# Enlightened Pastor? Or..... ?



## WaltL1 (Jun 3, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...-son_n_5432880.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Warning - the video of his sermon to his church is an hour long.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...-son_n_5432880.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
> 
> Warning - the video of his sermon to his church is an hour long.


Hmmm 38 views and not a comment.
That might say nothing or that might say a lot.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

Son of minister:  "You're perfect the way you are. You don't have to change because you are fearfully and wonderfully made."

Son of God:  "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."   -- Luke 13:5


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Son of minister:  "You're perfect the way you are. You don't have to change because you are fearfully and wonderfully made."
> 
> Son of God:  "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."   -- Luke 13:5


Yeah I think that's the debate.
Its either God made everything as is claimed or he didn't as is claimed.
Any comment on the sermon instead of focusing on the gay son?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I think that's the debate.
> Its either God made everything as is claimed or he didn't as is claimed.



The debate is "Is homosexuality sin?"  (Just for the record, there was no debate at all until about twenty years ago.)




WaltL1 said:


> Any comment on the sermon instead of focusing on the gay son?



I didn't watch it.  I may take a look at it later, but I've seen videos like this before and am very familiar with them.  If you watched it, though, feel free to summarize his main points.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2014)

And the Christian evolution continues.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The debate is "Is homosexuality sin?"  (Just for the record, there was no debate at all until about twenty years ago.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You would have to watch the sermon. It will be thought provoking for some and garbage to others.

I will summarize one thing. The pastor was well aware what he came to believe would be subject for his dismissal. The elders determined the church members would decide whether he should be dismissed or not. By the way this is a Baptist church.


> seen videos like this before and am very familiar with them.


I think this one is different but you would have to determine that if you were interested.


> The debate is "Is homosexuality sin?"  (Just for the record, there was no debate at all until about twenty years ago.)


Many examples of what was "record" not being "record" any more so while true that really is an empty point.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> And the Christian evolution continues.


Its an interesting phenomena.
It acknowledges some of what has been drilled into people heads is losing its credibility yet the attachment is so strong many folks can not just walk away from it.
I think a lot of hard liners would lose their mind if they could see into the future of where their religion is headed 
Or maybe it will end up where it should have been before man got his hands on it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

It's the old Fundamentalist debate as to how strictly the Bible should be adhered to.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think a lot of hard liners would lose their mind if they could see into the future of where their religion is headed



I've said this before, and I'll say it again:  the churches who promote "gay is OK" are dying.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You would have to watch the sermon. It will be thought provoking for some and garbage to others.



I skipped to the :25 minute mark where he was discussing Romans 1.  His explanation was a textbook example of _eisegesis_:


" ... the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's the old Fundamentalist debate as to how strictly the Bible should be adhered to.



Which is usually as strict as your society allows.
Which in the U.S. is:
Slavery = Gone
Genocide = Gone
Witch hunts = Gone
Killed for certain sins = Gone
etc...
Shunning homosexuals = on the way out


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I skipped to the :25 minute mark where he was discussing Romans 1.  His explanation was a textbook example of _eisegesis_:



I thought that was just called reading the Bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Which is usually as strict as your society allows.
> Which in the U.S. is:
> Slavery = Gone
> Genocide = Gone
> ...



Repentant homosexuals have always been welcome in the church, just like repentant liars, repentant thieves, repentant adulterers, etc.

Notice a common theme there?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> I thought that was just called reading the Bible.



It is for some.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 5, 2014)

I watched the video but only to the point where he presented his resume. All I see is a selfish professing Christian who does not love his son.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I've said this before, and I'll say it again:  the churches who promote "gay is OK" are dying.


If you take recent examples and add in the polls of young (teenage) Christians the exact opposite is quite clear. It doesn't go so far as to say Gay is OK but absolutely goes so far as to say " this issue isn't exactly what ive been taught".
Those young Christians are the future of your religion.
Questioning is the first ingredient to change. Its already changing. Its been changing for a loooong time. You included. Fact.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I watched the video but only to the point where he presented his resume. All I see is a selfish professing Christian who does not love his son.


You didn't get very far.
Admittedly Im not watching the video through Christian goggles but I saw a man in deep turmoil over his religious doctorine and what he believes Jesus represents.
Doesn't love his son?
I assume you believe he is dooming his son to he11.
As a non believer I can't think of a way he could show his son any more love than to accept him as he is despite his indoctrination.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I skipped to the :25 minute mark where he was discussing Romans 1.  His explanation was a textbook example of _eisegesis_:
> 
> 
> " ... the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective."
> ...


Your link also points out -


> While some denominations and scholars denounce Biblical eisegesis, many Christians are known to employ it – albeit inadvertently – as part of their own experiential theology. Modern evangelical scholars accuse liberal Protestants of practicing Biblical eisegesis, while mainline scholars accuse fundamentalists of practicing eisegesis. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians say that all Protestants engage in eisegesis, because the Bible can be correctly understood only through the lens of Holy Tradition as handed down by the institutional Church. Dei Verbum: "The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account[. A]ll of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God." Jews, in turn, might assert that Christians practice eisegesis when they read the Old Testament as anticipating Jesus of Nazareth.[citation needed][3]
> In doing Bible translation, translators have to make many exegetical decisions. Sometimes the decisions made by translators are criticized by those who disagree, and who characterize the work of the translators as involving "eisegesis".[4] Some translators make their doctrinal distinctives clear in a preface, such as Stephen Reynolds in his Purified Translation of the Bible, where he explained his belief that Christians should never drink alcohol, and translated accordingly. Such translators may be accused by some of eisegesis, but they have made their positions clear.
> Exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians, but most scholars agree about the importance of determining the authorial intentions. Determining the author's intent can often be difficult, especially for books which were written anonymously.



It would appear all of you accuse all of you of the same.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Repentant homosexuals have always been welcome in the church, just like repentant liars, repentant thieves, repentant adulterers, etc.
> 
> Notice a common theme there?



Yea. A lot of repeat repentant offenders. 
Monday - Saturday you are good to go.

Any repentant slave owners in there?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Which is usually as strict as your society allows.
> Which in the U.S. is:
> Slavery = Gone
> Genocide = Gone
> ...


And all of those were changes made by society not religion. Society is changing its views on homosexuality.
And religion is being dragged kicking and screaming along with it.
Its blatantly obvious religion in practice changes according to society. The Bible remains the same but that's all.
Its baffling that anybody could deny that.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> As a non believer I can't think of a way he could show his son any more love than to accept him as he is ...



He could tell him the truth.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

I just noticed that just the _sermon_ to his congregation was over an hour long. 

"Look, preechah man, you may have nothing else to do today, but I got stuff back at the house that needs my attention as this is one of my only two days off..."


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> He could tell him the truth.


Maybe this is my backward way of thinking but I personally would put loving my son over something that may or may not be someone elses version of the "truth". That's another ingredient I find disgusting about religion.
And I know you aren't interested in the video but nearly every question you asked or statement you have made is addressed in that video.
Im not knocking you but you seem to have a lot to say about a subject that you refuse to watch.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe this is my backward way of thinking but I personally would put loving my son over something that may or may not be someone elses version of the "truth". That's another ingredient I find disgusting about religion.
> And I know you aren't interested in the video but nearly every question you asked or statement you have made is addressed in that video.
> Im not knocking you but you seem to have a lot to say about a subject that you refuse to watch.



Yep, I don't care if they like girls, boys, or green skinned aliens, so long as they lead a committed life with whomever they chose and are happy, then I'm happy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yep, I don't care if they like girls, boys, or green skinned aliens, so long as they lead a committed life with whomever they chose and are happy, then I'm happy.


Agreed.
There is one and only one FACT and that is the child is here and now and has the rest of his/her life to live. 
Im going with that one fact.
Should something else become a FACT then I'll address it.
A quick search will give you multitudes of stories of gay childrens lives full of guilt and shame and unhappiness and suicides due to their parents religious pressures.
But not one story from "heaven" to the contrary.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> And I know you aren't interested in the video but nearly every question you asked or statement you have made is addressed in that video.
> Im not knocking you but you seem to have a lot to say about a subject that you refuse to watch.



I'm just not all that excited about watching another one.  Life is short, you know?

I have watched this one:



... and I watched one by this guy:

http://vhchurch.org/vhc-staff/

It's on Youtube, but I got "an error occurred" message when I tried to play it.

There's nothing new under the sun.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm just not all that excited about watching another one.  Life is short, you know?
> 
> I have watched this one:
> 
> ...


The video and actually the OP was about a Pastor's and a church's personal experience with the subject. 
Not a regurgitation of scripture.
I wouldn't have even bothered with that.
Its absolutely fine if you don't want to watch it. I just don't understand how you can compare it to something else without actually even seeing it. Seems like "I'm not interested" would be the honest approach.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The video and actually the OP was about a Pastor's and a church's personal experience with the subject.



1.  Personal experience does not trump church doctrine 

2.  Personal experience goes both ways.  I have friends who repented and left the gay lifestyle.




WaltL1 said:


> The video and actually the OP was about a Pastor's and a church's personal experience with the subject.
> Not a regurgitation of scripture.



He sure was regurgitating scripture at the :25 minute mark.




WaltL1 said:


> I just don't understand how you can compare it to something else without actually even seeing it. Seems like "I'm not interested" would be the honest approach.



"Life is short" is a very honest answer.  If I have time, I'll watch more, but I'm not making any promises.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2014)

*From one pastor to another ...*

I posted this in one of the other "gay is OK" threads.


"The principle in Scripture and Tradition is 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 dangnation of those who wishes to persuade."  

  -- Fr. John Whiteford


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 5, 2014)

Unfortunately we have a history of this.  It goes back quiet a ways.

Genesis 3:1

3 Now (A)the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “*Indeed, has God (really) said, *‘You shall not eat from [a]any tree of the garden’?”

In every instance there are two constants.

1) The truth is denied/ignored in order to (2) satisfy mans desires.

Same story, different desire or as CPF so astutely quoted, " There is nothing new under the sun."

The TRUTH however remains the TRUTH.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 5, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I posted this in one of the other "gay is OK" threads.
> 
> 
> "The principle in Scripture and Tradition is 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 dangnation of those who wishes to persuade."
> ...



How very true.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 5, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Unfortunately we have a history of this.  It goes back quiet a ways.
> 
> Genesis 3:1
> 
> ...



YES! Well spoken. 

Society and religion may bend, but the TRUTH does not.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The video and actually the OP was about a Pastor's and a church's personal experience with the subject.
> Not a regurgitation of scripture.



Now I'm beginning to wonder if you watched it.  I watched the first 15-20 minutes last night.  What I saw was a lot of scripture and a little personal experience.  He started talking about Romans 1 at about the :14 minute mark.  As I noted yesterday, he was still talking about it at the :25 minute mark.  I didn't watch anymore because, just like I figured,  it was nothing new.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Now I'm beginning to wonder if you watched it.  I watched the first 15-20 minutes last night.  What I saw was a lot of scripture and a little personal experience.  He started talking about Romans 1 at about the :14 minute mark.  As I noted yesterday, he was still talking about it at the :25 minute mark.  I didn't watch anymore because, just like I figured,  it was nothing new.


Honestly there is really no point in discussing this. Its over an hour long and you have made your judgment based on less than half of it. And that's fine. I think I can safely assume your position will be exactly the same and that's fine too. My intention wasn't to change anybody's mind or challenge anybody's position. My intention was merely to have folks think about it and discuss. No more no less.
And yes I watched it. All of it. I wouldn't be discussing it if I didn't.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Honestly there is really no point in discussing this. Its over an hour long and you have made your judgment based on less than half of it.



How many "gay is OK" videos do I need to watch before forming an opinion?  I watched the two I linked above.  I watched part of the OP, and I've watched a bunch of these:

http://notalllikethat.org/videos/

There's not an original thought in any of them.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 6, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> He could tell him the truth.



Maybe he should tell him the truth with a few rocks to the face like is still happening on the other side of the world. Death for certain sins isn't acceptable to us over here.... If it was, would you siting the bible and saying that he should put his own son to death?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe he should tell him the truth with a few rocks to the face like is still happening on the other side of the world. Death for certain sins isn't acceptable to us over here.... If it was, would you siting the bible and saying that he should put his own son to death?



"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 6, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe he should tell him the truth with a few rocks to the face ...



Eph. 4:15 says we should speak the truth "in love".


----------



## groundhawg (Jun 6, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe he should tell him the truth with a few rocks to the face like is still happening on the other side of the world. Death for certain sins isn't acceptable to us over here.... If it was, would you siting the bible and saying that he should put his own son to death?



Yep!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> YES! Well spoken.
> 
> Society and religion may bend, but the TRUTH does not.


