of my own free will.
Again I don't believe homosexuality is "wrong".
Neither do I believe being left handed is "wrong".
Or liking Brussels sprouts, which I find disgusting, is "wrong".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Been a while since I read the Bible but I don't think you are going to find any
> I think Arts point is the Bible, in the example he used, isn't talking about "homosexuals" but is talking about otherwise heterosexual people performing homosexual acts.
> Which I guess technically would make them bisexual.



Except the people in the Romans story were natural heteros.
They weren't born bisexual or gay. 
They were 100% hetero who abandoned their natural ways because of "self." They didn't care that they were hetero. They didn't care that they were married. They didn't care that they knew God. They did whatever felt good and whatever they felt like doing to please themselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What if YOU started doing homosexual acts?
> (we're all capable of it)
> Would that be wrong in your opinion?



I believe it would be wrong if I was born a heterosexual. Especially if I was married. But so is lust, adultery, and fornication.

None of this matters with God's election.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Ok.
> My questions still stand. You're telling me that homosexual people are not natural humans, yet they are born just like you and me, naturally and in the image of God. You're also telling me that God is ok with homosexuality, I can't find any verses that substantiate that claim.
> 
> You're reading something into those verses that just isn't there.



And the verses you do find describe something completely different from your definition of homosexuality. 
Your definition is based on  your indoctrination instead of trying to figure out God's definition as it pertains to each individual Bible passage. 

If unnatural acts are a sin then we all need to repent. This would include unnatural  sex acts with our wives, tattoos, pierced ears, flying to the moon, scuba diving, eating agricultural grains, and many many more. Heterosexuals actually perform more unnatural  sex acts than homosexuals.

If homosexuals are born that way then it would be a sin for them to abandon their natural ways and have sex with the opposite sex if doing unnatural acts are wrong.

Lust is natural but it's still a sin.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Except the people in the Romans story were natural heteros.
> They weren't born bisexual or gay.
> They were 100% hetero who abandoned their natural ways because of "self." They didn't care that they were hetero. They didn't care that they were married. They didn't care that they knew God. They did whatever felt good and whatever they felt like doing to please themselves.





> They were 100% hetero who abandoned their natural ways because of "self."


At the point they started having gay sex and as you pointed out in your other post found it pleasurable and felt good, they were no longer 100% hetero.
If a man looks at another man and feels desire for him he isn't 100% hetero whether he acts on that desire or not.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Nobody had a problem discerning the meanings of these passages for 2,000 years.  The interpretation that AD mentions above is an innovation, completely unknown in church history.



Many years ago Christians thought with their hearts. They also thought the sun revolved around the earth. We've since been enlightened.
Knowledge will be gained as time progresses. This is Biblical.
My knowledge has been revealed by my enlightenment. It's not an innovation.
Not everyone will be enlightened at the same time and about every truth. 
When people were enlightened that slavery was wrong it was revealed to each at their own due time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> At the point they started having gay sex and as you pointed out in your other post found it pleasurable and felt good, they were no longer 100% hetero.
> If a man looks at another man and feels desire for him he isn't 100% hetero whether he acts on that desire or not.



What you are saying is I could drive a million nails and never be a carpenter, but have one gay sex act and I'm a homosexual the rest of my life.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 19, 2015)

I don't believe people are born homosexual.There are those that have different hormonal and DNA makeup that affects their appearance and masculinity/feminity traits, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect their actions.It's the giving in to the sinful lusts that is wrong when it goes against God's word.This is not exclusive to just homosexuality.It applies to all sins.They all had to be paid for on the cross.Jesus, who knew no sin,came to be made sin for us.That blows my mind that He could be "made sin" for us.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> At the point they started having gay sex and as you pointed out in your other post found it pleasurable and felt good, they were no longer 100% hetero.
> If a man looks at another man and feels desire for him he isn't 100% hetero whether he acts on that desire or not.



God's point is they were born hetero but abandoned their natural sex with women for unnatural sex with men. (unnatural for straight men)

By our definition they would be bisexual or no longer 100%hetero. 
By God's definition the were 100% hetero men having gay sex. 

Regardless it all started with the worship of idols and the abandonment of God. So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies.

I think it's more of why they did what they did instead of who they did it with. These people didn't start off as depraved homosexuals but "God believing" heterosexuals who abandoned God for worshiping idols that looked like man and animals. They reverted back to how pagans worshiped their Gods. Sex was part of their worship of "self."
Their homosexual acts were part of this manifestation.
It didn't stop at that point. It continued with other sins.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.
Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't believe people are born homosexual.There are those that have different hormonal and DNA makeup that affects their appearance and masculinity/feminity traits, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect their actions.It's the giving in to the sinful lusts that is wrong when it goes against God's word.This is not exclusive to just homosexuality.It applies to all sins.They all had to be paid for on the cross.Jesus, who knew no sin,came to be made sin for us.That blows my mind that He could be "made sin" for us.



I was born left handed and some people are born mentally challenged. Some people are born with unnatural birth defects. We are all born in the image of God. 

Jesus paid the price for our sins. After this happened it allowed God to elect whomever he wants. If God can elect the Hindu who has never heard of Jesus, he can just as easily elect the Gay Hindu.

The Presbyterian Church believes as you do that this election is possible. That without God the Gay Hindu is totally depraved. The blind man can never see. 

God will elect the gay Presbyterian and then open his eyes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 19, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't believe people are born homosexual.There are those that have different hormonal and DNA makeup that affects their appearance and masculinity/feminity traits, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect their actions.It's the giving in to the sinful lusts that is wrong when it goes against God's word.This is not exclusive to just homosexuality.It applies to all sins.They all had to be paid for on the cross.Jesus, who knew no sin,came to be made sin for us.That blows my mind that He could be "made sin" for us.



I can't see where the Christians I know to include myself have made much headway in the repentance of sins department. I hope my election isn't based on anything I do.
My repentance or change is part of why I needed Jesus. My repentance is the change in my belief. If I could repent and quit sinning and save myself, I would have did that instead. I've tried it that way and wasn't too successful repenting from sin. Now I believe Jesus died for my sins.
That belief is my repentance or change.

We can't say Jesus died for our sins and our election is from God and add; but only if we repent from sin.

Grace and election doesn't work that way. It's not based on anything we do. Look around you at the Christians you know and work with. Have any of them actually repented from sinning? 

1 Corinthians 6:9-
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.


Now my question is, did these Christians repent from these sins or were they "washed" from these sins by the blood of Jesus on the cross?
Does this washing allow us into the Kingdom or must we repent or change from performing these sins?
Is trying good enough or is real repentance from sinning necessary to enter the Kingdom? Where is trying to quit sinning the same as repenting from sin?
Why was the washing necessary in the first place?

It's all about that grace, bout that grace!


----------



## welderguy (Mar 19, 2015)

> We can't say Jesus died for our sins and our election is from God and add; but only if we repent from sin.
> Grace and election doesn't work that way. It's not based on anything we do./QUOTE]
> 
> ^This is true^
> He takes care of it all.And when He reveals it to an individual what He's done for them, He puts His love in their heart and that draws them to Himself.It makes them want to follow His word.Ahh.Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't believe people are born homosexual.There are those that have different hormonal and DNA makeup that affects their appearance and masculinity/feminity traits, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect their actions.It's the giving in to the sinful lusts that is wrong when it goes against God's word.This is not exclusive to just homosexuality.It applies to all sins.They all had to be paid for on the cross.Jesus, who knew no sin,came to be made sin for us.That blows my mind that He could be "made sin" for us.





> I don't believe people are born homosexual.


That's fine.
But you don't believe it because its a fact that they aren't, you believe it because that's what you want to believe. 
According to your beliefs if they were born that way that would mean God made them that way. 
And that would screw up the whole story.


> There are those that have different hormonal and DNA makeup that affects their appearance and masculinity/feminity traits, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect their actions


That's kind of like saying "just because your DNA etc determined you would be 5'6" tall, that shouldn't stop you from growing to be 6'3" tall if you want to".


> It's the giving in to the sinful lusts that is wrong when it goes against God's word.This is not exclusive to just homosexuality.It applies to all sins.


But this particular "sin" seems to rile you guys up the most.
I haven't read a single head line that says "Church refuses to marry over weight couple".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't believe people are born homosexual.There are those that have different hormonal and DNA makeup that affects their appearance and masculinity/feminity traits, but that doesn't and shouldn't affect their actions.It's the giving in to the sinful lusts that is wrong when it goes against God's word.This is not exclusive to just homosexuality.It applies to all sins.They all had to be paid for on the cross.Jesus, who knew no sin,came to be made sin for us.That blows my mind that He could be "made sin" for us.



I think your idea of predestination is more in line with the Presbyterians than Primitive Baptist. The origins of the Presbyterian churches are in Calvinism. They believe election is the only thing God predestines. 
They do believe man is totally depraved. They do believe God will elect the homosexual.

What about your answer to this?

1 Corinthians 6:9-
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Now my question is, did these Christians repent from these sins or were they "washed" from these sins by the blood of Jesus on the cross?
Does this washing allow us into the Kingdom or must we repent or change from performing these sins?
Is trying good enough or is real repentance from sinning necessary to enter the Kingdom? Where is trying to quit sinning the same as repenting from sin?
Why was the washing necessary in the first place? 
Will these sinners listed above inherit Kingdom of God if they are "washed?" None of those sinners on the list will inherit the Kingdom of God so either they must quit performing those sins or the "washing" made it possible for them to be excluded from those sins keeping them out of the Kingdom. 

This is a basic question that the "gospel" is based on that any Christian should know the answer to.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 20, 2015)

Aside from the bible stating homosexuality is wrong, nature and(your favorite Walt) logic scream of its wrongness.
What if everyone all of a sudden turned homosexual.The entire human race would become extinct.It doesn't even make good nonsense.
Even the animal kingdom doesn't practice homosexuality and they're dumb ANIMALS.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Welder, before you make statements as if they are fact you should take the time to make sure they are true. Otherwise, while I am not saying you are dumb, you sound as dumb as the homosexual practicing animals that you say do not exist.
Literally one minute of searching on google will give you all the examples you need. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Aside from the bible stating homosexuality is wrong, nature and(your favorite Walt) logic scream of its wrongness.
> What if everyone all of a sudden turned homosexual.The entire human race would become extinct.It doesn't even make good nonsense.
> Even the animal kingdom doesn't practice homosexuality and they're dumb ANIMALS.



I'm more worried about what God thinks about homosexuality than nature. 
Nature seems to always work itself out. It's us humans that depend on God to make us operate correctly.
Christianity isn't based on logic. It's based on faith.

I'm afraid man's definition of homosexuality is different from God's.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm more worried about what God thinks about homosexuality than nature.
> Nature seems to always work itself out.
> 
> 
> ...



I do not think that is accurate.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> But this particular "sin" seems to rile you guys up the most.
> I haven't read a single head line that says "Church refuses to marry over weight couple".



I've known many preachers who marry fornicators. He doesn't even ask the couple if they've been fornicating. He isn't doing them any justice by marrying them until they have repented of their fornication.
I know some of these couples were fornicating as they told me they had been and the fact that they were living together when they got married.
The least the preacher could do would tell them to stop fornicating for month and then I'll marry you. I wouldn't exactly call that "repenting" but it would be a start. Repenting means to stop not slow down. Repenting means to change, not try. Either we repent or we don't.
either we've been washed or we haven't.

Christians don't treat all sins the same. Fornication of unmarried couples is a prime example. They will tell you it's just as bad but have you ever known of a preacher to not marry a fornicating couple?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've known many preachers who marry fornicators. He doesn't even ask the couple if they've been fornicating. He isn't doing them any justice by marrying them until they have repented of their fornication.
> I know some of these couples were fornicating as they told me they had been and the fact that they were living together when they got married.
> The least the preacher could do would tell them to stop fornicating for month and then I'll marry you. I wouldn't exactly call that "repenting" but it would be a start. Repenting means to stop not slow down. Repenting means to change, not try. Either we repent or we don't.
> either we've been washed or we haven't.
> ...


If people did not fornicate before they were married you would not be here. It happened for a few million years before anyone got married by a pastor or priest.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Aside from the bible stating homosexuality is wrong, nature and(your favorite Walt) logic scream of its wrongness.
> What if everyone all of a sudden turned homosexual.The entire human race would become extinct.It doesn't even make good nonsense.
> Even the animal kingdom doesn't practice homosexuality and they're dumb ANIMALS.





> What if everyone all of a sudden turned homosexual


What if the earth was square, what if the sky fell, what if I was a billionaire, what if what if what if........


> The entire human race would become extinct.


Give that one some thought. Think about how today, right now, a child can be created without a man and a woman even being in the same room.
And yes read Bullet's links.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> And the verses you do find describe something completely different from your definition of homosexuality.


There's more than one definition of homosexual? 


> Your definition is based on  your indoctrination instead of trying to figure out God's definition as it pertains to each individual Bible passage.
> 
> If unnatural acts are a sin then we all need to repent. This would include unnatural  sex acts with our wives, tattoos, pierced ears, flying to the moon, scuba diving, eating agricultural grains, and many many more. Heterosexuals actually perform more unnatural  sex acts than homosexuals.
> 
> ...


Well, you've gotten one thing right in this thread. 

The verses in Romans say that homosexuality is unnatural, it doesn't say that it's only unnatural for hetero's, it just says it's unnatural. When a person is born, they're naturally attracted to the opposite sex, and it's unnatural for a person to do anything different. When you read those verses in Romans and come to another conclusion, you're reading what you want to read.


Show me verses that would indicate that God is ok with homosexuality. I'm sorry, but without going around your hiney to get to your elbow you're not going to be able to do it.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 20, 2015)

Another question Art, are pedophiles born that way too? Is it natural for them to have relations with little children and unnatural for them to have relations with people their own age? 

What about people who have relations with animals? Is that the way God naturally made them?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

String, why did it take a couple of million years for God to have a human write down it was unnatural or wrong?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

You guys should be careful with your usage of "natural".
What we know is -
homosexuality has existed at least since the beginning of recorded history.
People are born everyday who are or become homosexuals.
Therefore the existence of homosexuality is what is "natural".
As far as we know it has always existed.
That makes it "natural". 
What would be "unnatural" is if it all of a sudden ceased to exist.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If people did not fornicate before they were married you would not be here. It happened for a few million years before anyone got married by a pastor or priest.



Here is the Naked Ape at his most primal - in love, at work, at war. Meet man as he really is: relative to the apes, stripped of his veneer as we see him courting, making love, sleeping, socializing, grooming, playing.

http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zoo...&qid=1426856162&sr=8-1&keywords=the+naked+ape

The Zoologist explains how man changed from a wild fornicator to a more monogamous fornicator. In order for this to happen man had to think a woman looked better from the front instead of from her backside.
I wonder if this naked ape had wild homosexual orgies?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Here is the Naked Ape at his most primal - in love, at work, at war. Meet man as he really is: relative to the apes, stripped of his veneer as we see him courting, making love, sleeping, socializing, grooming, playing.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zoo...&qid=1426856162&sr=8-1&keywords=the+naked+ape
> 
> ...



More monogamous. What factors influenced that behavior? And is "more" monogamous completely monogamous? 
I do not think so...and only because the statistics show that despite human advancements there are still primal urges that govern us more than any man made commandments that claim it is from a higher power.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> There's more than one definition of homosexual?
> 
> Well, you've gotten one thing right in this thread.
> 
> ...



Are unnatural acts sins? Is it a sin to go against nature?

Was homosexuality a sin because of it's unnaturalness?
In Romans the people performing these unnatural acts were hetero. 
How does God define homosexuality? What is the context of the Hebrew or Greek words? What was the common practice of the people in the Romans passage?

I can't show any verses where God approves of homosexuality. I can only find verses that describe heteros having gay sex and that it is wrong for heteros to have gay sex. 

I can only go by scripture. I can't add to it. To say God is against two men born gay loving each other would be wrong for me to do. I can find where God was against married men having sex with male prostitutes and heteros having same sex partners.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've known many preachers who marry fornicators. He doesn't even ask the couple if they've been fornicating. He isn't doing them any justice by marrying them until they have repented of their fornication.
> I know some of these couples were fornicating as they told me they had been and the fact that they were living together when they got married.
> The least the preacher could do would tell them to stop fornicating for month and then I'll marry you. I wouldn't exactly call that "repenting" but it would be a start. Repenting means to stop not slow down. Repenting means to change, not try. Either we repent or we don't.
> either we've been washed or we haven't.
> ...


That's why when some of you guys spout this "all sins are the same" nonsense we just roll our eyes and chuckle.
Maybe they are supposed to be the same but its undeniable that in general what is preached is not what is practiced.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> Another question Art, are pedophiles born that way too? Is it natural for them to have relations with little children and unnatural for them to have relations with people their own age?
> 
> What about people who have relations with animals? Is that the way God naturally made them?



I would say they are born depraved with the capacity to perform those sins. Whether it's natural or unnatural isn't what makes it a sin. 
Murder might be a natural survival instinct but it's still a sin. 
There are many types of  sex you could have with your wife. Some people would consider those types unnatural.
Were we born to have any and all types of sexual relations with any and all?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've known many preachers who marry fornicators. He doesn't even ask the couple if they've been fornicating. He isn't doing them any justice by marrying them until they have repented of their fornication.
> I know some of these couples were fornicating as they told me they had been and the fact that they were living together when they got married.
> The least the preacher could do would tell them to stop fornicating for month and then I'll marry you. I wouldn't exactly call that "repenting" but it would be a start. Repenting means to stop not slow down. Repenting means to change, not try. Either we repent or we don't.
> either we've been washed or we haven't.
> ...



