# ex-homosexual



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

I read this phrase in another thread and it got me thinking (dangerous, I know).


The phrase was used in reference to a youth minister who was hired by a church who was an admitted "ex-homosexual".  

I suppose my question is this:  I understand the stigma attached to homosexuallity and the natural fear of parents whos kids might be exposed to it.  But, if this guy is saved and has turned from that lifestyle, knows it was sinful and preaches that to the kids, is there still an issue with hiring him and allowing him to minister?  If there is, what is the biblical basis for it?

And please take this in isolation from the rest of that situation where the pastor was clearly doing things that were illegal and wrong.  Let's just look at this situation in isolation for a minute and assume that the leadership of the church has consulted with, talked with, and otherwise "vetted" the guy and they fully believe that he is now a strong and growing Christian.

Given those assumptions, would the church still be wrong to hire the guy and why?  Or let's go further...should he be allowed to be in ministry at all?


----------



## Bodab1974 (Sep 18, 2008)

Should a divorced man be allowed to be a pastor or a decon?   He is an ex-married man...


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 18, 2008)

My take.

Being an ex-homosexual is like being an ex-adulterer.  Both have sinned; both asked for forgiveness; both repented.  After a period of spiritual refreshing and refocusing their lives, I would love to give either of them the opportunity to reach their full potential in service to God and the church.
The church would be wrong to not hire him because of a sinful past that he has moved beyond.
We all are "Ex's" in one way or the other.  We also continue to be imperfect.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

Ronnie, I'm not sure I could have said that any better.  That's exactly how I feel about it.  I'm open to hearing other contrary opinions though.  If there is a compelling biblical reason, I'm open to hearing it.


----------



## fishbone2149 (Sep 18, 2008)

That is a question that is hard to answer.  I despise homosexuals, this to me is the nastiest thing on earth next to molesting kids.  My natural reaction would be to say no, get him out of there.  But the Bible says that everyone can be saved and turn their life around.  This question puts me right smack dab in the middle of a religious dilemma.  It would be hard to trust this guy at all.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> My take.
> 
> Being an ex-homosexual is like being an ex-adulterer.  Both have sinned; both asked for forgiveness; both repented.  After a period of spiritual refreshing and refocusing their lives, I would love to give either of them the opportunity to reach their full potential in service to God and the church.
> The church would be wrong to not hire him because of a sinful past that he has moved beyond.
> We all are "Ex's" in one way or the other.  We also continue to be imperfect.



What about an "ex-child molestor" ??


----------



## Michael Lee (Sep 18, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> We all are "Ex's" in one way or the other.  We also continue to be imperfect.



Amen!

It is hard to over look one's past, but as Christians aren't we supposed to if they are re-born and have been forgiven for their sins?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

What if he molested a kid when he was 17 and now he's 35 or 40, been saved for 20 years, turned from it, gotten the help he needed and is a powerful testimony for God?  

Dawg, I get your point.  But is there a biblical basis for disqualifying even an ex-child molestor?  I'm asking, not making the argument for or against.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Michael Lee said:


> Amen!
> 
> It is hard to over look one's past, but as Christians aren't we supposed to if they are re-born and have been forgiven for their sins?



So, what about my question below?



dawg2 said:


> What about an "ex-child molestor" ??


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

See my post above.  But in direct answer, I don't see the issue given that he's repented, turned from it and has has a season to work out the things he needs to work out and get his life back in order.

But I'm open to a biblical argument.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> See my post above.  But in direct answer, I don't see the issue given that he's repented, turned from it and has has a season to work out the things he needs to work out and get his life back in order.
> 
> But I'm open to a biblical argument.



So you see no problem with a "Saved" Ex-child molestor working in a Church?  You are kidding right?


----------



## Bodab1974 (Sep 18, 2008)

I strongly and adamantly disagree with this.  If my child were put in a class or a church with someone like that,  that school or church would never see me again. period.

I asked a question earlier,   should a divorced man, not a widow,  just divorced because he and his bride decided to part,   could this person be voted in as a Pastor or a Deacon of the church?  No they cannot.  

But you would allow a man who has lain with another man to teach your children?.........

I am in no way saying that he should not be allowed at the church.. but a leadership position?   No Never.

Agreed this person has been saved,  granted this person is a new man,   but regardless, the leadership of a church should be held to a higher moral and ethical standard than anyone else.



Ronnie T said:


> My take.
> 
> Being an ex-homosexual is like being an ex-adulterer.  Both have sinned; both asked for forgiveness; both repented.  After a period of spiritual refreshing and refocusing their lives, I would love to give either of them the opportunity to reach their full potential in service to God and the church.
> The church would be wrong to not hire him because of a sinful past that he has moved beyond.
> We all are "Ex's" in one way or the other.  We also continue to be imperfect.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 18, 2008)

If the offenses were very, very long ago, and there is proof that the person has changed...

I would not want anyone that had a recent offense, like in the past 10-15 years...

How about an Ex-Rapist?
How about an Ex-Murder?

The list could go on and on...

The person that committed the offense should also understand that what they did, is not easy for people to accept, and understand that it might not be realistic to be in the ministry, and have people understand...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> So you see no problem with a "Saved" Ex-child molestor working in a Church?  You are kidding right?



Why did you put "Saved" in quotes, Dawg?  Either he is or he isn't.  Why does what he did before salvation have any bearing on what he's doing now?

You guys are assuming that he's STILL involved in his past sin.  Obviously I'm not going to let a guy who is currently molesting children work with kids.  That's just dumb.  

If I'm honest, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with him being near my kids.  But the question is, is that because I'm judging him and condemning him out of my sinful nature or is there some biblical basis for me not allowing it.  That is what I'm asking.

I agree, there definitely needs to be a "season" between the offense and the time he's allowed to serve so that he can get his life straight and make sure he is in God's will.  

I suppose the underlying question is are we allowed to show prejudice against certain outward sins?

On the question of a divorced pastor, IMO, if he didn't make the decision for divorce...if his wife left and he did not approve of the divorce, I don't see that one either.

But let's stick to the question at hand as best we can.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 18, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Why did you put "Saved" in quotes, Dawg?  Either he is or he isn't.  Why does what he did before salvation have any bearing on what he's doing now?
> 
> You guys are assuming that he's STILL involved in his past sin.  Obviously I'm not going to let a guy who is currently molesting children work with kids.  That's just dumb.
> 
> If I'm honest, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with him being near my kids.  But the question is, is that because I'm judging him and condemning him out of my sinful nature or is there some biblical basis for me not allowing it.  That is what I'm asking.



You can take the quotes away if it makes you happy, but look up millstone in your bible.  Something Jesus talked about.

There is no way I would allow any SAVED ex-child molester near my kids.  Period.


----------



## Bodab1974 (Sep 18, 2008)

If he is saved,  if he has repented and has changed,  then that is absolutely wonderfull.  I would cheer for him,   I would thank God that he has helped this disturbed individual.  I would welcome him to worship with me.  

But this individual, because of his past, should in no way hold a leadership position in any church.  

Just because you are not a Pastor or a Deacon does not mean you cannot worship God, it simply means that you do not lead a flock.  



Huntinfool said:


> Why did you put "Saved" in quotes, Dawg?  Either he is or he isn't.  Why does what he did before salvation have any bearing on what he's doing now?
> 
> You guys are assuming that he's STILL involved in his past sin.  Obviously I'm not going to let a guy who is currently molesting children work with kids.  That's just dumb.
> 
> If I'm honest, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with him being near my kids.  But the question is, is that because I'm judging him and condemning him out of my sinful nature or is there some biblical basis for me not allowing it.  That is what I'm asking.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> You can take the quotes away if it makes you happy, but look up millstone in your bible.  Something Jesus talked about.



He said it would have been better to tie a millstone around his neck and be throw into the sea than to have caused a child to sin.

Is that any sin or are you just reading it as 'molestation'?  Look, it's a horrible thing.  I agree and if it happened to my kids I'd want to hurt somebody in the worst possible way.

But I'm not asking if you would let your kids participate.  That's your choice as a parent.  I'm asking is there a biblical reason why he cannot minister?


----------



## JustUs4All (Sep 18, 2008)

There is room for the fox, but not in the chicken house.


----------



## Bodab1974 (Sep 18, 2008)

JustUs4All said:


> There is room for the fox, but not in the chicken house.




EXACTLY


----------



## MudDucker (Sep 18, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> My take.
> 
> Being an ex-homosexual is like being an ex-adulterer.  Both have sinned; both asked for forgiveness; both repented.  After a period of spiritual refreshing and refocusing their lives, I would love to give either of them the opportunity to reach their full potential in service to God and the church.
> The church would be wrong to not hire him because of a sinful past that he has moved beyond.
> We all are "Ex's" in one way or the other.  We also continue to be imperfect.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

JustUs4All said:


> There is room for the fox, but not in the chicken house.



That's well put.  


But is there a biblical reason?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 18, 2008)

Which sins are you allowed to have in your past and still be in the ministry and which are you not allowed and be in the ministry?

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 18, 2008)

We should forgive as God forgives, but I know with our sinful nature that is not easily done..

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> You can take the quotes away if it makes you happy, but look up millstone in your bible.  Something Jesus talked about.
> 
> There is no way I would allow any SAVED ex-child molester near my kids.  Period.





Huntinfool said:


> He said it would have been better to tie a millstone around his neck and be throw into the sea than to have caused a child to sin.
> 
> Is that any sin or are you just reading it as 'molestation'?  Look, it's a horrible thing.  I agree and if it happened to my kids I'd want to hurt somebody in the worst possible way.
> 
> But I'm not asking if you would let your kids participate.  That's your choice as a parent.  I'm asking is there a biblical reason why he cannot minister?