That's an interesting statement.
So if religion bends (and in some cases snaps in half) with society, who is controlling religion, THE TRUTH or society?
As society continues to change/bend and religion along with it, wouldn't at some point in the future religion become so diluted that you would have to choose between it and THE TRUTH?
I think I may be ahead of the game for rejecting religion already


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> That's an interesting statement.
> So if religion bends (and in some cases snaps in half) with society, who is controlling religion, THE TRUTH or society?
> As society continues to change/bend and religion along with it, wouldn't at some point in the future religion become so diluted that you would have to choose between it and THE TRUTH?
> I think I may be ahead of the game for rejecting religion already



Some people just can't let go of the apron strings.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> So if religion bends (and in some cases snaps in half) with society, who is controlling religion, THE TRUTH or society?



The liberal churches who are "gay affirming" and "inclusive" are clearly being influenced by society.  They rationalize their beliefs with a (tortured) appeal to scripture, but society is calling the shots.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The liberal churches who are "gay affirming" and "inclusive" are clearly being influenced by society.  They rationalize their beliefs with a (tortured) appeal to scripture, but society is calling the shots.


Can we agree that society includes Christians?
After all, its not the Atheist/Agnostic segment of society that is sitting in those liberal churches listening to it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Can we agree that society includes Christians?



I was referring to secular society.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I was referring to secular society.


Ahhh I get it. Is where that whole "gate is narrow" thing comes in?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)



So Centerpin, please don't conform to the secular world and follow this law? Just remember to do it with love.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> So Centerpin, please don't conform to the secular world and follow this law? Just remember to do it with love.



John 8:

_2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”_


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> John 8:
> 
> _2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
> 
> ...



Doesn't fit his agenda, but truth matters little with most here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Doesn't fit his agenda, but truth matters little with most here.



Or: There's an obvious contradiction in the different books of the Bible itself, and we're just waiting on a "defender" to come along and attempt to resolve it...

Leviticus says the woman should be put to death, Jesus says that she should continue to live a life of sin. 

Who's right; and if Jesus is then there is no one qualified to judge anyone else in our criminal justice system, it would seem, and that all "criminals" should be released to live their lives of sin, according to the cited scriptures...

So which is it? I'm honestly just asking your opinion here, we both know there's no way to convince each other of our positions, I just want to know where your line lies.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or: There's an obvious contradiction in the different books of the Bible itself, and we're just waiting on a "defender" to come along and attempt to resolve it...
> 
> Leviticus says the woman should be put to death, Jesus says that she should continue to live a life of sin.
> 
> ...



"Go and sin no more."

How many times?  It's understood that we all sin.  Indeed, we repeat the same sins.  The point is to feel the guilt.  If we were to all "go and sin no more" there would never be vampire movies, Led Zeppelin, all you can eat crab legs or poker.

Go take monastic vows.  Until all the professed Christians get rid of their bass boats and $200 fly rods I'm not listening.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Go take monastic vows.  Until all the professed Christians get rid of their bass boats and $200 fly rods I'm not listening.



When was the last time you were in a fly shop?  1985?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Leviticus says the woman should be put to death, Jesus says that she should continue to live a life of sin.



That's not what Jesus said.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 9, 2014)

Ignore old testament laws? I don't think so. 

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  

2) All of the Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid."  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not what Jesus said.



That's what the quote you posted said...

EDIT: I could swear what is now said in that quote as "leave" had said "live" when I wrote what I did. However, seeing as it's not there, I may have misread. Apologies.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's what the quote you posted said...
> 
> EDIT: I could swear what is now said in that quote as "leave" had said "live" when I wrote what I did. However, seeing as it's not there, I may have misread. Apologies.



It's Da Debbil playin' tricks on yer eyes......on yer soul.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> When was the last time you were in a fly shop?  1985?



Is a $200 fly rod a sin?  Is a Ferrari?  Not owning one, just the fact that they exist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It's Da Debbil playin' tricks on yer eyes......on yer soul.



It might be, but let it never be said that I was too prideful to admit my mistakes rare as they are.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Is a $200 fly rod a sin?  Is a Ferrari?  Not owning one, just the fact that they exist.



Or how about the gold encrusted churches and accoutrements? 

It's a sin for a follower to spend $200 on a fly rod but not for a church to spend $2000, pure spitball number, on a new hanging crucifix for the altar? 

Is there a chart somewhere that I can follow because this all seems to be personal interpretation again and how can anyone be certain of anything in that quagmire?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> EDIT: I could swear what is now said in that quote as "leave" had said "live" when I wrote what I did.



I promise it did not. 

You can check out other versions at Bible Gateway:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8&version=NIV


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Is a $200 fly rod a sin?



It sounds like a bargain to me.

You really need to visit a fly shop.  Be sure to take some smelling salts with you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I promise it did not.
> 
> You can check out other versions at Bible Gateway:
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8&version=NIV



Believe me, I looked for the "edited by" underneath it because I would have laid money on it. 

Oh well, I still think that the "cast stones" parable precludes religious people from engaging in criminal justice, no matter how heinous the crime as there was no limitation stated.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> Ignore old testament laws? I don't think so.
> 
> 1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
> 
> ...



From where did you C&P this?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Leviticus says the woman should be put to death, *Jesus says that she should continue to live a life of sin.*



John 8:12

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: *go, and sin no more*.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> John 8:12
> 
> 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: *go, and sin no more*.



Thank you, I made a mistake earlier and did EDIT my post.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 9, 2014)

striperr hunterr said:


> thank you, i made a mistake earlier and did edit my post.



n p


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Is a $200 fly rod a sin?  Is a Ferrari?  Not owning one, just the fact that they exist.






StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or how about the gold encrusted churches and accoutrements?
> 
> It's a sin for a follower to spend $200 on a fly rod but not for a church to spend $2000, pure spitball number, on a new hanging crucifix for the altar?
> 
> Is there a chart somewhere that I can follow because this all seems to be personal interpretation again and how can anyone be certain of anything in that quagmire?




So, are we done with the gay stuff?  We're moving on to greed, now?  

Y'all should probably start another thread for that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> So, are we done with the gay stuff?  We're moving on to greed, now?
> 
> Y'all should probably start another thread for that.



I forget who brought up the fly rod, but the main point to the thread, at least the way I understand it, is religious relativism, so I would say we're still on topic...


----------



## 660griz (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> So, are we done with the gay stuff?  We're moving on to greed, now?



And adulterers apparently.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> From where did you C&P this?



Now, why on earth would where I c&p'ed bible verses be relevant?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> So, are we done with the gay stuff?  We're moving on to greed, now?
> 
> Y'all should probably start another thread for that.



We're never done with the gay stuff.  When you can turn a blind eye towards gays like you do towards the gluttonous then we'll be done with the gay stuff.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> We're never done with the gay stuff.  When you can turn a blind eye towards gays like you do towards the gluttonous then we'll be done with the gay stuff.



For the record, we didn't start this thread.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> Now, why on earth would where I c&p'ed bible verses be relevant?



It's relevant because I'd like to know who's misinterpreting scripture.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> For the record, we didn't start this thread.



But you responded because gays bother you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It's relevant because I'd like to know who's misinterpreting scripture.



Which is the "correct" interpretation? 

That's basically the OP in one question.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> But you responded because gays bother you.



Not in the least.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It's relevant because I'd like to know who's misinterpreting scripture.



Let's assume I am. (Duh, atheist are always either bringing up the Old Testament or 'miss' interpreting the New.)

Start with this one.
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" 
Matt 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. (KJV)


What does it mean to you?

Or this one;
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> ... atheist are always either bringing up the Old Testament or 'miss' interpreting the New.



Well, they certainly seem to have a problem differentiating between the two.




660griz said:


> Or this one;
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)



I must admit, it was not until I began reading the AAA forum that I learned Matt. 5:17 is one of (if not "the") favorite verse of the atheist.

I have highlighted the key part of the passage.  The law is still under effect for those who choose to live under it.  Christians, however, live by faith in the promises of God.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Well, they certainly seem to have a problem differentiating between the two.


Yea. We just have to quote the Old to get schooled on how that isn't right...some of it. I figured the word of God would overrule the word of a prophet...or Jesus. Never did figure out how that ever got accepted. Doesn't seem like a fair trade.



> I must admit, it was not until I began reading the AAA forum that I learned Matt. 5:17 is one of (if not "the") favorite verse of the atheist.


  It does draw the (atheist) eye.



> I have highlighted the key part of the passage.  The law is still under effect for those who choose to live under it.  Christians, however, live by faith in the promises of God.


Does this mean Christians who choose to live under it are no longer Christians?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> For the record, we didn't start this thread.


For the record, note the subject line is about the PASTOR and the intention was to discuss him struggling with what the Bible says and what he is dealing with in real life.
Probably naïve on my part.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 9, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> For the record, note the subject line is about the PASTOR and the intention was to discuss him struggling with what the Bible says and what he is dealing with in real life.
> Probably naïve on my part.



Noted, and he has been addressed.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Noted, and he has been addressed.


In your opinion.
You continue to miss the point that the intention wasn't to prove him right or wrong but to think about his journey and the conflict that arises through continued education and higher thought that through your own admission is changing how religion is viewed and practiced.
As I said in the beginning -


> It will be thought provoking for some and garbage to others.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2014)

"higher thought" ???  On what basis is this supposition grounded?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> .....note the subject line is about the PASTOR and the intention was to discuss him struggling with what the Bible says and what he is dealing with in real life.



I honestly haven't been able to view any videos or links, I just haven't found an hour to watch it.  

I have wanted to comment for a bit, but can you post a  quick summary before I start chasing rabbits?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 10, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I honestly haven't been able to view any videos or links, I just haven't found an hour to watch it.
> 
> I have wanted to comment for a bit, but can you post a  quick summary before I start chasing rabbits?



The HuffPo link in the OP has the pastor's letter where he summarizes it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "higher thought" ???  On what basis is this supposition grounded?


"higher thought" is the act of thinking about a subject without the constraints of what you have been taught or told or were indoctrinated in or what you think is true at the time. 
Not everybody can or is willing or care to do it. 
In the end what you "think" may completely change or it may stay the same. 
Turns out its not the insult you thought or oh so wanted it to be.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2014)

Grace and truth.  We as Christians must exhibit both equally.  Truth without grace justifies the label of hypocrite that is often leveled at us.  Grace without truth is quiet simply heretical.  Almost every complaint about Christianity is centered around Christians who do not or have not exhibited one of the two qualities.  Christ was full of both grace and truth.   As his followers we must be also.  They go hand in hand.

With regards to this pastor, I understand that the strain of having a son who subscribes to the homosexual lifestyle must be difficult.  However spiritually it's no different than having a son who is on drugs or one who is a thief.  Both of the latter as well as the former (homosexuality) are spiritually destructive to maintaining communion with God.  There is a difference however in that while society stigmatizes the latter two, it's view of homosexuality has changed drastically over the last several decades.    Not only is homosexual behavior not stigmatized as it once was, it is openly applauded and some may argue, actually encouraged.   

That being said, what this pastor has done is to extend grace appropriately, as we all should, but not to the point of sacrificing truth.  I think he is hoping, as many do, is that God's grace will suffice.  

John 4:24 says:

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

It's not worship if you only extend the spirit (of grace,)  but not the truth to others.  I'm sorry that as a pastor he can't see this.  It is truly a heart breaking scenario, but one he has made a very unwise decision regarding.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> "higher thought" is the act of thinking about a subject *without the constraints of what you have been taught or told or were indoctrinated in *or what you think is true at the time.
> Not everybody can or is willing or care to do it.
> In the end what you "think" may completely change or it may stay the same.
> Turns out its not the insult you thought or oh so wanted it to be.



No insult intended at all.  

My point is this:  On what grounds do WE have for thinking contemporary thinking is "higher thinking"?  By your own definition (red highlighted) it excludes knowledge gained from past experiences and handed down through the ages.  In my mind that is a dangerous position to place oneself in......disregarding history as perceived through the eyes of those who lived it and holding our contemporary interpretation of it with a higher regard.

That's all.  Like I said, no insult.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No insult intended at all.
> 
> My point is this:  On what grounds do WE have for thinking contemporary thinking is "higher thinking"?  By your own definition (red highlighted) it excludes knowledge gained from past experiences and handed down through the ages.  In my mind that is a dangerous position to place oneself in......disregarding history as perceived through the eyes of those who lived it and holding our contemporary interpretation of it with a higher regard.
> 
> That's all.  Like I said, no insult.





> My point is this:  On what grounds do WE have for thinking contemporary thinking is "higher thinking"?  By your own definition (red highlighted) it excludes knowledge gained from past experiences and handed down through the ages.


On the grounds that to NOT to excludes knowledge we have learned since then and how modern society is not the same as the "ages".
Certainly we should save some knowledge and experience from the past.
Certainly some should go by the wayside just as it has. And some knowledge and experience from today will and should go by the wayside as society changes. Its happening right now, it's always happened and it will continue to happen. 