What would the 30 days do, except make the preacher feel better?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What would the 30 days do, except make the preacher feel better?


Give the illusion that they were actually sorry for doing it.
For a lot of this stuff it seems the illusion is what really counts.
If the gay guy isn't a practicing gay it gives the illusion that he's actually not gay and everybody is happy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That's why when some of you guys spout this "all sins are the same" nonsense we just roll our eyes and chuckle.
> Maybe they are supposed to be the same but its undeniable that in general what is preached is not what is practiced.



I agree, lust is just as bad as adultery but my Christian buddies are always saying things like; did you see that fine looking chick walk by?" 
They say more than that but I'll keep it clean. 

I like your example of the Christian girl you took home. She was OK with fornicating as long as ya'll didn't watch a TV show with gay actors.

I think it's very hypocritical to think that God's grace covers your sins but not the sins of others.
Especially if God elects whomever he wants to without the actions of the person being a part of the equation.

This girl in your story for example, when did she repent? How often does she need to repent? Doesn't repent mean change? 
I haven't met many Christians that have shown me this change. If I ask them they then say, this change isn't necessary or it might take the drunkard a lifetime to change. What kind of repentance is just knowing you need to change if one doesn't really change?

If I could change, I would just change. I wouldn't have needed Jesus to have died for my sins. I would just quit sinning. I would repent of all sins and work my own way into Heaven. 
The whole purpose of sin was to show us we couldn't stop sinning and would thus need salvation.
This was God's plan before creation. 
He knew we would never be able to quit sinning. He knew we would never be able to repent from sins.
Our repentance or change is to know we can't quit sinning and that we need salvation from God. 
Salvation is from God by the act of Jesus dying on the cross.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> More monogamous. What factors influenced that behavior? And is "more" monogamous completely monogamous?
> I do not think so...and only because the statistics show that despite human advancements there are still primal urges that govern us more than any man made commandments that claim it is from a higher power.



I agree, but then I also believe in evolution and that I'm a naked ape.
Our behavior is a process of learning to not be so natural.
We are naturally animals. We have to learn to be humans.
Being a human is unnatural, it goes against our animalistic instincts.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Give the illusion that they were actually sorry for doing it.
> For a lot of this stuff it seems the illusion is what really counts.
> If the gay guy isn't a practicing gay it gives the illusion that he's actually not gay and everybody is happy.



Ed Zachary. Unless you're going to excommunicate them for sinning then there's really no point in chastising them for it, except to make yourself feel better as the morality police. Except that, much like the cop who flashes his lights to get through the red and then immediately shuts them off once passed, you're, the preacher, on no higher moral footing than they. 

Glass houses and such.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree, but then I also believe in evolution and that I'm a naked ape.
> Our behavior is a process of learning to not be so natural.
> We are naturally animals. We have to learn to be humans.
> Being a human is unnatural, it goes against our animalistic instincts.



So being human is a sin since it's not natural? A favorite argument of some who decry homosexuality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree, lust is just as bad as adultery but my Christian buddies are always saying things like; did you see that fine looking chick walk by?"
> They say more than that but I'll keep it clean.
> 
> I like your example of the Christian girl you took home. She was OK with fornicating as long as ya'll didn't watch a TV show with gay actors.
> ...





> If I ask them they then say, this change isn't necessary or it might take the drunkard a lifetime to change. What kind of repentance is just knowing you need to change if one doesn't really change?


That's a good example.
Just like the child murdering monster who is moments from dying saying "sorry God, I believe in you now" and according to many of you, off to heaven he goes.
He didn't actually change anything. He just said he was sorry then died. Like I said in my previous post it seems to be the illusion that is what really matters.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What would the 30 days do, except make the preacher feel better?



It would give the couple a repentance. Then they would be married and the fornication would be over.

Repentance from sin is wishful thinking. I've never been able to repent of my sins. Believe me I've tried.

I'm thankful for the "washing." Now it's up to the Holy Spirit to produce whatever fruits and whenever they will be produced.
It looks like it's gonna take a lifetime for me. The good thing is there will be no sinners in Heaven. Not even heteros having gay sex.(homosexuals)


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree, but then I also believe in evolution and that I'm a naked ape.
> Our behavior is a process of learning to not be so natural.
> We are naturally animals. We have to learn to be humans.
> Being a human is unnatural, it goes against our animalistic instincts.


Right. 
We are animals. We are evolving along the path that seems to best suit us. There is no need for man to step in two million years down the path and all of a sudden claim some god says we shouldn't do or be something other than we have been all along.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> *It would give the couple a repentance. Then they would be married and the fornication would be over.
> 
> Repentance from sin is wishful thinking. I've never been able to repent of my sins. Believe me I've tried.*
> 
> ...



You're conflicting yourself.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Give the illusion that they were actually sorry for doing it.
> For a lot of this stuff it seems the illusion is what really counts.
> If the gay guy isn't a practicing gay it gives the illusion that he's actually not gay and everybody is happy.



My point is why does the gay guy need to repent/change and actually stop having gay sex but the heterosexual doesn't have to stop having lust in his heart?
He will say he just needs to try and not have lust in his heart. 
That isn't a repentance.
Either you've got to stop sinning to enter the Kingdom or you don't.

1 Corinthians 6:9-
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Heaven is gonna be a small place if the "washing" doesn't work.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ed Zachary. Unless you're going to excommunicate them for sinning then there's really no point in chastising them for it, except to make yourself feel better as the morality police. Except that, much like the cop who flashes his lights to get through the red and then immediately shuts them off once passed, you're, the preacher, on no higher moral footing than they.
> 
> Glass houses and such.





> Unless you're going to excommunicate them for sinning


Certainly cant do that. How the heck would the bills get paid?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So being human is a sin since it's not natural? A favorite argument of some who decry homosexuality.



Yes being human is a sin. The only way out is the "washing."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Certainly cant do that. How the heck would the bills get paid?



Wait, I thought the pursuit was higher moral fiber, not keeping the lights on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes being human is a sin. The only way out is the "washing."



That's something new. You are born into sin as a baby. 

Tell me, what sin has an infant committed? Literally just pulled from the womb, and not what they might, or will commit later.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> My point is why does the gay guy need to repent/change and actually stop having gay sex but the heterosexual doesn't have to stop having lust in his heart?
> He will say he just needs to try and not have lust in his heart.
> That isn't a repentance.
> Either you've got to stop sinning to enter the Kingdom or you don't.
> ...





> My point is why does the gay guy need to repent/change and actually stop having gay sex but the heterosexual doesn't have to stop having lust in his heart?


Because from the beginning religion has been dominated by men. 
Most men look down on men who like men.
But most men like hot babes.
Therefore one is really bad and one is not so bad.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wait, I thought the pursuit was higher moral fiber, not keeping the lights on.


You fell for the illusion


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You fell for the illusion



I keep trying to put the /sarcasm in properly, but it won't render. I think there's something wrong with the HTML interpretation on this board.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 20, 2015)

Ten people reading this thread.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're conflicting yourself.



I did it on purpose to show that repentance from sin is conflicting in and of itself.

Christianity is based on the fact that man can't repent from sin and thus needs salvation. This salvation came in the form of God's Son Jesus who died on a cross.
By doing this his blood washed away all of our sins.
We still sin but our sins have been atoned, paid for, or a ransom has been paid.

If repentance was all that is needed for salvation then we could just stop sinning. We could buy our own salvation from eternal death.
If we could repent from sins, we wouldn't need Jesus.
The whole Old Testament was to show us we could never repent from our sins and would need a Messiah.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I did it on purpose to show that repentance from sin is conflicting in and of itself.
> 
> Christianity is based on the fact that man can't repent from sin and this needs salvation. This salvation came in the form of God's Son Jesus who died on a cross.
> By doing this his blood washed away all of our sins.
> ...



So who's the 30 days for again? It sounds like you're wanting them to repent to you, to clear you conscience about wedding sinners, rather than have them repent to Jesus or God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's something new. You are born into sin as a baby.
> 
> Tell me, what sin has an infant committed? Literally just pulled from the womb, and not what they might, or will commit later.



Perhaps every conception is immaculate.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Perhaps every conception is immaculate.



You said being human is a sin, and babies are human, so what sin has a newborn committed? 

Pure existence? Funny, that's the talk that got Lucifer removed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I keep trying to put the /sarcasm in properly, but it won't render. I think there's something wrong with the HTML interpretation on this board.


I got your sarcasm without the thingy.
I answered with equal sarcasm


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So who's the 30 days for again? It sounds like you're wanting them to repent to you, to clear you conscience about wedding sinners, rather than have them repent to Jesus or God.



Not me but Christians in general. I was only using the 30 day repentance of the fornicators to show how ridiculous the  repentance of homosexuals is as it pertains to Christianity in general. 
The 30 day repentance was a tongue-in-cheek response to the requirement of a homosexual repentance but not for the fornicator.
It was to show the hypocritical nature of some Christians.
That some sins must be stopped in order to enter the Kingdom of God but other sins don' have to be stopped. You just have to think about stopping or at least admit they are sins.

Some Christians think that if you admit Homosexuality is a sin then that is repentance enough. A Christian doesn't actually have to stop performing the sin, just realize that it is a sin, and then you are in.

Repentance means different things to different Christians.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not me but Christians in general. I was only using the 30 day repentance of the fornicators to show how ridiculous the  repentance of homosexuals is as it pertains to Christianity in general.
> The 30 day repentance was a tongue-in-cheek response to the requirement of a homosexual repentance but not for the fornicator.
> It was to show the hypocritical nature of some Christians.
> That some sins must be stopped in order to enter the Kingdom of God but other sins don' have to be stopped. You just have to think about stopping or at least admit they are sins.
> ...



Okay, the tongue in cheek part didn't come through. 

Wholly agree with the last statement, though it isn't all inclusive of all aspects of the faith, rites, religion, and morality of the faithful.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You said being human is a sin, and babies are human, so what sin has a newborn committed?
> 
> Pure existence? Funny, that's the talk that got Lucifer removed.



Being human is a sin in that it is inherited. Unless we are all born immaculate. Some Christians believe Mary was born without inheriting sin.
Some Christians believe we are all born without inheriting sin. 
Some Christians believe babies are born inheriting total depravity.

Maybe you are correct in that we are all born immaculate and only become sinners when we commit our first sin.

The Bible tells us that death comes to all of us because of Adam's sin. That none of us can escape death without the second Adam's death.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Being human is a sin in that it is inherited. Unless we are all born immaculate. Some Christians believe Mary was born without inheriting sin.
> Some Christians believe we are all born without inheriting sin.
> Some Christians believe babies are born inheriting total depravity.
> 
> ...



Okay, the inherited sin from others. Yeah, that seems like a fair shake. If you start with a sin you didn't commit then the deck is loaded against you from the moment you are born. 

Sorry, and this isn't against you, but that makes precisely 0 sense to me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, the tongue in cheek part didn't come through.
> 
> Wholly agree with the last statement, though it isn't all inclusive of all aspects of the faith, rites, religion, and morality of the faithful.



Yes and just as repentance means different things to different Christians, so does faith, belief, and grace as it pertains to salvation.
If God is no respecter of men and elects whom he wants to, regardless of our actions. If man only awakens after God elects. If man can only change using God's spirit dwelling within. If man can only believe after election.
If man get's his faith from God, and so on and so on, what difference does in make in the grand scheme of our salvation? 
If God can elect the Hindu who has never heard about Jesus, why can't he elect the Homo Hindu?

Why will there be no homosexuals in heaven but there will be drunkards and fornicators in Heaven?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Being human is a sin in that it is inherited. Unless we are all born immaculate. Some Christians believe Mary was born without inheriting sin.
> Some Christians believe we are all born without inheriting sin.
> Some Christians believe babies are born inheriting total depravity.
> 
> ...


I have a hard time following you with all the contradictions.
Earlier you are telling us that you believe in evolution and naked apes...now you are saying we inherited sin from Adam. If you truly believe at all in evolution based on all the available evidence then how can you throw Adam into the mix and muddy it all back up?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, the inherited sin from others. Yeah, that seems like a fair shake. If you start with a sin you didn't commit then the deck is loaded against you from the moment you are born.
> 
> Sorry, and this isn't against you, but that makes precisely 0 sense to me.



Would you say humans are born good and learn to be bad or are we born bad and learn to be good?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I have a hard time following you with all the contradictions.
> Earlier you are telling us that you believe in evolution and naked apes...now you are saying we inherited sin from Adam. If you truly believe at all in evolution based on all the available evidence then how can you throw Adam into the mix and muddy it all back up?



Because Adam was the first Naked Ape. At some moment in Adam's evolution he became human enough to sin and he did. 
Life is full of contradictions and we are ourselves full of contradictions.
Believing in Capitalism and Socialism at the same time is a contradiction.
Believing in predestination and free will at the same time is a contradiction.

I'm willing to admit contradictions exist everywhere including the Bible. It's easy to pick out verses to show your particular belief. It's harder to pick out verses that go against your belief. 
When a Christian is forming beliefs, he needs to find both verses for and against his decision.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes and just as repentance means different things to different Christians, so does faith, belief, and grace as it pertains to salvation.
> If God is no respecter of men and elects whom he wants to, regardless of our actions. If man only awakens after God elects. If man can only change using God's spirit dwelling within. If man can only believe after election.
> If man get's his faith from God, and so on and so on, what difference does in make in the grand scheme of our salvation?
> If God can elect the Hindu who has never heard about Jesus, why can't he elect the Homo Hindu?
> ...



Who can say that there _will_ be either, or any? Only God, if He's at home. 

That's one of my core points about it. It's not for us to judge what, in another, is good enough for salvation. As you pointed out, we all have a hard enough time, forgoing the inherited sin from Adam, keeping ourselves straight. 



Artfuldodger said:


> Would you say humans are born good and learn to be bad or are we born bad and learn to be good?



Much like my position on homosexuality being a choice or being a natural inclination, I believe it to be a little of column A and a little of column B. 

Some people are good, but choose to do bad things for varying reasons. Some people are inherently evil and give no thoughts to the effects their actions have on those around them. 

I believe that most people are good. Even if they have evil in their hearts, but don't act upon them, I believe that actions, not thoughts, are what define us.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, the inherited sin from others. Yeah, that seems like a fair shake. If you start with a sin you didn't commit then the deck is loaded against you from the moment you are born.
> 
> Sorry, and this isn't against you, but that makes precisely 0 sense to me.



It all gets confusing to me at times. God making Adam knowing full well he would sin, giving us the whole Old Testament to show us we couldn't stop sinning, knowing and creating everything with Jesus already in his mind.
Predestination, freewill, grace, works, repentance, yes it can get quite confusing.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Because Adam was the first Naked Ape. At some moment in Adam's evolution he became human enough to sin and he did.
> Life is full of contradictions and we are ourselves full of contradictions.
> Believing in Capitalism and Socialism at the same time is a contradiction.
> Believing in predestination and free will at the same time is a contradiction.
> ...



You believing that Adam was the first naked ape is just a way for you to blend things together. 
Humans are full of contradictions..I agree with you on that.
Why is your god?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It all gets confusing to me at times. God making Adam knowing full well he would sin, giving us the whole Old Testament to show us we couldn't stop sinning, knowing and creating everything with Jesus already in his mind.
> Predestination, freewill, grace, works, repentance, yes it can get quite confusing.



Which means, to me, that it's less likely to be accurate.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It all gets confusing to me at times. God making Adam knowing full well he would sin, giving us the whole Old Testament to show us we couldn't stop sinning, knowing and creating everything with Jesus already in his mind.
> Predestination, freewill, grace, works, repentance, yes it can get quite confusing.



It is only confusing when an individual spends his life trying to make sense of outright lies.
Your human nature through evolution is telling you that this stuff does not make sense and to not believe it but your indoctrination is making you add fibs to reality.
Once you get past accepting the bible as written for what it actually is the confusion leaves.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who can say that there _will_ be either, or any? Only God, if He's at home.
> 
> That's one of my core points about it. It's not for us to judge what, in another, is good enough for salvation. As you pointed out, we all have a hard enough time, forgoing the inherited sin from Adam, keeping ourselves straight.
> 
> ...



As a human I would agree with what you are saying.
As a Christian I must accept that some mental things are sins as well such as lust or hatred even if I don't act on them. 
With God who knows what's already in our hearts, it's kinda too late for it just to pertain to actions.
Actions are physical, with God we must also be spiritually good. 
I think Christians dwell too much on other people's physical sins(actions) than their own spirituality.
If we are made in the image of God and God is a spirit, then we'd better stop worrying about others and start concerning ourselves with our own spirituality.

Matthew 7:3
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

or;
Why do you see the piece of sawdust in another believer's eye and not notice the wooden beam in your own eye?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> As a human I would agree with what you are saying.
> As a Christian I must accept that some mental things are sins as well such as lust or hatred even if I don't act on them.
> With God who knows what's already in our hearts, it's kinda too late for it just to pertain to actions.
> Actions are physical, with God we must also be spiritually good.
> ...



I always found that to be a humbling quote, even after I lost my faith. 