It is any sin against a child or a naive person that would lead them astray.  I agree with Dawg, I wouldn't let my child near that person.  It would be dangerous for a church to allow an ex-molestor to work with children...opens them up to a myriad of lawsuits.  It is my belief that a church should run background checks on all people who work in the children's ministry...everyone from SS teachers to nursery workers to those who help out with Awana on Wednesday nights.

Now, back to the original question.  I think I lean with DB BB on this one.  It is a sin of homosexuality.  How deep the person was in on it....before they were saved etc etc all play into the equation, but I would have to say that a long long period of time would have to pass.  This person would have to show themselves and prove themselves as truly changed through ministering to the church in other ways before I'd be willing to accept them back into a leadership position.  And I'm not sure working with the youth is the best position for that type of changed person to be in.  Maybe working with older more mature people would be the place.

Again, anytime a person has struggled with sin and repented, much time should be taken and much examination should be made to insure that the person is truly repentant.  I'm not saying keep them from helping out and ministering to others through various things, but teaching...much much time.  Can't error on the side of too much time.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 18, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> It is any sin against a child or a naive person that would lead them astray. I agree with Dawg, I wouldn't let my child near that person. It would be dangerous for a church to allow an ex-molestor to work with children...opens them up to a myriad of lawsuits. It is my belief that a church should run background checks on all people who work in the children's ministry...everyone from SS teachers to nursery workers to those who help out with Awana on Wednesday nights.
> 
> Now, back to the original question. I think I lean with DB BB on this one. It is a sin of homosexuality. How deep the person was in on it....before they were saved etc etc all play into the equation, but I would have to say that a long long period of time would have to pass. This person would have to show themselves and prove themselves as truly changed through ministering to the church in other ways before I'd be willing to accept them back into a leadership position. And I'm not sure working with the youth is the best position for that type of changed person to be in. Maybe working with older more mature people would be the place.
> 
> Again, anytime a person has struggled with sin and repented, much time should be taken and much examination should be made to insure that the person is truly repentant. I'm not saying keep them from helping out and ministering to others through various things, but teaching...much much time. Can't error on the side of too much time.


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## BookHound (Sep 18, 2008)

Isn't being ex-homosexual like being ex-diabetic?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

Here's my thought on some of this.  If, say, I were an adulteror.  The Bible tells me that I should run from sin.  Now, I've repented, been forgiven and walked away from that lifestyle long ago.  

BUT, I know that one of my weak areas...one of the ways that Satan will try to attack me (because he will find weakesses) is through women who exhibit a certain personality type, etc.  

So if I were to willingly put myself in a position where I was going to be ministering to women, whether in groups or alone, I would most likely be opening myself up to Satan creeping in very slowly and in very subtle ways.  Since the Bible clearly tells me that I am to run from sin, I should not allow myself to be put in a situation that might cause me to stumble and I think that it would also be considered the responsibility of the leadership of the church to not allow me to be put in that situation as well....for my own good.

SO, after thinking about it and doing some Bible study, I would say, no a former child-molester should not be allowed to minister to children.  But not as punishment for his past sins and not because I think he'll do it again.  But because I would be blatantly exposing him to something that has exhibited itself as a weakness for him in the past.  I would be opening him up to attack by Satan and I would be doing HIM a dis-service.

I think it's easier to make that determination in the case of an adulteror or a child molestor.  Murderer?  Homosexual?  Well, you can't not expose them to ANY people?  That would be harder for me to make a decision on and would require a lot of thought and prayer.  Glad I can leave that stuff up to the elders!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 18, 2008)

BookHound said:


> Isn't being ex-homosexual like being ex-diabetic?


 

depends on if you believe it is a choice or if someone is born with it..

diabetics are not always born diabetics either...

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

BookHound said:


> Isn't being ex-homosexual like being ex-diabetic?



Depends on if you view it as a lifestyle choice or a genetic trait.  But let's not go there.

Either way, he's not "practicing" and wholey admits that it was a sinful lifestyle and has turned from it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Again, anytime a person has struggled with sin and repented, much time should be taken and much examination should be made to insure that the person is truly repentant.  I'm not saying keep them from helping out and ministering to others through various things, but teaching...much much time.  Can't error on the side of too much time.



Let me add to this.  One other thing that sometime muddies the waters is the fact of paying a staff member.  I think a way that you can help discern if a person is truly repentant of a sin that would disqualify them from the ministry or seriously set them back, would be the fact that they are willing to start with the little things.  Help set-up chairs on Wednesday night.  Help with the Wednesday night supper.  Help with the sound ministry.  Help hand out bulletins on Sunday morning.  Help with visitations to those that are home-bound members.  Help with the prison ministry.  All NON-PAID ministry positions.  Often times, the person will claim repentance and a desire to get back into the ministry to receive a paycheck.

Another thing that I think would help determine the repentance of the person was if they were "Caught" in the sin and repented because they were caught.  Or if they were in secret sin, repented and because of their repentance, it became known.  Yes....you can't judge a man's motives, but again, often times people will be sorry they got caught, not sorry for the sin they committed.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Another thing that I think would help determine the repentance of the person was if they were "Caught" in the sin and repented because they were caught.  Or if they were in secret sin, repented and because of their repentance, it became known.
> 
> 
> Yes....you can't judge a man's motives, but again, often times people will be sorry they got caught, not sorry for the sin they committed.




I broke this into two parts.  No details because it's personal and in the past.  You guys already know I've been up front and center with some church discipline.

I wish had repented of my own conscience, but didn't.  It has no bearing on whether my repentence was real or not.

Now the second part I totally agree with.  People often say they are "sorry".  But many times they are sorry they got caught, not because of what they've done.  The discerning factor is the difference between "sorrow" and "Godly sorrow".  They are entirely different.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Here's my thought on some of this.  If, say, I were an adulteror.  The Bible tells me that I should run from sin.  Now, I've repented, been forgiven and walked away from that lifestyle long ago.
> 
> BUT, I know that one of my weak areas...one of the ways that Satan will try to attack me (because he will find weakesses) is through women who exhibit a certain personality type, etc.
> 
> So if I were to willingly put myself in a position where I was going to be ministering to women, whether in groups or alone, I would most likely be opening myself up to Satan creeping in very slowly and in very subtle ways.  Since the Bible clearly tells me that I am to run from sin, I should not allow myself to be put in a situation that might cause me to stumble and I think that it would also be considered the responsibility of the leadership of the church to not allow me to be put in that situation as well....for my own good.



I guess that is one of the reasons the Bible disqualifies someone who has been an adulterer.  Kinda hard to minister to a church when half the people in there are female.

I see you are starting to change your opinions on the "husband of one wife" thing now as well as the seeker sensitive arguement  Two changes today....wow...I guess your answering your own post as to if people are changing their mind on things through the debates on this forum


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I broke this into two parts.  No details because it's personal and in the past.  You guys already know I've been up front and center with some church discipline.
> 
> I wish had repented of my own conscience, but didn't.  It has no bearing on whether my repentence was real or not.
> 
> Now the second part I totally agree with.  People often say they are "sorry".  But many times they are sorry they got caught, not because of what they've done.  The discerning factor is the difference between "sorrow" and "Godly sorrow".  They are entirely different.



Huntinfool, 
Not my intent to dig into details...just put it down there as something to consider.  Not my intent to bring up personal things from the past either.  I know from other threads that you have had church discipline experiences.  It wasn't my intent to bring that up or in anyway point a finger at you.  Please forgive me if you took it that way.

I think that from the responses and threads you've had on here, your repentance was real.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

Didn't take that personally buddy.  No worries.  Just wanted to point out that I don't think whether it was "discovered" has any bearing on the sincerity of repentance.  I was just giving a personal example.  That's all.

Me?  Change my mind?  Nah, I'm too "liberal" and "sarcastic" for that!!!!

Perhaps I'm changing my OWN mind through careful study.  On the divorce thing, what I was saying was I don't have an issue with a pastor being divorced.  In today's world, there is nothing he can do if he opposes it, but his wife wants out.  If he opposed it, then there is not an issue.  In biblical times, he could simply say "nope"...and she wasn't going anywhere!!!!!


----------



## Banjo (Sep 18, 2008)

> What about an "ex-child molestor" ??



I would wonder why an "ex-child molester" wanted to be involved in children's ministry.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Perhaps I'm changing my OWN mind through careful study.  On the divorce thing, what I was saying was I don't have an issue with a pastor being divorced.  In today's world, there is nothing he can do if he opposes it, but his wife wants out.  If he opposed it, then there is not an issue.  In biblical times, he could simply say "nope"...and she wasn't going anywhere!!!!!



Maybe this belongs in your change thread, but I'm in the same boat as you...this forum has caused much thought and personal study that has either confirmed my position or slightly changed  my previous position on matters.

As far as divorce, I'm still not sure on the husband opposed it and the wife left him, it being okay to get back into ministry.  Each situation is different and here I am again with my broad brush, but it takes two to tango.  What was the husband doing that drove his wife away?  Often times, it is little things that go on for many years that finally push a marriage to its breaking point.  Sometimes one party doesn't even know it is going on until it is "too late."


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

Let's get off the question of child molester.  I think I've settled that for myself.  But what about the youth minister who used to be a practicing homosexual?

If he's clearly preaching that the homosexual lifestyle is not God honoring and is sinful, then he's not "recruiting" them or anything.  Is there an issue?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

I think that time is of great importance on the issue.  Time must pass to ensure he is truly a changed person.