> thinking contemporary thinking is "higher thinking"


Not sure where you got that. Higher thinking has nothing to do with "when" other than maybe the information that is available at that time to consider. 
Wasn't Jesus's' thinking "contemporary" at the time?


> In my mind that is a dangerous position to place oneself in


Because you are comfortable with your rights and privileges. You aren't being persecuted, or a slave or not allowed to vote or having your blood let for a common cold, or, or, or.........


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No insult intended at all.
> 
> My point is this:  On what grounds do WE have for thinking contemporary thinking is "higher thinking"?  By your own definition (red highlighted) it excludes knowledge gained from past experiences and handed down through the ages.  In my mind that is a dangerous position to place oneself in......disregarding history as perceived through the eyes of those who lived it and holding our contemporary interpretation of it with a higher regard.
> 
> That's all.  Like I said, no insult.



Abandoning prior trains of thought gave us the abolition of slavery, amongst other great advancements. 

I think the point is to abandon passionate clinging to previous ideas, and explore the logic for yourself, to see if you really support X position, or if Y position is more your flavor. 

It's how many agnostics and atheists became such. We dispassionately looked at what we had been "told" or "taught" as being "absolutely true" and it came up wanting within our own lives. 

That's not to say that you go jumping off a cliff to test your grasp of gravity, merely that you step outside yourself for a moment to examine things truly objectively. 

That's what I get out of what you are both saying anyway.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Abandoning prior trains of thought gave us the abolition of slavery, amongst other great advancements.
> 
> I think the point is to abandon passionate clinging to previous ideas, and explore the logic for yourself, to see if you really support X position, or if Y position is more your flavor.
> 
> ...


Pretty much yes.
A simplified example might be -
Daddy taught you Ford was better than Chevy.
So you believe Ford is better than Chevy.
Now you may not have actually researched recall rates, average life spans, average maintenance costs etc etc of Fords OR Chevy's yet you will argue that Ford is better than Chevy. And while you are busy doing that you certainly wont learn that say Toyota is beating them both in all areas.
What Daddy thought or was true back in the ages may not be true anymore. Or it may be.
But find out for yourself. You might end up with a Dodge.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 10, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Pretty much yes.
> A simplified example might be -
> Daddy taught you Ford was better than Chevy.
> So you believe Ford is better than Chevy.
> ...



When I was a kid growing up, everybody around me deer hunted with semi-auto 30-06's.  That was "the gun."  Everybody knew that serious deer hunting was done with it.  Nothing else was worth totin' in the woods.

I was one of those kids who read everything I could get my hands on about the subject of hunting.  From "how to" to "what with."  My Dad's rules were that we had to work and earn the money, gift and birthday money did not count, to buy our first deer rifle before he would take us.  So, after a long summer cutting neighborhood yards and cleaning out gutters I had the money, so I compared charts, did my research, and decided I wanted a Rem. 700 7mag, as that was the best all around rifle I could afford with my earnings.  

I remember explaining the logic to a member of that group.....indicating that the bullet was faster, flatter, and hit harder than an '06, particularly given that a semi-auto lost energy ejecting the cartridge.

The response was "Nah, I dunno 'bout that!"  My gun was frowned upon 

I have since retired that old gun, as it did it's job many times, and tote a modest lever action Marlin .35 most days.  "Funability" is what matters most now that I have discovered pretty much any high powered rifle will kill a deer.

Research and experience can certainly change one's perspective.  But, in the end, what you start out looking for might not be where you end up.  Where I wanted velocity before, I now want something that works and is fun to shoot.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I now want something that works and is fun to shoot.



There you go. You didn't go with the herd. You decided what you wanted. 

Now, 'works' and 'fun' can certainly be different for everyone. My 45-70 is fun to shoot for me and it certainly works. It is not fun to shoot for everyone. My .454 is fun to shoot for me...etc. I think if everyone applied the same amount of logic and reason to picking or not picking a God or religion, we would have a different landscape. Most just go with what their parents told them and, out of fear I would guess, never REALLY question that or look at other faiths.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> When I was a kid growing up, everybody around me deer hunted with semi-auto 30-06's.  That was "the gun."  Everybody knew that serious deer hunting was done with it.  Nothing else was worth totin' in the woods.
> 
> I was one of those kids who read everything I could get my hands on about the subject of hunting.  From "how to" to "what with."  My Dad's rules were that we had to work and earn the money, gift and birthday money did not count, to buy our first deer rifle before he would take us.  So, after a long summer cutting neighborhood yards and cleaning out gutters I had the money, so I compared charts, did my research, and decided I wanted a Rem. 700 7mag, as that was the best all around rifle I could afford with my earnings.
> 
> ...


Absolutely.
Your "journey" illustrates my point perfectly -


> But find out for yourself. You might end up with a Dodge.


And that you didn't stay with the 7 mag is just part of the journey.
And I love the Marlin .35  I don't have one but I use a friend of mine's a lot when I deer hunt his land. I leave my own bolt gun in the truck because I enjoy using  his so much. If I couldn't use his I would end up breaking down and buying one.
And speaking of "modest", the last buck I took was with a completely original military 1942 Lee Enfield No4 Mk1 in .303 British.  
The deer didn't seem to realize it was "modest"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Grace and truth.  We as Christians must exhibit both equally.  Truth without grace justifies the label of hypocrite that is often leveled at us.  Grace without truth is quiet simply heretical.  Almost every complaint about Christianity is centered around Christians who do not or have not exhibited one of the two qualities.  Christ was full of both grace and truth.   As his followers we must be also.  They go hand in hand.
> 
> With regards to this pastor, I understand that the strain of having a son who subscribes to the homosexual lifestyle must be difficult.  However spiritually it's no different than having a son who is on drugs or one who is a thief.  Both of the latter as well as the former (homosexuality) are spiritually destructive to maintaining communion with God.  There is a difference however in that while society stigmatizes the latter two, it's view of homosexuality has changed drastically over the last several decades.    Not only is homosexual behavior not stigmatized as it once was, it is openly applauded and some may argue, actually encouraged.
> 
> ...



Is it possible that after the preacher found out his son was gay that he did gain insight, higher thought, knowledge, and light from researching the scriptures?
Maybe his preconceived beliefs about homosexuals was changed by figuring out exactly what God was talking about. 
Maybe he learned that faith was from God and grace is the only thing that can save his son. The preacher might have learned his errors are as wrong as his son's and he was thankful of learning about "grace alone."


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible that after the preacher found out his son was gay that he did gain insight, higher thought, knowledge, and light from researching the scriptures?
> Maybe his preconceived beliefs about homosexuals was changed by figuring out exactly what God was talking about.
> Maybe he learned that faith was from God and grace is the only thing that can save his son. The preacher might have learned his errors are as wrong as his son's and he was thankful of learning about "grace alone."


I don't know if you watched the video but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Only difference being he found out his son was gay AFTER that. He believed God was preparing him to find that out.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Absolutely.
> Your "journey" illustrates my point perfectly -



Yes.  I was agreeing in a long-winded, round about sort of way.  The reasons for me are simple, my faith is so much stronger now that it is "mine," and not my parents'.....if that makes sense.  I asked a lot of questions, entertained a lot of doubt, rejected assertions, and eventually accepted the premise.  I see no harm in asking a lot of questions, and researching all available information.



WaltL1 said:


> And I love the Marlin .35  I don't have one but I use a friend of mine's a lot when I deer hunt his land. I leave my own bolt gun in the truck because I enjoy using  his so much. If I couldn't use his I would end up breaking down and buying one.
> And speaking of "modest", the last buck I took was with a completely original military 1942 Lee Enfield No4 Mk1 in .303 British.
> The deer didn't seem to realize it was "modest"



  I have 2 .303's.  One has been "sporterized," the other is still in original condition, which I bought for $45 in the late 90's.  Every year I say I'm gonna go huntin' with it, but I always talk myself into grabbing the .35......it's just perfect for how I hunt, close and thick, and just a fun gun.


----------



## Sargent (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Let's assume I am. (Duh, atheist are always either bringing up the Old Testament or 'miss' interpreting the New.)
> 
> Start with this one.
> "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"
> ...



When you single out one verse, you can make it mean whatever you want.  

When you read it in the context of the chapter and book, you get a clearer story. 

In this case, the Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the tradition of the elders. 

Jesus responded with an example of how they also broke the tradition of the elders by not following this commandment. 



> Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, <sup class="versenum">2 </sup>“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’<sup class="footnote" value="[a]">[a]</sup> and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’<sup class="footnote" value="[b]">[b]</sup> <sup class="versenum">5 </sup>But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.




Answering in a parable allows the communicator to say yes/no while expounding on the answer and giving reasons/facts to back up the communicator's position or point. 



If you or I were followed around and everything we said was notated, there would be some interesting phrases coming out of our mouths that, without proper context, would be easy to misinterpret. 



What's more interesting about Matthew 15 is the negation of traditional laws towards food intake.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know if you watched the video but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
> Only difference being he found out his son was gay AFTER that. He believed God was preparing him to find that out.



In general, people will modify thier perspective based on their experiences.  For instance, I have seen pastors who are adamantly opposed to divorcees being pastors change their mind when pastor friends get divorced.

As far as the preacher, I don't know his story.  Maybe God was preparing him.  One thing I know for sure is that there is no prohibition on him loving his son.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible that after the preacher found out his son was gay that he did gain insight, higher thought, knowledge, and light from researching the scriptures?
> Maybe his preconceived beliefs about homosexuals was changed by figuring out exactly what God was talking about.
> Maybe he learned that faith was from God and grace is the only thing that can save his son. The preacher might have learned his errors are as wrong as his son's and he was thankful of learning about "grace alone."



Again the doctrine of 'grace alone', without truth is not only a heretical notion but it self destructs under scrutiny.


As far as believers are concerned I won't even go to the trouble c&p ing scripture to validate how heretical this concept is.  It's there, and any Christian who has read the Bible should be familiar with it.  If not, read Romans.  The unbelievers here probably aren't interested in this type of evidence anyway.

This concept of 'Grace alone' in the context you speak of it says it's OK to keep sinning.  God's grace will cover it.  

It doesn't take a believer to see the problem with this line of reasoning.  Even an atheist /agnostic can see that IF one accepts the notion that sinful actions require grace (forgiveness).   Then it's illogical to think that it's OK to keep engaging in those actions after one has been forgiven (extended grace).  If not, if it's OK to keep sinning, why do we need grace to cover our prior sins in the first place? ".   It makes no sense.  

Logically either sin exists, in which case the sinner faces judgement or repents, receives grace and " goes and sins no more" or sin doesn't exist and therefore neither judgement nor grace are an issue.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know if you watched the video but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
> Only difference being he found out his son was gay AFTER that. He believed God was preparing him to find that out.



I had not watched it, I just watched it up to him discussing Paul's letter to the Romans. I tend to agree with the preacher that people miss Paul's message in Romans and  Corinthians. In both letters he paints a picture of wrong. Not just a little wrong but terrible evil. Then after this he is trying to convince Christians that they are just as wrong and thus need God's grace. He is showing them it is wrong to judge. After Paul tells them of this wrongness he states "and such were some of you." 
Paul said: You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.

If it took this preacher years of study and research to figure out God's grace, it's no wonder us mildly educated regular folk have so much trouble learning the lesson. It's taken me 60 years to accept God's grace and this preacher just helped tremendously.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

Sargent said:


> When you single out one verse, you can make it mean whatever you want.


 Not really but, I know what you mean.



> When you read it in the context of the chapter and book, you get a clearer story.


 How about an interpretation from biblehub.com on Mark 7:10-- "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:"

Under "Pulpit Commentary:


Verse 10. - Our Lord now gives an example of one of these human traditions. Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; - that is, obey and love them, and succor them, if they need it; for here "honor" means not only reverence and love, but support, as is clear from Ver. 12 - and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death; that is,* let him "surely die," without any hope of pardon. Our Lord means this:* "That if he who by words only speaks evil of his father or his mother is, by law, guilty of death, how much more is he guilty of death who wrongs them by deed, and deprives them of that support which he owes them by the law of nature; and not only so, but teaches others so from Moses' seat, as you scribes and Pharisees do when you say, 'It is Corban.'"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure where you got that. Higher thinking has nothing to do with "when" other than maybe the information that is available at that time to consider.
> Wasn't Jesus's' thinking "contemporary" at the time?



Post 82 in your reply to CPF you noted how higher thinking is "changing" how religion is viewed.  I assumed you were speaking of the present, hence contemporary time/thought.  My apologies if I misunderstood.

Naw, I think those in his day saw Jesus as anything but contemporary. Maybe revolutionary is the word I would use.



WaltL1 said:


> Because you are comfortable with your rights and privileges. You aren't being persecuted, or a slave or not allowed to vote or having your blood let for a common cold, or, or, or.........