Actions, and their results, are the only things I am certain about. Everything else is speculative and will be dealt with when evidence and experience mandates it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not "the gays". It's the church responding to market pressure. They're the first ones in the door and will get tons of donations and utilization fees out of this move, I would surmise.



I think actually it's a combination of both the Gay push for power  and, as you say, an institution(in this case a church) desperately attempting to maintain a market.  From what I have read, the Presbyterian Churches that have previously adopted this stance are deeply in the red and lost even more membership after going the Gay way so-to-speak.   It wasn't the windfall they had hoped and most have closed.

They may get a lot of kudos from the PC, secular population, but that doesn't fill the coffers.  

In short, they have sold their soul, and for what?

Just my two cents.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Its definitely an attestment to the power of the mind job that religion has done on folks throughout the years -
> wanting the Church to bless your marriage knowing full well the same Church condemns you to he11.



You guys are absolutely correct.  On the face of it, it makes no sense, but it's not about that.  It's about power.  It's about casting enough influence in every sphere; political, social, economical, etc. that eventually you either win over  silence, or destroy and dissenting views.  

As a Christian I'm both concerned and ashamed at the direction some Denominations have taken in trading doctrine for dollars, but more than that as an American I'm mortified at the loss of individual liberty that has taken place in the name of inclusiveness and acceptance.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think actually it's a combination of both the Gay push for power  and, as you say, an institution(in this case a church) desperately attempting to maintain a market.  From what I have read, the Presbyterian Churches that have previously adopted this stance are deeply in the red and lost even more membership after going the Gay way so-to-speak.   It wasn't the windfall they had hoped and most have closed.
> 
> They may get a lot of kudos from the PC, secular population, but that doesn't fill the coffers.
> 
> ...



That's due to the makeup of the neighborhoods the church is in. It would do no good for a church in Cleveland, GA, to accept gays under the impression that they will drive out of Atlanta to worship. 

It would be interesting, and kinda sad, if the entire Presbyterian Church collapsed as a result of this move. 

I wonder how many of our resident faithful, that are Presbys, are now looking for another denomination as a result.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You guys are absolutely correct.  On the face of it, it makes no sense, but it's not about that.  It's about power.  It's about casting enough influence in every sphere; political, social, economical, etc. that eventually you either win over  silence, or destroy and dissenting views.
> 
> As a Christian I'm both concerned and ashamed at the direction some Denominations have taken in trading doctrine for dollars, but more than that as an American I'm mortified at the loss of individual liberty that has taken place in the name of inclusiveness and acceptance.





> It's about power


This is just my opinion of course but -
Yes I would think for some its about power. Not sure I can blame them. When you have been treated as a 3rd class citizen for so long I think its pretty natural to say "now its my turn, take this ".
On the flip side, gay folks aren't forced to go to Church. They go even when they know those around them don't necessarily approve of them. They go even though they know what the Bible says about them.
I would think if they go despite all that, God must be pretty important to them.


> I'm mortified at the loss of individual liberty that has taken place in the name of inclusiveness and acceptance


Its really nothing new.
Womens rights, civil rights, religious rights......
If you don't stand up for yourself no-one will.
Only a fool will sit back and be quiet and expect everybody to do whats "fair" on their behalf.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If a Christian were to be asked which actions most reflect what Jesus would have done, I have to wonder how they would get around the obvious answer.



WWJD?  I'll take a swing at that.  

"Your sins are forgiven.  Go and sin no more."  

It acknowledges the conduct is sin.  Acknowledges forgives is needed.  Grants the forgiveness.  Pretty simple, but the problem is as you and Griz noted.  Homosexuals do not/will not accept the proposition that their conduct is sinful, which both of you have acknowledged (according to the Bible) is.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It would be interesting, and kinda sad, if the entire Presbyterian Church collapsed as a result of this move.
> 
> I wonder how many of our resident faithful, that are Presbys, are now looking for another denomination as a result.



It's happening already, and you are correct.  It is sad that many people that have supported the church have suddenly been betrayed by it.  Many have already left.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> WWJD?  I'll take a swing at that.
> 
> "Your sins are forgiven.  Go and sin no more."
> 
> It acknowledges the conduct is sin.  Acknowledges forgives is needed.  Grants the forgiveness.  Pretty simple, but the problem is as you and Griz noted.  Homosexuals do not/will not accept the proposition that their conduct is sinful, which both of you have acknowledged (according to the Bible) is.



OR, just as the glutton on Saturday is the glutton again on Monday, or even Sunday afternoon; and just as the adulterer, and the judgmental, and the sloth all return to true form on Monday, even if Monday is a while down the road or takes a different form, you've acknowledged that even without our own sins to carry we must still carry that of Adam and Eve, so it's impossible to go forth and sin no more. You sin more by existing more.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> WWJD?  I'll take a swing at that.
> 
> "Your sins are forgiven.  Go and sin no more."
> 
> It acknowledges the conduct is sin.  Acknowledges forgives is needed.  Grants the forgiveness.  Pretty simple, but the problem is as you and Griz noted.  Homosexuals do not/will not accept the proposition that their conduct is sinful, which both of you have acknowledged (according to the Bible) is.


I think you are avoiding the conduct to begin with.
One group acted like Jesus would have (or so we are told).
One group did not. That they can be forgiven for it doesn't change that.
Seems like forgiveness is too often viewed as a "get out of jail free" card.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> This is just my opinion of course but -
> Yes I would think for some its about power. Not sure I can blame them. When you have been treated as a 3rd class citizen for so long I think its pretty natural to say "now its my turn, take this ".
> On the flip side, gay folks aren't forced to go to Church. They go even when they know those around them don't necessarily approve of them. They go even though they know what the Bible says about them.
> I would think if they go despite all that, God must be pretty important to them.
> ...



Agreed and so as to not to turn this political I will say this and no more, but the amount of power ceded to the government by the people under the auspices of inclusiveness, pluralism, and acceptance may be the biggest threat to our future liberty.

That's it.  Officially off soap box now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> OR, just as the glutton on Saturday is the glutton again on Monday, or even Sunday afternoon; and just as the adulterer, and the judgmental, and the sloth all return to true form on Monday, even if Monday is a while down the road or takes a different form, you've acknowledged that even without our own sins to carry we must still carry that of Adam and Eve, so it's impossible to go forth and sin no more. You sin more by existing more.



Very true.  I would just add two comments. 

 "All return" is too broad a brush stroke and thus inaccurate.  Many don't return and for others it's a daily battle where you win some days and you lose some days.  Then others(far too many) return to their vomit and never look back.

We are not judged on how well we run or where we place in the finish,  but only that we run until the race is over.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> OR, just as the glutton on Saturday is the glutton again on Monday, or even Sunday afternoon; and just as the adulterer, and the judgmental, and the sloth all return to true form on Monday, even if Monday is a while down the road or takes a different form, you've acknowledged that even without our own sins to carry we must still carry that of Adam and Eve, so it's impossible to go forth and sin no more. You sin more by existing more.



Ya'll might have to enlighten SemerFiDawg as I might be on his ignore list. Either that or he just ignores me.
He can't believe a Christian could have the same liberal Christian beliefs I have and still be a Christian.
Christianity must be a works based salvation under his beliefs. His salvation is based on his ability to go and sin no more instead of grace.

Please explain how salvation from grace is accomplished. That it is impossible to go and sin no more. That is why we need Jesus.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed and so as to not to turn this political I will say this and no more, but the amount of power ceded to the government by the people under the auspices of inclusiveness, pluralism, and acceptance may be the biggest threat to our future liberty.
> 
> That's it.  Officially off soap box now.


Im guessing the fact that your rights to worship being protected by the government doesn't bother you all that much though.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> WWJD?  I'll take a swing at that.
> 
> "Your sins are forgiven.  Go and sin no more."
> 
> It acknowledges the conduct is sin.  Acknowledges forgives is needed.  Grants the forgiveness.  Pretty simple, but the problem is as you and Griz noted.  Homosexuals do not/will not accept the proposition that their conduct is sinful, which both of you have acknowledged (according to the Bible) is.



Is acknowledgement all that is required or is it "go and sin no more? Which is repentance/change?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Very true.  I would just add two comments.
> 
> "All return" is too broad a brush stroke and thus inaccurate.  Many don't return and for others it's a daily battle where you win some days and you lose some days.  Then others(far too many) return to their vomit and never look back.
> 
> We are not judged on how well we run or where we place in the finish,  but only that we run until the race is over.



The "all return" was based on inherited sin being included. 

As to the rest, well, that's one of a multitude of interpretations on the same text, and thus a different belief, and a different religion. 

A race is over when there's a winner and losers. 




Artfuldodger said:


> Ya'll might have to enlighten SemerFiDawg as I might be on his ignore list. Either that or he just ignores me.
> He can't believe a Christian could have the same liberal beliefs I have and still be a Christian.
> 
> Please explain how salvation from grace works. That it is impossible to go and sin no more. That is why we needed Jesus.



I can't speak about what he believes or why. The fact of belief and religion being relative to the believer are well documented, even if some refuse to acknowledge it. There are some that would say that all Christians are, or believe, X, where others would say that they're not and that it's a problem, and still others would say they're not and it's no issue at all. Yet others still would say that it doesn't matter so long as we keep running the race, whatever that means, considering it doesn't matter where we place.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im guessing the fact that your rights to worship being protected by the government doesn't bother you all that much though.



Or that the laws are based loosely off their beliefs rather than others. If we were built by Hindu deists we wouldn't be able to eat a burger. I don't think that's the best way to govern, IMO.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or that the laws are based loosely off their beliefs rather than others. If we were built by Hindu deists we wouldn't be able to eat a burger. I don't think that's the best way to govern, IMO.





> Or that the laws are based loosely off their beliefs rather than others.


Yup its all fine when the light is shining on you.
The mistake is the expectation that it will always shine on you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are avoiding the conduct to begin with.
> One group acted like Jesus would have (or so we are told).
> One group did not. That they can be forgiven for it doesn't change that.
> Seems like forgiveness is too often viewed as a "get out of jail free" card.



Don't see how calling the conduct sin is avoiding it.

Not sure which groups you're referring to Biblical or present day, both or neither.

Can't argue with your last statement/assessment, but I would add once would be too much given the cost.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 20, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It would be interesting, and kinda sad, if the entire Presbyterian Church collapsed as a result of this move.
> 
> I wonder how many of our resident faithful, that are Presbys, are now looking for another denomination as a result.



Here's a good summary of what happens to churches who adopt "gay is OK":

http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/how-to-shrink-your-church-in-one-easy-step/


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yup its all fine when the light is shining on you.
> The mistake is the expectation that it will always shine on you.



A wise statement I heard about legislation, paraphrased, was to ask not what you would do with the legislation, but how your worst enemy would use it against you.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 20, 2015)

When God created the man and woman a very significant thing took place.First He made the man out of the dust,then  He made the woman from one of man's ribs.This is very important to consider because it signifies that the two are one flesh.God said He would make a helper for the man that was "meet"(fit) for him.We later find out in Eph.5:31-32 that this coming together as one flesh is a picture of Christ and His church."For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,and shall be joined unto his wife,and they two shall be one flesh.This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the church.I believe the union between a man and a woman is SO important for the church to recognize and maintain because it is the sacred manifestation of the "great mystery".The union of man and man,or woman and woman,is a gross perversion of this sacred picture.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's a good summary of what happens to churches who adopt "gay is OK":
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/21/how-to-shrink-your-church-in-one-easy-step/



I hope Churches aren't making important decisions such as homosexuality beliefs based on what will happen to their membership, regardless of their final decisions. 
These things need to be based on how God is leading them. If attendance increases or decreases, so be it.

As for as the Millennials are concerned this decision might have come too late to keep them;

The Public Religion Research Institute recently researched the decline in millennial affiliation with church. Results report that one in three millennials (under 34) claim no religious affiliation and nearly one-third of millennials, who left the faith they grew up with, claim it is because of the “negative teachings” and/or “negative statements” related to gays and lesbians

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Millennials-Blame-Church-For-Decline.aspx#KthSaZtkbfdZMGkt.99


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

70 percent of millennials blame the churches for the majority of discrimination against the gay community. Robert P. Jones, CEO of PPRI said that, “While many churches and people in the pews have been moving away from their opposition to LGBT rights over the last decade, this new research provides further evidence that 70 percent of millennials blame the churches for the majority of discrimination against the gay community. Robert P. Jones, CEO of PPRI said that, “While many churches and people in the pews have been moving away from their opposition to LGBT rights over the last decade, this new research provides further evidence that negative teachings on this issue have hurt churches’ ability to attract and retain young people.” Many millennials are choosing to question traditions and the overall acceptance of what the church says is right or wrong. 

According to various research, 20 percent of Americans claim that they have no religious affiliation. However, millenials have a figure of 33 percent claiming the same which reveals that the younger generation is growing further away from the church. 

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Millennials-Blame-Church-For-Decline.aspx#KthSaZtkbfdZMGkt.99


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> When God created the man and woman a very significant thing took place.First He made the man out of the dust,then  He made the woman from one of man's ribs.This is very important to consider because it signifies that the two are one flesh.God said He would make a helper for the man that was "meet"(fit) for him.We later find out in Eph.5:31-32 that this coming together as one flesh is a picture of Christ and His church."For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,and shall be joined unto his wife,and they two shall be one flesh.This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the church.I believe the union between a man and a woman is SO important for the church to recognize and maintain because it is the sacred manifestation of the "great mystery".The union of man and man,or woman and woman,is a gross perversion of this sacred picture.



The mystery is the spiritual unity two have when they become one. How two people can become one and still be two is the mystery Jesus and the Church is compared to. It isn't when the married couple have sex which would be a perverted picture itself.

I don't believe this is saying that someone has to get married to understand this mystery either.
What did Paul say about marriage, celibacy, and fornication?

The mystery is about unity. God in Jesus, Jesus in us, I in God, God in me, I in you, You in me. This is spiritual unity.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 20, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I hope Churches aren't making important decisions such as homosexuality beliefs based on what will happen to their membership, regardless of their final decisions.
> These things need to be based on how God is leading them.



They are letting popular culture lead them.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 20, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> They are letting popular culture lead them.



That's not the first time it's happened either. Pretty much everything about it, dates of holidays, Saints, inclusions of the Bible, have been by decree either by popular assent, or dissent, and royalty.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> When God created the man and woman a very significant thing took place.First He made the man out of the dust,then  He made the woman from one of man's ribs.This is very important to consider because it signifies that the two are one flesh.God said He would make a helper for the man that was "meet"(fit) for him.We later find out in Eph.5:31-32 that this coming together as one flesh is a picture of Christ and His church."For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,and shall be joined unto his wife,and they two shall be one flesh.This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the church.I believe the union between a man and a woman is SO important for the church to recognize and maintain because it is the sacred manifestation of the "great mystery".The union of man and man,or woman and woman,is a gross perversion of this sacred picture.


I just do not believe you


----------



## welderguy (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I just do not believe you



I know you don't.I still love you like a brother anyway.I also hope and pray someday God will open your eyes and reveal Himself to you like He did for me.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I know you don't.I still love you like a brother anyway.I also hope and pray someday God will open your eyes and reveal Himself to you like He did for me.



I know you are sincere and I appreciate it.
There is no better candidate than me for a god to reveal himself to. I am honest. I would share the experience in here. I have been asking. I am willing.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I know you are sincere and I appreciate it.
> There is no better candidate than me for a god to reveal himself to. I am honest. I would share the experience in here. I have been asking. I am willing.



Brother if you've been asking(praying)and are truly willing then God may very well be drawing you to Himself.If so,that is GREAT news!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

As was mentioned earlier the Protestant reformation changes with the enlightenment of the present ages. We are in a continuous reformation;

In general, American Protestantism has long been defined by its reliance on the Bible as its sole authority. And Gushee, the professor and Evangelical, still bases his ethical thinking on Scripture. But, he says, Protestantism has long changed its interpretations of the Bible as its experiences have begun to change.

Even Evangelicals as a whole, he points out, changed their interpretation of Scripture to accommodate expanded roles for women – upending selected verses that had been understood to mean women should be silent or keep their heads covered. The experience of slavery and the Holocaust also transformed the Bible’s ostensible teachings on race.

And today, new experiences, especially among the young, are transforming what Gushee sees as misinterpretations of what the Bible condemns in a handful of passages, written to address an ancient context.

“A big part of why that is the case is because more and more of us are coming to know gay and lesbian Christians, in their dignity and their suffering,” he says. “Many Millennials no longer find the older narratives of condemnation plausible: It doesn’t fit the facts, and it doesn’t fit the lives of people that we know.”

McNeill, part of a younger generation of leaders in the PC(USA), invokes the traditional “Protestant principle” proclaimed in the church’s Book of Order: “The church affirms Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei, that is, ‘The church reformed, always to be reformed according to the Word of God’ in the power of the Spirit.”

As Millennials increasingly take the reigns of leadership in many US congregations and denominations, many say, other churches will use this quintessentially Protestant principle to begin extending traditional, biblical Christian morality – including monogamy and fidelity – to gay and lesbian couples.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...e-debate-produces-new-views-on-morality-video


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

The good news is they don't care if they lose members. Reminds me of the Netflix ordeal, lose a few at first and make up for later.

Indeed, mainline Protestant churches have lost members for decades. In many cases, however, it’s because conservative churchgoers have been dismayed by their denomination’s accommodations to the vicissitudes of culture. The PC(USA) has had more than 37 percent of its members leave since 1992 – while the PCA has seen a 6 percent increase in the past five years.

