# Church in the now-Pastor "comes out"



## Jeff Raines (Nov 2, 2010)

Yep,been reading on line that Jim Swilley is gay.

I can't find a "clean" link,without out junk being on the site.
So Google it


----------



## ronpasley (Nov 2, 2010)

wow


----------



## Jeff Raines (Nov 2, 2010)

ronpasley said:


> wow



Yep
and what gets me is,he says he knew he was gay since the age of 4


----------



## FritzMichaels (Nov 2, 2010)

"Church In the Now"...  Sounds like some of that new age sew age.


----------



## Randy (Nov 2, 2010)

He was on TV over the past week.  SUpposedly even his wife knew he was gay yet stayed married ot him.  But now she has had enough and filed for divorce and encouraged him to "come out."  Another bad example for christians.  What is worse to me is the church, so far, has stood beside him.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 2, 2010)

They've been divorced for something like 18 months now.  Apparently he's stepping down as "bishop" but will remain in ministry as he's convinced that he's called ministry and he's convinced that he's been "created" gay.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Nov 2, 2010)

he still aint even worthy of being a bishop, or a knight, or a king, or a rook, maybe a queen though.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm watching the video right now.  I thought it was interesting that Earl Paulk's son is in the front row.


----------



## formula1 (Nov 2, 2010)

*Re:*

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree!  Not surprised at all!

2 Timothy 3

1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.  Avoid such people. 6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just asJannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. 9 But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all,as was that of those two men.


----------



## Jeff Raines (Nov 2, 2010)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm watching the video right now.  I thought it was interesting that Earl Paulk's son is in the front row.



they are cousins...how ironic


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2010)

Jeff Raines said:


> they are cousins...how ironic



Wow.  That's one messed up family.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 2, 2010)

Let us be watchful of the things we post about others lest we BE exactly what we are often accused of being.  Fair enough?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2010)

Here's an interesting quote from his message:

"... most of the worship leaders in most churches I go to are gay."


----------



## formula1 (Nov 2, 2010)

*Re:*



Huntinfool said:


> Let us be watchful of the things we post about others lest we BE exactly what we are often accused of being.  Fair enough?



I agree. 

What hurts the most to me is all the folks who have been lead astray for all these years.  Let's pray for those who will need to see Jesus and His true heart for them. I was once in darkness but the light of Jesus did indeed shine, and many of these folks were following church or leaders when they should follow Jesus. Let's pray they do.


----------



## Buck Nasty (Nov 2, 2010)

Werent the Swilley's and the Paulk's related somehow?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 2, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Let us be watchful of the things we post about others lest we BE exactly what we are often accused of being.  Fair enough?



Yes...but I know for sure...I ain't gay 



Buck Nasty said:


> Werent the Swilley's and the Paulk's related somehow?



Yup...Swilley is Earl Paulk's nephew.  His middle name is earl too.

Apparently, the wife has come out as being bi-sexual as well.


Messed up for sure.  Reminds me of 2 Peter 2.  False teachers will reveal their true nature in time.  It is impossible to hide it forever.....even a dog returns to its vomit.


----------



## Buck Nasty (Nov 2, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Yup...Swilley is Earl Paulk's nephew.  His middle name is earl too.



Man it seems that whole family tree  is kind of messed up.


----------



## Randy (Nov 2, 2010)

First time I heard the man/girl/whatever talk I could tell something wasn't right.


----------



## Lowjack (Nov 2, 2010)

My Curiosity is why these people with all this sins in their life choose to be called "Bishops" instead of Pastors or Reverend , what's up with that ?


----------



## formula1 (Nov 2, 2010)

*Re:*



Lowjack said:


> My Curiosity is why these people with all this sins in their life choose to be called "Bishops" instead of Pastors or Reverend , what's up with that ?



I will speculate and say that among a 'duped' congregation, it sounds more authoritative. The 'Bishop' can then apply his lofty interpretation of a scripture out of context to justify a lifestyle and the 'duped' will follow. But then they also do lots of public 'good works' in order to gain notariety and further dup the flock. This is usually not as obvious as these words might appear.  It is a very subtle deception.  That's why I said in an earlier post, pray for these people in this congregation. They need deliverance more than you know.

Does that sound like a reasonable speculation, LowJack? But I bet you know that this is not just speculation. I was one of the 'duped' until my Lord and the Power of His Love delivered me and many like me.  Praise to His infinite mercy!


----------



## Ronnie T (Nov 2, 2010)

So let me get this clear!

Church leaders are "gay".
The unsaved are "homosexual"??????????????

When the devil is accepted into the church it certainly confuses things.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 3, 2010)

Nice to see the bigotry still flowing . . .


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 3, 2010)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Nice to see the bigotry still flowing . . .



First post in 10 months...and that's it huh?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 3, 2010)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Nice to see the bigotry still flowing . . .



Bigotry?