And you attribute all those advancements to "higher thought" I assume?  I would agree, but this is where I think we would differ.  I would point to each and every one of those advancements and say that the higher thought behind them is a direct result of a Christian worldview whereas you would attribute it to___________?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> How about an interpretation from biblehub.com on Mark 7:10-- "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:"
> 
> Under "Pulpit Commentary:
> 
> ...



Where are you going with this?  I've lost track.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again the doctrine of 'grace alone', without truth is not only a heretical notion but it self destructs under scrutiny.
> 
> 
> As far as believers are concerned I won't even go to the trouble c&p ing scripture to validate how heretical this concept is.  It's there, and any Christian who has read the Bible should be familiar with it.  If not, read Romans.  The unbelievers here probably aren't interested in this type of evidence anyway.
> ...



Where does ones faith come from? Grace is totally from God and that is what Paul is teaching. Read past the "sin lists"  and you see Paul's lesson plan. It usually starts with a "but."


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Where are you going with this?  I've lost track.



To sum it up...in circles. 

You'll have to go back to #47.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> To sum it up...in circles.
> 
> You'll have to go back to #47.



... and I answered in post 48.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Where does ones faith come from? Grace is totally from God and that is what Paul is teaching. Read past the "sin lists"  and you see Paul's lesson plan. It usually starts with a "but."



Still looking for a "but it's OK to sin (or continue to sin.)"  Could you be so kind as to point it out for me?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Still looking for a "but it's OK to sin (or continue to sin.)"  Could you be so kind as to point it out for me?



I don't think Paul was teaching that it was still ok to sin. It's not ok to have lust or hate in your heart as they are just as equal as adultery or murder. All four are wrong. Paul compared the four to prove we are all guilty and thus need grace. The whole concept of Christianity is based on God's grace because we were born into a world of sin. This is why Paul made his now famous "sin" list. He hits you with those and then tells you, "you are no better." You need grace too. We all do. 
The reason for Jesus is to be free from the yoke of sin. 
We're not any better for pointing out the sins of others except our sins have been washed. So either my sins were forgiven or they weren't.  Either I as a Christian continue to sin or my sins don't count as sins.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

All Christians are on a journey to be like Christ. We all have different gifts including faith to achieve that point. We all have weaknesses and strong points to hinder or help. 
Paul said:
Romans 12:3
For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

We should not think more highly of our self than the biggest sinner in the Church. We might be further in our journey than him. We might have a different gift than him. We all have the same mission and must work one with each other. 
None of which takes away from God's free gift of grace and only by grace is one saved.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Post 82 in your reply to CPF you noted how higher thinking is "changing" how religion is viewed.  I assumed you were speaking of the present, hence contemporary time/thought.  My apologies if I misunderstood.
> 
> Naw, I think those in his day saw Jesus as anything but contemporary. Maybe revolutionary is the word I would use.
> 
> ...





> whereas you would attribute it to___________?


Insert - higher thought.
I don't feel the need to attribute higher thought to one specific world view and certainly not one I just happen to be a member of.
Higher thought would tell me personally that's just not true.
But you can certainly believe it if you want.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  I was agreeing in a long-winded, round about sort of way.  The reasons for me are simple, my faith is so much stronger now that it is "mine," and not my parents'.....if that makes sense.  I asked a lot of questions, entertained a lot of doubt, rejected assertions, and eventually accepted the premise.  I see no harm in asking a lot of questions, and researching all available information.
> 
> 
> 
> I have 2 .303's.  One has been "sporterized," the other is still in original condition, which I bought for $45 in the late 90's.  Every year I say I'm gonna go huntin' with it, but I always talk myself into grabbing the .35......it's just perfect for how I hunt, close and thick, and just a fun gun.





> my faith is so much stronger now that it is "mine," and not my parents'.....if that makes sense.


Makes perfect sense. I would think that would be the strongest type of faith because now you believe for your own reasons and no ones else's.


> the other is still in original condition, which I bought for $45 in the late 90's.


Don't know if you keep up with militaria  values but if truly original and depending on condition and model etc you might be surprised what that $45 is worth now.
But no you cant retire on it


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I had not watched it, I just watched it up to him discussing Paul's letter to the Romans. I tend to agree with the preacher that people miss Paul's message in Romans and  Corinthians. In both letters he paints a picture of wrong. Not just a little wrong but terrible evil. Then after this he is trying to convince Christians that they are just as wrong and thus need God's grace. He is showing them it is wrong to judge. After Paul tells them of this wrongness he states "and such were some of you."
> Paul said: You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.
> 
> If it took this preacher years of study and research to figure out God's grace, it's no wonder us mildly educated regular folk have so much trouble learning the lesson. It's taken me 60 years to accept God's grace and this preacher just helped tremendously.





> this preacher just helped tremendously


.
That's awesome!
My intention wasn't to get people to agree or disagree but to just maybe learn something from his journey.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

One point from the preacher's sermon was of an account he had with a young lesbian. She said to the preacher at their meeting in Starbucks. "See that man standing over there, imagine yourself being asked to kiss him and having an intimate relationship with him." The preacher was overwhelmed with that thought.
My question is why would God ask the young lesbian to the same thing? Would it not be un-natural for a lesbian to have sex with a man?
If one does go back and research some of those terms and word usages they might find Paul was talking of Straight men and not  who we call homosexuals of today.
Considering only about 10 % of society is gay those verses in Romans are pertaining to straight people who became or were evil.

There are two main errors of understanding Paul's lessons. One is the usage of homosexual and other associated words and the other is the sin lists were to show we are all guilty and thus needs God's grace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> That's awesome!
> My intention wasn't to get people to agree or disagree but to just maybe learn something from his journey.



That's all one can ask of us a we make the journey to find the "Light."

The preacher said all he knew of homosexuals was what he was taught by his parents & church. He finally decided it was time to ask God to enlighten him if one looks at achieving enlightenment directly from God or himself through God's Word.

We could all at least learn that aspect of his sermon in all of our indoctrinated beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> One point from the preacher's sermon was of an account he had with a young lesbian. She said to the preacher at their meeting in Starbucks. "See that man standing over there, imagine yourself being asked to kiss him and having an intimate relationship with him." The preacher was overwhelmed with that thought.
> My question is why would God ask the young lesbian to the same thing? Would it not be un-natural for a lesbian to have sex with a man?
> If one does go back and research some of those terms and word usages they might find Paul was talking of Straight men and not  who we call homosexuals of today.
> Considering only about 10 % of society is gay those verses in Romans are pertaining to straight people who became or were evil.
> ...





> "See that man standing over there, imagine yourself being asked to kiss him and having an intimate relationship with him." The preacher was overwhelmed with that thought.


Absolutely. Of course the Christian response to that might be "well don't kiss ANYBODY, just be celibate".
The preacher also discussed that.
The preacher asked and talked about some tough questions. Its why I thought it was a good article.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Absolutely. Of course the Christian response to that might be "well don't kiss ANYBODY, just be celibate".
> The preacher also discussed that.
> The preacher asked and talked about some tough questions. Its why I thought it was a good article.



Celibacy might be a hard row to hoe for most people without a gift for it. I've heard celibacy as an answer to homosexuality too. Again we've got to understand our individual gifts and weaknesses. Some priest can do it and some can't.

Paul said  I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Would it not be un-natural for a lesbian to have sex with a man?



"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." -- Rom. 1:26




Artfuldodger said:


> If one does go back and research some of those terms and word usages they might find Paul was talking of Straight men and not  who we call homosexuals of today.



Only by using _eisegesis_.




Artfuldodger said:


> ... those verses in Romans are pertaining to straight people who became or were evil.



That is an interpretation completely unheard of before about 20-30 years ago.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> There you go. You didn't go with the herd. You decided what you wanted.
> 
> Now, 'works' and 'fun' can certainly be different for everyone. My 45-70 is fun to shoot for me and it certainly works. It is not fun to shoot for everyone. My .454 is fun to shoot for me...etc. I think if everyone applied the same amount of logic and reason to picking or not picking a God or religion, we would have a different landscape. Most just go with what their parents told them and, out of fear I would guess, never REALLY question that or look at other faiths.



"God" is a parents best tool.
Putting "God" in children's minds early on allow the parents to be heard even when they are not present.
"No one in while I am away"..
"Be in at a decent hour and no cruising around with friends"...
"I hope no boys are going along"....
"Remember GOD is always watching and he can see in the dark"...
The "God" conscience is a powerful weapon in the parent's arsenal. You have to sell the concept early to have it pay off later.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> .
> My intention wasn't to get people to agree or disagree but to just maybe learn something from his journey.



All these journeys seem to arrive at the same destination:  complete acceptance of homosexuality.  How come there are no ministers posting videos about a journey towards accepting adultery ... or incest?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and I answered in post 48.



Not sure where you are going with this. 
 There was #77, 78, 79 and then I posted #102 in response to Sargent. Your response to that was, where am I going with this?

Just contributing to the thread CP. Not questioning where comments come from or where they are going. Just reply. Try it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> "Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones." -- Rom. 1:26
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Their women must have been heterosexual women having un-natural sex acts with other women.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> That is an interpretation completely unheard of before about 20-30 years ago.




Enlightenment will happen more and more as we get closer to the end of time.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Not sure where you are going with this.
> There was #77, 78, 79 and then I posted #102 in response to Sargent. Your response to that was, where am I going with this?
> 
> Just contributing to the thread CP. Not questioning where comments come from or where they are going. Just reply.



Already did.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> All these journeys seem to arrive at the same destination:  complete acceptance of homosexuality.  How come there are no ministers posting videos about a journey towards accepting adultery ... or incest?



Give it time. They may call it, more than one wife. 
Incest? Well, you tell me how Adam and Eve populated the world without it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Enlightenment will happen more and more as we get closer to the end of time.



Will we become enlightened with regard to adultery and incest?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Give it time.



It's already here, but I haven't seen any Baptist ministers posting videos about it -- yet.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> All these journeys seem to arrive at the same destination:  complete acceptance of homosexuality.  How come there are no ministers posting videos about a journey towards accepting adultery ... or incest?



They haven't been enlightened on what Paul was teaching as it relates to the meaning of homosexual acts being performed by heterosexuals. They was on the "down low." It was a totally different manifestation of sins as related to the evil wickedness going on in Rome at that time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It's already here, but I haven't seen any Baptist ministers posting videos about it -- yet.



But Baptist women do dress like men now and Baptist men dress like women. Women wearing pants, short hair, long hair, men wearing jewelry, change is slow.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> But Baptist women do dress like men now and Baptist men dress like women. Women wearing pants, short hair, long hair, men wearing jewelry, change is slow.



Yep, it's a regular Sodom and Gomorrah in those Baptist churches.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Will we become enlightened with regard to adultery and incest?



I think we will as to how it is  related to those two sins being forgiven by God's grace alone. 
Adultery & incest are more understandable in meaning and interpretation but it would benefit us as to their Greek meanings. Do we really need a list of sins to know what is right from wrong? You can't feel it in your heart?
Does it even matter if our sins have been washed? Is adultery worse than lust? Aren't we all equally in need of God's grace?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> They haven't been enlightened on what Paul was teaching as it relates to the meaning of homosexual acts being performed by heterosexuals. They was on the "down low." It was a totally different manifestation of sins as related to the evil wickedness going on in Rome at that time.



100% eisegesis


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> All these journeys seem to arrive at the same destination:  complete acceptance of homosexuality.  How come there are no ministers posting videos about a journey towards accepting adultery ... or incest?


I can only answer on how I view them differently.
At the top of the list would be -
With two consenting homosexuals there are no victims.
Adultery - definitely a victim.
Incest is a little more complicated and im not an expert on the subject -
-possible genetic issues should a child result ie the child would be a victim.
-the increased "influence" of say a father over a daughter/mother over a son etc
But lets not forget that incest was basically accepted in our not too distant history.
I think our current biggest reason might be "that's gross".

And I think complete acceptance of homosexuality is a bit exaggerated. I think it has more to do with people's rights and education on the subject.
Preachers are human too so can be affected by these same things.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do we really need a list of sins to know what is right from wrong?



Apparently, it's OK for the "enlightened" to mark one sin off that list.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I can only answer on how I view them differently.
> At the top of the list would be -
> With two consenting homosexuals there are no victims.
> Adultery - definitely a victim.
> ...



OK, but the Bible puts all three in the same bucket.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I can only answer on how I view them differently.
> At the top of the list would be -
> With two consenting homosexuals there are no victims.
> Adultery - definitely a victim.


Thanks Walt. I just put 'victims' and deleted my post. Wasn't up to typing the reasoning.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but the Bible puts all three in the same bucket.


And therein lies the problem.


> I think it has more to do with people's rights and education on the subject.
> Preachers are human too so can be affected by these same things.


Your religion is set up in such a way that you can't grow intellectually and practice it without stepping in hot water with that same religion.
Reason number 4083294 why I rejected it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Apparently, it's OK for the "enlightened" to mark one sin off that list.