Thus the PC(USA)’s vote this week might, in fact, exacerbate the membership issue. “We have lost and will lose members, and even churches, over this decision,” Professor Craigo-Snell says.

But she also sees the opportunity. “My hope ... is that this will be a tipping point,” she says. “I think there’s a whole generation for whom the notion of marriage inequality just makes no sense.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...e-debate-produces-new-views-on-morality-video


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

Yet the redefinition also points to larger issues involving same-sex marriage that younger American Christians, in particular, are wrestling with. As gay and lesbian people have become a visible part of mainstream life in the past decade, many of those who have grown up with this new visibility have begun to question the previous generation’s moral condemnations.

Across the denominational spectrum, Millennials – including many among the more conservative Evangelicals and Catholics – are pondering interpretations of Scripture, and they’re finding new meanings of morality and Christian love. These young people are also feeling a disconnect between their church life and US society, where cultural understandings of human sexuality have been changing quickly and dramatically.

“When everywhere you go you have full equality – the military, on TV, in business ... in schools, university classes, political institutions – and only in this one outpost of culture do you have people not accepting – it forces questions for our young people,” says David Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta, who is considered one of the nation’s leading evangelical ethicists.

As a group, Evangelicals remain those most opposed to same-sex marriage in the United States, the Pew Research Center has found. But among white evangelical Millennials, 43 percent now favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally wed, up from 20 percent in 2003, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute last year. And a full 85 percent of self-identified Catholics under the age of 30 say homosexuality should be accepted by society, a Pew survey from last year found.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...e-debate-produces-new-views-on-morality-video

Times, they are a changin'


----------



## bullethead (Mar 20, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Brother if you've been asking(praying)and are truly willing then God may very well be drawing you to Himself.If so,that is GREAT news!!



Snails surfing on molasses waves in January at the North Pole are faster.
It's going on 26 years now....


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

I just thought of something, married gay couples can't commit the sin of using contraception. 
Genesis 38:8
Then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother."

(that's one law I'm glad they did away with. Anyway the law was in affect and Onan didn't follow the law by using a contraceptive method. God killed him because of this.)

They can also get past that Biblical requirement that women can't preach. Some apostate denominations allow women preachers. I wonder where is the uproar?
Is their membership down? Maybe after they preach, they repent.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Snails surfing on molasses waves in January at the North Pole are faster.
> It's going on 26 years now....



You've got up until your death to get "elected."
Look on the bright side, you'll be protected by God until then.
And it's not based on anything you do.
Once elected though, I wouldn't quit worshiping God and start worshiping idols. You'll get turned into a homosexual.
Rom 1:18-32 says once you turn your back on God, sodomy is your destination.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 20, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Snails surfing on molasses waves in January at the North Pole are faster.
> It's going on 26 years now....



That's a long time to be away from God, but be encouraged because there's hope.God's people were in captivity for 70 years in Babylon.But when their appointed time was up God gave them a great promise.It's found in Jer.29:10-14.
I especially love verses12 and13.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's a long time to be away from God, but be encouraged because there's hope.God's people were in captivity for 70 years in Babylon.But when their appointed time was up God gave them a great promise.It's found in Jer.29:10-14.
> I especially love verses12 and13.



And God didn't have long distance so he could stay in touch? Vonage?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Im guessing the fact that your rights to worship being protected by the government doesn't bother you all that much though.



Should it?  Your right to NOT worship is being protected also is it not?  

Here's my point.  My right to worship has been eroded more by this Administration than any I am aware of, BUT so has your right to NOT worship.  Why?  Because as a whole, it was our individual liberty that was lost.  In other words,  a government that can tell you how to worship can tell you how to NOT worship also.  Like you said, it all depends on who's in control as to who the light shines on.


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And God didn't have long distance so he could stay in touch? Vonage?



What is it that makes you think he's not "in touch" with you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 21, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A wise statement I heard about legislation, paraphrased, was to ask not what you would do with the legislation, but how your worst enemy would use it against you.



Yes!!


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> What is it that makes you think he's not "in touch" with you?



Welder mentioned that Gods people were in captivity in Babylon for 70 years......I wondered if God tried to call.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> What is it that makes you think he's not "in touch" with you?



Because being a God it would know exactly how to get in touch with me in the precise way that would allow me to understand a God is directly in contact with me.
I am fairly sharp and twice as skeptical so a cross left in a stick of butter because of the toast knife is not going to be considered a call from a God. If it wants to contact me I am here. It should know how to get in touch.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> That's a long time to be away from God, but be encouraged because there's hope.God's people were in captivity for 70 years in Babylon.But when their appointed time was up God gave them a great promise.It's found in Jer.29:10-14.
> I especially love verses12 and13.


I am part of the majority of humans that have been away from your God for about 2,000,000 years.
The people that started the notion of your God didn't get the idea until about 4 to 5 thousand years ago so they and your God are fairly late getting to the party. Nobody knew about your God or was impressed enough to tell any stories about him before those 5 thousand years but there were many other Gods talked about and written about before him. If Gods exist I am not convinced the one of Abraham is the head honcho.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Because being a God it would know exactly how to get in touch with me in the precise way that would allow me to understand a God is directly in contact with me.
> I am fairly sharp and twice as skeptical so a cross left in a stick of butter because of the toast knife is not going to be considered a call from a God. If it wants to contact me I am here. It should know how to get in touch.



If and when He contacts you,it will be from the inside out.He will first quicken you(make you alive).When this happens,changes begin to take place in your heart.Changes such as:your high and mighty attitude is humbled,your defiance of Him turns to love for Him,and you will do whatever you can to seek Him and follow His word.If you have these things happening in your heart right now,it's evidence that He's working on your heart and He's given you faith.It's not something you can conjure up on your own(not sincerely).But,after He makes these changes,you are called to seek Him diligently. Heb.11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him:but he that cometh to God must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If and when He contacts you,it will be from the inside out.He will first quicken you(make you alive).When this happens,changes begin to take place in your heart.Changes such as:your high and mighty attitude is humbled,your defiance of Him turns to love for Him,and you will do whatever you can to seek Him and follow His word.If you have these things happening in your heart right now,it's evidence that He's working on your heart and He's given you faith.It's not something you can conjure up on your own(not sincerely).But,after He makes these changes,you are called to seek Him diligently. Heb.11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him:but he that cometh to God must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."



Sorry welder but I just do not trust that you know anything about how a god operates.

I once had a feeling of power and might overwhelm me while I was driving nails with a hammer. A viking friend of mine told me that would happen when Odin contacted me. Should I believe that I was contacted by Odin?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 21, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If and when He contacts you,it will be from the inside out.He will first quicken you(make you alive).When this happens,changes begin to take place in your heart.Changes such as:your high and mighty attitude is humbled,your defiance of Him turns to love for Him,and you will do whatever you can to seek Him and follow His word.If you have these things happening in your heart right now,it's evidence that He's working on your heart and He's given you faith.It's not something you can conjure up on your own(not sincerely).But,after He makes these changes,you are called to seek Him diligently. Heb.11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him:but he that cometh to God must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."



Why don't I see this repentance or change in most Christians? Most want to repent, they know they are doing wrong, yet they don't actually change. To repent means to change. One would need to stop sinning in order to repent.
When God elects the homosexual, drunkard, or a man with lust in his heart, when does the Holy Spirit's indwelling change take place? Immediately or through a lifetime sanctification process? What if the drunkard dies a drunkard? What if the glutton dies a glutton? Whose fault is it, the Holy Spirit or the individual? Why don't we let God figure out what's in every man's heart?
Must the homosexual stop having gay sex, must the drunkard throw away his bottle, must the man with lust in his heart repent?
I'm talking repent as in stop or change? Not trying or not knowing what sin is but stopping. We all know what sin is. We all know if we are pleasing God. We have this ability tattooed on our hearts. We are all sinners. We all cheat. We all hate. We all have anger towards our brother. We all are jealous. We all steal. We all lust. We all lie. We all gossip. We all are drunkards. We all are homosexuals. We all are fornicators. We all are gamblers. We all are SINNERS and none of us have repented. We might want to try the other method for salvation called, JESUS.
After years of trying to repent from sin, I've decided that I can't and can only hope the "washing" works. Again if I could quit sinning, I wouldn't need Jesus.

If God elects a drunkard and he continues to struggle daily with his sin, where is the fruit of the Holy Spirit working in him? Why would he still drink after going through his  new birth? 
Isn't he still saved? After all God elected him. After this election, what else must the individual himself do to obtain or keep his salvation?

Heb.11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him:but he that cometh to God must believe that He is,and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him."

Am I saved after God makes his change in me? Even if I don't fully repent from sin. Where does this faith in Hebrews 11:6 come from? 
I do have the faith to believe that God is He. I do have the faith that he is the rewarder. This faith was my repentance. My repentance was to realize that nothing I do could buy my way into Heaven. Unlike the Rich man who never realized this, about 4 years ago, I did. Before that I thought my salvation was dependent on me. 

It's a relief to finally remove this yoke from my heart. Now I'm trying to convince other Christians to let everyone else remove this yoke. I want everyone to finally understand this election you speak of. To understand that the drunkard will inherit the kingdom. Why, because he was washed.
"and such were some of you, but you were washed."
Either salvation is totally from God or it isn't. If the drunkard won't inherit the Kingdom, then neither will I. If the "washing" doesn't work on a drunkard, I can assure you it won't work on me. There is no gray area. I could only wish being a drunkard was my worse sin.  
                                                                                                                                  Even the Presbyterians understand election. The have been enlightened.


----------



## Israel (Mar 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Because being a God it would know exactly how to get in touch with me in the precise way that would allow me to understand a God is directly in contact with me.
> I am fairly sharp and twice as skeptical so a cross left in a stick of butter because of the toast knife is not going to be considered a call from a God. If it wants to contact me I am here. It should know how to get in touch.



Is it right for me to understand you believe you have not been touched to your satisfaction?
When a hard thing meets a soft thing, as a knife and butter...even the hardest stick, right from the freezer...it may still yield a mark that is unavoidably mentioned.

I trust God understands that you may believe that is not enough for you. It wasn't for me. 
The softening process, which was most often being "touched" to my dissatisfaction, was necessary until I could and can...look back, even now, and see the hand that was always there.
Faith is a most peculiar thing, it allows for a man to be precisely what he must be, in order for its author to be a wonderful surprise to him...always.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> Is it right for me to understand you believe you have not been touched to your satisfaction?
> When a hard thing meets a soft thing, as a knife and butter...even the hardest stick, right from the freezer...it may still yield a mark that is unavoidably mentioned.
> 
> I trust God understands that you may believe that is not enough for you. It wasn't for me.
> ...



You should understand that I have not been touched by a god at all. I am not denying obvious signs or attempts. Nothing has happened to me that would leave me to believe that any god was involved in any way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 21, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Should it?  Your right to NOT worship is being protected also is it not?
> 
> Here's my point.  My right to worship has been eroded more by this Administration than any I am aware of, BUT so has your right to NOT worship.  Why?  Because as a whole, it was our individual liberty that was lost.  In other words,  a government that can tell you how to worship can tell you how to NOT worship also.  Like you said, it all depends on who's in control as to who the light shines on.





> My right to worship has been eroded more by this Administration than any I am aware of, BUT so has your right to NOT worship.


I think we have two different ideas about "rights to worship or not".
When you are forced out of church and I am forced into church then I'll probably agree with you.
However I do hope we would both come together and not let either one of those happen.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Sorry welder but I just do not trust that you know anything about how a god operates.
> 
> I once had a feeling of power and might overwhelm me while I was driving nails with a hammer. A viking friend of mine told me that would happen when Odin contacted me. Should I believe that I was contacted by Odin?





> Sorry welder but I just do not trust that you know anything about how a god operates.


I wish these guys would make up their minds. Either -
a. We can't understand him and if we could he wouldn't be a god.
b. I can tell you exactly what he does and doesn't do and why.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think we have two different ideas about "rights to worship or not".
> When you are forced out of church and I am forced into church then I'll probably agree with you.
> However I do hope we would both come together and not let either one of those happen.



We would not have to COME TOGETHER.  We ARE  together on that.  Belief (in anything)  is not mandatory.  If it is it's not belief, but compulsion.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I wish these guys would make up their minds. Either -
> a. We can't understand him and if we could he wouldn't be a god.
> b. I can tell you exactly what he does and doesn't do and why.



Amen


----------



## welderguy (Mar 21, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I wish these guys would make up their minds. Either -
> a. We can't understand him and if we could he wouldn't be a god.
> b. I can tell you exactly what he does and doesn't do and why.



I don't claim to know everything about God.He's too big and complex for my little pea brain to know much about.But,He has revealed some things about Himself through His word.And I've learned alot through lessons of life(His chastening).He's also written His laws in my heart.But,even with all of that,I still don't know very much about Him.He promises though that one day "I will know Him as I am known".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 21, 2015)

> uote:
> Originally Posted by bullethead
> Sorry welder but I just do not trust that you know anything about how a god operates.
> 
> ...



Answer is: a

Bullet's Straw man not withstanding.

Here's the hard part about this.  Many of you A/A's don't understand or maybe some willfully neglect this point.

  Despite all the hypocritical tele-evangelist, despite all the fake church services you've been subjected to with all the pomp and pimping that goes on, despite all the crap that's been perpetrated in the name of Christianity, there's a group of us that truly care about you.  We care about you, because we believe you are worthy of our compassion...not because we look down on you, but because we  look up to you.    You are worthy of our compassion because you are just like us...you are us; probably even better in most regards.   So we care about you.  You have infinite value and dignity.  Sorry if you find that a sign of weakness, gullibility, stupidity, or just ignorance, but to be honest some of us dooooo  reallllllly care despite not having all the answers to your questions.   
Sorry, but that's the best and least we can do, so please forgive us.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 21, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Answer is: a
> 
> Bullet's Straw man not withstanding.
> 
> ...



Amen brother.well said.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 21, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Answer is: a
> 
> Bullet's Straw man not withstanding.
> 
> ...



I am not sure you understand what a straw man argument is.
And if the answer is "a", then please stop using your own thoughts as if they were God's.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I don't claim to know everything about God.He's too big and complex for my little pea brain to know much about.But,He has revealed some things about Himself through His word.And I've learned alot through lessons of life(His chastening).He's also written His laws in my heart.But,even with all of that,I still don't know very much about Him.He promises though that one day "I will know Him as I am known".


Welder that wasn't really a jab at you.
Its  just that we hear both a. and b. all the time depending on the subject being discussed.
And they are polar opposites of each other.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We would not have to COME TOGETHER.  We ARE  together on that.  Belief (in anything)  is not mandatory.  If it is it's not belief, but compulsion.


I would be interested to hear what rights to worship you have that you feel are being eroded if if you want to discuss them.
In fairness, I may be viewing it differently because Im not the one being affected.


----------



## Israel (Mar 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Because being a God it would know exactly how to get in touch with me in the precise way that would allow me to understand a God is directly in contact with me.
> I am fairly sharp and twice as skeptical so a cross left in a stick of butter because of the toast knife is not going to be considered a call from a God. If it wants to contact me I am here. It should know how to get in touch.



Could you consider that in your belief of being "fairly sharp" you have chosen an impediment as advantage?
God can have respect of that, showing himself to be more clever than the clever.

If you don't know the experience of having "outsmarted" oneself, and you seem loathe to accept many simple testimonies, I am not afraid or reluctant to throw my own in the mix.

There comes a time, or better said, there came a time for me, when all upon which I took a stand in view of myself, appraisal of myself, esteem of myself, was insufficient for a next breath...but...I wanted to live. When the signal importance of that was made plain, in a way you may be spared, and was such that I was absolutely compelled to admit before creation..."I know nothing of life, what it is, how it is to be, or how to "do" it..." and all I had preciously thought of myself was exposed as the lie fabricated in my complicity, I became free. 

We speak in endorsement or refutation of a universal God, the God of the universe, the same over all...or not. And yet, in the universality we may discover he works on an extremely personal level, and such a particularly personal level, so that it would seem universality is itself impugned in our testimony.

Ultimately we can only, at best, share what we have seen, and experienced, it matters not if it "measures up" to anyone else's demands of _how God should be_. (to them)

This God, that I have seen and experienced, presently forbids me from imputing foul motives to what you seem to present as resistance, but also affords a certain liberty we may enjoy, as a man to a man. 

I am in rehab, now, or perhaps better an _anger management course_, for a fury I once entertained as my own toward all of creation appearing as against me. Against me, quite personally.
I am wrong.
I was wrong.
But it's more than OK to find it easily admitted in light of the understanding of being made presently aware, it is, and was, and always has been, quite _for me_.
Simply, _not only for me_.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2015)

Israel said:


> Could you consider that in your belief of being "fairly sharp" you have chosen an impediment as advantage?
> God can have respect of that, showing himself to be more clever than the clever.
> 
> If you don't know the experience of having "outsmarted" oneself, and you seem loathe to accept many simple testimonies, I am not afraid or reluctant to throw my own in the mix.
> ...



You and I are different. What works for you does not work for me. I do not find your conclusions from interpretations of events accurate.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2015)

Getting back to Paul's letters to the Churches we need to understand who they were written to and for what purpose. This will show us a different understanding of our current societies definition of the word "homosexual" and Paul's use of the words that were interpreted as "homosexual."  Not just the word homosexual but other words were misinterpreted from Paul's meaning. If not the words meanings then how they were used in Greek and Roman times.