And again, I don't know if teaching to kids that have such impressionable minds is the best thing.  Even if he says it is wrong...it might be enough for a kid to say "well, he did it for a while and he's repented and okay, maybe I'll just do it for a while and it will be okay as well."

Again, it is a tough call.  As I type this out, I think of using drugs, or being a drunkard...how is that any different.  Would my answer to that be similar?  I don't know.  

My answer....time time time time time time time time time.  Especially if the person says that they were a christian during this time of sin.  If the person was not saved, can't expect them to act like a saved person.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 18, 2008)

"Minister" implies a leader. Scripture has qualifications for those. One of them is not that they are young men. They are to be experienced. I take that to also mean that they should not be "young" Christians. Therefore, in the case of a saved ex-homosexual, I would think that after "time" has elapsed and they had shown themselves to be truly repentent of that sin through proper fruit-bearing, then I could see where they could teach. Would probably be a powerful testimony as well.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Sep 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> "Minister" implies a leader. Scripture has qualifications for those. One of them is not that they are young men. They are to be experienced. I take that to also mean that they should not be "young" Christians. Therefore, in the case of a saved ex-homosexual, I would think that after "time" has elapsed and they had shown themselves to be truly repentent of that sin through proper fruit-bearing, then I could see where they could teach. Would probably be a powerful testimony as well.




 I agree, There must be a pretty lengthy time of restoration involved and like any of the rest of us who have a relationship with Christ there should be abundant fruit visible.


----------



## Big Texun (Sep 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> "Minister" implies a leader. Scripture has qualifications for those. One of them is not that they are young men. They are to be experienced. I take that to also mean that they should not be "young" Christians. Therefore, in the case of a saved ex-homosexual, I would think that after "time" has elapsed and they had shown themselves to be truly repentent of that sin through proper fruit-bearing, then I could see where they could teach. Would probably be a powerful testimony as well.



As the one who inadvertently started this thread, I'll give more context.

This particular music minister was terrific. He was a young man, probably in his late 20's, and by all appearances... on fire for the Lord. We loved him and still do. My wife sang in the choir, I played the bass in the church orchestra. The guy could sing like a bird.

His past life had been kept a strict secret from the congregation. We only learned of it by my wife's "stumbling upon" a local daytime christian TV show...  You'll note that in this TV show, our "repentant minister" was not there as a minister... but as an individual... and an anonymous individual at that.

He was a young and attractive man. The only woman in the church he was "involved with" was a 60 plus year old widow woman that had a lot of money. They were very close "buddies".... she bought him a lot of gifts... and he bought his male roommate a lot of gifts. Enough so that I thought it very odd, even before the "TV show revealing."

After the TV show, my wife and I arranged for a private meeting with the pastor and the head deacon. They had known all along of the young man's past and had chosen to keep it a secret. While the head deacon looked at the floor, the pastor asked us about forgiveness? Like many of you, I said, "I deeply love this man. However, I do not think it prudent for you to secretly send him to supervise my young son alone in a hotel room... especially so when his life bears no witness to the fact that he has really changed." I then asked the pastor to show me examples of where the music minister was demonstrating a real life change." The pastor just looked at his feet.

I asked the pastor about specific bills that weren't being paid. He got mad and started yelling. Then he started crying. Then he started yelling. The head deacon just continued to look at his feet.

I went to church during an off time, got my bass and amp... We've never been back since. When old church members called us to complain about what was going on back at the old church, we'd never tell them why we left. We'd only say, "We've found a much better church home; we'd love for you to come join us." Some did; some are still there complaining.

The head deacon is still blindly following his "man of God"... even though he KNOWS that he isn't following a true man of God. He was just raised that way... (I know, cause he told me).


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

Hope you know I wasn't singling you out or anything.  It was the phrasing that got me thinking.  Wasn't passing judgement on you or how you handled it.  I was just curious what others thought on the issue.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 18, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> As the one who inadvertently started this thread, I'll give more context.
> 
> This particular music minister was terrific. He was a young man, probably in his late 20's, and by all appearances... on fire for the Lord. We loved him and still do. My wife sang in the choir, I played the bass in the church orchestra. The guy could sing like a bird.
> 
> ...



That "church" definately had/has issues. Starts at the top. When a man of God doesn't stand up for the Word and the principles It preaches, then "things" happen.


----------



## Big Texun (Sep 18, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Hope you know I wasn't singling you out or anything.  It was the phrasing that got me thinking.  Wasn't passing judgement on you or how you handled it.  I was just curious what others thought on the issue.



No problem whatsoever. I'd sincerely like to know how I should have handled it. All suggestions are welcome!


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

PWalls said:


> That "church" definately had/has issues. Starts at the top. When a man of God doesn't stand up for the Word and the principles It preaches, then "things" happen.



I agree and that's why I wanted to look at this independent of the specific issues of that church.  Man it sounds like there were all kinds of crazy things going on.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 18, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> No problem whatsoever. I'd sincerely like to know how I should have handled it. All suggestions are welcome!



You did what I would have done.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 18, 2008)

Me too probably....except I would have grabbed my drumsticks.  I'd have been stealing if I grabbed the bass!


----------



## Jeffriesw (Sep 18, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> No problem whatsoever. I'd sincerely like to know how I should have handled it. All suggestions are welcome!



I think you handled it very well!


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

Big Tex,
I didn't totally follow the story that you referenced....I'm missing the other thread...but I think I understand what you did.  You left because the leadership wasn't standing up for the truth.  I applaud your spiritual leadership and leading your family in the way you needed to go, even though tough.

I've been in that position more times than I would like to admit.  The only thing that I might have done differently was to go to each of the elders/deacons and tell them the reason you were leaving.  The ruling body of the church should know the truth and the reason why you were leaving.

The reason that I say this is that I was part of a church where people were leaving based on issues they had with the pastor and one of the elders (the associate pastor).  However, other elders were left in the dark by the pastor and associate pastor and the people leaving assumed that the communication between the elders/pastors was taking place.  Unfortunately, it wasn't and the two pastors ended up steamrolling the other elders until they were the only two.  

I only look back thinking if the people who left would have met with all of the elders, the pastor/pastors would have been asked to leave long before the church was run into the ground.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 18, 2008)

I would have done the same thing.

DB BB


----------



## Big Texun (Sep 18, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I've been in that position more times than I would like to admit.  The only thing that I might have done differently was to go to each of the elders/deacons and tell them the reason you were leaving.  The ruling body of the church should know the truth and the reason why you were leaving.



In this particular church, there was (and is) no ruling body. All deacons had signed the same pledge; the one that said they would never disagree with any of the pastor's decisions.

After we left, several of the deacons came by our house... one at a time... to discuss it. Individually, they ALL agreed that we were right to leave. Yet, they all remained because to a man, they were all raised to "follow the man of God", no matter what.


----------



## StriperAddict (Sep 18, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> So you see no problem with a "Saved" Ex-child molestor working in a Church? You are kidding right?


 
Guess you've forgotten that King David (of whom the family line came up to Christ) was an adulterer and contributed to the murder of Uriah?

I'm not suggesting throwing caution to the wind, but when God annoints a man to an 'office', as He did with David, who are we to suggest God made a mistake?


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 18, 2008)

StriperAddict said:


> Guess you've forgotten that King David (of whom the family line came up to Christ) was an adulterer and contributed to the murder of Uriah?
> 
> I'm not suggesting throwing caution to the wind, but when God annoints a man to an 'office', as He did with David, who are we to suggest God made a mistake?



I'll settle up with God when I get there, but while I breathe and live on this rock, I will take no chances with my kids.  PERIOD.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 18, 2008)

Big Texun said:


> In this particular church, there was (and is) no ruling body. All deacons had signed the same pledge; the one that said they would never disagree with any of the pastor's decisions.
> 
> After we left, several of the deacons came by our house... one at a time... to discuss it. Individually, they ALL agreed that we were right to leave. Yet, they all remained because to a man, they were all raised to "follow the man of God", no matter what.



Gotcha.....with that further explanation, I totally agree that you did the right thing.  

Amazing how important it is to set up a church government as is given in the NT church model.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 18, 2008)

Isn't it shocking that homosexuality is included in this list of more familiar sinners.


1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
 8On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. 
 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 
 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 

I've never been in the position to deal with a repentant, forgiven homosexual but if/when I do, I will make every effort to deal with the situation the way God would will.  That's what I must do.  I have no alternative.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 18, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I'll settle up with God when I get there, but while I breathe and live on this rock, I will take no chances with my kids.  PERIOD.



Ummmmmm  You don't settle up with God, God settles up with you/me.
It's never simply about settling up with God, it's about living our lives for God.  Kinda like Abraham leading his young son up the mountain side.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 18, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Which sins are you allowed to have in your past and still be in the ministry and which are you not allowed and be in the ministry?
> 
> DB BB



Thought you guy's always say "sin is sin" - so
I guess NONE OF US CAN PASTOR!


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Which sins are you allowed to have in your past and still be in the ministry and which are you not allowed and be in the ministry?
> 
> DB BB





Big7 said:


> Thought you guy's always say "sin is sin" - so
> I guess NONE OF US CAN PASTOR!



Read I Tim 3 For what the qualifications of a Pastor and Overseer are.

As far as you comment of sin is sin..yes it is.  Read James 2:10-11
If you commit one sin, you are guilty of breaking the whole law....and the penalty of eternal separation from God is demanded.