Wow....you have no clue what that word means....but like HF said...welcome back


----------



## johnnylightnin (Nov 3, 2010)

There have been HUGE problems with Swilley WAY before this announcement.  Needless to say, I'm not surprised in the least.  When your view of Scripture is as low as his was, there's no reason to be surprised when unbiblical behavior surfaces.


----------



## Randy (Nov 3, 2010)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Nice to see the bigotry still flowing . . .


And I thought my prayers for you had worked.  OK I will continue praying.


----------



## Lowjack (Nov 3, 2010)

formula1 said:


> I will speculate and say that among a 'duped' congregation, it sounds more authoritative. The 'Bishop' can then apply his lofty interpretation of a scripture out of context to justify a lifestyle and the 'duped' will follow. But then they also do lots of public 'good works' in order to gain notariety and further dup the flock. This is usually not as obvious as these words might appear.  It is a very subtle deception.  That's why I said in an earlier post, pray for these people in this congregation. They need deliverance more than you know.
> 
> Does that sound like a reasonable speculation, LowJack? But I bet you know that this is not just speculation. I was one of the 'duped' until my Lord and the Power of His Love delivered me and many like me.  Praise to His infinite mercy!



Amen !


----------



## packrat (Nov 3, 2010)

*Ahhh*



Huntinfool said:


> First post in 10 months...and that's it huh?





rjcruiser said:


> Bigotry?
> 
> Wow....you have no clue what that word means....but like HF said...welcome back



Where's it been? In the closet or out.


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 4, 2010)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Nice to see the bigotry still flowing . . .



Nope, no bigotry what so ever.

Just calling sin what it really is...sin!

God considered homosexuality an abomination thousands of years ago and he hasn't changed his mind yet. Nor will he.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 5, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> he still aint even worthy of being a bishop, or a knight, or a king, or a rook, maybe a queen though.



you are a funny funny man


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

Lead Poison said:


> Nope, no bigotry what so ever.
> 
> Just calling sin what it really is...sin!
> 
> God considered homosexuality an abomination thousands of years ago and he hasn't changed his mind yet. Nor will he.



But he changed his mind about pork and shrimp and lobster.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 5, 2010)

ok lets see what Gods word says about this,
Leviticus 20:13 (Amplified Bible)
13If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Genesis 19:1-11 (Amplified Bible)

Genesis 19
 1IT WAS evening when the two angels came to Sodom. Lot was sitting at Sodom's [city] gate. Seeing them, Lot rose up to meet them and bowed to the ground.
    2And he said, My lords, turn aside, I beg of you, into your servant's house and spend the night and bathe your feet. Then you can arise early and go on your way. But they said, No, we will spend the night in the square.

    3[Lot] entreated and urged them greatly until they yielded and [with him] entered his house. And he made them a dinner [with drinking] and had unleavened bread which he baked, and they ate.

    4But before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, all the men from every quarter, surrounded the house.

    5And they called to Lot and said, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (be intimate with) them.

    6And Lot went out of the door to the men and shut the door after him

    7And said, I beg of you, my brothers, do not behave so wickedly.

    8Look now, I have two daughters who are virgins; let me, I beg of you, bring them out to you, and you can do as you please with them. But only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.

    9But they said, Stand back! And they said, This fellow came in to live here temporarily, and now he presumes to be [our] judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them. So they rushed at and pressed violently against Lot and came close to breaking down the door.

    10But the men [the angels] reached out and pulled Lot into the house to them and shut the door after him.

    11And they struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness [which dazzled them], from the youths to the old men, so that they wearied themselves [groping] to find the door.


now God is a just God, if you have no choice in being gay God is unjust, because if you can not help yourself and he punishes you for it  that is wrong, so it must be a choice you make, anything you give yourself to or obey you will become. i must say i have been tempted to steal money but i have never givin into it  so it has no power over me but i am sure if i did give in to it it would be easy to do again, just because you are tempted to do something is not a sin, when you give into it is a sin, the devil comes to some people and temps them with junk when you give in it takes over, but you do have a choice.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> But he changed his mind about pork and shrimp and lobster.



How did he change His mind on that?

If you think he changed His mind, I think you're lacking in understanding the dietary laws in the OT.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

rjcruiser I would contend that the Christian shift that allows them to pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are to be applied today and which parts were cast off when the law was fulfilled is cherry picking at best.

Vangard, the Sodom story is a false example and easy enough to show it has everything to do with violation of the laws of hospitality and nothing much to do with homosexuality.