I found a book by a guy who has spent way more time researching the meaning of these words as they were interpreted in Hebrew, Latin, or Greek and their conversion to English.
The author does a fair explanation of these words realizing he is himself speculating as we all are. 
He nor I am denying that homosexual sex is between two men or two women. What we need to consider is who or what was the content Paul was expressing. 
Paul was addressing people in Churches. These Churches were in cities where homosexuality among married men was a common practice. This was common in Rome and Greece. Pederasty was common as was both male & female prostitution. Paul was addressing about 95% heterosexual married Christians.
Many things Paul considered wrong, the Greeks and Romans didn't. They didn't think it wrong for married men to seek the company of young men and or prostitutes. They didn't consider themselves gay. Now by our definition as we mentioned earlier, they would at least be bisexual. Heterosexual prisoners don't consider themselves gay when they do what they do would be a good example.
Looking back through history it was common for well to do men to have mistresses. While it was fornication, most societies didn't view it as such. Although it was wrong, it we accepted in those societies. Kinda like unmarried couples living together in our society or Churches with women preachers.

While I don't agree with every concept of this book, I do agree with the research the author has delved into. The title is; Jonathan Loved David by Tom M. Horner. I'm not even suggesting their relationship was any more than that of two brothers but it is suggestive. 
In the link I'm provided I'm only interested in the research of Paul's letters. You can only see these pages on the link. You must scroll down to about page 25 to read them. You will need to scroll through the unavailable pages to read the other pages. You can scroll down to about page 87 to start reading about Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

The author suggests Paul's letters were not addressed to Homosexual perverts as many believe. 
Paul had many struggles between grace and law. He had a certain way of writing to lure people into his trap and then spring his real lesson on you. Jesus used this way of teaching also. One example was Paul's list of sins that will keep one form God's Kingdom. He presents the list and then present the lesson; "and such were some of you, but you were washed."
I'm presenting all of this to at least think about it and how it differs from our own personal prejudices. 

At least read a few pages starting on page 93. The author explains a popular game among the Romans called "the game changer."
You can see some of the words used in Paul's sins lists he uses in his letters. You can see the different words in Paul's Greek compared to the Vulgar Latin  on the game boards and then the King James renderings.
Covetous and idolators were not even on the game boards as Romans didn't even understand these concepts before Christianity.
You must consider each of Paul's letters and the individual Churches he was addressing. He was writing specific letters to specific Churches. He would naturally write in ways they would understand and their specific problems.

https://books.google.com/books?id=O...EwAQ#v=onepage&q=paul's game counters&f=false


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Getting back to Paul's letters to the Churches we need to understand who they were written to and for what purpose. This will show us a different understanding of our current societies definition of the word "homosexual" and Paul's use of the words that were interpreted as "homosexual."  Not just the word homosexual but other words were misinterpreted from Paul's meaning. If not the words meanings then how they were used in Greek and Roman times.
> 
> I found a book by a guy who has spent way more time researching the meaning of these words as they were interpreted in Hebrew, Latin, or Greek and their conversion to English.
> The author does a fair explanation of these words realizing he is himself speculating as we all are.
> ...



It is ALL about History. Without an understanding of how cultures and societies actually lived people insert their personal opinion as fact and as in most cases, their facts do not match the actual facts.

Good info Art.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It is ALL about History. Without an understanding of how cultures and societies actually lived people insert their personal opinion as fact and as in most cases, their facts do not match the actual facts.
> 
> Good info Art.



Thanks, I just wish individuals would research or try and figure out why they believe what they believe and why they have preconceived notions without trying to understand why they have these notions.

Knowledge is truth. Get enlightened. Seek and you shall find.
Don't just accept, and after you consider everything, you might consider it to be a false teaching and return. I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 22, 2015)

Paul was called by God to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. Conflict between the Jews and Gentiles began to emerge as the church at Antioch grew, and many Gentiles were saved. The Gentiles had no background in the Old Testament Levitical laws and their practice of eating meat sacrificed to idols and which contained blood greatly offended the Jews.
Nobody understood. The Jews only understood laws. The Gentiles never even heard of some of these laws.
Neither group understood grace. Paul had his work cut out for him.
I'm sure he himself didn't quite understand what or how to teach everything to everyone. He questioned himself. 
It was a whole new religious program that came with a learning curve.  Paul was a man of God but he was also human. He struggled with things as all of God's disciples do. 
Paul stood firmly against the idol worship system which was common in Rome and against the unmoral actions of the city.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 22, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I am not sure you understand what a straw man argument is.
> And if the answer is "a", then please stop using your own thoughts as if they were God's.





> I once had a feeling of power and might overwhelm me while I was driving nails with a hammer. A viking friend of mine told me that would happen when Odin contacted me.



So this isn't a caricature?  OoooooooK. If you say so.



> And if the answer is "a", then please stop using your own thoughts as if they were God's.



Wasn't aware I was.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 22, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I would be interested to hear what rights to worship you have that you feel are being eroded if if you want to discuss them.
> In fairness, I may be viewing it differently because Im not the one being affected.



I think the general consensus on this administrations view on belief is pretty much summed up as 'Believe anything you want and worship as you please, just don't let it affect your actions in the public sphere.  The public sphere is the governments domain.'  

I say it's not.  It's the people's domain and people should be free to live out their beliefs in public no matter what their beliefs and actions entail (as long they don't pose a physical danger to others. ).   The government should stay out of it.  Personally I would much rather be offended by someone's beliefs or actions than give the government the power regulate and police it.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 22, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So this isn't a caricature?  OoooooooK. If you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't aware I was.


Lololololol. I wasn't using one to against the other. I didn't act as if I refuted anything. I wanted an honest opinion. I would like to know why I should take the word of one person about their god and not another.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 22, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think the general consensus on this administrations view on belief is pretty much summed up as 'Believe anything you want and worship as you please, just don't let it affect your actions in the public sphere.  The public sphere is the governments domain.'
> 
> I say it's not.  It's the people's domain and people should be free to live out their beliefs in public no matter what their beliefs and actions entail (as long they don't pose a physical danger to others. ).   The government should stay out of it.  Personally I would much rather be offended by someone's beliefs or actions than give the government the power regulate and police it.





> I think the general consensus on this administrations view on belief is pretty much summed up as 'Believe anything you want and worship as you please, just don't let it affect your actions in the public sphere.


I think the mistake you are making is you are only attributing this to an administration and not the public sphere too...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think the mistake you are making is you are only attributing this to an administration and not the public sphere too...



Oh!  You are absolutely correct.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Lololololol. I wasn't using one to against the other. I didn't act as if I refuted anything. I wanted an honest opinion. I would like to know why I should take the word of one person about their god and not another.




This


> Quote:
> And if the answer is "a", then please stop using your own thoughts as if they were God's.



and this 


> I would like to know why I should take the word of one person about their god and not another.



are two totally different questions.

To answer the latter of the two, because I think that's the point you are trying to raise:  You shouldn't take anyone's word.  It's your responsibility to investigate and find out for yourself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh!  You are absolutely correct.


I think you guys should get used to it though. 
Its pretty much boiling down what does the "right to worship" actually mean. 
And it appears its being defined as exactly this -


> 'Believe anything you want and worship as you please, just don't let it affect your actions in the public sphere.


1. Is the government force feeding that definition down society's throats?
Or
2. Is the government reacting to what society is saying the definition should be?
I honestly think its mostly #2.
Use the massive changes thats happening in Christianity as an example. The government sure isn't forcing these churches to change their views on homosexuality etc.
These churches are changing their views right along with society.
And society's views almost always win when it comes to change. No slaves anymore, women don't stay at home and cook and clean anymore, women vote now, Christianity doesn't dominate in public schools anymore, gay folks are getting married, beer is being bought on Sunday.....
You guys had a good run but if nothing else history has shown that the balance of power always shifts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Use the massive changes thats happening in Christianity as an example.



What massive changes?  I see a few mainline denominations (who have been losing members for years) deciding to accelerate the process by adopting "gay is OK".


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

SFD -
Here's an example of why I think society's views are changing -


> http://www.vox.com/2015/3/22/8270411/california-lgbt-executions





> As the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee reported, the proposal would require the execution of anyone who touches a person of the same sex for sexual gratification by "bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."
> It declares that it's "better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath."


The average citizen thinks to himself "You can believe what you want but you need to be kept away from me".
Would the average Christian agree with this guy? I surely don't think so. But by his statement, rightly or wrongly, its a reflection on Christians.
All of these type examples are where, in my opinion, you should be focusing your disgust instead of on an administration.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> What massive changes?  I see a few mainline denominations (who have been losing members for years) deciding to accelerate the process by adopting "gay is OK".


Massive doesn't have to be a quantity. Massive can also mean a huge departure from the typical.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Massive doesn't have to be a quantity. Massive can also mean a huge departure from the typical.



Example?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Example?


The OP?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The OP?



The title of the article in the OP is "Presbyterian Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage".

As I noted "upstairs", the title may as well be "Presbyterian Church Decides to Dry Up and Blow Away".

Signing your own death warrant is a "massive change".  It's just not a positive one.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> The title of the article in the OP is "Presbyterian Church Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage".
> 
> As I noted "upstairs", the title may as well be "Presbyterian Church Decides to Dry Up and Blow Away".
> 
> Signing your own death warrant is a "massive change".  It's just not a positive one.


And "massive change" is what you questioned.
And your prediction will take quite a bit of time to prove true or not. Folks deserting would certainly be expected. If they get replaced with new folks or not will be shown over the long haul.
BUT mathematically speaking I would think stricly the number of gay folks cant replace the number that deserted. But they could possibly make up for it monetarily and that's what keeps the doors open.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And your prediction will take quite a bit of time to prove true or not. Folks deserting would certainly be expected. If they get replaced with new folks or not will be shown over the long haul.



Death of a denom like the PCUSA or UMC might take decades, but a schism can happen pretty quickly.  Here's an article on the potential Methodist schism:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-coming-methodist-schism/


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Death of a denom like the PCUSA or UMC might take decades, but a schism can happen pretty quickly.  Here's an article on the potential Methodist schism:
> 
> http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-coming-methodist-schism/


Sure.
However schisms seem to be the norm when you consider how many denominations there are.
I think it would be a pretty bold prediction to say the Methodist denomination will cease to exist.
Smaller? Most likely.
Different? Obviously.
Extinct? Doubtful.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure.
> However schisms seem to be the norm when you consider how many denominations there are.
> I think it would be a pretty bold prediction to say the Methodist denomination will cease to exist.
> Smaller? Most likely.
> ...




From the link in post 195, stats on three denoms (ELCA, UCC and PCUSA):




> By the end of 2012, ELCA had lost 12.3 percent of its members in three years—nearly 600,000 people. If the present rate of defections holds steady, ELCA will cease to exist in less than two decades....
> 
> 2013 marked a particularly grim milestone for the denomination, as membership finally fell below one million. If the post-2005 rate in membership losses doesn’t taper out, the denomination will cease to exist in 30 years....
> 
> Once again, if post-2006 trends continue, the denomination will cease to exist by 2037....




The gay issue is a true "poison pill".


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> From the link in post 195, stats on three denoms (ELCA, UCC and PCUSA):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> From the link in post 195, stats on three denoms (ELCA, UCC and PCUSA):
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> If the present rate of defections holds steady


IF
What would be typical in most any big change in any situation is you get the largest exodus in the beginning and once the hardliners are gone it decreases after that point. That statement also doesn't take into consideration people replacing those who left.
Also doesn't take into consideration that the people who stay and those who replace the ones who left will have children who more than likely will attend and those children will have children........
Its all speculation either way which goes back to my point that the results will be shown over the long haul not initial trends.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> IF
> What would be typical in most any big change in any situation is you get the largest exodus in the beginning and once the hardliners are gone it decreases after that point. That statement also doesn't take into consideration people replacing those who left.
> Also doesn't take into consideration that the people who stay and those who replace the ones who left will have children who more than likely will attend and those children will have children........
> Its all speculation either way which goes back to my point that the results will be shown over the long haul not initial trends.



We're in the middle of "the long haul".  Go back and read the link in post 195.  The decline has been going on for decades.  The gay issue just accelerated it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you guys should get used to it though.
> Its pretty much boiling down what does the "right to worship" actually mean.
> And it appears its being defined as exactly this -
> 
> ...



Maybe, but the thing that concerns me the most is that the power is being shifted from the individual to the government.  I think your point primarily addresses the shifts that occur between individuals and groups.  I see the former as vastly more ominous.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Good.



For whom?  Certainly not for your in-laws.

Remember, it's the liberal churches who are standing in line to self-immolate.  The conservative churches are having none of it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> IF
> What would be typical in most any big change in any situation is you get the largest exodus in the beginning and once the hardliners are gone it decreases after that point. That statement also doesn't take into consideration people replacing those who left.
> Also doesn't take into consideration that the people who stay and those who replace the ones who left will have children who more than likely will attend and those children will have children........
> Its all speculation either way which goes back to my point that the results will be shown over the long haul not initial trends.





> That statement also doesn't take into consideration people replacing those who left.



From what I understand this isn't happening.  The conservatives leave.  A few progressives take over.  Doors close shortly afterward.



> and those who replace the ones who left will have children who more than likely will attend and those children will have children........



Uhhhh, hate to point this out, but it ain't exactly like the homosexual population is the wellspring of offspring.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> For whom?  Certainly not for your in-laws.
> 
> Remember, it's the liberal churches who are standing in line to self-immolate.  The conservative churches are having none of it.



They seem to be doing fine.  The gay lady pastor fills the church every Sunday.  They also have Jews and Buddhists worshiping there.

I hope they all go extinct.  You know me.  But as the lesser of greater evils I support them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I hope they all go extinct.



Why?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> They seem to be doing fine.  The gay lady pastor fills the church every Sunday.  They also have Jews and Buddhists worshiping there.
> 
> I hope they all go extinct.  You know me.  But as the lesser of greater evils I support them.



Can you imagine a peaceful world without religion?

Yeah, I know many times people do wrong things in the name of religion such as war and make stupid laws.

Yet doesn't religion keep some people from doing some evil?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

Christianity has changed in it's morals over the years as well as major changes in beliefs.

	Premillennialism, declared a heresy in ancient times, was reintroduced in the 19th century, and is now the most popular belief about end times among conservative Protestants.

	The idea of the rapture also first surfaced in the 19th century.  It involves the beliefs that saved individuals -- both dead and alive -- rising from the Earth to meet Jesus in the sky.

        Most denominations have abandoned the teaching of he!! as a place of eternal torture as described in the Bible. When mentioned at all today, it is often presented as being in a state of isolation from God.

 	Human slavery was once widely considered totally compatible with the Bible, and a normal, natural cultural institution. It is now recognized as a profound evil by essentially all religions.
 	Ordination of qualified female candidates was rarely allowed in the past. Severe restrictions on women's roles in the church, family and society have largely been lifted by liberal, mainline, and some conservative denominations.

 	Homosexuals were once universally despised as sexual perverts and criminals for whom the appropriate response was the death penalty. Today, some liberal denominations have accepted gays and lesbians for ordination, have fought instances of discrimination against them, have fought for the right of loving, committed same-sex couples to marry, have blessed their unions and have married them. Mainline denominations are now conducting sometimes destructive debates over these issues and may well experience schism. Conservative denominations have generally not begun the transition and have no intention to start anytime soon.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg1.htm

I would say religious tolerance is of and in itself a change within the Christian religion. Catholics getting along with Protestants, Christians getting along with Jews, Gentiles getting along with the Jews. all of us getting along with the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. Society accepting the Universal salvation denominations.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can you imagine a peaceful world without religion?


Yes. 



> Yet doesn't religion keep some people from doing some evil?



Religion gives folks that do evil stuff a way out after the fact. Religion can make good folk do evil stuff. 
See ISIS.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can you imagine a peaceful world without religion?
> 
> Yeah, I know many times people do wrong things in the name of religion such as war and make stupid laws.
> 
> Yet doesn't religion keep some people from doing some evil?



You could take the same moral tales out of the religion and get the same result. 

Like I've said before, Christianity, and religion in general, doesn't hold a patent ont he golden rule, except for that specific name, maybe.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why?



Because I'd like to see a world where reason as opposed to archaic superstition is used form thoughts and ideas like morality.

You just let me know if I was incorrect with my usage of 'archaic superstitions'.

_
Full Definition of ARCHAIC
1
:  having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses <an archaic word>
2
:  of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time :  antiquated <archaic legal traditions>
3
capitalized :  of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development; especially :  of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture
4
:  surviving from an earlier period; specifically :  typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage
5
capitalized :  of or relating to the period from about 8000 b.c. to 1000 b.c. and the North American cultures of that time 


Full Definition of SUPERSTITION
1
a :  a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b :  an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2
:  a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary _


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

If God never changes and all of the morals of the ancient ages are still in place, why do we change?
Why don't we have slaves?
Why do we now gamble and overeat?
Why can women speak in Church uncovered?
Why do Christians use contraception?
Why do some Christians believe the bible has errors?
Why do some Christians believe abortions are OK?
Why have some Christians stopped practicing spanking?
Why is recreational sex now OK?
Why can women wear pants and work outside the home?
Why do men now get tattoos and piercing? Neither if these are natural.
Why is secular music now OK for our children?
Why is in OK for us and children to watch filthy TV and movies?
Why do Christians now go to restaurants on Sunday?
Why do Christians now fish on Sunday instead of resting?
Why have most Christians abandoned the 10 commandments?
Why have female Christians bathing suits become so small? It causes men to lust.