No with the enlightenment comes the knowledge of why Paul was presenting the list to start with. The enlightenment gives us the knowledge of straight men having sex with other men and straight women having sex with other women which is unnatural.
The enlightenment brings closure that the Bible was not written to me but for me. The events of the debauchery Paul is describing to the Romans was the most terrible thing he could use as an example that sin is sin.
Then he hits them with his lesson that they are equally guilty of sin. We don't often hear the rest of the story as presented by Paul.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but the Bible puts all three in the same bucket.



Did Jesus mention homosexuality as a sin?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Did Jesus mention homosexuality as a sin?



He did not _specifically_ mention homosexuality, rape, bestiality or incest.  However, He did say:

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies"  -- Matt. 15:19

The word "fornications" covers all sexual sin and is completely unambiguous.  His audience knew exactly what He was talking about.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Insert - higher thought.
> I don't feel the need to attribute higher thought to one specific world view and certainly not one I just happen to be a member of.
> Higher thought would tell me personally that's just not true.
> But you can certainly believe it if you want.



So in your opinion "higher thought" is attributable to "higher thought", yet to attribute it to a specific world view that one subscribes to is somehow questionable?  Why, because of a self-referencing bias?

I do believe it, because it is in fact true.  It's not even debatable.  

It's no accident that the field of modern science arose from the Christian West where men believe that an orderly universe was actually understandable because it was believed to be designed by an intelligent being and could be understood by intelligent beings.  

Likewise the greatest strides in civil rights were borne from a worldview that holds all mankind as equal, and each individual life is sacred, because we are created in the image of one with infinite dignity and worth.  

Secularist (not labeling you so don't take offense) are so quick to disparage Christianity for the perceived evils it has had a hand in, yet are almost never are honest enough point out that the injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity were in direct contradiction to the actual tenets.  Nor are they willing to concede that the greatest strides in human history owe their very conception to the Christian world view, preferring to self reference which is essentially crediting the cure to the disease itself.   

I asked earlier.  On what grounds do you support your position that current thought is actually "higher thought".
So far all I've got as reply is essentially "because I said so."  I expected more.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Their women must have been heterosexual women having un-natural sex acts with other women.



Is there anything unnatural in nature?
If God is responsible for creation and nature is part of that then what occurs is natural. Humans are not exclusive to same sex relations.
Some humans just want everyone to think like them and the words of "god" are proof of that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> But Baptist women do dress like men now and Baptist men dress like women. Women wearing pants, short hair, long hair, men wearing jewelry, change is slow.



This reminds me of my all-time favorite thread.....

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632538&highlight=jesus+wore+pants


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's no accident that the field of modern science arose from the Christian West where men believe that an orderly universe was actually understandable because it was believed to be designed by an intelligent being and could be understood by intelligent beings.



Please go on...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> This reminds me of my all-time favorite thread.....
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632538&highlight=jesus+wore+pants



I forgot about that one, it made me laugh. I'll have to revisit all six pages.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> This reminds me of my all-time favorite thread.....
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=632538&highlight=jesus+wore+pants



That was a good one!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Is there anything unnatural in nature?
> If God is responsible for creation and nature is part of that then what occurs is natural. Humans are not exclusive to same sex relations.
> Some humans just want everyone to think like them and the words of "god" are proof of that.



Maybe as how we define un-natural of our own actions and not nature itself. In nature, everything is natural.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe as how we define un-natural of our own actions and not nature itself. In nature, everything is natural.



Agreed.
It is a very good example of how humans hold everything else to their standards. Quite possibly human standards are the exception to everything else natural.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The word "fornications" covers all sexual sin and is completely unambiguous.  His audience knew exactly what He was talking about.



Yea. Sex between folks that aren't married. So, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? Wouldn't that solve the issue.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

660griz said:


> Yea. Sex between folks that aren't married. So, why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry?



Because Christian marriage is a holy institution.  You cannot add to that something that is referred to as an "abomination" in the OT.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Because Christian marriage is a holy institution.  You cannot add to that something that is referred to as an "abomination" in the OT.



So in this case it is perfectly fine to use the OT.....?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So in this case it is perfectly fine to use the OT.....?



God's opinion of it hasn't changed.  If you want NT passages, look at Romans 1, Jude, and 1 Corinthians 6.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So in your opinion "higher thought" is attributable to "higher thought", yet to attribute it to a specific world view that one subscribes to is somehow questionable?  Why, because of a self-referencing bias?
> 
> I do believe it, because it is in fact true.  It's not even debatable.
> 
> ...


Same old nonsense with you and I wont do this again -
Here is where "higher thought" came in to play -


> the intention wasn't to prove him right or wrong but to think about his journey and the conflict that arises through continued education and higher thought that through your own admission is changing how religion is viewed and practiced.


HE used higher thought ie he thought about the subject outside the constraints of what he was indoctrinated in etc.
I said -


> Higher thinking has nothing to do with "when"


"when" would include current and past.
So this -


> On what grounds do you support your position that current thought is actually "higher thought".


Is your propensity to ignore what was actually said (Higher thinking has nothing to do with "when") and do a 180 with it in your mind.
And then to top it off YOU ask ME on what grounds I support the position I don't even have.
I stopped ignoring you for one day out of months and I find myself going back through the same old routine.


> I expected more


I didn't but it would have been nice.
Back to ignoring you I go.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> God's opinion of it hasn't changed.  If you want NT passages, look at Romans 1, Jude, and 1 Corinthians 6.



Utter silence from "God" for over 2000 years....
You, me, No One knows what God's opinion is. As soon as the "God" phase of advancing society ceased....so did all of God's guidance, thoughts, opinions and actions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> They haven't been enlightened on what Paul was teaching as it relates to the meaning of homosexual acts being performed by heterosexuals. They was on the "down low." It was a totally different manifestation of sins as related to the evil wickedness going on in Rome at that time.



That's about a twisted and warped interpretation of scripture as I've ever heard.    It's a lie plain and simple, and only a fool would accept it as valid.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's about a twisted and warped interpretation of scripture as I've ever heard.    It's a lie plain and simple, and only a fool would accept it as valid.



That is the gist of my enlightenment and the preacher of the video from the OP. Two fools with many more to come. Maybe in 10 or 20 years you will see many more fools enlighenened as to Paul's message. I'm gonna tell as many people as I can about this newly discovered free grace. I'm gonna start by showing them those huge list of sins Paul used. Then I'm going to tell them it was straight men in Rome acting out all sorts of weirdness. So weird that God turned them over to it. I'll start with the Roman emperor Gaius. I'll tell them how words from Greek to English get translated incorrectly. I'll tell them how the Bible was written for them but not to them.
Yes many Christians already  dead would think we are all fools as we've moved away from a works salvation and towards a grace salvation if alive today. My great grandparent would freak if they knew their granddaughters were wearing pants and their grandsons were wearing jewelery.
I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt I have been to the mountaintop. I'm glad I'm one of the first to be enlightened.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Same old nonsense with you and I wont do this again -
> Here is where "higher thought" came in to play -
> 
> HE used higher thought ie he thought about the subject outside the constraints of what he was indoctrinated in etc.
> ...



I was simply trying to understand on what grounds (other than your opinion) YOU labeled his thinking, (whatever it was, whenever it occurred)  "higher".  That's all.  I guess that's asking too much.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That is the gist of my enlightenment and the preacher of the video from the OP. Two fools with many more to come. Maybe in 10 or 20 years you will see many more fools enlighenened as to Paul's message. I'm gonna tell as many people as I can about this newly discovered free grace. I'm gonna start by showing them those huge list of sins Paul used. Then I'm going to tell them it was straight men in Rome acting out all sorts of weirdness. So weird that God turned them over to it. I'll start with the Roman emperor Gaius. I'll tell them how words from Greek to English get translated incorrectly. I'll tell them how the Bible was written for them but not to them.
> Yes many Christians already  dead would think we are all fools as we've moved away from a works salvation and towards a grace salvation if alive today. My great grandparent would freak if they knew their granddaughters were wearing pants and their grandsons were wearing jewelery.
> I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt I have been to the mountaintop. I'm glad I'm one of the first to be enlightened.



Hate to burst your bubble, but again there is nothing new under the sun.  I think you will find quiet a bit of "enlightened" company.  

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 11, 2014)

artfuldodger said:


> that is the gist of my enlightenment and the preacher of the video from the op. Two fools with many more to come. Maybe in 10 or 20 years you will see many more fools enlighenened as to paul's message. I'm gonna tell as many people as i can about this newly discovered free grace. I'm gonna start by showing them those huge list of sins paul used. Then i'm going to tell them it was straight men in rome acting out all sorts of weirdness. So weird that god turned them over to it. I'll start with the roman emperor gaius. I'll tell them how words from greek to english get translated incorrectly. I'll tell them how the bible was written for them but not to them.
> Yes many christians already  dead would think we are all fools as we've moved away from a works salvation and towards a grace salvation if alive today. My great grandparent would freak if they knew their granddaughters were wearing pants and their grandsons were wearing jewelery.
> I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt i have been to the mountaintop. I'm glad i'm one of the first to be enlightened.



lol


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but again there is nothing new under the sun.  I think you will find quiet a bit of "enlightened" company.



I have I'm now in the company of Christians whose sins have been washed. It's a wonderful group. We understand that we all are unrighteous and none better than the other.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,



Romans 2:1
You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.

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?


I like what the preacher in the OP said. Christians need to quit looking at others in the window and look at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> lol



What part of your salvation was your doing; faith, repentance, trust, belief? Was there some work or works that saved you or was it all from God's Grace?
It either is all grace or it isn't, there are no gray areas.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 2:1
> You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.
> 
> Matthew 7:3
> ...



Game

Set

Match


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Game
> 
> Set
> 
> Match



It's the old grace vs works salvation thing that has been going on for centuries. It has caused many a reformations, Church splits, and schisms.
I have recently been enlightened to free grace salvation where even adulterers and lustful hearts can recieve salvation and even backslide.

I think I’ll call my new enlightenment the Good news or gospel and I’ll refer to my old beliefs in Lordship Salvation as the false gospel. My new enlightenment has revealed to me that Jesus saved me out of his mercy and not of anything I did or do.
A few verses to confirm:
Titus 3:5  he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit.
Romans 10:3-4 For they don't understand God's way of making people right with himself. Refusing to accept God's way, they cling to their own way of getting right with God by trying to keep the law. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Isaiah 64:6 We are all infected and impure with sin. When we display our righteous deeds, they are nothing but filthy rags. Like autumn leaves, we wither and fall, and our sins sweep us away like the wind.
Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
My old belief before my enlightenment included  certain degree of self-righteousness, which is a false Gospel; but the other is solely based upon Christ's righteousness, which is by the precious literal, physical, blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Trying to live a better life is important but it’s not a part of the gospel as related to grace and salvation. We all have different abilities and gifts to help us in this respect but it’s not what saves us. Repentance means to change your way of thinking from believing you can save yourself by works , to believing Jesus can save you. Repent from the false gospel of Lordship salvation to free grace salvation. That is the true way or meaning of repentance.
To believe God won’t save someone because they continue to sin is a false gospel. This is Paul’s struggle with sin:
Romans  7:19-20  18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
After salvation your sins are washed, you have an advocate, but you will still sin, you will backslide.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

I do believe it's easy to see the physical sins of others easier than the mental sins of ourselves. Both equally bad in God's eyes and both equally forgiven.
Why put the yoke of sin back on yourself or someone else after Jesus removed it?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think I’ll call my new enlightenment the Good news or gospel and I’ll refer to my old beliefs in Lordship Salvation as the false gospel. My new enlightenment has revealed to me that Jesus saved me out of his mercy and not of anything I did or do.



Start your own church!  "Bishop Artfuldodger" has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Start your own church!  "Bishop Artfuldodger" has a nice ring to it.



That's not my calling but I will spread the Good News in other ways.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's not my calling but I will spread the Good News in other ways.



How about a t-shirt that reads, "Ask Me About My Enlightenment"?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

I believe the people Paul was discussing in Rome and other places were not homosexuals as we know them today. He isn't describing two people in a loving relationship. He is describing heterosexuals who have abandoned there natural lifestyles, They started by abandoning their religion for idols. It started with idol worship.
Paul is describing Perverts, Caligula as the main example. People who abandoned "their" natural ways.  Married men who did terrible things with other men and women. They basically used sex as a power trip.
Reading this about Caligula I don't believe he was a homosexual but just a big weirdo pervert in the worse example ever perhaps:

Besides incest with his sisters, and a notorious passion for the prostitute Pyrallis, he made advances to almost every woman of rank in Rome; after inviting a selection of them to dinner with their husbands he would slowly and carefully examine each in turn while they passed his couch, as a purchaser might assess the value of a slave, and even stretch out his hand and lift up the chin of any woman who kept her eyes modestly cast down. Then, whenever he felt so inclined, he would send for whoever pleased him best and leave the banquet in her company. A little later he would return, showing obvious signs of what he had been about, and openly discuss his bed-fellow in detail, dwelling on her good and bad physical points and commenting on her sexual performance. To some of these unfortunates he issued, and publicly registered, divorces in the names of their absent husbands."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> How about a t-shirt that reads, "Ask Me About My Enlightenment"?