1 The decision to destroy Sodom had already been made so the confrontation at Lot's door is not the reason for the destruction. The "great wickedness" that God told Abraham was th reason for the destruction remains unspecified, until later in Ezekiel (see reference further down)

2. If we assume that the term "Know" used 943 times and only 10 of those clearly mean know in a carnal sense. in this case means that (which I am agreeing to only for this argument #2) would it make any difference had the angels been female?  *No Rape of the angels regardless of their apparent gender would be equally wrong. *

3. The term to know used 924 times in the old testament to mean to know in a non carnal sense, to ask a man to send out guests into an angry mob would be to violate the rules of hospitality. and in several places the bible tells us that Sodom's sin was a lack of hospitality including a nod that way from Jesus in both Luke and Mathew

Ezekiel 16:49

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

You see homosexuality anywhere in that list?
YOUR bible tells you that Sodom was destroyed not for homosexuality but for in hospitality. Why persist in claiming otherwise?

A little tougher to see but Jesus himself in Luke and Mathew relates inhospitably to Sodom.

Luke 10: 10-12

10 But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 
11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 
12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. 

Bit more of a stretch for some with a pre existing bias to buy I'm sure but there it is.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> rjcruiser I would contend that the Christian shift that allows them to pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are to be applied today and which parts were cast off when the law was fulfilled is cherry picking at best.



Why would you call it cherry picking?

What was the purpose of the dietary laws in Leviticus?  And what part of the Levitical code are you assuming that I'm casting off and which are you assuming I'm putting on?


Really to get back on topic a bit...man with a man...woman with a woman...it is called sin in both the OT and the NT and it is still sin today.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

Lets go a step further what was the purpose of the Levitical laws en total.

Nation Building, to differentiate the Jews and for the people to be able to know who was and was not Jewish easily.

Many if not most of the things forbidden were things that the Canaanites and other rival tribes and peoples were doing.
not forbidden because they were "evil" but because they were what those other folks did.

There is a huge difference between what is ritually unpure and what is evil. Abomination is ALWAYS used to describe something that is ritually impure, things that Jews were not to do because the Gentiles did them.
Pork, shrimp and clams, catfish, sex with a menstruating woman, homosexuality.

All of them were sin equally in violation of the holiness code.
MY Cherry Picking charge is simple.
Either they all remain sins or they all stopped being sins with the fulfillment of the law.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Lets go a step further what was the purpose of the Levitical laws en total.
> 
> Nation Building, to differentiate the Jews and for the people to be able to know who was and was not Jewish easily.
> 
> ...



I love how you throw homosexuality in there with that list.  The thing is, homosexuality is forbidden in more places than just the levitical code.

That is why I'm not, and others are not, cherry picking.  

You...on the other hand....are cherry picking as you only see the prohibition of homosexuality in the Levitical code.  I guess sacrificing children would be alright then too?


----------



## win270wsm (Nov 5, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> he still aint even worthy of being a bishop, or a knight, or a king, or a rook, maybe a queen though.



now that's funny right there! I don't care who ya are!


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

Ah the old hyperbole shift, straight to sacrificing children.

Throw it in? That is a list of some things the Levidical code calls abominations.  I didn't throw it in with them it was placed there in your Bible, nice try though.

I don't only see it there, I have addressed the Sodom story as well, Oh wait that would make your charge that I only see homosexuality in Leviticus factually incorrect. 

I can address the other places as well but figured lets keep it one thing at a time. Don't mistake a focus on this to mean a lack of ability to discuss it in other parts of the bible.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Ah the old hyperbole shift, straight to sacrificing children.
> 
> Throw it in? That is a list of some things the Levidical code calls abominations.  I didn't throw it in with them it was placed there in your Bible, nice try though.
> 
> ...



Don't understand your thoughts.

I agree with you that the levitical law was to keep the Jews separate from the Canaanites.  Great example is circumcision.

But, circumcision isn't commanded elsewhere.  Dietary laws aren't commanded elsewhere.

Homosexuality is.  There are many scriptures that state it is wrong.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

Many if not most of them are also translation problems Rj Cruiser

Example:

Before the shift to the term homosexual in the bible (circa 1948) the term Pedaster was used in some new testament prohibitions.
Now not all homosexuals are pedasters a pedaster being an older man who uses his age and social position and authority to lure teen boys into sex.

Yet the translation was made from Pedaster to homosexual even though we know that not all homosexuals are pedasters. and that some heterosexuals practice this same type of victimization of the young.

It is my position that the nature of a youth of any age being lured and pushed that way by an authority figure was what was being prohibited, and that the translation to homosexual was one that came from prejudice and a lack of knowledge about homosexuals in general.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Many if not most of them are also translation problems Rj Cruiser
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



Some.

Boy...that little word changes a lot of things.

No way around it.  Homosexuality is unnatural.  Even in the animal kingdom...it is not natural.  There is no way that homosexuality can preserve a species.  It is nothing more than gross sin....a person searing thier conscience for a long enough time, reasoning inside their head that it is alright and "normal."  

It is sick.  It is disgusting.  It is vile.  It is sin.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Many if not most of them are also translation problems Rj Cruiser
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



What's of consequence is how the term was understood to the ancient Hebrews.  What is the term in Hebrew?