While I agree that moral changes are more prominent within liberal churches, conservative churches have also been affected by changes.
I went to Holiness Church a few years ago and the members dress code had changed dramatically than when I was young. Now we have stores that sell clothes to help Pentecostal women dress nicely within their dress code.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can you imagine a peaceful world without religion?



Oh, Gosh.  Can I ever!!!!



Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah, I know many times people do wrong things in the name of religion such as war and make stupid laws.
> 
> Yet doesn't religion keep some people from doing some evil?



Maybe.  But there's better ways to do it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You could take the same moral tales out of the religion and get the same result.
> 
> Like I've said before, Christianity, and religion in general, doesn't hold a patent ont he golden rule, except for that specific name, maybe.



Yes but without the fear of He11, would society "act up?"


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God never changes and all of the morals of the ancient ages are still in place, why do we change?
> Why don't we have slaves?
> Why do we now gamble and overeat?
> Why can women speak in Church uncovered?
> ...



Is that a rhetorical question?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes but without the fear of He11, would society "act up?"



No.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes but without the fear of He11, would society "act up?"



Do religious folks still "act up" with the threat of Hades? 

Yes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Oh, Gosh.  Can I ever!!!!
> 
> Maybe.  But there's better ways to do it.



I wonder if people just like to fight and have wars and without religion they would create other things to fight over?
Land, borders, women folk, resources, and/or we just don't like your culture and morals.

Explain better ways to teach people to do good. Without a belief in He!! what would be their punishment?

Now the strange thing about using Christianity for my argument is, you don't have to be good, you just have to believe Jesus died because you can't be good.

It's a double edged sword. If you believe your goodness will keep you from he!!, then that belief will send you to he11.
You must believe you can't be good and repent from that belief in order to obtain eternal life.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do religious folks still "act up" with the threat of Hades?
> 
> Yes.



I wonder if Christians "act up" more than in other religions? It would seem the more rules a religion has, the more it's follower's wouldn't be able to follow them.

Like if you had a religion with only five rules, everyone would be a saint.

Religious folks do act up as much as Atheist. Probably more. If not they will either go to He11 or at least not get as many stars in their crown. Or possibly come back as a cockroach or mullet.

Rewards and punishments. I hope people see more to Christianity than just rewards and punishments. 
Most don't see the spiritual side.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if people just like to fight and have wars and without religion they would create other things to fight over?
> Land, borders, women folk, resources, and/or we just don't like your culture and morals.
> 
> Explain better ways to teach people to do good. Without a belief in He!! what would be their punishment?
> ...




If everybody believed, TRULY believed that this was your one go around, how miserable would a life sentence in jail be?  

Conversely, how much relief do you think those serial killers that get saved right before being executed get?  Why, they might even feel good about themselves and look forward to their execution.  COME LORD,  QUICK!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if Christians "act up" more than in other religions? It would seem the more rules a religion has, the more it's follower's wouldn't be able to follow them.
> 
> Like if you had a religion with only five rules, everyone would be a saint.
> 
> ...



You should look into how many different ways people express and experience "spirituality" without God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder if Christians "act up" more than in other religions? It would seem the more rules a religion has, the more it's follower's wouldn't be able to follow them.
> 
> Like if you had a religion with only five rules, everyone would be a saint.
> 
> ...



But that wasn't the question. Someone suggested something similar to the moral apocalypse being nigh if not for the levee wall of religion holding it back.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes.
> 
> Religion gives folks that do evil stuff a way out after the fact. Religion can make good folk do evil stuff.
> See ISIS.



Christianity offers a way out in the form of Jesus. Do you really think Jesus is on Christians minds when they perform evil acts and sins?
Some things people do that's evil isn't based on personal morals at all but just the individuals believe they are doing the requests of their God. Your example of ISIS is  true. We see it as evil, they see it as doing God's work.

Perhaps we could use this same way reasoning on Christians who frown upon homosexuality. They are convinced by the way they have interpreted scripture and because of their indoctrination that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God.

While the latter doesn't condone killing like the former, it's still being based on how they see themselves performing God's mission.

Now some see both as a form of evil done in the name of religion. Has religion made people homophobic or has homophobic people made religion homophobic?


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you really think Jesus is on Christians minds when they perform evil acts and sins?



I meant something like this:


> When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But that wasn't the question. Someone suggested something similar to the moral apocalypse being nigh if not for the levee wall of religion holding it back.



I'm not sure what the question is was exactly. I did change it from religion to Christians whatever it was. You can ask again if this doesn't answer.
If the question is;  does religion create morals vs man, then I'll have to say man. Sociology is an interesting subject.
Atheists are just a moral as religious folks, some more than others within each group. 
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals or the ability to not sin. God placed laws or sins upon us to show us we don't have the ability to be moral.

That was one of my points earlier. That even with my religion; Christianity, and having the Holy Spirit, I still sin.
I can't repent from sinning, my repentance was in believing that I could.

So when one goes into the cities and country side and looks in on all of the Christian Churches, even including the conservative churches, he will see sinners.
When we run into these same Christians on the street, we will see sinners. I can't really see much difference from one person from the next based on his religion or lack there of.
Christian, Hindu, or Atheist; some are moral and some ain't.

For this reason, I'm as guilty as the homosexual or the drunkard. My repentance was believing I needed Jesus.
I needed the "washing." God has proved his point with me. None of us are good. Christians still sin. We are all evil. We could never live by the law. It was presented to show us we couldn't. 

It's a basic Christian concept that many can't grasp. Grace that is.
They're still all hyped up on trying to follow the law. And even more hyped up that everyone else does. Even though they can't live by the law and sin just as much as anyone else. 
They somehow feel they are more worthy of salvation by their own works than God granting salvation to a lesser sinner than themselves. God sees lesser, they see more or worse sinner. They don't see the other sinner as the lesser sinner. They see these other sinners with the eyes of the  Pharisees. 
They see the other sinners as having a log in there eye and a splinter in their own eye, when in actuality it's the other way around.

Many Christians actually picture themselves in the Kingdom based on their own works and exclude others based on the works of the others.
They somehow believe the washing doesn't "take hold" of some people. Even those who believe in election and irresistible grace. Even Christians that fully understand grace is from God and salvation is 100% totally from God, still believe they are more worthy than others by their works.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure what the question is was exactly. I did change it from religion to Christians whatever it was. You can ask again if this doesn't answer.
> If the question is;  does religion create morals vs man, then I'll have to say man. Sociology is an interesting subject.
> Atheists are just a moral as religious folks, some more than others within each group.
> Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals or the ability to not sin. God placed laws or sins upon us to show us we don't have the ability to be moral.
> ...



Man created religion, so even if religion created morality, man still created religion. So it's the same thing by the associative property. 

Now, man may, or may not, have created god, but that's a different discussion. 

Question: Can you do something that's not explicitly proscribed as a sin and still be amoral as a faithful person? Can you, similarly, do something that is moral, and sin? 

The point to my question being that sins and morality are not interchangeable, even for a person of faith, so I don't get the fascination with trying to say that all morality flows from the creator. 

Scenario: Would you pull an animal from a well on the Sabbath? 

To me it is amoral to let an animal needlessly die, especially suffering as it does so, any day of the week, except that a religious person has a commandment that supposedly precludes them from saving it on one particular day and thus creates a paradox. Maybe there's a gotcha in that you are also expected to exercise your own judgment on matters like that, but, again to me, that takes, "Thou shall not," to, "Thou should usually not," whereby the Commandment then becomes a really strong suggestion, but one without any real consequence given the nature of repentance and salvation through Grace.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Man created religion, so even if religion created morality, man still created religion. So it's the same thing by the associative property.
> 
> Now, man may, or may not, have created god, but that's a different discussion.







Sorry.  Couldn't resist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Sorry.  Couldn't resist.



No worries.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> We're in the middle of "the long haul".  Go back and read the link in post 195.  The decline has been going on for decades.  The gay issue just accelerated it.


Then clearly the gay issue isn't the root of their problem.
If an alcoholic dies of liver failure it wasn't the liver failure that killed them. It was the alcoholism.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If everybody believed, TRULY believed that this was your one go around, how miserable would a life sentence in jail be?
> 
> Conversely, how much relief do you think those serial killers that get saved right before being executed get?  Why, they might even feel good about themselves and look forward to their execution.  COME LORD,  QUICK!



Art?  Any thoughts?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> From what I understand this isn't happening.  The conservatives leave.  A few progressives take over.  Doors close shortly afterward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 23, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Then clearly the gay issue isn't the root of their problem.



Agreed.

The root of the problem is abandoning biblical teaching.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 23, 2015)

Where better for a sinner to be than in church?
Gay, fornicator, adulterer, pedophile,etc. They are all there getting their healing on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Because I'd like to see a world where reason as opposed to archaic superstition is used form thoughts and ideas like morality.



You know, you might be the first person to ever think of that.



ambush80 said:


> You just let me know if I was incorrect with my usage of 'archaic superstitions'.



Never heard the term so I would be a poor judge of it's correct usage, but based on the definitions you provided (and thank you very much for doing so)  I take it to mean what people believed before they found God.  Am I close?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Do religious folks still "act up" with the threat of Hades?
> 
> Yes.



"folks"?  Brother you been listening to too much Obama.  Every notice how everyone he has a disdain for he refers to as "folks"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The root of the problem is abandoning biblical teaching.


No argument there.
It would be pretty tough to make the case that what they are teaching is biblical.
But you have to admit its not something new. I never heard a sermon teaching that you should kill your wife and her lover if you catch them in bed etc etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, you might be the first person to ever think of that.



I haven't had an original idea yet.





SemperFiDawg said:


> Never heard the term so I would be a poor judge of it's correct usage, but based on the definitions you provided (and thank you very much for doing so)  I take it to mean what people believed before they found God.  Am I close?



I was thinking more on the lines of when people discovered other ways to form ideas about the world other than through religious teachings.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 23, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "folks"?  Brother you been listening to too much Obama.  Every notice how everyone he has a disdain for he refers to as "folks"?



Or maybe you have, since you hear him where he is not. 

I use folks to refer to generic groupings of people. Ya know, like it's supposed to be. 

But since you hear disdain for you, in my voice, please tell me why? Because there was none on this end, brother.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Art?  Any thoughts?



God will and does have mercy on whom HE will have mercy. It's not up to the murderer to give himself salvation.
It is quite possible that God would grant him salvation.
The criminal on the other cross comes to mind.

I don't always agree with the logic of God's rules and ways.
His ways are not_____, just kidding.

This an many other things about grace I don't understand. Even forgiveness is hard to understand. Why should I be expected to forgive someone for raping my daughter or killing my son?
Why isn't salvation based on merit instead of election? Why would God strike someone dead for not having sex with his dead brother's wife? Why did God allow that brother to interrupt  his plan?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> God will and does have mercy on whom HE will have mercy. It's not up to the murderer to give himself salvation.
> It is quite possible that God would grant him salvation.
> The criminal on the other cross comes to mind.
> 
> ...



I encourage you to let those problems continue to trouble you.  They should be troubling to any thoughtful person.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> God will and does have mercy on whom HE will have mercy. It's not up to the murderer to give himself salvation.
> It is quite possible that God would grant him salvation.
> The criminal on the other cross comes to mind.
> 
> ...



You should forgive the rapist/killer for your sake, not theirs.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You should forgive the rapist/killer for your sake, not theirs.



How can I expect God to forgive me if I don't?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 23, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The root of the problem is abandoning biblical teaching.



In reference to this and back when man stopped having authority over women and with other equality issues such as women not being quiet in the Church. Why is it accepted now by many Christians? Is it because it was a gradual change? This could also include contraception.
Is the homosexual acceptance issue moving faster than society and the Church is willing to accept it?
One must realize how many Christian men have female wives and how most Christian men of today don't practice pederasty or seek the company of male prostitutes. That it is easier to keep these practices out of the Church than women's equality.
Our wives and mothers more or less forced their equality on us. We didn't have much of a choice as we are all associated with women. 
Most of us don't have any association with homosexuals making them an easy target.
So even though deep down in our hearts we know that a lot of women's equality issues are against God's laws, we look the other way. I'm talking Christians and society in general. Some Christians and denominations don't allow women to be preachers or teachers. Some Christian men do stress to their wives that they have authority over them.
Asking a woman to remain silent anywhere these days would be fruitless.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 23, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How can I expect God to forgive me if I don't?



OK.  If you insist.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 23, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or maybe you have, since you hear him where he is not.
> 
> I use folks to refer to generic groupings of people. Ya know, like it's supposed to be.
> 
> But since you hear disdain for you, in my voice, please tell me why? Because there was none on this end, brother.



Didn't take it as disdain from you.  When I was growing up the term 'folks' was generally used when speaking of kin.  Not so much now.  That's all I was implying.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The root of the problem is abandoning biblical teaching.



I'm curious what the upper limit for biblically derived education would be. 

Should we toss out the carbon dating results for dinosaurs and other ancient creatures because it conflicts with the age presented in the Bible?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 24, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Didn't take it as disdain from you.  When I was growing up the term 'folks' was generally used when speaking of kin.  Not so much now.  That's all I was implying.



There's folk, and kin-folk. But I also hold the belief that we're all brothers and sisters in humanity, so either would be okay with me. 

Apologies are in order, as I apparently misread the context of that post.


----------



## 660griz (Mar 24, 2015)

If this catches on with churches, I hope there is more exodus. 
Christians against Guns


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

660griz said:


> If this catches on with churches, I hope there is more exodus.
> Christians against Guns



This nonsense is typical of _liberal_ churches, the same ones who promote "gay is OK".


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> In reference to this and back when man stopped having authority over women and with other equality issues such as women not being quiet in the Church. Why is it accepted now by many Christians?



Liberal Christians are more accepting of liberal ideas.  The churches who have women pastors, affirm homosexuality, believe in global warming, hate guns, hate Israel, etc. are all the same bunch.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 24, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's folk, and kin-folk. But I also hold the belief that we're all brothers and sisters in humanity, so either would be okay with me.
> 
> Apologies are in order, as I apparently misread the context of that post.



No problem.  It's easy to do using this as a means of communication.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I haven't had an original idea yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sam Harris is not someone I would cite as an architect of your vision.  He has a PhD in Neuroscience and a UNDERGRADUATE in philosophy.   While he is recognized as one of the four horseman of the new atheism, his philosophical musings publicized in his books have been shredded by skeptics and believers alike.  My favorite quote regarding his acumen is " Worse than dorm room philosophy."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Liberal Christians are more accepting of liberal ideas.  The churches who have women pastors, affirm homosexuality, believe in global warming, hate guns, hate Israel, etc. are all the same bunch.



I noticed you group Liberal Christians in with Liberals in the political parties. I could see why. 
I've always been conservative fiscally and mostly vote Republican. By my liberal friends standards, I'm a conservative Republican.
By your standards you probably see me as Liberal. I'm against abortion, gun control, global warming, welfare, anti-segregation laws, Obama-care,weak military, socialism, mandatory voting, affirmative action,  & environmentalism.

I'm for capital punishment, government getting out of marriage, individuals freedom, states rights, less government, separation of government & religion, flat tax, & capitalism.

We have a local talk show host here in Augusta by the name of Austin Rhodes on WGAC. He is way more conservative than I am and he is pro gay. 
He appears to be liberal on social issues such as this. He is an example of a pro-gay conservative republican. 

I'm actually not for gay rights as I am equal rights. If we are going to give rights, then they should include gays. I would rather we do away with anti-discrimination laws and let the individual decide who to discriminate against. I think a landlord or florist should be able to discriminate and not just based on religion. I believe discrimination should be allowed. Anti-discrimination should not be forced by laws.
But if we have them, then include homosexuals. I'd rather be pro-gay that for gay rights. 

Strange to me is how Israel is a decision on conservatism and liberalism. Most Americans don't know enough about Israel to even make an educated decision. This includes me. If on the Political forum you will find conservatives who are not pro Israel. I don't think it's hatred as much as how we view them as an ally. It's just strange that not being pro-Israel is liberalism. I don't see how you can blame this on a liberal Church. Are you a Zionists of the fundamental Church type? Conservative Churches cause just as many problems and are just as wrong as Liberal Churhes.

I don't really fit in with any party or Church. I guess I'm not influenced by people very easily. I know I wouldn't fit in with a Liberal Church.
I might try the Libertarians and the Universal Primitive Baptists.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "folks"?  Brother you been listening to too much Obama.  Every notice how everyone he has a disdain for he refers to as "folks"?



Now that we've got this issue straightened out it reminds me of the phrase "you people" as if that means a certain group of folks.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

The ordination of women
By conservative Protestant denominations;

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC):

The SBC is by far the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. They have about 1,600 ordained women filling various roles. In recent years, a fundamentalist faction won a power struggle with moderates in the denomination.

(Filling various roles but I don't believe pastor is one of those roles but still they are women fulfilling teaching and leadership roles, perhaps some over men.)