Boy, all that popcorn and this really didn't turn into much of a show.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Sep 19, 2008)

Big7 said:


> Thought you guy's always say "sin is sin" - so
> I guess NONE OF US CAN PASTOR!


 
I posted the question to is if anyone would bite....

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

That is why I asked the original question.  I DO believe sin is sin.  So I don't think you can discriminate based on the sin.

BUT, I don't see any issue with helping someone stay away from something or someone who has shown themselves to cause them to stumble in the past.  

Just because you've repented and been forgiven, does not mean you don't still have weaknesses.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 19, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> That is why I asked the original question.  I DO believe sin is sin.  So I don't think you can discriminate based on the sin.
> 
> BUT, I don't see any issue with helping someone stay away from something or someone who has shown themselves to cause them to stumble in the past.
> 
> Just because you've repented and been forgiven, does not mean you don't still have weaknesses.



So apparently, based on some folks logic in here, if you stole a piece of bubble gum when you were 6 OR were a homosexual OR were a child molestor, they are all equal.  Ridiculous.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 19, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Ummmmmm  You don't settle up with God, God settles up with you/me.
> It's never simply about settling up with God, it's about living our lives for God.  Kinda like Abraham leading his young son up the mountain side.



Trust me, I know just a little bit.  But I'll bet you He will understand when I say I protected my family from evil, real or otherwise, as a precaution and NEVER took a chance on somene's alleged "profession" of new found religion / God and dumped my kid in a room with an "ex" molestor working at a church.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Ridiculous.



To you and me.  To our human understanding.

But not to God IMO.  It goes to condition of the heart.  I suppose simply eating some fruit when God tells you not to is "ridiculous" as well?  

Was it REALLY that bad to eat the fruit?  Wasn't that the question Satan asked Eve?  Wasn't that the logic she used?  "Well, it's ONLY eating a piece of fruit"....stealing a piece of bubble gum.

You following me?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Trust me, I know just a little bit.  But I'll bet you He will understand when I say I protected my family from evil, real or otherwise, as a precaution and NEVER took a chance on somene's alleged "profession" of new found religion / God and dumped my kid in a room with an "ex" molestor working at a church.



Dawg, you keep using quotes around important words.  You're assuming the conversion isn't real.  If he's truly repented and been saved and delivered from that sin, who are you to judge whether his salvation is "alleged"?  You're making an aweful lot of decisions for God today buddy.

Nobody is blaming you for not allowing your kids to be in the same area as a former sinner.  That's not the issue.  Your assumption that anybody who commits a "really bad" sin must be faking it is a little disturbing though.


----------



## StriperAddict (Sep 19, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Nobody is blaming you for not allowing your kids to be in the same area as a former sinner. That's not the issue. Your assumption that anybody who commits a "really bad" sin must be faking it is a little disturbing though.


 
Same here.  God can 'save to the uttermost' those who call on Him.  But I would not hesitate for a min. to background anyone taking care of kids.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 19, 2008)

Not that He can't or won't, but I have a hard time believing that God would call a former, practicing homosexual into a ministry where he would have easy access to boys or young men. (I understand that "gay" doesn't mean "pedophile" and vis-a-versa.)

 While God may test us for purposes of teaching and growing us, and even showing others that we glorify Him in our suffering, He does not tempt us to evil. The pastor, if he knows about this issue, is showing incredibly poor judgment, IMHO. 

One would think that this man in his late 20's would understand that he exposes himself and the church to a great deal of pain. In my limited experience with this sort of thing, God has most often closed doors for people who disqualify themselves from positions of church authority by their behavior. Forgiveness does not always result in full restoration of opportunities. Moses was probably the most favored man of God during his life, and yet God did not let him cross the Jordan into Canaan. David would not be allowed to build the Temple.

Never the less, someone else has responsibility for that decision, not me. 

Peace be unto you and yours.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Trust me, I know just a little bit.  But I'll bet you He will understand when I say I protected my family from evil, real or otherwise, as a precaution and NEVER took a chance on somene's alleged "profession" of new found religion / God and dumped my kid in a room with an "ex" molestor working at a church.



I'm talking about an ex-homosexual, not child molester.
And don't be so sure God will understand.  Are you so filled with worldly thinking and motives that God will realize that you cannot mentally become what He wants all His children to become?


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 19, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Not that He can't or won't, but I have a hard time believing that God would call a former, practicing homosexual into a ministry where he would have easy access to boys or young men. (I understand that "gay" doesn't mean "pedophile" and vis-a-versa.)
> 
> While God may test us for purposes of teaching and growing us, and even showing others that we glorify Him in our suffering, He does not tempt us to evil. The pastor, if he knows about this issue, is showing incredibly poor judgment, IMHO.
> 
> ...






I have a hard time believing God did many of the things He did.  But, He did them.
Your thinking is worldly thinking..... not Godly thinking.

Why would a man such as Saul be chosen to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles?  He had been a destroyer of Christians.  Now the church had to beleive he had been called by Christ.  Many of you would have sent Paul on his way.
Living for Christ means making tough decisions at times.  But they have to be made.
God will judge you the way you are able to judge.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

Let's all calm down a little.


I think it goes back to "would being in this position possibly expose me to something that I am weak against?"  If the answer is yes, then perhaps it's not a good idea.  But it's not punishment.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 19, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Dawg, you keep using quotes around important words.  You're assuming the conversion isn't real.  If he's truly repented and been saved and delivered from that sin, who are you to judge whether his salvation is "alleged"?  You're making an aweful lot of decisions for God today buddy..



See red above, you just did the same thing.  "IF"

I would prefer to "err" on the side of caution when it comes to "reformed" people and be sure not to allow them to stumble especially at my expense.




Huntinfool said:


> ...Nobody is blaming you for not allowing your kids to be in the same area as a former sinner.  That's not the issue.  Your assumption that anybody who commits a "really bad" sin must be faking it is a little disturbing though.



Actually you are the one making the assumptions on behalf of me.  What I am saying is that there are some sins that regardless of them being saved or not, would severely limit the way they are allowed access to my family or business.  Just because they jump in a pool in the back of a church and come skipping up to me telling me they have found Jesus, does not mean I am going to give them a key to my house and the PIN numbers for my bank accounts.

Understand now?


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 19, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I'm talking about an ex-homosexual, not child molester.
> And don't be so sure God will understand.  Are you so filled with worldly thinking and motives that God will realize that you cannot mentally become what He wants all His children to become?



I don't have a problem with a reformed homosexual.  

You sure do make a lot of accusations with your worldly thinking comments.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> See red above, you just did the same thing.  "IF"
> 
> I would prefer to "err" on the side of caution when it comes to "reformed" people and be sure not to allow them to stumble especially at my expense.
> 
> ...



WOW!!! What a skeptic!  "Just because they jump in a pool"?  That's an aweful flippant way for you, especially, to refer to baptism.  I thought you guys were big proponents of all that stuff.  Would you take offense if I called Communion "eating a cracker and drinking some juice"?

You didn't answer my question about Eve.  Was just eating a piece of fruit all that bad?  





Like I've said before...nobody is blaming you for wanting to protect your kids and, as far as I know, no one has espoused putting a former child molester in the nursery.  What we're asking is does the sin preclude them from ministry in the church?

I'm here all day folks!


----------



## gtparts (Sep 19, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I have a hard time believing God did many of the things He did.  But, He did them.
> Your thinking is worldly thinking..... not Godly thinking.
> 
> Why would a man such as Saul be chosen to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles?  He had been a destroyer of Christians.  Now the church had to beleive (sic) he had been called by Christ.  Many of you would have sent Paul on his way.
> ...



I appreciate the labels you attached to my thinking but you must have missed the tenor of my comments re: Moses and David. God made the determination, not I. As for Paul, God made the determination, not I. God will use whom God wills to use, given their cooperation ( don't take that as an opportunity to start more of that contentious and disagreeable blather). I did not fully discount that God may be using this particular young man for His specific purpose. It is just that Saul/Paul is a unique situation as are Moses and David. Do you not see that God caused the sin to be exposed for each of these men and while He forgives and then restores the relationship, they still face whatever  God deems is appropriate as earthly physical consequences of that sin? It's the action of sovereign God.

 This young man with the aid of the senior pastor sought to conceal his past from the congregation.  What prompted such action? Fear? Fear is not of God.

What a missed opportunity to openly teach the love of Christ. Perhaps they knew the congregation too well. Let those who are without sin cast the first stone.

I make no judgment of this situation, neither do I condemn ; only to say ,it is a difficult one from many perspectives.

Peace be unto you and yours


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2008)

gtparts said:


> while He forgives and then restores the relationship, they still face whatever  God deems is appropriate as earthly physical consequences of that sin.



Ahh...what so many who toss out the "we should be quick to forgive and forget" fail to remember.  Sin has consequences that sometimes last for a lifetime.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

Would should be quick to forgive.  Forgetting is an entirely different issue IMO.  Forgiveness is mandated biblically.  Nobody said it has to be forgotten.  

The "sea of forgetfullness" is not there.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Just because they jump in a pool in the back of a church and come skipping up to me telling me they have found Jesus, does not mean I am going to give them a key to my house and the PIN numbers for my bank accounts.



Our pool is in the front. 

Nobody should give them the key to the house or the PIN numbers. But, you are not allowing for true repentence if you say "never" as you did earlier. Fruit-bearing is how we are to discern.

Now, don't get me wrong. I fully understand erring on the side of caution. I also feel that the individual in question should fully understand that as well. Consequence of their action/sin.


----------



## Keith48 (Sep 19, 2008)

If someone is disqualified to serve because of past sin or lifestyle, then no one on this planet is qualified to serve. No one.