I'm looking forward to reading your treatment of Romans 1.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

EXAMPLE

Do you ever try to allow understanding of the other person to occur before you retort?
You wonder why you get the Bigot label when you fail to note that an EXAMPLE is not the sum total of a case or discussion. and then retorting with the same lame based on prejudice rather than honest discernment replies.

Unnatural as in not found in nature? Well the science and observations of animals tells us that's not true. 500 species of animals are recorded as displaying homosexual behavior (performing acts that you would call a man gay for doing).

There is no way kissing or fondling the breast, yet we don't have a hue and cry to prohibit them. Oh and I thought that God could do anything, even cause a gay man to give birth. oke:

I'm not searing in my head that it is normal, it is by definition outside the bell curve behavior and thus not normal, but then again so is sacrificing yourself for the good of mankind.

So lets go on with the rest of the lesson that you keep wanting to think is over.

Sodomite the other major translation error for homosexual.
We've already gone over how Sodom's sin was not homosexuality the way so many want to claim. But by the time of Paul the term had adopted that misguided meaning. However as I mentioned long ago in another post. Sodomite is usually used in regards to male temple prostitutes and those that have sex with them.

And as before the translation of sodomites to homosexual is again inaccurate and based on prejudice rather than fact.

But I have no illusion that I'll change your mind here.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> rjcruiser I would contend that the Christian shift that allows them to pick and choose which parts of Leviticus are to be applied today and which parts were cast off when the law was fulfilled is cherry picking at best.
> 
> Vangard, the Sodom story is a false example and easy enough to show it has everything to do with violation of the laws of hospitality and nothing much to do with homosexuality.
> 
> ...



you are so wrong you make my head hurt reading it, the men were offered his daughters and they did not want them because they were gay.the word translated know is the same word in gen 4:1 in hebrew it is( yada) and adam knew his wife and she conceived. the word has many meanings according to the context it is in, and it is clear the men of sodom did not want women.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 5, 2010)

you must be from shepards chapel


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Unnatural as in not found in nature? Well the science and observations of animals tells us that's not true. 500 species of animals are recorded as displaying homosexual behavior (performing acts that you would call a man gay for doing).



Nice...but this is not true.  There are not over 500 species of animals that are recorded to display Homo behavior.  And the one's that do only do when a female is not present.  You should read up on your science. 



			
				TTom said:
			
		

> I'm not searing in my head that it is normal, it is by definition outside the bell curve behavior and thus not normal, but then again so is sacrificing yourself for the good of mankind.



Sacrificing yourself for the good of mankind?  Huh?  Sorry...don't understand your thought.  Human sacrifice is not normal...neither is homosexuality.


Again...it is wrong.  When someone can justify in there head that it is alright to be gay, they've lost all sense of spiritual discernment.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Nov 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> EXAMPLE
> 
> Do you ever try to allow understanding of the other person to occur before you retort?
> You wonder why you get the Bigot label when you fail to note that an EXAMPLE is not the sum total of a case or discussion. and then retorting with the same lame based on prejudice rather than honest discernment replies.
> ...



Do you plan on grounding any of these arguments in anything other than your knowledge of Hebrew translation?  Your argument about Sodom is not compelling.  The sodomites had many sins and being inhospitable was certainly one of them...for the sake of argument, I could even grant that it was the reason that the city was destroyed...in no way does that lead me to conclude, in light of the rest of Scripture and the descriptions of the conditions in Sodom and Gommorah, that homosexuality is okay.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

johnnylightnin said:


> What's of consequence is how the term was understood to the ancient Hebrews.  What is the term in Hebrew?
> 
> I'm looking forward to reading your treatment of Romans 1.



To my Knowledge there is no term in Hebrew for what we know as a homosexual today. The term Sodomite was covered in part in the last installment to Rj Cruiser.

The idea that a man would want a lifetime relationship with another man never occurred to the heterosexual Hebrew. The only treatment of them was in relation to what they knew of them. Temple Prostitutes and the Pedasters.

Now since you requested it Roman's 1 Treatment.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

No expression of homosexuality here just unfettered sexuality a potential sin regardless of gender. One can just as easily degrade their body with a member of the opposite sex as you can with one of the same sex after all.

Now we get to the expressed homosexual activity

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.

Note these are men who were heterosexual but who performed homosexual acts. Not homosexual men who had never been with women. They once had, but then abandoned women in favor of men. 

This was the RESULT of the wrath of God not the reason for it. That result being they were abandoned to their passions, left without their normal ability to regulate them.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

johnny,

My contention is not that the confrontation at Lot's door proves anything about homosexuality at all. The story is a non sequitor. 

My point is that Christians have repeated it as if it proves homosexuality is a sin, when it does not.

To prove the points I have to take it a step at a time.