I'd rather just share my Good News!


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Paul is describing Perverts, Caligula as the main example.



Caligula was assassinated in 41 AD.  Paul wrote Romans approximately fifteen years later.  Couldn't he have chosen a more contemporary pervert to write about than Caligula?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

I have a dream that one day Christians will be accepted as such by God's grace and not their works.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I like what the preacher in the OP said. Christians need to quit looking at others in the window and look at themselves in the mirror.


He presumes that Christians look at others and not themselves. Perhaps he has defined "Christians", so as to make room for himself and his son.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Caligula was assassinated in 41 AD.  Paul wrote Romans approximately fifteen years later.  Couldn't he have chosen a more contemporary pervert to write about than Caligula?



You make a very good point and I don't think Paul was just using one or two emperors as his example in Romans, I don't even think the perversion started with Caligula. It probably continued on for years after his death.
The main point Paul was making in Romans was to place in the minds of the Church that for even them to judge those terrible perverts was wrong. They were equally guilty of sin. By doing so they condemned themselves. It was used to set the stage. 
Paul did the same thing to the Church in Corinth. He hit them with this huge sin list and then told them they were like that before they were "washed."
The "washing" is the Good News" that I have been enlightened to. My sins don't count. It's like they never happened. That is the Gospel that I personally have been enlightened too. The fact that I can or couldn't live righteous enough to save myself. I think it's the best news I've heard in a long time and intend to share it. I have recently repented from my belief that I had anything to do with my salvation. That has been my repentance or change. I have changed or repented my way of thinking.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> He presumes that Christians look at others and not themselves. Perhaps he has defined "Christians", so as to make room for himself and his son.



He presumed correctly and the Good News has made room for him and his son. Him or his son has nothing to do in the matter of their salvation, grace is from God.
There are really only two positions that a person can occupy on salvation. One is that salvation is by grace, and the other is that salvation is by works. It cannot be a combination of the two. A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man's will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side. Salvation is of the Lord, that it is by His grace, and that nothing needs to be added to it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> He presume correctly and the Good News has made room for him and his son.


And Paul is clear that "that room" will not be in the kingdom of God.



Artfuldodger said:


> Him or his son has nothing to do in the matter of their salvation, grace is from God.


Where is the evidence of conversion?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> He presume correctly and the Good News has made room for him and his son. Him or his son has nothing to do in the matter of their salvation, grace is from God.
> There are really only two positions that a person can occupy on salvation. One is that salvation is by grace, and the other is that salvation is by works. It cannot be a combination of the two. A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man's will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side. Salvation is of the Lord, that it is by His grace, and that nothing needs to be added to it.





> grace is from God.


*I'm not sure if this fits *but it seems to back up your statement -


> For I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."


Anyone leaves room for "anyone" including the preacher and his son. And it would appear that God is making it very clear that his choice might be very different than who you (Christians) think should be chosen.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> And Paul is clear that "that room" will not be in the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence of conversion?



"That room" was before their salvation. "and such were some of you." They were washed of those vary sins. 
You don't really believe that commiting any or every one of the sins on that list will keep a Christian who as been washed of those sins from the Kingdom do you?

Evidence of conversion sounds like a statement from a works based salvation believer. 
When you start adding anything to grace you are taking away from "grace only." You are adding if's or but's.
Salvation is of grace only or it isn't. No ands, ifs, or buts.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> *I'm not sure if this fits *but it seems to back up your statement -
> 
> Anyone leaves room for "anyone" including the preacher and his son. And it would appear that God is making it very clear that his choice might be very different than who you (Christians) think should be chosen.



I agree, I have no more knowledge or proof of this preacher's salvation than anyone. I don't truly even have enough knowledge of what sex acts I commit even with my wife could be a sin much less the preacher's son. I can only assume Paul was talking of straight guys on the down low. 
The Good News is it doesn't matter, Paul said:

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That is all I need to know, I don't need any proof or works. Not even repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel.

There are really only two positions that a person can occupy on salvation. One is that salvation is by grace, and the other is that salvation is by works. It cannot be a combination of the two. A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man's will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side. Salvation is of the Lord, that it is by His grace, and that nothing needs to be added to it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

My lust and anger is equal to someone elses adultery and murder. No one is righteous. 
Any and all sins will keep us from God's Kingdom even the ones not on Paul's list, if we haven't been washed. The list was presented as proof of this to explain the washing. Look at King David'sins, for that matter , look at mine.
This washing away is what's important. The need of Jesus as our savior because we can't quit sinning. Again no one is righteous.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> "That room" was before their salvation. "and such were some of you." They were washed of those vary sins.
> You don't really believe that commiting any or every one of the sins on that list will keep a Christian who as been washed of those sins from the Kingdom do you?


No, nor is it a license to sin. Paul addresses this in Romans 6.


Artfuldodger said:


> Evidence of conversion sounds like a statement from a works based salvation believer.
> When you start adding anything to grace you are taking away from "grace only." You are adding if's or but's.
> Salvation is of grace only or it isn't. No ands, ifs, or buts.


I yield on your point of "grace alone". Scripture tells us how we will know who the recipients are. At this time, I can only take the preacher and the son... at their word.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> No, nor is it a license to sin. Paul addresses this in Romans 6.
> 
> I yield on your point of "grace alone". Scripture tells us how we will know who the recipients are. At this time, I can only take the preacher and the son... at their word.



I agree that our salvation of free grace is not a license to sin, it only gives us an advocate when we do. Sadly we will all still be accountable of our sins and deeds. I hate this for myself when I must stand in judgement but at the same time I'm glad my washing assures me of "everlasting life."


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> My lust and anger is equal to someone elses adultery and murder. No one is righteous.
> Any and all sins will keep us from God's Kingdom even the ones not on Paul's list, if we haven't been washed. The list was presented as proof of this to explain the washing. Look at King David'sins, for that matter , look at mine.
> This washing away is what's important. The need of Jesus as our savior because we can't quit sinning. Again no one is righteous.



OK, but the minister and his son _don't believe homosexuality is a sin_.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

Anytime we add anything to the equation of our salvation we are still adding something. Many people don't feel comfortable calling it a work and I'm ok with them calling it what they want. It's still adding something to grace no matter how or what you call it. 
One is saved "if" or "but." 
The "extras" can come as we progress on our journey to be "Christlike" using what measures of faith and gifts given to us for this journey. Given directly from God or from reading his Word.

Mental sins, deeds, works or whatever you call these things to yourself are equally good or wrong as physical sins, deeds, works.
That wasn't too good of an explaination but sins can be mental or physical. Works can be mental or physical. Anything one does by his on freewill even mental is a work of that person and not of God.
If your salvation is based on something you must do then you just saved yourself. It doesn't have to be a physical work like baptism or helping an old lady across the street to be a work.
You don't have to murder or commit adultery to sin.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but the minister and his son _don't believe homosexuality is a sin_.



They don't believe two men who were born gay and are living in an intimate relationship is a sin. They believe Paul was talking about Perverted Straight men and women.
I agree with the preacher and his son.
But for argument's sake I don't believe it matters as God has mercy on whomever he wants to. Salvation has nothing to do with anything we do but what Jesus did for us. What in the world one's sin list or lack of what should be on it, has no place in one's salvation. How well we accomplish the task of not sinning has no bearing on our salvation. No one is righteous so it doesn't matter if they believe homosexuality is a sin or not.
My great grandfather thought it was a sin for women to wear pants. His great granddaughters don't believe it is a sin for them to wear pants. They all use the Bible as proof. 
Now if the whole bunch of them are washed, what difference does it make if they have repented from their belief that salvation is from works?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but the minister and his son _don't believe homosexuality is a sin_.


And even those that do, try to separate the sin from the sinner. I do not see Paul doing this in 1 Corinthians 6.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree, I have no more knowledge or proof of this preacher's salvation than anyone. I don't truly even have enough knowledge of what sex acts I commit even with my wife could be a sin much less the preacher's son. I can only assume Paul was talking of straight guys on the down low.
> The Good News is it doesn't matter, Paul said:
> 
> And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
> ...


I'm trying learn as we go here. So basically your position is this? -


> Grace Is Not Earned
> Grace excludes merit. We must constantly remind ourselves that humanity is not deserving of salvation. No one can “earn” pardon by works of human merit. If such were the case, we could boast regarding our redemption; however, that is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9).
> 
> Even if one were able to perform everything God commands, he still must regard himself as an “unprofitable servant” (Luke 17:10). Jesus taught that our sins have put us head-over-heels in debt, and no person has the innate ability to liquidate that obligation (cf. Matthew 18:24-27).
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> And even those that do, try to separate the sin from the sinner. I do not see Paul doing this in 1 Corinthians 6.



The only thing that seperates sin from the sinner is being washed  free of the penalty of sin. This is Paul’s struggle with sin:
Romans 7:19-20 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I haven't completely understood if Paul is seperating himself from his sin. The Old self/New self struggle continues. That's the Good news of being washed.
It kinda sounds like he might be:

Romans 7:20
But if I do what I don't want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.

Is Paul blaming his continued sin on the sin nature/ Isn't that seperating himself from the sin?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm trying learn as we go here. So basically your position is this? -



Quote:
Grace Is Not Earned
Grace excludes merit. We must constantly remind ourselves that humanity is not deserving of salvation. No one can “earn” pardon by works of human merit. If such were the case, we could boast regarding our redemption; however, that is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Even if one were able to perform everything God commands, he still must regard himself as an “unprofitable servant” (Luke 17:10). Jesus taught that our sins have put us head-over-heels in debt, and no person has the innate ability to liquidate that obligation (cf. Matthew 18:24-27).

When this concept is truly grasped, service to Almighty God will flow with a freshness and zeal that invigorates the soul. Doubtless a failure to fathom the true significance of grace is the reason many church members are spiritually lethargic.
https://www.christiancourier.com/art...aning-of-grace 
(end quote)


That's exactly my position. The sad thing is the amount of years it's taken me to remove the other false gospel from my salvation. Some of my fellow Christians have been trying to tell me this for about 10 years. I'm quite ashamed of myself for not believing them. 
It has been my new enlighenenment. 
The strange thing is how long I believed I was a part of my salvation. Now when I look back it's strange how many Christians add the yoke of slavery back to themselves Jesus removed. Either we needed Jesus to remove it or we don't. I've taken it off and put it back on for years. I don't want to say never but I hope I have removed it for the last time.

Galations 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

I believe replacing this yoke back on myself was the other gospel or false gospel I was warned about. I just didn't believe it. The very thing Jesus died for.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> They don't believe two men who were born gay and are living in an intimate relationship is a sin. They believe Paul was talking about Perverted Straight men and women.



They have found teachers who will tell them what they want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3.)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> They have found teachers who will tell them what they want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3.)



I can only teach the Good News Paul shared with his co-worker. There will be many teachers adding things to salvation different from Paul's teaching of Grace alone.
People just can't believe salvation is God's work alone. They want 1 to12% of the credit. I believe it is a false gospel to even ask for 1%.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

Lets move on to one of the other sinners on the list or all of them for that matter. If one looks at homosexuality as described by Paul to mean gay men having sex as opposed to straight men having sex with men, It is a small amount of the population. 
No matter how one looks at it most of us are not going to struggle with wanting to have sex with men, nor incest. We probably won't struggle with worshipping idols that look like animals.
Let's talk about some of the sins Paul mentioned that we do struggle with: greed, hate, envy, malice, gossipers, & slanderers.

God loves all of those people. God loves adulterers. No he doesn't love the sinner and hate the sin, that's not even Biblical. God loves adulterers.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can only teach the Good News Paul shared with his co-worker.



Paul did not teach this:




Artfuldodger said:


> I believe the people Paul was discussing in Rome and other places were not homosexuals as we know them today. He isn't describing two people in a loving relationship. He is describing heterosexuals who have abandoned there natural lifestyles, They started by abandoning their religion for idols. It started with idol worship.
> Paul is describing Perverts, Caligula as the main example. People who abandoned "their" natural ways.  Married men who did terrible things with other men and women. They basically used sex as a power trip.



This is a gay interpretation of a passage that was completely unambiguous for 2,000 years.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Let's talk about some of the sins Paul mentioned that we do struggle with: greed, hate, envy, malice, gossipers, & slanderers.



Start another thread if you like, but until there's a national movement to have those sins declared "not a sin", I really don't see the point.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Start another thread if you like, but until there's a national movement to have those sins declared "not a sin", I really don't see the point.



The point is God loves sinners!


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The point is God loves sinners!



As long as they feel guilty....


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The point is God loves sinners!