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I don't have a problem with a reformed homosexual.
> 
> You sure do make a lot of accusations with your worldly thinking comments.




I'm not making an assumption.  Either I forgive the way Jesus forgives, or I forgive the way the world forgives.


----------



## Big7 (Sep 19, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Read I Tim 3 For what the qualifications of a Pastor and Overseer are.
> 
> As far as you comment of sin is sin..yes it is.  Read James 2:10-11
> If you commit one sin, you are guilty of breaking the whole law....and the penalty of eternal separation from God is demanded.
> ...



So...
My point is - if sin is sin is sin, etc...
And WE ALL SIN.....

Jesus is the ONLY one (*as some say) that has NEVER sinned.... 
*Some believe the Virgin Mary was also free from sin...

Jesus and The Virgin Mary are in Heaven, no doubt....

WHO'S LEFT HERE ON THIS EARTH THAT CAN PASTOR
SINCE WE HAVE ALL SINNED?

I don't need to re-read James again. I know what the verses say.
I know what I believe.

My question to you remains if sin is sin who can Pastor?

Here's you some more popcorn to chew on. 


All I want to know is who - not Bible verses to read.
Thanks!


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 19, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Our pool is in the front.
> 
> Nobody should give them the key to the house or the PIN numbers. But, you are not allowing for true repentence if you say "never" as you did earlier. Fruit-bearing is how we are to discern.
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong. I fully understand erring on the side of caution. I also feel that the individual in question should fully understand that as well. Consequence of their action/sin.



"Never" will always apply to a child molestor around my kids or family.  I would never take that chance.


----------



## gtparts (Sep 19, 2008)

*What?*



Keith48 said:


> If someone is disqualified to serve because of past sin or lifestyle, then no one on this planet is qualified to serve. No one.



Where is Spock when you need him?

 If God disqualifies any single individual from a specific service(role of authority) for what ever reason, it can not be concluded that all are excluded, not even for the same reason. 

God IS! And He does as He wills according to His purpose.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> "Never" will always apply to a child molestor around my kids or family.  I would never take that chance.



I got three of them. I COMPLETELY understand what you are saying. And, I will not sit here and say that I would do anything different from you. As a matter of fact, it would probably take a "road to damascus" kinda experience before that belief would change.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 19, 2008)

Big7 said:


> My question to you remains if sin is sin who can Pastor?



I hate popcorn. Too salty. Definately not good for you with the amount of butter I have to put on it to eat it.

I believe that only people that are "called" by God can be a Pastor. By the way, all Pastors are sinners.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

PWalls said:


> By the way, all Pastors are sinners.





How dare you!


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2008)

Big7 said:


> So...
> My point is - if sin is sin is sin, etc...
> And WE ALL SIN.....
> 
> ...




Right at lunch time and I still need to take my break.  Popcorn does sound good.  Thanks for the extra 

When I say, and I might presume a few others on this board say, that all sin is equal, we are talking about the daming powers of sin.  Like James 2:10 says, you keep the law in all but one thing, your guilty of the whole law.

When we talk of sin that disqualifies a pastor, we are looking at the text in I Tim 3.  Husband of one wife, manages his household well etc etc.  If a man can't do these things, how can he lead the body of Christ?

Now, I figure you know this, but are asking to see if I am going to say something right or something that you can further prove your point.  Am I right?
And I don't mind if this is the case, I'm guilty of it too.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2008)

Dawg
I agree with you in that my kids would never sit in the classroom of a child molestor either...as long as I can help it, won't ever happen.

I think that the way you put the emphasis on it and the emoticons almost as if you were shaking your fist at God, is what got a few of us disagreeing with you.

Not the message, just the method.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Dawg
> I agree with you in that my kids would never sit in the classroom of a child molestor either...as long as I can help it, won't ever happen.
> 
> I think that the way you put the emphasis on it and the emoticons almost as if you were shaking your fist at God, is what got a few of us disagreeing with you.
> ...



Yep...that's kind of what I'm getting at.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 19, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Dawg
> I agree with you in that my kids would never sit in the classroom of a child molestor either...as long as I can help it, won't ever happen.
> 
> I think that the way you put the emphasis on it and the emoticons almost as if you were shaking your fist at God, is what got a few of us disagreeing with you.
> ...



Sorry for the confusion, I was not doing that.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Sorry for the confusion, I was not doing that.



Didn't think so....as to why I didn't post beforehand.  Just wanted the others to realize this as well.

See, we can be brethren 

Break out the campfire....lets sing Kumbaya....we're back to all agreeing now.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> You're toasting with apple juice, right?  It's not beer....'cause that's a sin.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> rjcruiser said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



They're rootbeer floats


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 19, 2008)

Good....just wanted to make sure we weren't toasting with alcohol.


----------



## HuntDawg (Sep 20, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I read this phrase in another thread and it got me thinking (dangerous, I know).
> 
> 
> The phrase was used in reference to a youth minister who was hired by a church who was an admitted "ex-homosexual".
> ...



They will be wrong to hire him, because he is not being truthful.  If he said he is an ex practicing homosexual, then that is a different story.  

Can I be an ex-heterosexual.  NO.  I can be an ex practicing heterosexual, but not an ex-heterosexual.  I am sure I am ruffleing some feathers and may be off topic, but I believe if you have the feelings for men, then you will always have the feelings for men.  Just as I will always have feelings for women.  I will never have feelings for men.  So, my premise is this due needs to let the church know what he means.  If he is an ex practicing homosexual, then they have a decision to make according to their church doctrine.  If he says he is an ex-homesexual, then don't hire him, he is not telling the truth.

I will always be a heterosexual.  I never made the decision to like women in the first place.  If I did indeed make the decision, then it is a decision that I must make everyday, not just once.  Ofcourse, I do not have to make this decision everyday, becuase there was never a decision to make.


----------



## duckcrazy (Sep 23, 2008)

So someone who was an alcoholic or had premarital sex as a teenager could not later be called by God into a position of teaching other teenagers about the dangers of alcohol or premarital sex?


----------



## discounthunter (Sep 24, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> I'll settle up with God when I get there, but while I breathe and live on this rock, I will take no chances with my kids.  PERIOD.



pocket religion.do as i say not as i do. i will do as i feel .but ill freely jump on the bandwagon if it suits me .


----------



## BRANCHWYNN (Sep 24, 2008)

the problem with child molestors...is that they are predators and manipulators. There is a huge difference between an adulturer and a child molestor. As a convicted X child molestor...this gentlemen understands NOW...that he should never be surprised by others not putting him in a position to be in contact with children without super-vision....slavation does not eliminate one from paying for their past sins. GOD forgives us for the confessed sin...HE does not change the SIN that has been committed...that SIN does not vanish, and we all must deal with the consequences of our past SIN. He may grant GRACE to us to help us through life to deal with who we were and lead us in directions we would have never taken in the OLD MAN....ex. if a person molest a child and 5 years later, he is saved and born again....should he still be tryed and convicted? I think we can all agree...people may do the time for the molesting of a child........but this imprisonment is in no way a fair swap for the act that has been committed...5 10 20 30 40 50 years, will never settle the balance....one will always out weigh the other.


----------



## Swamp Buggy (Sep 24, 2008)

He who is without sin, cast the first stone! 

If an "Ex-Homosexual" is not allowed to teach in church because he has sinned. Then is your Pastor Christ? Because Jesus is the only man that has ever walked the face of this planet that is pirfict and with out sin! Sin is a Sin! Are you going to argue this using a sin scale?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

An "ex-homosexual" should not hold a position of authority in a church.

Not because of _past_ involvement in homosexual activity but, rather, because he is a _current _liar.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 30, 2008)

You two are silly.  You know what the purpose of the thread was.  Don't get into semantics on wording.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm not getting into semantics.  "Ex-homosexual" is as absurd as "ex-left-handed" or "ex-Asian."


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 30, 2008)

It's not if you think it's a choice....



How bout them apples?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 30, 2008)

I believe there's a big difference in a child molester and a homosexual. Not saying that sometimes it all doesn't come in one package sometimes. I'm just responding about the original post. 
If being a pastor was based on having to be sinless, then we wouldn't have any pastors at all.

I understand the concern over having homosexuals around my children....I think most anyone would at least have that run thru their mind and I believe the converted homosexuals deals with that everyday.
But I do believe when we turn from sin and I mean really turn from sin, that that's for our testimony. I can testify now about things that I used to do, to help someone who is in the position I used to be in that I would've never told before, because I lived in darkness and wanted to keep my sins in darkness.

So this ex homosexual is in the right position to help others who think they can't change, he is living proof that people can change.(assuming he has changed)
I think we go thru things only for the glory of God to be used as a testimony.....as in...I overcame this and so can you, I'm living proof.  I personally think I'd take the word of someone who's been there that could tell me "how" to change, rather than someone beating me over the head saying 'just don't do it, it's a sin, I don't know how to help you stop, just stop'. This guy is living proof that homosexuality can be overcome and if he's sincere, that I think that's an awesome testimony to win other homosexuals over to Christ and teach them how to change.
That's what we are called to do, is to save people, not judge or condemn them.


----------



## PWalls (Sep 30, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> I'm not getting into semantics.  "Ex-homosexual" is as absurd as "ex-left-handed" or "ex-Asian."



Look who showed back up.

Be honest SOTHMD, do you log on occasionally and just do a search on "gay" or "homosexual" to see what the latest is?


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

discounthunter said:


> pocket religion.do as i say not as i do. i will do as i feel .but ill freely jump on the bandwagon if it suits me .