Sodom proved nothing about homosexuality was step 1

Leviticus was Old Law and holding to it more convenient than compelling in the face of the idea that all the other abominations seem to have been made OK when Christ died.  was step 2

The translation errors of homosexuality are step 3

Romans 1 was not about people who are what we call homosexual today, but about straight men who God gave over to strange to them lusts because they had fallen into worshiping the world instead of him. is step 4


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> Nice...but this is not true.  There are not over 500 species of animals that are recorded to display Homo behavior.  And the one's that do only do when a female is not present.  You should read up on your science.
> 
> 
> Sacrificing yourself for the good of mankind?  Huh?  Sorry...don't understand your thought.  Human sacrifice is not normal...neither is homosexuality.
> ...



You seem to need the science education more than I, start here.

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398

Truth is it happens regardless of females being present. your science education seems to be the one lacking here.


Exactly human self sacrifice (like that of Jesus) is not "normal".  I'm not surprised you missed that line of thought though.

Normal does not mean right, or best or anything other than roughly the center 70% of a group.

A 200 IQ isn't normal, being 6 ft 10 isn't normal, normal is just another word for mediocre or average.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 5, 2010)

you see he did not respond to #45


----------



## johnnylightnin (Nov 5, 2010)

Please tell me there are more steps...

I'll address them when I'm not on my phone.


----------



## whome (Nov 5, 2010)

No sir, I don't think I want any of that cool-aid...


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 8, 2010)

TTom said:


> Normal does not mean right, or best or anything other than roughly the center 70% of a group.
> 
> A 200 IQ isn't normal, being 6 ft 10 isn't normal, normal is just another word for mediocre or average.




So...are you admitting that being gay is not normal?


As far as Christ sacrificing himself....sacrifice is normal.  Veteran's day is this week...there's millions of veterans who have sacrificed themselves for our country.

Now...Human's sacrificing other humans...that is not normal.  That is what I was referring to.  Don't know how and why you tried to link Christ's sacrifice on the cross to the discussion.

But....I already know that you don't believe the Bible to be infallible....so arguing what it says won't do much good.


----------



## TTom (Nov 8, 2010)

RJ Cruiser

Is being gay normal? not by the definition of normal that I use or that statics uses. Gay represents 10% roughly of the population so by definition that is not "normal" in the statistical sense.

Actually I am discounting the idea that "Normal" is a worthy goal for anyone. Normal is not something to aspire to. I would much prefer people valued exceptional. 

God please prevent me from ever setting up "normal" as something to be aspired to for myself or anyone else.

Sacrifice is not normal.

To be normal 70% of the population would have to participate in it. and far from 70% of the population participates in any real level of self sacrifice. That is what makes it noteworthy and exceptional.
If it was "normal" then it wouldn't be special. 
As to the Veterans, their scarifice is far from "normal" only about 10% of the US population anymore consists of veterans or current servicemen and women. That fact alone makes it not "normal" but rather, Special. (include me in that veterans group, but really my sacrifice level in doing so was very small as a peacetime veteran)

My point that slipped by you was that Christ wasn't "normal". His sacrifice was exceptional (not normal and everyday) is usually the thrust of your arguments, is it not?

You can't have both normal and special, they contradict each other.


Vanguard I didn't answer #45 because I missed it following the other 3 people I was working with here. forgive me my humanity I suppose you never miss a post reply?

1. I said the word Know used in the bible 943 times you addressed one of the ten times it means carnal knowledge, care to cover the other 940 times the term yada is used where it means something else? 

It is Assumption that it means carnal at Lot's door. More than a few bible scholars question it. Strangers enter a city and the towns people want to know who they are. 

The crowd didn't want to know the daughters because they already knew who they were, they were residents of the city and not potential spies/ strangers/ enemies.

2. In your rush, you failed to address the basic question I asked.
Had the angels been female would the crowd wanting to take them from Lot's house to know them been less of a crime?

The crime wanting to drag the angels from Lot's house, would have been a crime regardless of the apparent gender of the angels, and regardless of if the meaning of "know" in this context.
Dragging a guest from someone else's house is always a crime.
The laws of hospitality require that you protect those who enter your home.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically


----------



## TTom (Nov 8, 2010)

WRONG.

The decision to destroy the cities was made BEFORE the angels even entered Sodom. No mention that can be twisted to mean homosexuality is made at the time the decision is made, yet you want to make the homosexuality the prime reason.

What reason did GOD cite.
Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 

Sin (unspecified )


The reason cannot follow the decision, it has to precede it.

But don't let logic get in the way of bigotry. (and yes bigotry is used in it;'s perfect English language definition here).

You avoided the question again here


"There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape."

Would a heterosexual gang rape have been less grievous a sin?