There is no consensus among Christian theologians over the validity of this passage:

    Fundamentalists accept the truth of the preamble in 1 Timothy which states that Paul is the author of the book. Most believe that the book was written by him, perhaps circa 62 CE a few years before his execution. 
    Most religious liberals reject the authorship of Paul. Arguing from internal evidence, they have determined that the book was written by an unknown Christian circa 100 to 150 CE -- some 35 to 85 years after Paul's death. One of the anonymous author's goals was to reverse some of Paul's and Jesus' policies, including the equal treatment of women.

Years ago I looked at Paul's teachings and for some reason they just didn't seem to fit. He appeared kinda wishy washy between grace and works.
I've since moved on but maybe the Liberal Churches have discounted what Paul preached. I can't go that far but I will say Paul was addressing specific churches with specific problems associated with the culture of their prospective cities of that time period.
Just curious as to what Paul's problem and Christianity was with women? Should we try an figure it out or just say, "it doesn't matter, it's biblical?"

Pentecostal Denominations: Although Pentecostals are conservative in theology, approximately 8 denominations ordain women. Two were actually founded by women.

The point I wanted to make is it's not just the Liberal Churches that change. Why? Why do we change if God never changes?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg4.htm

Nationally, the Southern Baptists have adopted statements discouraging women from being pastors, but their 42,000 U.S. churches are independent and a few have selected women to lead their congregations. The faith was organized in 1845 in Augusta, Ga.

http://soulfulbeauty.com/new.php?n=121

Well I guess a few have women pastors.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

"Unmarried sex with contraception is not God's plan, but unmarried sex without contraception is not a plan at all," Joel Hunter, Pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, said in response to the article.

"Contraception is a product of human ingenuity that may be used by Christians to plan families and preserve a woman's health," Jenell Paris, Professor of Sociology at Messiah College added.

Others strongly opposed birth control as a means of addressing the issue, suggesting that it is an attempt to control what should be considered a God-given gift.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...ol-will-the-church-be-forced-to-choose-73884/

Why did some conservative Churches change their views on artificial birth control?

Wouldn't the pill change the amount of children God wants you to have? If by taking the pill prevents you from having children God wants you to have, you have prevented these children from becoming Grandmothers. 
Just think if Mary's mother Anne had prevented her pregnancy. Unless every conception is immaculate.
God doesn't like to change his plan to match ours.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sam Harris is not someone I would cite as an architect of your vision.  He has a PhD in Neuroscience and a UNDERGRADUATE in philosophy.   While he is recognized as one of the four horseman of the new atheism, his philosophical musings publicized in his books have been shredded by skeptics and believers alike.  My favorite quote regarding his acumen is " Worse than dorm room philosophy."




Those ideas are out there.  They don't belong to him or me.  

Of course you dislike him.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now that we've got this issue straightened out it reminds me of the phrase "you people" as if that means a certain group of folks.



If not for that phrase Ross Perot would have been President.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Those ideas are out there.  They don't belong to him or me.
> 
> Of course you dislike him.



 I don't know him.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The point I wanted to make is it's not just the Liberal Churches that change.



... but, regarding homosexuality, it's _only_ the liberal churches who have changed.  

Regarding ordination of women, the two largest churches in the world (Catholic and Orthodox) do not and will not ordain women.  The SBC's official position is not to ordain women.  I'd say that's true for most of Protestantism, although there are certainly exceptions.

As for contraception, it's not a topic I've spent much time thinking about.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 24, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't know him.




Did you watch the 18min+ talk?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but, regarding homosexuality, it's _only_ the liberal churches who have changed.
> 
> Regarding ordination of women, the two largest churches in the world (Catholic and Orthodox) do not and will not ordain women.  The SBC's official position is not to ordain women.  I'd say that's true for most of Protestantism, although there are certainly exceptions.
> 
> As for contraception, it's not a topic I've spent much time thinking about.



Why have you thought so much about homosexuality and not contraception? It is true that Liberal Churches are the first to accept homosexuality. Perhaps the conservative Churches will never accept it. Perhaps the Catholic Church will never let priests marry but changes do happen. Some for worse and some for better.

When you view the word "homosexual" I'm assuming you see every homosexual act as the same. You view two homosexuals in a loving relationship with otherwise good Christian values in every other respect as the same as the Heterosexuals Paul was calling down on it his letters to the various Churches. Men and women who abandoned God and exchanged from having hetero sex with their spouses to having homosexual sex. Married men who sought the company of male prostitutes. Married men who partook of the practice of pederasty. Married men who went to orgies. Married men out partying and swinging both ways all night while their wives stayed home.
To you when you see homosexual, you see perverted old men having sex with young boys. You see the homosexuals of Paul's day and I'm sure there's plenty of them out there, and think of all homosexuals. You can't possibly imagine a whole culture of straight married macho men having gay sex.
And you really cant' accept the possibility of two Christian men having a monogamous homosexual relationship, even if they do believe in election by grace salvation.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why have you thought so much about homosexuality and not contraception?



Because there are no "Contraception Pride" parades.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Because there are no "Contraception Pride" parades.



Were you around in the sixties when the liberal churches accepted contraception as a God blessed form of birth control? It was about the same time of women's rights that these same liberal churches went for.
Eventually and slowly the conservative churches fell for it.
Then girls bathing suits got smaller, skirts got shorter,  and cause me to lust!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Perhaps the conservative Churches will never accept it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Were you around in the sixties when the liberal churches accepted contraception as a God blessed form of birth control?



I was _around_, but theology was not a major focus for me at that time.  I concentrated more on Saturday morning cartoons.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Fourteen pages of this ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> And you really cant' accept the possibility of two Christian men having a monogamous homosexual relationship, even if they do believe in election by grace salvation.



You're right.  I can't.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but, regarding homosexuality, it's _only_ the liberal churches who have changed.
> 
> Regarding ordination of women, the two largest churches in the world (Catholic and Orthodox) do not and will not ordain women.  The SBC's official position is not to ordain women.  I'd say that's true for most of Protestantism, although there are certainly exceptions.
> 
> As for contraception, it's not a topic I've spent much time thinking about.



One point you were stressing earlier was, it didn't start with homosexuality. We can't just isolate this one thing if it's not the cause.
In Paul's letter to the Romans, men who knew God quit worshiping him and exchange God with Idols. Then they quit having hetero sex and started having gay orgies.

The homosexuality wasn't the cause of their problem or their abandonment by God, idol worship was. 
Heteros having gay sex was one of the many ways their idol worship and God's abandonment manifested itself in them.
I think some Christians see married men turning gay and making God abandon them.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


>




What about the conservative Churches that already have women pastors?
What about conservative Churches that have women teachers, committee members, non-silent women, women with authority over men?

I imagine there was a time when conservative men and women thought they'd never see that in a conservative Church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> You're right.  I can't.



Is this based on your preconceived notions and indoctrination or your deep research into the history of the cities in Paul's time? Have you researched the customs of the heteosexual men Paul was addressing?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about the conservative Churches that already have women pastors?
> What about conservative Churches that have women teachers, committee members, non-silent women, women with authority over men?
> 
> I imagine there was a time when conservative men and women thought they'd never see that in a conservative Church.



I'm not sure how many conservative churches have women pastors.  I'm guessing "not many".  As ambush noted above, his in-law's church has a _gay_ woman pastor. 

I really don't care what they do.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Have you researched the customs of the heteosexual men Paul was addressing?



No, but I've researched the customs of the gay apologists who dreamed up this interpretation.

It's nonsense.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 24, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> One point you were stressing earlier was, it didn't start with homosexuality. We can't just isolate this one thing if it's not the cause.
> In Paul's letter to the Romans, men who knew God quit worshiping him and exchange God with Idols. Then they quit having hetero sex and started having gay orgies.
> 
> The homosexuality wasn't the cause of their problem or their abandonment by God, idol worship was.
> ...


I'll say it again, you're reading what you want to read in those verses for some reason.

You read " homosexuality is not natural" and then you add that that's only meant for heteros, which btw assumes people are actually born homosexual, and then you add that God is somehow ok with homosexuality. 

None of which you can prove anywhere else in the bible. Why do you want to add it so badly?

Do you wonder why Paul doesn't distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals? If Paul is addressing only heterosexuals in Romans as you're claiming, do you wonder why homosexuals aren't addressed anywhere in the bible?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> I'll say it again, you're reading what you want to read in those verses for some reason.
> 
> You read " homosexuality is not natural" and then you add that that's only meant for heteros, which btw assumes people are actually born homosexual, and then you add that God is somehow ok with homosexuality.
> 
> ...



The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. 

I doubt very seriously Paul was addressing this small and silent minority. Paul's letters were written to Christians. Almost every grown man in Rome and Greece were married. Paul was addressing these men.

You keep bringing up what is natural as if everything un-natural is a sin. It is un-natural for a heterosexual man to have gay sex. The unnaturalness of his act didn't make it a sin. Murder to get food for my family is natural and is a sin. The naturalness or unnaturalness has nothing to do with it. Paul was explaining how heterosexual people exchanged from the form of natural sex they were having. In Romans the married hetero men exchanged the type of sex they were having. How could a homosexual exchange his sex type if he had never had hetero sex?
These married people were already having natural hetero sex when they exchanged it for gay sex. They weren't gay people having hetero sex. They weren't gay people having gay sex. 
In the culture of Paul's time Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers. 
Pederasty was accepted and practiced in Rome and Greece. Married men kept company with male prostitutes and practiced pederasty.  
Pederasty was also practiced in the Middle East during this time. 

If you don't believe there is any difference from married men doing such things as compared to two gay men in a monogamous relationship then you have a biased view of Paul's use of the word "homosexual."
Actually Paul didn't use this word because it didn't exist. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual." To them sex was either masculine or feminine. 

It's kinda hard to imagine Paul being upset with the small silent percentage of true homosexuals that we associate with the word 'Homosexual."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks.
They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.
This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.

These people did a heck of a lot of giving up relations, exchanging one type of sex for another, exchanging the glory of God, exchanging the truth about God, for them to be Pagan Homosexuals.
With all they exchanged and gave up they were heterosexual Christians and Paul called them on it to stop.
God couldn't abandon people who weren't already worshiping him, they'd be to depraved. You can't make an already depraved person depraved.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 24, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> No, but I've researched the customs of the gay apologists who dreamed up this interpretation.
> 
> It's nonsense.



That's all I can ask, that we each put aside our indoctrination and delve into seeking the truth.
Kinda like we all did concerning the Trinity. Ya'll researched the alternatives and found them to be false, such as Oneness.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes.
> 
> I doubt very seriously Paul was addressing this small and silent minority. Paul's letters were written to Christians. Almost every grown man in Rome and Greece were married. Paul was addressing these men.
> 
> ...



Twisted, blind, lost, and blown by the wind.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Twisted, blind, lost, and blown by the wind.



The way to the truth is revealed by revelation. When a person reaches his deeper spiritual self awareness many truths will be revealed by the Holy Spirit. 
Enlightenment is from Spirit to spirit. 

This is the realm of spirituality I reached in order for the Spirit to reveal to my spirit. It is way beyond the realm of laws and rules. It focuses on the truths of love and forgiveness. It focuses on God's grace to everyone.
It focuses on Christ's death & resurrection and what that truly did for sinners. It focuses on the unity of God in us, we in God, and everyone of us in each other.      

This unity is part of what has been revealed to me also by the Holy Spirit. It makes me look and treat each individual a little bit more as myself. It helps me love my enemies. It helps me forgive my trespassers. It helps me see the true meaning of the teachings of Jesus himself.  

Not everyone has reached this place of spirituality and I'm quite aware many are living in their physical past instead of their spiritual future.
I know this all sounds a little bit like hippie new age talk but God only reveals to those who seek.

The blind will never see without God opening their eyes.
My place on this physical earth might have me revealing the truth but to a few. If so then that part of my journey will be made possible by God but only through his Holy Spirit.

I'm straight & square, I'm enlightened, saved by grace, elected by God, lead by the Spirit.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2015)

So many people in here tell us that the Holy Spirit has revealed itself to them and has enlightened them yet the information given by the HS varies as much as the individuals do.
I am beginning to think that all of you who claim to have been touched by the HS just might be mistaken.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Mar 25, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Fourteen pages of this ...



Personally I think it's a central discussion to this forum. Not because it deals with homosexuals, but because of the literal thousands of interpretations of the same divinely inspired text that caused fracturing of the one faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So many people in here tell us that the Holy Spirit has revealed itself to them and has enlightened them yet the information given by the HS varies as much as the individuals do.
> I am beginning to think that all of you who claim to have been touched by the HS just might be mistaken.


Or this Holy Spirit only exists in each individuals mind which would make all the variances perfectly understandable.
When we get told that by not believing, we are in essence worshipping ourselves, the thought always strikes me that what is interesting is that the evidence, with all the different interpretations, beliefs, denominations etc that comes from ones own mind, may show its not actually the nonbeliever that is worshipping the self.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So many people in here tell us that the Holy Spirit has revealed itself to them and has enlightened them yet the information given by the HS varies as much as the individuals do.



Good assessment up to this point.  

As analogy to explain part of the variance,  I would say that as a father of a bunch of kids I give each of them different guidance/support based individually on their needs, the situation, their capabilities, my expectations of them, their maturity level etc, so there is a lot of variance.  That should account for much of it.

Then you have those who are delusional: the ones who say the spirit led them to say, do, preach, teach, etc. something that completely contradicts scripture.  They may very well be filled with a spirit, but not the Holy Spirit.
There's quiet a bit of this out there too and the reasons for it are as varied as they are nefarious. So there's that.

Got to judge each one.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The way to the truth is revealed by revelation. When a person reaches his deeper spiritual self awareness many truths will be revealed by the Holy Spirit.
> Enlightenment is from Spirit to spirit.
> 
> This is the realm of spirituality I reached in order for the Spirit to reveal to my spirit. It is way beyond the realm of laws and rules. It focuses on the truths of love and forgiveness. It focuses on God's grace to everyone.
> ...



I really like how you are trying to make sense of your beliefs but honestly I think they're right and you are wrong.  As a lay person and a non-believer, even I can see that the Bible thinks homosexuality is a sin.   You're trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole.  I know that it bothers you and it should.

I think you should reassess where your problem lies.  It's with the Bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> ... even I can see that the Bible thinks homosexuality is a sin.



Thank you, Brother Ambush!


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Good assessment up to this point.
> 
> As analogy to explain part of the variance,  I would say that as a father of a bunch of kids I give each of them different guidance/support based individually on their needs, the situation, their capabilities, my expectations of them, their maturity level etc, so there is a lot of variance.  That should account for much of it.
> 
> ...


Seems to me you just took away the option for God to do this -


> that as a father of a bunch of kids I give each of them different guidance/support based individually on their needs, the situation, their capabilities, my expectations of them, their maturity level etc, so there is a lot of variance.


based on what YOU believe falls under the heading -


> something that completely contradicts scripture


Goes back to my previous my post about -
a. we can't understand God and if we could he wouldn't be a god.
b. I can tell you exactly what he does or doesn't do and why.
Your judgment of whether the person is filled with the Holy Spirit or some other spirit could only be made if you think you know exactly what God does or doesn't do and why - b.


> Got to judge each one


Slippery slope ^


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

I agree the Bible tells us Homosexuality is a sin. Now look back an do some research as to why it was a sin, when it was a sin and who was practicing it.
Did it pertain to men born gay or straight people having gay sex?
How was the word "homosexuality" used and who was it being preached to? 
What type of person was performing the homosexual acts in regards to the warnings? How could a gay person exchange his sexual orientation from gay to gay? How can he abandon hetero sex if he wasn't practicing hetero sex?
Using this same logic, how could a depraved sinner exchange his worship of God for idols? He can't because he wouldn't be worshiping God to begin with. A lost person doesn't worship God.

God only elects whom he will elect, so it stands to reason his Spirit only reveals the teachings of God to these very same elect.
People are elected by God through the death of Jesus. It has nothing to do with past or present actions.
"and such were some of you, but you were washed."

If God truly does see homosexuals by the modern explanation instead of his, it still doesn't matter, salvation is of the Lord's.
They will be washed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems to me you just took away the option for God to do this



How so?  I'm not following.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

How would God feel about two men loving each other in a relationship with everything but the sex?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

If no one is born gay then everyone having gay sex are heterosexuals.  All homosexuals are really heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts. 
When the Bible speaks of same-gender sex, it is always talking about heterosexuals who are given over to such lust that they commit lustful acts. 
The Bible does speak of lust as being a sin. Maybe it's when heterosexuals act out their lust, it is sin whether with same sex or opposite sex individuals.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How so?  I'm not following.


What God decided another person needed, could handle etc etc might appear delusion to you.
So you would be judging another person as "delusional" when in fact they may be responding to what and how God decided they needed to hear or see etc.
When you look at a flower and see God you appear delusional to me.
Am I right?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What God decided another person needed, could handle etc etc might appear delusion to you.
> So you would be judging another person as "delusional" when in fact they may be responding to what and how God decided they needed to hear or see etc.
> When you look at a flower and see God you appear delusional to me.
> Am I right?



Sometimes our conversations remind me of the "poision" scene in the movie "The Princess Bride." 
This is proof God has a sense of humor!


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If no one is born gay then everyone having gay sex are heterosexuals.  All homosexuals are really heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts.
> When the Bible speaks of same-gender sex, it is always talking about heterosexuals who are given over to such lust that they commit lustful acts.
> The Bible does speak of lust as being a sin. Maybe it's when heterosexuals act out their lust, it is sin whether with same sex or opposite sex individuals.