...You lost me...


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> It's not if you think it's a choice....
> 
> 
> 
> How bout them apples?


So you're saying claiming to be an "ex-homosexual" is not absurd if you think being a homosexual is a choice?

It's not a choice.  How bout _them_ apples?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> I believe there's a big difference in a child molester and a homosexual. Not saying that sometimes it all doesn't come in one package sometimes.


Just like there's a big difference in a child molester and a heterosexual.



mtnwoman said:


> So this ex homosexual is in the right position to help others who think they can't change, he is living proof that people can change.(assuming he has changed)


And that's a _huge_ assumption.

Ex-gays come in two varieties:
Ones who claim to have changed their orientations and are no longer attracted to the same sex
Ones who have chosen to be celibate yet are still 100% gay but still claim to be "ex-gay" because they no longer have same-gender relations
The former are a pack of liars and/or deluded people.  It's no secret that there are a huge number of ex-ex-gays and that the founders of Exodus International, the first ex-gay organization, fell in love, admitted the whole thing was a sham and quit the organization.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Look who showed back up.
> 
> Be honest SOTHMD, do you log on occasionally and just do a search on "gay" or "homosexual" to see what the latest is?


My friend who posts on here regularly pointed me to a post he made recently.  I shouldn't have looked but I did.  Then I made the mistake of checking around.


----------



## Banjo (Sep 30, 2008)

SOTMDL:



> It's not a choice.



How do you know this?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

Banjo said:


> SOTMDL:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know this?


Take a guess . . .


----------



## PJason (Sep 30, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Just like there's a big difference in a child molester and a heterosexual.
> 
> 
> And that's a _huge_ assumption.
> ...




How many alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts and others are you willing to call "a pack of liars and/or deluded people"?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 30, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Just like there's a big difference in a child molester and a heterosexual.
> 
> 
> And that's a _huge_ assumption.
> ...



If I used to be an alcoholic or drug addict and I changed my life and thru Jesus Christ I was delivered and by the power of the Holy Spirit, I am able to resist drinking or doing drugs what does that make me? Does that make me delivered? Would I be an ex alcoholic or would I still be an alcoholic that thru the power of the Holy Ghost have gained control(a fruit of the spirit) over alcohol consumption? If I decided to start drinking would I have to build back up to being an alcoholic or would I still be the alcoholic that could longer control their urges?

I have thought in the back of my mind to do many things, thanks to temptation, but resisted doing them, not on my own power but the power of the Holy Ghost, I for one do not believe that is only for me, it is for anyone who chooses to do so.

Is there nothing in your life that you are tempted to do but don't because you either believe or have come to believe that it is wrong and you no longer do it? Are you still tempted....I know I am. I'm not tempted to rob a bank though, or molest or beat on a child or other person, I'm not tempted to steal....satan works on what our weaknesses are and tempts us on those.
Did he tempt Jesus when he knew Jesus was in the garden with food and water because he knew Jesus was hungry and thirsty? Yes he did. 
He tempts us on our weaknesses, we are redeemed and delivered from those things when we choose to be saved, even if we are still tempted we can resist due to the "umpire" in our soul...the Holy Spirit. We don't fowl because we know the penalty.

If I were raped then I could teach someone how to heal from rape....I wouldn't want someone who'd never been there to try to tell me they know what I've been thru and how to heal. Just like that I'm saying about an ex-gay, delivered gay, or whatever you want to call it. He has a lot to teach "IF" (like you said) they are truly delivered.
Why is it hard to believe that Jesus can deliver anyone? He can deliver everyone except gays? I happen to believe Jesus has enough power to deliver anyone. The cruelest of child molesters, rapists....etc etc ...IF they accept that.
Do they still need to go to prison, uh yes, "render to God what is Gods and to Caesar (government) what is Caesar's." We reap in the flesh what we sow in the flesh....people may be in prison for all kinds of horrendous crimes, but salvation was given at the cross for everyone who chooses it. Should they serve their time in prision, well of course.....but our everlasting life belongs to God.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

PJason said:


> How many alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts and others are you willing to call "a pack of liars and/or deluded people"?


Apples and oranges


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> If I used to be an alcoholic or drug addict and I changed my life and thru Jesus Christ I was delivered and by the power of the Holy Spirit, I am able to resist drinking or doing drugs what does that make me? Does that make me delivered? Would I be an ex alcoholic or would I still be an alcoholic that thru the power of the Holy Ghost have gained control(a fruit of the spirit) over alcohol consumption? If I decided to start drinking would I have to build back up to being an alcoholic or would I still be the alcoholic that could longer control their urges?


You'd be a recovering alcoholic.


----------



## PJason (Sep 30, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Apples and oranges



How is that?


Do you think people chose to be addicts?


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 30, 2008)

PJason said:


> How is that?
> 
> 
> Do you think people chose to be addicts?



From what I understand, alcoholism / OCD / Addictive personalities are genetic...


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 30, 2008)

duckcrazy said:


> So someone who was an alcoholic or had premarital sex as a teenager could not later be called by God into a position of teaching other teenagers about the dangers of alcohol or premarital sex?



My granddaughter got kicked out of tending the  nursery at church because she got pregnant before she got married. My daughter ask the pastor and the nursery "minister" unless they were sinless they needed to step down from their positions, too...of course they left that church.

So I guess getting pregnant pre marriage is the same as being a homosexual, obviously by some people's thinking...and ya know what? a sin is still a sin.  I guess the nursery 'minister' was afraid my granddaughter would be a bad influence on the 2 year olds....


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

PJason said:


> How is that?
> 
> 
> Do you think people chose to be addicts?


Apples and oranges because you're equating sexual orientation with addiction.  The two are no more related than heterosexuality is related to gambling addiction.


----------



## PJason (Sep 30, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Apples and oranges because you're equating sexual orientation with addiction.  The two are no more related than heterosexuality is related to gambling addiction.



Heterosexuality is within the normal course of the natural world. Homosexuality and addiction are outside of that normal course. Even within heterosexuality you can have deviations such as sex addiction.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 30, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> You'd be a recovering alcoholic.



Well just in case I ever relapsed in the future, should I not be able to teach sunday school now? or because I really had no way to prove that I wasn't still secretly drinking?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Sep 30, 2008)

PJason said:


> Heterosexuality is within the normal course of the natural world. Homosexuality and addiction are outside of that normal course.


Homosexuality is outside the norm, yes, but it _is_ part of the natural world.  If it wasn't, homosexual activity and pair bonding would not be seen in the non-human animal kingdom but it is.

Left-handedness is also outside the norm and, in the past, has been linked by The Church with The Devil:

http://uncletaz.com/at/janfeb04/lefthandedness.html


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Sep 30, 2008)

gtparts said:


> While God may test us for purposes of teaching and growing us, and even showing others that we glorify Him in our suffering, He does not tempt us to evil.




Yes, he does, according to the bible:

Genesis 22:1   And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am]. 

Sacrificing another human being was evil in God's eyes.


Deuteronomy 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth (tempts) you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

It is evil to follow after other gods, is it not?

Which actually ties in with another one of the things I've seen you post lately, that God doesn't create evil.  Yes, he does.  The bible says:

Isaiah 45:7	I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

And I'm sure someone will have to start another thread to refute that last verse....


----------



## gtparts (Sep 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes, he does, according to the bible:
> 
> Genesis 22:1   And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am].
> 
> ...



You must have needed to argue with someone, for surely you know that the word rendered as tempt in the KJV is also translated as "prove" or "test". Furthermore, God did not intend for Issac to be sacrificed, but to allow Abraham to show his heart's obedience, even to the point of raising a knife against his only son. Abraham understood this, as he named that place Jehovah-jireh (the Lord _is_ provider).

Genesis 22 : 5 - 8
5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the _a s s_; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. 
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. 
7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. 

Here are the first eleven verses of the Deut. passage you quoted.

"1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 
11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. "

God , by His sovereign and holy existence has declared anything contrary to his nature to be evil. While He does not create evil (disobedience, sin ), He does allow His creation (man) to be tested by the opportunities that Satan presents. It is within His permissive will, that Job was afflicted by Satan.

As for the Isaiah passage, God is merely pointing out that as He has created light, the antithesis, darkness was made manifest; as He created peace, the antithesis, evil ( chaos) was made manifest.

Do your due diligence, then maybe God will remove the veil from your spiritual eyes, that you may see Him for who He is. I AM is waiting.

Peace be unto you and yours.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

gtparts said:


> You must have needed to argue with someone, for surely you know that the word rendered as tempt in the KJV is also translated as "prove" or "test". Furthermore, God did not intend for Issac to be sacrificed, but to allow Abraham to show his heart's obedience, even to the point of raising a knife against his only son. Abraham understood this, as he named that place Jehovah-jireh (the Lord _is_ provider).



Of course I know what the translated KJV version is. I also know that the translators of the KJV chose to use words that were not true translations of the actual Hebrew in order to promote the belief in Jesus.  So what?

How did God test Abraham? He tempted him to kill his son.  
The passage in Deuteronomy (which, by the way, is one of my favorites) is saying quite clearly that God will allow men to be able to perform miracles (kind of like Jesus did) to tempt His people (the Jews) to follow another religion (kind of like Jesus did).   He is basically saying, don't allow yourself to be deceived by miracles, but if what a man says doesn't add up to what I have told you, stay away from them, I'm tempting you to see if you will stay faithful to me or not.