You cite Jude saying "Sexual immorality and perversion" as if homosexuality is the only perversion or sexual immorality. LOL Adultery, fornication, and certainly from the jewish perspective any act not leading to a potential child, casting seed upon the ground (referring not to masturbation but rather to the pagan religious rite), all sorts of potential sexual perversions other than homosexuality to choose from when you look through that lens.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

you are WRONG

Was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah Merely Unhospitality?

by
William Arnold III
WmArnold@gmail.com



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


Question:

Do you have anything on homosexuality? I was E-mailed a question concerning the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah being "UN-hospitality" in defense of Homosexuality.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. We do have an article on homosexuality in our Q & A section. It can be found at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexual.htm. However, it does not discuss the issue with Sodom and Gomorrah. I have heard of the argument of which you speak. The basis for this argument is that the men of the city asked "to know" (KJV) the angels in the sense of "to get aquainted" with them. The Hebrew word word translated "to know" is yada and is the common word for "to know." In the average context, it does have this basic meaning. However, the Bible often used the term "to know" as a euphemism for carnal knowledge, or sexual relations. It is used this way first when Adam "knew" his wife Eve and she conceived and bare him a son (Gen. 4:1). It is also used this way in the following passages: Gen. 4:17, 25; 38:26; Judg. 19:25; 1 Sam 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4 and even in the New Testament in Matt. 1:25 and Luke 1:34. Most translations favor this meaning for Genesis 19:5 as well. Notice how this is brought out in the following translations:

"They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" (NIV), "that we may have relations with them" (NASB), "that we may know them carnally" (NKJV), "that we may have intimacies with them" (NAB), "so we can have sex with them" (NLT), "so that we can have intercourse with them" (NJB).

The point is that this is the preferred meaning of scholars and translators. The only way you would arrive at the meaning of "get aquainted with" in Genesis 19:5 is to approach it with a bias in favor of homosexuality. The idea that God would destroy a city merely because of a lack of hospitality is unthinkable. And all the men of the city would not surround Lot's house and beat down his door merely to "get aquanited" with these men. Lot would not have begged them "Please, my brothers . . . don't do such a wicked thing" (verse 7, NLT) if that was all that they wanted. When he offered his two daughters to them instead and said that they "have not known a man" (verse 8), it is obvious that he did not mean that they had never been aquanited with anybody so you guys can go ahead and get aquanited with them. This is further emphasized when he says "do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men" (verse 8). This indicates that the men of the city wanted to do something more than merely meet these men. It can also be seen in their response, since they told Lot "now we will treat you worse than them" (verse 9). Finally, Jude 7 specifically states that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality (see also 2 Peter 2:6-10).


----------



## TTom (Nov 8, 2010)

And after you make such a big deal about me not answering you a 4th time ignore a pointed question.

Oh wait it's bad for me to ignore a post but YOU can do as you wish and ignore points and questions. HYPOCRITE.

Edited to add TWO pointed questions.

1 would heterosexual gang rape somehow have been a lesser sin???????

2 How can the events at Lot's door be the reason for destruction when the FACT is that God has already decided to destroy the city HOURS before the confrontation at Lot's door?


----------



## pnome (Nov 8, 2010)

TTom, 

Do you need it spelled out for you?  Fred Phelps has a sign that explains it pretty well.  Though, I can't post it here.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 8, 2010)

TTom said:


> You cite Jude saying "Sexual immorality and perversion" as if homosexuality is the only perversion or sexual immorality. LOL Adultery, fornication, and certainly from the jewish perspective any act not leading to a potential child, casting seed upon the ground (referring not to masturbation but rather to the pagan religious rite), all sorts of potential sexual perversions other than homosexuality to choose from when you look through that lens.



At the risk of jumping into a useless conversation (based on what I've read in this thread).....

Did someone state that any of those other perversions were any better than homosexuality?  You make an argument as though Christianity somehow sees those sexual perversions as being any better or worse than homosexuality.  

Were this pastor to have come out and said he was addicted to porn, a pedophile or an adulteror...I suspect you'd see similar outrage. 

So let me get this straight, if sexual perversions and immorality are unacceptable to God, then as long as we also say that those listed above are sinful, we can also accept that homosexuality is as well?

(I can't even believe this is a discussion...but here we go.)

The only thing this thread proves is that ANYONE can TWIST anything to mean what they want it to mean...it's the first law of statistics and data mining and it apparently also applies to biblical "study".

Come to think of it, this thread also proves something else to me in regards to those who study the Bible from the perspective of the unbeliever.  But that's a discussion that's just not worth getting into with you.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

1.  no of course not.
2. the events at lots door had nothing to do with it, but to show us the depth of the sins of the people.

and to you sir.
Matthew 23:13 (King James Version)

 13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.


----------



## pnome (Nov 8, 2010)

Lead Poison said:


> Nope, no bigotry what so ever.
> 
> Just calling sin what it really is...sin!
> 
> God considered homosexuality an abomination thousands of years ago and he hasn't changed his mind yet. Nor will he.



big·ot·ry
â€‚ â€‚/ËˆbÉªgÉ™tri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 8, 2010)

pnome said:


> big·ot·ry
> â€‚ â€‚/ËˆbÉªgÉ™tri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
> –noun, plural -ries.
> 1.
> ...