I agree completely, but the medicine for sinners is repentance, and the minister in the OP would deny his own son that medicine.

Tragic.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Paul did not teach this:
> 
> This is a gay interpretation of a passage that was completely unambiguous for 2,000 years.



Are you referring to the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests? This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I agree completely, but the medicine for sinners is repentance, and the minister in the OP would deny his own son that medicine.
> 
> Tragic.



That's right.  You have to feel bad on your third trip to the buffet and ask for forgiveness.  

I'm absolutely sure that my daughter lied to her mom and me the other night.  We had a discussion on why it is bad to lie.  Man!  It was a hard and lengthy discussion!  If I could have just told her that it was a sin and that she shouldn't do it because it will make God angry that would have been cake.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I agree completely, but the medicine for sinners is repentance, and the minister in the OP would deny his own son that medicine.
> 
> Tragic.



I don't think you understand what repentance means. It means to change ones ways of believing from works salvation to free grace.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you referring to the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests? This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right.



This is just more gay sophistry.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you referring to the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests? This prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality of worshipping Molech, whose cult included male cult prostitutes and bestiality. Lev 18 is specifically designed to distinguish the Jews from the pagans who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. It also is included with other Mosaic laws such as required killing kids who curse their parents, the death penalty for picking up sticks or doing other work on the Sabbath, and under the law, slave-beating was a protected legal right.



I saw a biography of Martina Navratilova the other night and she said that if she had not defected to the US that she would have been imprisoned or sent to an insane asylum for being gay.

She's gay through and through.  Call it a disease like alcoholism if you want to (Idea for a new thread) but she should be with a woman.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think you understand what repentance means. It means to change ones ways of believing from works salvation to free grace.



I dunno, Art.....I like you and I like how you're shaking things up but I think you might be trying to re-define what "is" is.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think you understand what repentance means.



I do, and it's not this:



Artfuldodger said:


> It means to change ones ways of believing from works salvation to free grace.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Paul did not teach this:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...



Yes he did, he said even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another.

Gay people don't abandon their natural function to do this. It would have to mean straight men having gay sex for someone to abandon a relationship with a woman and suddenly burn with a desire to have sex with a man.
Gay men already want to do that. They would find it disgusting to have sex with a woman. 

Paul would have had to say, Gay men abandoned their natural desire to sleep with men and had sex with women.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I dunno, Art.....I like you and I like how you're shaking things up but I think you might be trying to re-define what "is" is.



It's part of my "enlightenment" and I'm definitely going to shake things up. I want to redefine what salvation is to the lordship salvation crowd. I wont people to stop adding works to their salvation, but mostly I want Christians to stop worrying about sin so much. I want them to understand what being washed means. I'm the new Martin Luther. Only trouble is, I can't write a thesis.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Paul would have had to say, Gay men abandoned their natural desire to sleep with men and had sex with women.



I doubt even the great Apostle Paul could have foreseen how his very plain words would one day be twisted.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I saw a biography of Martina Navratilova the other night and she said that if she had not defected to the US that she would have been imprisoned or sent to an insane asylum for being gay.
> 
> She's gay through and through.  Call it a disease like alcoholism if you want to (Idea for a new thread) but she should be with a woman.



Yeah she could be the Gay poster child. She oozes gayness.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> She oozes gayness.



Now there's something that belongs on a t-shirt.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Now there's something that belongs on a t-shirt.



....and that shirt belongs on Brooklyn Decker.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I doubt even the great Apostle Paul could have foreseen how his very plain words would one day be twisted.



I agree and he'll finally get to see his words twisted back to his true lesson and meaning. I do think it's gonna take a good 20 years though to materialize as fools like me are enlightened.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> ....and that shirt belongs on Brooklyn Decker.



I had to Google her.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I doubt even the great Apostle Paul could have foreseen how his very plain words would one day be twisted.


I imagine he was dealing with it in his day as well. Galatians 1?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree and he'll finally get to see his words twisted back to his true lesson and meaning. I do think it's gonna take a good 20 years though to materialize as fools like me are enlightened.



You're incorrigible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I imagine he was dealing with it in his day as well. Galatians 1?



Yes, you're right.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I had to Google her.



Did you repent afterwards?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'm absolutely sure that my daughter lied to her mom and me the other night.  We had a discussion on why it is bad to lie.  Man!  It was a hard and lengthy discussion!  If I could have just told her that it was a sin and that she shouldn't do it because it will make God angry that would have been cake.


How did you handle it? I will not attack it... just curious. PM me if you'd like.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Did you repent afterwards?



No need to repent!  After an exhaustive eight minute study of Greek, I've determined that the word for "lust" has been completely mistranslated over the centuries.  If it weren't for that pervert Caligula, lust would be celebrated as the Christian virtue that it was always meant to be.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> How did you handle it? I will not attack it... just curious. PM me if you'd like.



I'll tell you.

We're still working on it.  My wife found some hair in our daughter's waste can.  She denied having cut it despite the fact that she obviously had some hair missing.  She immediately began bawling and insisted it wasn't hers.

After she calmed down, she revealed that she didn't want to get punished.  We explained that she wouldn't get punished for cutting her hair but she would get punished for lying.

I first started trying to explain the idea of a Social Contract to her (she's 5 1/2)....It was easier to explain that we all trust each other in our family and that trust is very important, especially in our family.  We gave her examples of how a betrayal of trust could hurt someone's feelings or even put someone in danger.  We tried to get her to understand that being truthful is kind and loving.  It was exhausting for everyone.

I taped the hair to a piece of paper and put it on her bulletin board and told her we would talk about it again after she had time to think about it.

Yesterday I asked her if she cut her hair.  She started crying and said "yes".  I asked her if she felt bad about lying and she said "yes".  I told her that that is her punishment for this incident.   


Next lesson: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission".


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> No need to repent!  After an exhaustive eight minute study of Greek, I've determined that the word for "lust" has been completely mistranslated over the centuries.  If it weren't for that pervert Caligula,lust would be celebrated as the  Christian virtue that it was always meant to be.



There you go again, trying to claim ownership of something that isn't yours.

We're built to lust and many of the other things that you call "sin".  

Everything you guys say about deniers is true.  We want to do many of the things that are sinful.  Surprise, so do you.  You control it with Jesus.  I try to control it with reason.  

I enjoy it.  I can entertain "sinful" thoughts and behavior without remorse......within reason.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'll tell you.
> 
> We're still working on it.  My wife found some hair in our daughter's waste can.  She denied having cut it despite the fact that she obviously had some hair missing.  She immediately began bawling and insisted it wasn't hers.
> 
> ...


Good stuff! Thanks for sharing it. My daughter was ultimate defiance, whereas my son was tender hearted. As a child, I was also tender and sensitive to such matters, whereas my wife was very defiant.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Good stuff! Thanks for sharing it. My daughter was ultimate defiance, whereas my son was tender hearted. As a child, I was also tender and sensitive to such matters, whereas my wife was very defiant.



Yeah.  She's sensitive (lucky for me).  She really doesn't want to disappoint us....yet

I was almost gonna bring this up here when it happened, to try to get some sage wisdom.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> We want to do many of the things that are sinful.  Surprise, so do you.


Surprise, no I don't. I don't want to do any sinful thing. I long to live like I want to.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Surprise, no I don't. I don't want to do any sinful thing. I long to live like I want to.



Got all your lust under control?  Good for you.  That's amazing, considering.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'll tell you.
> 
> We're still working on it.  My wife found some hair in our daughter's waste can.  She denied having cut it despite the fact that she obviously had some hair missing.  She immediately began bawling and insisted it wasn't hers.
> 
> ...


I know she was wrong but I feel bad for her


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Got all your lust under control?  Good for you.  That's amazing, considering.


No, but what I do and what I want to do, are not the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Quote:
> Grace Is Not Earned
> Grace excludes merit. We must constantly remind ourselves that humanity is not deserving of salvation. No one can “earn” pardon by works of human merit. If such were the case, we could boast regarding our redemption; however, that is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9).
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> No, but what I do and what I want to do, are not the same.



That's what I'm talking about.  I was talking about the instant you get the girding in your loins. You _want_ to do something, just like the rest of us.  How and why you deal with it is the difference.

See, the difference is that I might allow my mind to live there for a minute, where as you probably bury it in shame.  

My dad used to say after he got born again that he learned to admire and not desire.  Whatever.....


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> They have found teachers who will tell them what they want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3.)


When you consider how many Christian denominations there are it sorta sounds like standard operating procedure?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Did you repent afterwards?



It's kind-a like gazing upon a mountain, appreciating the beauty of creation.  Just cause I enjoy gazing don't mean I'm considering climbin'.  

Cp, how did you not know Brooklyn decker?  She was like what Kate upton is now.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'll tell you.
> 
> We're still working on it.  My wife found some hair in our daughter's waste can.  She denied having cut it despite the fact that she obviously had some hair missing.  She immediately began bawling and insisted it wasn't hers.
> 
> ...




Good stuff.  Christians also handle these things in similar ways......understanding 'why' goes a long way.

When they become teenagers all logic and reason is out the window.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It's kind-a like gazing upon a mountain, appreciating the beauty of creation.  Just cause I enjoy gazing don't mean I'm considering climbin'.
> 
> Cp, how did you not know Brooklyn decker?  She was like what Kate upton is now.



Not exactly.....It hits you in a different place.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Good stuff.  Christians also handle these things in similar ways......understanding 'why' goes a long way.
> 
> When they become teenagers all logic and reason is out the window.




Not all Christians.  Some preach fire and brimstone.  I was told about the Devil in Sunday School.  We were told that he would come getcha if we were bad.  

It worked for a while.



I figure it will stick better if she comes to it on her own.

Maybe all that Devil and demon talk should be hammered into teenagers.  Actually, they love that stuff.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I'm talking about.  I was talking about the instant you get the girding in your loins. You _want_ to do something, just like the rest of us.  How and why you deal with it is the difference.
> 
> See, the difference is that I might allow my mind to live there for a minute, where as you probably bury it in shame.
> 
> My dad used to say after he got born again that he learned to admire and not desire.  Whatever.....


My bad. I did not realize, that in that instant, the rest of you asked God for strength and deliverence.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Not exactly.....It hits you in a different place.



  I did say 'kind-a.'


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Cp, how did you not know Brooklyn decker?  She was like what Kate upton is now.



The links said she was best known as an SI swimsuit model.  I haven't read SI in years, since they don't cover my favorite sport, mixed martial arts.  (You know ... the UFC.  Lots of half naked guys rolling around on top of each other.  I just can't get enough of that.)


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

> It's kind-a like gazing upon a mountain, appreciating the beauty of creation.  Just cause I enjoy gazing don't mean I'm considering climbin'.





> Cp, how did you not know Brooklyn decker?  She was like what Kate upton is now.


Sad to say I couldn't pick either one of them out of a line up. Does this mean I have to give up my man card?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Sad to say I couldn't pick either one of them out of a line up. Does this mean I have to give up my man card?


It is the same with me. I was not familiar with either of them.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The links said she was best known as an SI swimsuit model.  I haven't read SI in years, since they don't cover my favorite sport, mixed martial arts.  (You know ... the UFC.  Lots of half naked guys rolling around on top of each other.  I just can't get enough of that.)





The only SI model I can remember is Christie Brinkley. Is she still living?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> It is the same with me. I was not familiar with either of them.


Ok I don't feel so bad now 
I just looked them up. I'd go to dinner with them.
But they would have to pay the bill.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> The only SI model I can remember is Christie Brinkley. Is she still living?




She's sixty! 

(Dang, I feel old.)


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> She's sixty!
> 
> (Dang, I feel old.)



If it's any comfort, so does she.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> My bad. I did not realize, that in that instant, the rest of you asked God for strength and deliverence.



I meant "girding" in this sense:

_3. To prepare (oneself) for action._

When I see her I use the word "god" in a different way.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I meant "girding" in this sense:
> 
> _3. To prepare (oneself) for action._


That is how I understood your meaning. That is also how I knew your claim to be false.




ambush80 said:


> When I see her I use the word "god" in a different way.


Just more proof of how we are not the same.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The links said she was best known as an SI swimsuit model.  I haven't read SI in years, since they don't cover my favorite sport, mixed martial arts.  (You know ... the UFC.  Lots of half naked guys rolling around on top of each other.  I just can't get enough of that.)



You could watch Ronda Rousey or Gina Carano.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> You could watch Ronda Rousey or Gina Carano.



Gina's been making movies, not fighting.  I really like Ronda, though.  She's been breaking arms and taking names.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Sad to say I couldn't pick either one of them out of a line up. Does this mean I have to give up my man card?



Yes.  yes it does...


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The links said she was best known as an SI swimsuit model.



You're a movie guy, did you ever see the Adam Sandler flick "Just Go With It?"  She was in that.....and kind-a difficult to miss   She can't act, nobody in the movie can, but she makes it so worth watching.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Sad to say I couldn't pick either one of them out of a line up. Does this mean I have to give up my man card?