You are reaching, my friend, further and further into nonsense.  It's not too late to find a code to live by that isn't filled with contradiction and silliness.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Twisted, blind, lost, and blown by the wind.



Did you watch the 18+min talk?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You are reaching, my friend, further and further into nonsense.  It's not too late to find a code to live by that isn't filled with contradiction and silliness.


Actually there are folks with nearly identical understandings as to what Art is saying.
Back then "gay" sex wasn't limited to only what we, in the present, call "gay folks".
Prior to Christianity calling it a sin, it was much more accepted and it wasn't necessarily divided up into gay and straight.
So when Art says it wasn't just gay people that were being judged/talked to, based on history and what was going on at the time in that area, he's not necessarily being inaccurate. It was more viewed as "sex" and not gay sex and straight sex.
I don't think its a coincidence that while pretty much accepted in the Roman Empire the Christians decided to make it taboo.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> What God decided another person needed, could handle etc etc might appear delusion to you.
> So you would be judging another person as "delusional" when in fact they may be responding to what and how God decided they needed to hear or see etc.
> When you look at a flower and see God you appear delusional to me.
> Am I right?





> What God decided another person needed, could handle etc etc might appear delusion to you.
> So you would be judging another person as "delusional" when in fact they may be responding to what and how God decided they needed to hear or see etc.



No.  God doesn't contradict himself.  If you take it as given that the Bible is God's word and also that the Holy Spirit is God (both of which are pretty well affirmed across all denominations) then the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to believe something that directly contradicts scripture.  I'm fact one of the main functions of the Holy Spirit is to AFFIRM scripture, so if someone is saying the spirit led him to so-and-so and it contradicts scripture, you can be certain of 
A) he is wrong and 
B) if he really believes it, he's delusional.

Like I said, a spirit may have led him to believe it, but it wasn't the Holy Spirit.



> When you look at a flower and see God you appear delusional to me.
> Am I right?



If I look at a flower and literally see God, yes.

If I look at a flower as another evidence of God's creative power , no............. but, but, but, we are talking about your opinion sooooooo maybe yeah.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually there are folks with nearly identical understandings as to what Art is saying.
> Back then "gay" sex wasn't limited to only what we, in the present, call "gay folks".
> Prior to Christianity calling it a sin, it was much more accepted and it wasn't necessarily divided up into gay and straight.
> So when Art says it wasn't just gay people that were being judged/talked to, based on history and what was going on at the time in that area, he's not necessarily being inaccurate. It was more viewed as "sex" and not gay sex and straight sex.
> I don't think its a coincidence that while pretty much accepted in the Roman Empire the Christians decided to make it taboo.




But as far as the Bible goes I think it's obvious that gay sex, between gays or bi's or straights experimenting with gay, is a sin.  Instead of trying to twist what the Bible says about gay sex not being a sin he should examine whether or not he can get behind a book that says that gay sex is a sin.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Did you watch the 18+min talk?



Yeah.  I did.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But as far as the Bible goes I think it's obvious that gay sex, between gays or bi's or straights experimenting with gay, is a sin.  Instead of trying to twist what the Bible says about gay sex not being a sin he should examine whether or not he can get behind a book that says that gay sex is a sin.





> But as far as the Bible goes I think it's obvious that gay sex, between gays or bi's or straights experimenting with gay, is a sin.


I agree and actually I think Art agrees too.
I THINK his point is that's its the same as any other sin but yet is treated differently.


> whether or not he can get behind a book that says that gay sex is a sin.


I couldn't.
I couldn't wrap my head around for example the drowning of men, women and children being fine but what two consenting adults do with each other not being fine.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But as far as the Bible goes I think it's obvious that gay sex, between gays or bi's or straights experimenting with gay, is a sin.  Instead of trying to twist what the Bible says about gay sex not being a sin he should examine whether or not he can get behind a book that says that gay sex is a sin.



Bless you, my son.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If no one is born gay then everyone having gay sex are heterosexuals.  All homosexuals are really heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts.
> When the Bible speaks of same-gender sex, it is always talking about heterosexuals who are given over to such lust that they commit lustful acts.
> The Bible does speak of lust as being a sin. Maybe it's when heterosexuals act out their lust, it is sin whether with same sex or opposite sex individuals.




AD, you need to go to the Atlanta conference:


http://www.reformationproject.org/atl15


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  God doesn't contradict himself.  If you take it as given that the Bible is God's word and also that the Holy Spirit is God (both of which are pretty well affirmed across all denominations) then the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to believe something that directly contradicts scripture.  I'm fact one of the main functions of the Holy Spirit is to AFFIRM scripture, so if someone is saying the spirit led him to so-and-so and it contradicts scripture, you can be certain of
> A) he is wrong and
> B) if he really believes it, he's delusional.
> 
> ...





> but, but, but, we are talking about your opinion sooooooo maybe yeah.


Actually that's my entire point. We are talking about opinions.


> then the Holy Spirit would not lead someone to believe something that directly contradicts scripture.


You just locked God in to only acting how you think he should based on your understanding.
You can't claim that its impossible for us to understand him and then say what he would and wouldn't do.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If no one is born gay then everyone having gay sex are heterosexuals.  All homosexuals are really heterosexuals who, filled with lust, have become sex perverts.
> When the Bible speaks of same-gender sex, it is always talking about heterosexuals who are given over to such lust that they commit lustful acts.
> The Bible does speak of lust as being a sin. Maybe it's when heterosexuals act out their lust, it is sin whether with same sex or opposite sex individuals.


By George you've got it!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree and actually I think Art agrees too.
> I THINK his point is that's its the same as any other sin but yet is treated differently.



I'm making two points. One if as some Christians say, people aren't born homosexual then wouldn't it stand to reason that all the verses in the bible about homosexuality are actually related to heterosexuals having gay sex? 
If one isn't born Gay then he is born heterosexual. If he has gay sex then he is a heterosexual having gay sex.
Paul in Romans then is addressing heterosexuals who are having gay sex. They were also practicing heterosexual sex which they exchanged for gay sex. Again proving they were heterosexuals.
The other point is even if it is a sin then so is being a drunkard or glutton. Everyone sins and no one can repent from sin. Our repentance or change is to come to this realization and except the basic Christian concept that Jesus died because we couldn't quit sinning. We are all drunkards and we are all homosexuals because we are all sinners. I've never met a Christian that has repented from sin. The very fact that our election isn't based on our lifestyle should be proof enough that if fat fornicators can enter the Kingdom then so can alcoholic homosexuals. Why? Because of the washing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

Is Romans 1 About Straight People Having Gay Sex?
Preston Sprinkle 

All that to say, there are few passages today that demand more critical attention that Romans 1:24-27, which is why I’m slugging through this passage blog by blog, argument by argument. And the argument I deal with today is this:

    Paul doesn’t actually condemn same sex activity committed by those who are oriented toward the same sex; rather, he’s prohibiting homosexual sex by heterosexual people. Gay and lesbians don’t “exchange” heterosexual sex for homosexual sex. They simply pursue homosexual sex because that’s the way they’re wired.

According to this argument, the word “nature” in the phrases “exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (vs. 1:26) and “gave up natural relations” (v. 1:27) refers not to some moral code embedded in the created order; rather, “nature” refers to one’s own personal nature, disposition, or more specifically, one’s sexual orientation. Now, for this argument to work, Paul has to believe that all people are born heterosexual and those who pursue gay and lesbian relations “give up” their heterosexual nature to pursue homosexual sex.

This argument has the appearance of strong textual support, since Paul does say that they “exchange” that which is natural for that which is unnatural. Now, most gay people I know don’t say that they “exchange” greek-homo-1anything. They simply act according to their nature—their homosexual nature.

http://facultyblog.eternitybiblecol...t-stright-people-having-gay-sex/#.VRMuAyx726Y


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Bless you, my son.




He can use anyone for his purpose.  Even the Devil


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah.  I did.



Was it like dorm room philosophy?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Was it like dorm room philosophy?



Honesty?  I would say worse.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

stringmusic said:


> By George you've got it!



Yeah it took me a little while to figure it out. Now if I can convince the others.
If we aren't born gay, then Paul was addressing heterosexuals having gay sex.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> AD, you need to go to the Atlanta conference:
> 
> 
> http://www.reformationproject.org/atl15



I've been following the teachings of Matthew Vines already. Perhaps I will attend. 
I like his thoughts on lust being the origin of sexual sins.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 25, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've been following the teachings of Matthew Vines already. Perhaps I will attend.



You should hook up with panfried0419 and go together.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

Pertaining to Romans 1:26 and acts against nature;

For their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

for even the women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; either by prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature (h); or by making use of such ways and methods with themselves, or other women, to gratify their lusts, which were never designed by nature for such an use.

"sodomitical" embraces of men; is that a sin against nature? Is this something people do to satisfy their lusts?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> You should hook up with panfried0419 and go together.



Only if he understands Titus 3:5-7;

5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually that's my entire point. We are talking about opinions.
> 
> You just locked God in to only acting how you think he should based on your understanding.
> You can't claim that its impossible for us to understand him and then say what he would and wouldn't do.





> Actually that's my entire point. We are talking about opinions.



I think if the Bible blatantly states homosexuality, beastiality, adultery, etc. are sins, its not a matter of opinion, but of literacy.  



> You just locked God in to only acting how you think he should based on your understanding.



Let's be clear.  I didn't lock God into anything.  The only understanding that's required is reading comprehension.



> You can't claim that its impossible for us to understand him and then say what he would and wouldn't do.



Not aware I made that claim.    Clearly the Bible tells us much about God.  It doesn't tell us everything.    I can say I understand much or most of what the Bible teaches as can anyone who is literate.  It certainly doesn't mean I understand the depths of God.  

To say that we either know what God is thinking or we don't is simply an untrue statement.

I can know some of what you are thinking because of what you reveal here, therefore it would be untrue for me to insist I know none of what you are thinking and just as untrue to say I know all of what you are thinking.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

We do gain knowledge from scriptures but it takes the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture correctly. 
Some things we are enlightened to or things revealed are directly from Spirit to spirit.
The Spirit guides in all truth.

No one really knows the thoughts of God but the Holy Spirit. God only reveals what he wants to and to whom for his purpose.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2015)

At some point though we must separate the truth from tradition.
Example from Truth Ministries concerning scripture;

We Believe

The Holy Bible is a book consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets and the apostles (the Old and New Testaments). We believe that the original manuscripts were the dictates of “one directing Mind” (God), (2 Peter 1:21). These writers were the instruments of God’s hands, some whose names are unknown, ranging from a shepherd to a king in status. While they never met in a committee nor consulted one another about the words written, we believe that these writings are the inspired word of God and the authoritative rule of faith and conduct for all Christians (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Hebrews. 1:1; 1 Corinthians 14:37; Nehemiah 9:30; John 10:35).

We DO NOT consider the various translations as the Word of God (just the original manuscripts), but that these translations from the original manuscripts have been born out of need for the Word of God to be transmitted to men of different races and languages.

We DO NOT claim that these translations are without error; for the translations are the works of mortal men who have made no claims that their works are the products of the inspiration of God or the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

We Believe

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words,
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
(Proverbs 30:5-6)

http://www.tmafc.org/what-we-believe-2/

Most Christians seek traditions and are really afraid to seek the truth. It hard to go against things you've been taught your whole life. We like the security of tradition.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think if the Bible blatantly states homosexuality, beastiality, adultery, etc. are sins, its not a matter of opinion, but of literacy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I think if the Bible blatantly states homosexuality, beastiality, adultery, etc. are sins, its not a matter of opinion, but of literacy.


We were talking about how you would judge who is delusional not any of those things.
Lets take a break.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 26, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> We were talking about how you would judge who is delusional not any of those things.
> Lets take a break.



Sounds good.  Good luck on those long beards and be safe.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 26, 2015)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sounds good.  Good luck on those long beards and be safe.


Based on my opening day I'll need more than luck.
If things don't improve I may break down and pray for help


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 26, 2015)

If we continue on in Romans chapter 1&2 we can see Paul's teaching style;

29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Chapter2
1Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.

We who judge practice the same things. We are all drunkards and homosexuals. Not directly committing those exact sins, but we who judge are sinners. We condemn ourselves.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 27, 2015)

God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades the angels to stay at his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding "to know them". It was common in those times to use violent and brutal rape as a way to humiliate and establish power over another, not unlike in some prison situations today. It is also done by heterosexual males which is very unnatural for them. This was part of the terrible acts of pederasty, the opposite of today's loving homosexual natural relationships.

Lot attempts to protect the visitors sent by God by offering his two virgin daughters to be raped. The people of Sodom refuse them and the angels render the crowd blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

To Western cultures hospitality is far different than what it meant in biblical Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries Today only certain Arab groups, like tuareg survivors or rural areas of Magreb, still use it but it's deeply present in most of these cultures 20 centuries before especially in Hebrew Biblical nations.

Hospitality, in these cultures, meant that if a person asked you for it, you were completely compelled to protect your visitor - even if that meant losing your property, family or life. Although today it may seem impossible, this DID work for centuries. It isn't strange if we think of it as a survival strategy: you never know who will need hospitality, specifically in hard lands or times. What Lot did was act as his culture required him to.

ALL of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority (7-10%) of the population been naturally homosexual. Therefore it can be assumed most of the violators were heterosexual. Also since there were "young and old" would indicate that someone must have been having heterosexual sex to produce the young!

Lot's offer to give his daughters to be raped suggests he knew the crowd had heterosexual interests - in fact offering young women for sexual hospitality was common. While it is unclear, even if homosexual rape was what the people were after it was do defile the strangers unnaturally between mostly heterosexual males against another heterosexual male as in pederasty. This rape attempt has nothing to do with loving, consenting homosexual love and was clearly not the reason for God's destruction of Sodom.

God spared Lot and his daughters from the destruction of Sodom. Genesis 19:33-36 goes on to say how the daughters got Lot drunk and committed incest with him. Would God destroy two cities for homosexuality and save these people so they would go right out and commit incest?

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sodom.html


----------



## 660griz (Mar 30, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It was common in those times to use violent and brutal rape as a way to humiliate and establish power over another,


 It is still common all over the world. 



> Lot attempts to protect the visitors sent by God by offering his two virgin daughters to be raped.


 Wow! And God thought this was a good guy?
My daughters to protect grown angels? Uh no, I would have booted them out in the street in a heartbeat. 
Shows the level in society women held in the bible. 

Back to your point, I totally agree. This is the homosexual acts 'God' was 'speaking' about.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2015)

From the article:

_"Lot offers his two virgin daughters to an unruly mob to be sexually assaulted, and later, Lot's two daughters get their father drunk and become pregnant by him, and bear his children. None of these actions are described as particularly sinful."_

Heck of a book ya got there....

Indeed, I heard a Rabbi talking about how the story of Lot's daughters getting him drunk and raping him is a wonderful tale of the resilience of the human spirit.  The Rabbi said "Maybe they thought the whole Earth was killed by God [He does that sort of thing] and they, in an attempt to repopulate, committed incest with their aging father [God likes that scenario as he uses it other times]."

It's so sweet I might cry.....


----------



## 660griz (Mar 30, 2015)

How much incest does it take to populate the entire earth...twice?

Random thought. Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2015)

660griz said:


> How much incest does it take to populate the entire earth...twice?



Depends on how fast your _______ runs.



660griz said:


> Random thought. Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?



Not until they met the talking snake.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 30, 2015)

mockers


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2015)

Regarding the OP:



> The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), a faith-based coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African Americans has broken its fellowship with Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) following its recent vote to approve same-sex marriage....
> 
> This arbitrary change of Holy Scripture is a flagrantly pretentious and illegitimate maneuver by a body that has no authority whatsoever to alter holy text....
> 
> PCUSA's manipulation represents a universal sin against the entire church and its members. With this action, PCUSA can no longer base its teachings on 2,000 years of Christian scripture and tradition, and call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ.  It has forsaken its right by this single wrong act....



http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7836475792.html


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2015)

welderguy said:


> mockers


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


>



OK you're picking up Centerpin's habits.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 30, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> From the article:
> 
> _"Lot offers his two virgin daughters to an unruly mob to be sexually assaulted, and later, Lot's two daughters get their father drunk and become pregnant by him, and bear his children. None of these actions are described as particularly sinful."_
> 
> ...



I wonder where they got alcoholic wine? It must have been pretty bad stuff or good depending on your point of view, to make their Father drunk enough to have sex with them and able to have sex with them at the same time.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder where they got alcoholic wine? It must have been pretty bad stuff or good depending on your point of view, to make their Father drunk enough to have sex with them and able to have sex with them at the same time.



Sounds like a question for the Super Discernment Powers.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 30, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Regarding the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7836475792.html



I wonder why we have 34,000 Black Churches? Will there be a Black Heaven? Black souls, Gentile souls, Jewish souls, heterosexual souls, homosexual souls, White souls, female souls, and male souls.

I'm gonna book my place in the predominately white, Gentile, Southern, Protestant, Fraternal  mansion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 7, 2015)

centerpin fan said:


> Regarding the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7836475792.html



Same story, different day. 

It's another faction of the same religion telling another faction that they're wrong, but these guys pulled the full monty and told them that they lost Jesus' salvation in doing so. 

I applaud them for sticking to their principles on this bit.


----------