You got me then.  I'm a bigot.  I would go so far as to say that all who have posted in this thread are by that definition.


----------



## TTom (Nov 8, 2010)

1.  Then homosexual nature of the act makes no difference as to the lack of hospitality shown. So it is a side issue.

2. You are speaking both ways then. On one hand using the events to say they do prove something and then admitting they don't. Make up your mind.

You said "homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities" and used Lots door to prove the homosexuality (in your post 57)

Then you say as was my point in the beginning "the events at Lot's door had nothing to do with it." (in your post 63)

You can't hold both positions unless you are simply parroting the ideas of others instead of actually thinking and forming your own thoughts.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

you are so way off, they were livin that way before lot got there, God did not send his judgment right away it took years of them not repenting and turning from the sins they were involved in. why don,t you just read the BIBLE and see.


----------



## pnome (Nov 8, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> you are so way off, they were livin that way before lot got there, God did not send his judgment right away it took years of them not repenting and turning from the sins they were involved in. why don,t you just read the BIBLE and see.



What about the babies that were born in the city during the last year of it's existence, before God killed them all?  

Were they sinful too?


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

TTom said:


> RJ Cruiser
> 
> Is being gay normal? not by the definition of normal that I use or that statics uses. Gay represents 10% roughly of the population so by definition that is not "normal" in the statistical sense.
> 
> ...


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

pnome said:


> What about the babies that were born in the city during the last year of it's existence, before God killed them all?
> 
> Were they sinful too?



gays cannot make babies.


----------



## pnome (Nov 8, 2010)

vanguard1 said:


> gays cannot make babies.



So, your contention is that there were no children in either city?  

Really?


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 8, 2010)

pnome said:


> So, your contention is that there were no children in either city?
> 
> Really?



pnome, please disregard that contention....on behalf of me.

Yes, of course there were children.  The very fact that Lot and his family lived there indicates that there were heterosexual relationships going on there.  I have found, in my lifetime, that others often pay the consequences for (or suffer because of) my actions whether they did anything wrong or not.  I'm sure you have found that to be true as well.

Those are often the most painful consequences....I fear that the Bishop's congregation will feel that in short order.


----------



## TTom (Nov 8, 2010)

vanguard estimates on the percentage ranges from 2-15% depending on who does the survey and the criteria they use.

Your link didn't take me to anything about the survey, Likely though it was taken from the census, which is unreliable at best as it is known to under report because of stigma and government involvement.

10% was cited and I took it from "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Alfred Kinsey, 1948" considered a good scholarly scientific survey.

combined with the results of 

A 1993 Janus Report which estimated that nine percent of men and five percent of women had more than "occasional" homosexual relationships.

Janus, S., and Janus, C. (1993). The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hunt reportedin 1974 that it was about 7% of males and 3% of females 

Hunt, M. (1974). Sexual Behavior in the 1970's. New York: Dell.

More scientific resources available if you'd like, that put the number in the 7-10% range in the US.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 8, 2010)

pnome said:


> big·ot·ry
> â€‚ â€‚/ËˆbÉªgÉ™tri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
> –noun, plural -ries.
> 1.
> ...



So...is calling Homosexuality a sin complete intolerance?  I don't think so...but hey...maybe I am a bigot.



Huntinfool said:


> pnome, please disregard that contention....on behalf of me.
> 
> Yes, of course there were children.  The very fact that Lot and his family lived there indicates that there were heterosexual relationships going on there.  I have found, in my lifetime, that others often pay the consequences for (or suffer because of) my actions whether they did anything wrong or not.  I'm sure you have found that to be true as well.
> 
> Those are often the most painful consequences....I fear that the Bishop's congregation will feel that in short order.



Yup....amazing how that works.


I can't believe I'm getting sucked back into this thread....oh....boy.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 8, 2010)

Stay away from the light RJ!


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

vanguard estimates on the percentage ranges from 2-15% depending on who does the survey, and of course the pro gays will rate it higher, it is less than 10%, but the tv would have you believe it is more because every game show, talk show, judge show, reality show has to have a gay couple on it at least 2 times a week, as to get us thinking it is more than it truly is. and if Jesus was here they would call him a bigot, so i guess i am a bigot too. and proud of it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 8, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> Stay away from the light RJ!



Zap.

Zap.

Zap.



You know...like I mentioned in my previous last post in this thread banginghe), it really doesn't matter when debating with someone who doesn't believe in the infallibility of scripture.  They can always use the reason of it doesn't mean that or it doesn't belong there or I don't believe that to be true.  And on the other hand, the one that does believe in it can always say...it says it and I believe it.