As far as God creating evil, well we've had this discussion before too.  God does create evil and temptation, that's why he created 'satan', the adversary.  Satan is an angel of God, just like the rest of the angels, and it is his job to test/tempt mankind into sinning, just like he did with Job.  Angels do not have free will, they are workers for God and do  His biding, therefore Satan could not have decided to rebel against God, since he doesn't have free will.  

Now, if you are really going to tell me that evil is the 'absence of God', then I have to believe that your god is nothing, because the bible says that God is everywhere and in control of everything.  If 'satan' is running the show when it comes to evil, then that must mean he is at least as powerful, if not more powerful than God, for him to be able to do something that God can't.. which is to create evil.  

In other words...  taking Job for an example... did God tempt Job, or did Satan tempt God?    Can God be tempted?

And for the record, yes, this is waaaaaay


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 1, 2008)

Im with you Bodab1974

I did not write it.....I just tell others about it........
Scripture is pretty plain.........notice the last verse in particular....btw I know it does not mean a natural death......also notice the 28th verse as well, pretty much covers all of it dont you think?


BTW there is a deeper meaning than what is on the surface....but you will only get it (the meaning) if you are able to pray and study,  



ROM  1: 23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 
ROM  1: 24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 
ROM  1: 25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 
ROM  1: 26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 
ROM  1: 27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 
ROM  1: 28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 
ROM  1: 29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 
ROM  1: 30  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 
ROM  1: 31  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 
ROM  1: 32  Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> So you're saying claiming to be an "ex-homosexual" is not absurd if you think being a homosexual is a choice?



Yes....actually...that IS what I'm saying.

and if this thread were about arguing whether homosexuality was a choice you'd have a valid discussion going.  But since it's not, you're just derailing another thread.

The assumption in the thread is that it IS a choice or, at least, it is a choice to continue in the lifestyle.  I don't have any issue with someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex, realizes that is not what God intends and chooses not to act on that attraction.

Most Christians, however, do believe that it is a choice and that is what the assumtion in the thread is.  Whether you agree with it (even from personal experience) is irrelevent.  If you want to argue whether it's a choice, feel free to start a thread.  Nobody said you have to believe it.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Oct 1, 2008)

The only people who claim that it is a choice are people who

1) Don't approve of homosexuality
2) Don't know what they're talking about

The claim that most Christians believe it is a choice does not make it so any moreso than most Christians believing in the past that the Sun revolved around the Earth meant it did.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> The only people who claim that it is a choice are people who
> 
> 1) Don't approve of homosexuality
> 2) Don't know what they're talking about
> ...



Circular logic.  We claim it's a choice...you say we can't prove it.  You claim it is...we say you can't prove it.  So who is right?

and BTW....the entire world used to believe the sun revolved around the earth.  That's a pretty weak argument man.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 1, 2008)

Being and doing are not the same, when dealing with sexual identity.

A heterosexual, whether by choice, environmental causes, or genetic construction, does not have to act on his or her particular orientation.

The same holds true for homosexuals.

For Christians, the reality of being heterosexual and expressing that orientation sexually is significantly narrowed by God's moral law. 

For Christians, the reality of being homosexual and expressing that orientation sexually is sin according to God's moral law.

Therefore , a Christian should, by his redeemed nature, choose to behave within those boundaries.

All others have whatever moral code they adopt from whatever source they draw from. 

Where their behavior falls within God's moral law, I have no problem. 

Where their behavior falls outside of God's moral law, it is sin.

 I can recognize it as such without being judgmental. I can repudiate the actions as being an offense to God without investing personally in the offense or condemning the sinner. With compassion, I can say "Thus sayeth the Lord...."from scripture and point to the only remedy, Jesus.

Peace be unto you and yours.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes, he does tempt us to evil, according to the bible:



No He doesn't...According to the Bible:


James 1:13

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;


----------



## crossbreed (Oct 1, 2008)

why are you even talking about this don't the bible say "thou sall not judge" it sounds like all of you are judgeing people for what they do or have done! aren't you sining! live and let live. now I agree with some of you and that makes me a siner but I know I'm not holy!


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Oct 1, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Circular logic.  We claim it's a choice...you say we can't prove it.  You claim it is...we say you can't prove it.  So who is right?


Who is more likely to be right?

The person with firsthand experience of the subject at hand or the person who not only does not have firsthand experience with it but also does not approve of the subject at hand?

There is no circular logic involved.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

crossbreed said:


> why are you even talking about this don't the bible say "thou sall not judge" it sounds like all of you are judgeing people for what they do or have done! aren't you sining! live and let live. now I agree with some of you and that makes me a siner but I know I'm not holy!



Where does it say in the Bible "Thou shall not judge?"

Just as an FYI, If you are going to quote scripture, it is common courtesy to have a scripture reference to back it up.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Oct 1, 2008)

Matthew 7 said:
			
		

> 1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 
> 2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 
> ...


Happy?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Who is more likely to be right?
> 
> The person with firsthand experience of the subject at hand or the person who not only does not have firsthand experience with it but also does not approve of the subject at hand?
> 
> There is no circular logic involved.



Well, you're right...I don't have first hand experience on this one.


Homosexuality is not a choice because I am gay and I say so?  Again...you believe what you believe.  

What do you do with the question of reproductive ability?  I would assume that you would agree that homosexual behavior does not naturally lead to reproduction, correct?  If that's the case (and I'm sure you've been asked this before...but I'm curious), then how do you respond to the "not natural" argument.  Homosexual sex clearly does not lead to anything but "pleasurable feelings", meaning it serves no useful purpose from a nature standpoint.  

Wouldn't that mean, then that the "gene" for homosexuality would eventually be bred out of most all species?  Do you think that is in the process of happening or do you think it just won't happen?

It really can't be happening because the gay population is rising in number...not falling.  So if, simply by selection, it would be bred out, how do we explain the gene continuing?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Happy?



uh...that doesn't say anything about not judging.  

It says (paraphrasing), you will be judged to the degree that you judge.  That's quite a ways from "don't judge".

There is a huge difference between judging and simply pointing out the fact that a sin is a sin.  Judging requires sentencing.  I am not doing that.  I don't approve of the sin.  But, then again, I don't approve of MY sins either.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Happy?





Huntinfool said:


> uh...that doesn't say anything about not judging.
> 
> It says (paraphrasing), you will be judged to the degree that you judge.  That's quite a ways from "don't judge".
> 
> There is a huge difference between judging and simply pointing out the fact that a sin is a sin.  Judging requires sentencing.  I am not doing that.  I don't approve of the sin.  But, then again, I don't approve of MY sins either.



Ditto.  Again, the Matthew 7 passage is one of those verses that is probably the most out of context quoted scripture verses.  Thanks Huntinfool for the short lesson in what Matthew 7 means.  I'm sure that it will help out some people reading this thread and they might not use it as a passage to justify their own sin.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Oct 1, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Well, you're right...I don't have first hand experience on this one.
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not a choice because I am gay and I say so?  Again...you believe what you believe.


I _know_ so.  Who do you think you are to tell me I do not know myself and that you, in fact, know me better than I?



Huntinfool said:


> What do you do with the question of reproductive ability?  I would assume that you would agree that homosexual behavior does not naturally lead to reproduction, correct?  If that's the case (and I'm sure you've been asked this before...but I'm curious), then how do you respond to the "not natural" argument.  Homosexual sex clearly does not lead to anything but "pleasurable feelings", meaning it serves no useful purpose from a nature standpoint.


Heterosexual sex that does not produce offspring also serves no "useful purpose" by your criteria. Is it, too, unnatural?  Sex is a physical expression of love shared by two people that both reaffirms and strengthens the emotional connection between the two.



Huntinfool said:


> Wouldn't that mean, then that the "gene" for homosexuality would eventually be bred out of most all species?  Do you think that is in the process of happening or do you think it just won't happen?
> 
> It really can't be happening because the gay population is rising in number...not falling.  So if, simply by selection, it would be bred out, how do we explain the gene continuing?


Homosexuality is thought to be caused by a combination of one _or more_ genes and other biological factors.  Furthermore, there are recessive genes and dominant genes.

Also, the gay population is not rising.  The percentage of homosexuals willing to be beaten down by society, however, is diminishing.


----------



## Lead Poison (Oct 1, 2008)

Sorry, it is a choice.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> I _know_ so.  Who do you think you are to tell me I do not know myself and that you, in fact, know me better than I?



There are many people out there with mental illnesses that they would claim they do not have.  

I'm not saying homosexuality is a mental illness.  Don't read that.  What I'm saying is that just because you THINK it's natural....doesn't make it so.  Most people are not even aware of the factors from childhood that affect them into adulthood.  I never said that I know you better than you do.



SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Heterosexual sex that does not produce offspring also serves no "useful purpose" by your criteria. Is it, too, unnatural?



I didn't say it was un-natural.  I asked how you would address that question.  But, yes, from a nature or natural selection standpoint, ANY sexual activity that doesn't result in offspring serves no useful purpose.  There are only a small handful of species that engage in it for pleasure.  Most do it specifically for the purpose of reproduction.

Would you not agree that the PRIMARY purpose of sexual activity is for reproduction?  Or have you convinced yourself that its primary purpose is an expression of love for another individual?  

If you have convinced yourself of that, then you'll have to explain to me why the majority of species are NOT engaged with a single partner.

If the primary purpose IS for reproduction, then you'd need to explain how homosexual activity fulfills that purpose.



SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Homosexuality is thought to be caused by a combination of one _or more_ genes and other biological factors.  Furthermore, there are recessive genes and dominant genes.
> 
> Also, the gay population is not rising.  The percentage of homosexuals willing to be beaten down by society, however, is diminishing.