 

But, nah.  I think losin' the man card would require knowing who she was and pretending you didn't notice.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 12, 2014)

Sorry for the rapid replies guys, I've been at the ball park all evening and am just now catching up.



ambush80 said:


> Not all Christians.  Some preach fire and brimstone.  I was told about the Devil in Sunday School.  We were told that he would come getcha if we were bad.



I was given a heavy dose of the same at Sunday School and at home.  I think a lot of that led to my rebellion.  When I consider the rules, most of them make sense from a social or biological perspective.  There are some in the OT which do not fit that, but that is a whole 'nother discussion.

I generally approach these things from the perspective of why it's wrong.  It seems to work better when they understand it from that angle, for me anyway.



ambush80 said:


> Maybe all that Devil and demon talk should be hammered into teenagers.  Actually, they love that stuff.



I know with my teenager I am often stumped, and left looking for anything that might get through.  I haven't gone the devil route yet.......


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 12, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Yes.  yes it does...


----------



## 660griz (Jun 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Gina's been making movies, not fighting.  I really like Ronda, though.  She's been breaking arms and taking names.



Mmmmmm Rhonda! She is close to the level where I would take a arm bar just to...well anyway. 

Remember the good ol days of MMA? Very few rules, no weight classes. Those were some good times.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

Comedian Pete Holmes joked during an interview with Conan O'Brien that he would go gay for Ryan Gosling after 63 days on a deserted island.

Pete does an interesting interview with Rousey entitled  "In the ring with Ronda Rousey."


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I know with my teenager I am often stumped, and left looking for anything that might get through.  I haven't gone the devil route yet.......



If you didn't bang it in early it probably won't work.

Up until college when I got scared in the dark I would recite the Lord's prayer. (it's true)


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Comedian Pete Holmes joked during an interview with Conan O'Brien that he would go gay for Ryan Gosling after 63 days on a deserted island.
> 
> Pete does an interesting interview with Rousey entitled  "In the ring with Ronda Rousey."



A buddy of mine who I play tennis with remarked (jokingly) to a bunch of us on the court that he wouldn't mind being Roger Federer's cell mate.  It made for some awkward silence.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> A buddy of mine who I play tennis with remarked (jokingly) to a bunch of us on the court that he wouldn't mind being Roger Federer's cell mate.  It made for some awkward silence.



I had to google Federer and he does have a certain Metrosexual look about him.  I wonder if this is the "effeminate" sin the Bible speaks of?
His wife is cute.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 13, 2014)

660griz said:


> Remember the good ol days of MMA? Very few rules, no weight classes. Those were some good times.



I do, but that MMA didn't have much of a future.  The rules and weight classes made it viable as a sport.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I do, but that MMA didn't have much of a future.  The rules and weight classes made it viable as a sport.



Thanks to Sen. McCain who labeled it as "human cock fighting".

It was viable as a sport as it was.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but the minister and his son _don't believe homosexuality is a sin_.



Details. Just trivial details.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

Quote:
Originally Posted by centerpin fan  
OK, but the minister and his son don't believe homosexuality is a sin. 




SemperFiDawg said:


> Details. Just trivial details.



If you watched the video you will understand that the preacher doesn't believe homosexuality between two gay people  is wrong. What the preacher believes is homosexual sex for straight people is wrong. 

Here is another explanation:
Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either – women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men – all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it – emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

Paul’s letter to the church in Rome was written to people immersed in Roman culture. Here homosexual behavior was simply a part of the normal environment, unnoticeable (as it also was in Corinth), but Paul’s concern and focus was on pagan religious worship and rituals and their degrading effects on people who had abandoned God and returned to them. Sadly, God let them sink into the natural consequences of their choice – irresponsibility, ignorance, arrogance, and disease.

In the original Greek, the phrase translated as ‘vile affections’ in the KJV does not describe the passions in a normal marriage (or sexually active relationship); instead it characterizes the orgiastic mind-state that pagan rituals created by using alcohol and/or drugs. The people in these rituals are not homosexuals at all but rather heterosexual Christians who had returned to paganism and, as a part of its rituals, not only engaged in heterosexual orgies but, under the effects of peer pressure and stimulants, abandoned their inborn sexual orientation to indulge in same-sex activities (the implication being that “received in themselves” refers to sexually-transmitted diseases, epidemic among such cults at the time). The larger context as a whole deals with people who reject God – and therefore is irrelevant to loving Christians (or Jews or Muslims). And in focusing on lust, it is irrelevant to people in or in search of long-term relationships. Paul’s letter is a commentary both on variation from a person’s faith and from his/her inborn nature. Homosexuals and committed relationships are completely absent here.

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Romans.php


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

This lady makes a good point in that many Christians miss the point on what Romans 1 is even teaching:

Paul was writing to a specific people in a specific time. There's no indication anywhere in Paul's own words that as he wrote it was the entire world and with all time in mind. Paul was clueless than thousands of years later Christians would be reading his words, much less that they would be held within a canon along side the Torah. Paul's focus was on the church in Rome and grounding them in the Gospel. In Romans 1 Paul is writing to a primarily Jewish audience (seen in his references to the Gentiles as they and them) and addresses the cause of the Gentiles ethnic impurity which is idolatry. Romans 1 is a story about the origin and consequences of idolatry.

In committing idolatry the Gentile people had dishonored God and in response God turns them over to dishonor themselves. The people actively chose to engage in one sin, that being idolatry, but from that point on it was God who gave them over to other sins as a penalty for the original great offense. Before jumping into the eye of the storm (verses 26-27) take a minute to read verses 21 through 31 as I've provided here so you can more clearly see the pattern included in the text. 

https://christiangays.com/articles/anita8.shtml


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

Returning again to verses 26-27, we need to be honest enough to say we don't know exactly what Paul meant or what Paul might have thought concerning our current day understanding of homosexuality. We know however that Paul was a Jew and that the emphasis on purity in Leviticus were part of Paul's thinking, as was the Greco-Roman world view in which he lived. Paul's understanding about sexuality didn't stand outside of all that but was greatly shaped by all that surrounded him. It seems more than evident that in verses 26-27 Paul has a negative view of homoeroticism and while we can't know with any precision what Paul meant, we can make several general assumptions: 



*  Unnatural (para physin) is better understood as that which is out of the ordinary or beyond the ordinary rather than as perversion. 

*  Sex was for the purpose of procreation and had to include a dominant partner (male) and a passive partner (female). Anything that didn't meet that normative form was para physin. 

*  One of the men in a same-sex encounter would dishonor himself by assuming the role of the passive partner and lowering his status to that of a woman. The other man brought dishonor on himself by allowing his kinsman to assume the role of the passive partner. 

*  Paul, as his contemporaries, saw all passions as uncontrolled and negative. As a result passion was always dishonorable and would obviously result in being consumed by it. The passion that a husband might have for his wife would be seen as equally negative. Paul's not so much interested in condemning homo-erotic behavior but uncontrolled passions and lack of moderation. 

*  In the ancient world there was no understanding of a homosexual orientation or a heterosexual orientation for that matter. Paul saw idolatry as the cause of same-sex eroticism rather than a person's sexual orientation or even as a human choice. It was a penalty exacted by God on the idolatrous Gentiles. 

*  Unnatural relations for women could refer to any sexual activity where procreation wasn't a possibility. This could include sex during menstruation, anal sex or homoeroticism. Unnatural relationship for women could also refer to any sexual activity that was beyond the ordinary. Because women were expected in every sexual encounter to be the passive partner it would be against nature for a woman to be the aggressor in a heterosexual encounter or to take the dominant role in sex with another woman. 

IN CONCLUSION 

There are those who use this chapter to condemn homosexuality but in doing so they're choosing to emphasize wrongly one portion of a progressive descent into sin by a particular people whose original sin was idolatry. Remember that everything that follows their adulterous practices are a direct result of God giving them up to behaviors that would cause them to dishonor themselves. Their deliberate choice was to practice idolatry but the rest was punishment imposed on them by God. 

I would propose that this passage does not speak of gay men and lesbians within our culture but to the Gentile idolaters located in Rome.

https://christiangays.com/articles/anita8.shtml


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I had to google Federer and he does have a certain Metrosexual look about him.  I wonder if this is the "effeminate" sin the Bible speaks of?
> His wife is cute.



Most male tennis players are kinda soft and swishy. They play tennis.

You should see their girlfriends.  Yowza!   (Brooklyn Decker is married to Andy Roddick)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by centerpin fan
> OK, but the minister and his son don't believe homosexuality is a sin.
> 
> ...



You are missing the point.  It doesnt matter what he believes.  What matters is the truth and if one accepts the Bible as the truthful word of God then homosexuality is a sin.  It's not debatable.  

You, him and anyone else can misinterpret it any way you wish no matter how preposterous, but in you're lying.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are missing the point.  It doesnt matter what he believes.  What matters is the truth and if one accepts the Bible as the truthful word of God then homosexuality is a sin.  It's not debatable.
> 
> You, him and anyone else can misinterpret it any way you wish no matter how preposterous, but in you're lying.



People interpret the Bible according to their own beliefs.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What matters is the truth and if one accepts the Bible as the truthful word of God then homosexuality is a sin.  It's not debatable.



Of course it is debatable. Even with Christians.

Advancing Religious Literacy 

http://www.westarinstitute.org/reso...t-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> If you watched the video you will understand that the preacher doesn't believe homosexuality between two gay people  is wrong. What the preacher believes is homosexual sex for straight people is wrong.
> 
> Here is another explanation:
> Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either – women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men – all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it – emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.
> ...





Artfuldodger said:


> This lady makes a good point in that many Christians miss the point on what Romans 1 is even teaching:
> 
> Paul was writing to a specific people in a specific time. There's no indication anywhere in Paul's own words that as he wrote it was the entire world and with all time in mind. Paul was clueless than thousands of years later Christians would be reading his words, much less that they would be held within a canon along side the Torah. Paul's focus was on the church in Rome and grounding them in the Gospel. In Romans 1 Paul is writing to a primarily Jewish audience (seen in his references to the Gentiles as they and them) and addresses the cause of the Gentiles ethnic impurity which is idolatry. Romans 1 is a story about the origin and consequences of idolatry.
> 
> ...





Artfuldodger said:


> Returning again to verses 26-27, we need to be honest enough to say we don't know exactly what Paul meant or what Paul might have thought concerning our current day understanding of homosexuality. We know however that Paul was a Jew and that the emphasis on purity in Leviticus were part of Paul's thinking, as was the Greco-Roman world view in which he lived. Paul's understanding about sexuality didn't stand outside of all that but was greatly shaped by all that surrounded him. It seems more than evident that in verses 26-27 Paul has a negative view of homoeroticism and while we can't know with any precision what Paul meant, we can make several general assumptions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Allow me to summarize:  Black is white.  Up is down.

Or, as George Orwell so eloquently put it:  "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Allow me to summarize:  Black is white.  Up is down.
> 
> Or, as George Orwell so eloquently put it:  "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."



Some of you don't get it because you haven't been enlightened like me. God only reveals certain thing to certain people at different times and according to our gifts or faith allotted to us. Most Christians will be enlightened later possibly 20 years from now. 
It'll start when they realize grace is free and their sins have been washed. When Christians finally realize they can't be righteous and save themselves they'll turn to Jesus for salvation.
When they get that part figured out they will then realize that this is what Paul was teaching all along. Then and only then will they figure out Paul was talking about straight people turned over to their own excesses in sex and other self absorbed processes. 
Yep at least 20 more years. It will come though, I have seen the light. I have been to the mountain top.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

660griz said:


> Of course it is debatable. Even with Christians.
> 
> Advancing Religious Literacy
> 
> http://www.westarinstitute.org/reso...t-the-new-testament-says-about-homosexuality/



I like the Alice's restaurant quote. If Paul had only used "Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father Rapers" in his sin list. It might have shown modern people the type of terrible person Paul was describing. Then they might understand they are equally bad themselves and in need of Jesus, and to not judge others, and to not worship idols.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Some of you don't get it because you haven't been enlightened like me.



I am definitely not enlightened ... like you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I am definitely not enlightened ... like you.



It'll be kinda like when we figured out it was OK for women to wear pants and white girls to date black guys. (as long as they aren't metrosexual black guys)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> It'll be kinda like when we figured out it was OK for women to wear pants and white girls to date black guys. (as long as they aren't metrosexual black guys)



Now _that's_ an abomination.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> People interpret the Bible according to their own beliefs.



Exactly.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> People interpret the Bible according to their own beliefs.


Yep and they all think they are right.
It puzzles me why its so difficult to acknowledge that a belief isn't necessarily a fact.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep and they all think they are right.
> It puzzles me why its so difficult to acknowledge that a belief isn't necessarily a fact.



Exact-A-Mundo WaltArelli


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Exact-A-Mundo WaltArelli


----------