Ah...we are at an impass.  The assumptions for debate will never be agreed upon.

okay...I'm done.  Until another light shines bright on my screen


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 8, 2010)

pnome said:


> big·ot·ry
> â€‚ â€‚/ËˆbÉªgÉ™tri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
> â€“noun, plural -ries.
> 1.
> ...



Sorry, I wouldn't call God a bigot if I were you. 

If God calls it sin, it is sin.


----------



## vanguard1 (Nov 8, 2010)

yes im done on this topic also, i have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## pnome (Nov 8, 2010)

Huntinfool said:


> I have found, in my lifetime, that others often pay the consequences for (or suffer because of) my actions whether they did anything wrong or not.  I'm sure you have found that to be true as well.



Yes.  But if we had the power to prevent innocents suffering we would use it, right?  At least I would.  And I feel sure that you would.  

God, as you define him, has that power.  So, why not use it?


----------



## pnome (Nov 8, 2010)

Lead Poison said:


> Sorry, I wouldn't call God a bigot if I were you.
> 
> If God calls it sin, it is sin.



I feel certain that God, if one does exist, would not be a bigot.  Your narrow and dogmatic view of Him is where the bigotry lies.


----------



## FishHunt (Nov 8, 2010)

Preacher/Thief Ed Young gets little condemnation in his post but the gay preacher gets hammered. There is something about gay that gets people worked up more so than other bible related sins.  Why is that?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 8, 2010)

FishHunt said:


> Preacher/Thief Ed Young gets little condemnation in his post but the gay preacher gets hammered. There is something about gay that gets people worked up more so than other bible related sins.  Why is that?



Maybe it is because I can't watch youtube at work?

crap....zap....zap....zap

Now that I'm at home and online there...maybe I'll venture over to Ed Young.  Btw...you should search Creflo Dollar.  Think he was lit up pretty good.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 9, 2010)

pnome said:


> Yes.  But if we had the power to prevent innocents suffering we would use it, right?  At least I would.  And I feel sure that you would.
> 
> God, as you define him, has that power.  So, why not use it?



Potential pain is a powerful deterent.....Potentially causing the pain of others is even more powerful....is it not (at least it should be I think and according to your quote above)?

I would say that you often DO have the power to prevent the suffering of innocents.  But you take selfish actions anyway.  Well, let me take that off of you and put it on me.  I have, in the past, done some very selfish and foolish things knowing full well what the consequences would/could be.  I knew full well that if my actions came to light, the consequences for others would be just as (if not more) painful for others close to me....but I still did it.  I have a very spiritual explanation for that that you won't agree with.  But, in any case, we DO do (yes, I said do do) things that cause suffering in others (innocents).  Our actions do not occur in a vacuum.

I can't answer your question.  I honestly don't know.  That would essentially make life a zero sum game for everyone.  No winner, no losers....ever.  Not sure if I want that or not.

God, as we understand him, has the capacity to experience suffering and pain.  Why would he create us in his image and not give us the same capacity?  How do you experience great joy or happiness without the perspective that pain or suffering provides?  Just a question...


----------



## johnnylightnin (Nov 9, 2010)

TTom said:


> johnny,
> 
> My contention is not that the confrontation at Lot's door proves anything about homosexuality at all. The story is a non sequitor.
> This is a subjective judgment. In light of the Levitical laws and their treatment of homosexuality, it seems arbitrary to assume that the mention of their orientation here is without cause.
> ...



Ultimately, to conclude homosexuality is permissible for a Christian, you are forced to jettison quite a bit of Scripture.


----------



## ksperrey (Nov 14, 2010)

4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame . Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong ? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded ? 8 Nay, ye do wrong , and defraud , and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And 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. 12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient : all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

Gentlemen, Fornication (either with a Woman or Man) is enough to send us to Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. Homosexuality is sin, adultery is sin, murder is sin, hate is sin, lying, cheating, stealing is all sin. Sin will not inherit or be allowed in Heaven! We can attempt to justify ourselves and our sin, but God will be the ultimate judge. If you prefer to live in your self-justified deception that God is happy or comfortable with homosexuality, then all we can do is pray that God will have mercy on your soul and that someday, somehow you will receive the truth! We love you, God loves you....but he is the ultimate judge. It doesn't matter what I say, but what God says and what I read in His word says homosexuality is wrong....period!

Respectfully,

Kevin


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 15, 2010)

The Bishop and his ex wife were on the Joy Behar show last night.

Sick to say the least.  Several things stuck out in my mind that he said.

First, in response to a question about how his congregation took the news.  He said that he had led his congregation through a lot and had taught them so well theologically that they weren't all that stunned and were very accepting (Couldn't believe my ears when he said that...shows you what kind of teaching they were under)

Second, he mentioned that his ex-wife (who was sitting next to him) was a wonderful woman and "still the CFO of the Corporation."  Yup...Corporation.  Goes to show that this "church" is nothing more than a front for money earning.  

Again, like Jude tells us, apostates and false teachers will show their true colors over time.


----------