Which "other biological factors?  Yes, you are right....there ARE recessive and dominant genes.  So what?  I don't get your point on that one.

Ok, so if the gay population isn't rising, then it is either remaining constant or falling.  If it's a desirable genetic trait, then it should be expanding, shouldn't it?

You hate me....go ahead...admit it.  I can take it.  I'm actually enjoying the discussion.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 1, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> The person with firsthand experience of the subject at hand



You mean the person that is BIASED and has every reason to try and make his opinion to be the right one so he can rest easy?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Of course I know what the translated KJV version is. I also know that the translators of the KJV chose to use words that were not true translations of the actual Hebrew in order to promote the belief in Jesus.  So what?
> 
> How did God test Abraham? He tempted him to kill his son.
> The passage in Deuteronomy (which, by the way, is one of my favorites) is saying quite clearly that God will allow men to be able to perform miracles (kind of like Jesus did) to tempt His people (the Jews) to follow another religion (kind of like Jesus did).   He is basically saying, don't allow yourself to be deceived by miracles, but if what a man says doesn't add up to what I have told you, stay away from them, I'm tempting you to see if you will stay faithful to me or not.
> ...



How can anyone accept this rant of yours when you say you don't believe in it yourself? 

I know the answers to these, but please provide answers for the others on this thread: 

1) In the two passages quoted (Gen, and Deut.), what is the ancient Hebrew word  the KJV renders as "tempted"?

2) What other English words might be accurately used as a translation for that word?

3) Would you concede that the scholarship, concerning biblical translation, today is better, more accurate than in 1611?

4) What do your esteemed Jewish friends say concerning God as the author of evil and His concerted attempts to get Abraham to be disobedient?



God spoke directly to Abraham, commanding him to sacrifice Isaac long before Moses came down from Sinai with any tablets of stone.

COMMANDED!!

 No temptation, no trickery, no deception, but a critical test. "Do you love and worship Me above everything else? Do you place all your faith and trust in Me?"

While God may not test everyone in the same manner, He does ask the same questions of everyone.

 "Do you love and worship Me above everything else? Do you place all your faith and trust in Me?"

And we know what your response is, for you have given testimony to your lack of belief.

Peace.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> No He doesn't...According to the Bible:
> 
> 
> James 1:13
> ...



Again.... you can't use the NT to prove that the NT is true. If that works, then the Mormons are 'right' because their Book of Mormon says so.

The "Original Testament" says quite plainly and clearly that God DOES TEMPT and DOES TEST and DID create evil.  Now unless you can find something in the "Original Testament" that says otherwise, your verse above is just one more way in which the NT contradicts the "Original Testament" and therefore is WRONG.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie, we've been over this.  You can't say "you can't use the NT to prove the NT is true" and then go quote the OT as if the existence of the OT makes IT true.  

The simple existence of something does not make it true.  We agree.  Jews think the OT is true.  Christians think both testaments are true.  But neither can PROVE the other to be false.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Again.... you can't use the NT to prove that the NT is true. If that works, then the Mormons are 'right' because their Book of Mormon says so.
> 
> The "Original Testament" says quite plainly and clearly that God DOES TEMPT and DOES TEST and DID create evil.  Now unless you can find something in the "Original Testament" that says otherwise, your verse above is just one more way in which the NT contradicts the "Original Testament" and therefore is WRONG.





Huntinfool said:


> Dixie, we've been over this.  You can't say "you can't use the NT to prove the NT is true" and then go quote the OT as if the existence of the OT makes IT true.
> 
> The simple existence of something does not make it true.  We agree.  Jews think the OT is true.  Christians think both testaments are true.  But neither can PROVE the other to be false.



My goodness DixieDawg....in one thread you say the NT isn't true...and then in the next you're quoting the NT?  I just don't get it.  

Either you believe it to be true or you don't.  None of this, well it works for me here, but it doesn't work for me there, so I'll use it here, but not there.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

The lesson I get out of Abraham and Isaac...after years of trying to figure out why.

I always thought (before I rededicated) how horrible it was for God to ask Abraham to do something like that and I was afraid He would ask/demand/test me on something like that with my only child. I just couldn't grasp a good God doing that.

But my understanding later was that even though I'm not willing to sacrifice my only child or would hate to be ask to do such....God said He'd provide a lamb, His only son Jesus. I think that making us think about how horrible it would be to have to sacrifice our child, that's how much God loves us, that He was willing to sacrifice His own son.

Yes it seemed to be a test/temptation but really it was a lesson for us to grasp the intensitiy of how hard it would be to sacrifice your child. For the sins of the world to be laid on Jesus makes me truly believe that He did it all. There's nothing more that I need to do to be saved other than believe that. Jesus lives thru me, loves thru me, helps people thru me, teaches people thru me, forgives people thru me and only by His power am I, as a mere human, am able to do those things. 

Sure I can make myself have the job of handing out pamphlets or riding a bicycle around in the heat to minister to folks, but if I don't really believe John 3:16, then no amount of peddling will get me into heaven.
Not dissing anyone's religion I'm just using that as a common example. We are not saved by works.....peace, love, etc is the fruit of the Spirit, not works. Even though having the fruit makes us wanna do God's work, we are not saved by that, nor unsaved because we don't.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Dixie, we've been over this.  You can't say "you can't use the NT to prove the NT is true" and then go quote the OT as if the existence of the OT makes IT true.
> 
> The simple existence of something does not make it true.  We agree.  Jews think the OT is true.  Christians think both testaments are true.  But neither can PROVE the other to be false.





rjcruiser said:


> My goodness DixieDawg....in one thread you say the NT isn't true...and then in the next you're quoting the NT?  I just don't get it.
> 
> Either you believe it to be true or you don't.  None of this, well it works for me here, but it doesn't work for me there, so I'll use it here, but not there.



See, boys, that's where you're incorrect 
I don't believe in the NT. But you do.  So yes, I can use verses from the NT to prove my points to you where Christian doctrine is concerned.

As far as the "OT" is concerned... well, you already supposedly accept that as truth.   It would be somewhat silly for Christians to try and prove the "OT" as 'false', seeing how that is part of your doctrine.  Yet you claim that the "OT" and the NT are in tune and line up with each other.  Obviously they do not.   

As far as discussing or debating theological topics,  you can't use the NT as proof that the NT is true.  I can, however, use it 'against' you since you believe it is true.  I don't have to accept it as truth to do that any more than you need to believe in the Koran to use it against the Muslim faith.  

I do believe the "OT" has truth to it, just maybe not in the same way that you do.   So yes, that is a common denominator in regards to discussion/debate.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> you can't use the NT as proof that the NT is true.



You can if you believe it's true....

..just like you use the OT, right?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Obviously they do not.



I'm still not of the opinion that you've done a very good job of proving that.  But I digress.

I do believe that they line up (or at least they do when I read them).  You may see inconsistencies.  I don't see anything inconsistent about the nature of God represented in either testament.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

I agree that they line up.

God said in the OT that He would provide Himself a Lamb, He did, Jesus NT.

Isaiah said OT

Isaiah 53
 1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 

 2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 

 3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 

 4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 

 5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 

 6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 

 7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 

 8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 

 9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 

 10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 

 11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 

 12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

How many people would have to be involved to make that just seem like a "fake" prophesy? That totally lines up with the NT IMO. If you read that and don't think about what happened to Jesus, then the scales have not fallen from your eyes, just as Saul was blind and "would" not see. God temporarily blinded the Jews, so the gentiles could be brought into the gospel.

Jesus said 

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I think the OT proves the NT and the NT proves the OT.
We have a great Bible teacher who will read or tell a story from the OT then go to the NT and show the relationship.


----------



## BKA (Oct 1, 2008)

For a minute I thought Hooked On Quack was in here quoting scripture......


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

BKA said:


> For a minute I thought Hooked On Quack was in here quoting scripture......



LOL...should I change my avatar, I noticed I had the same one...

Is that better? Peace out.

I need propane I use a torch to melt glass into beads.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> You can if you believe it's true....
> 
> ..just like you use the OT, right?



Ok, sure... then the Mormons are right, since their Book of Mormon says they are.... 

And you should believe them, because they say that it's true.  They have their BOM that proves it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> I agree that they line up.
> 
> God said in the OT that He would provide Himself a Lamb, He did, Jesus NT.
> 
> ...



That entire passage is talking about the Jews (Israel).  Not the messiah and not Jesus.  



> Jesus said
> 
> Matthew 5:17
> Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
> ...



That's all Jesus did when he came was to change/destroy the law.  You can read it for yourself.  All over the NT, Jesus is saying, I know the law says ___, but I tell you ____.   According to what the Original Testament says, that's a no-no.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That entire passage is talking about the Jews (Israel).  Not the messiah and not Jesus.


So the Jews were 

bruised for MY iniquities?

were wounded for our transgressions?

bared the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors?

and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

I'd like to know when and where they did this...please show me where this prophesy was fulfilled by the Jews.

Why does God in most of the OT refer to His people as they and then He changed to single person? I don't get how you get a He was a they. Could you please explain verse by verse what it has to do with the Jews and you can pm me if you wanna.

Thanks,
Annie


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That's all Jesus did when he came was to change/destroy the law.  You can read it for yourself.  All over the NT, Jesus is saying, I know the law says ___, but I tell you ____.   According to what the Original Testament says, that's a no-no.



Could you provide scripture.

And do you still take wheat and grain into the storehouse? that's what it says to do in the OT. Do you sacrifice a lamb yearly for atonement? If not then you aren't following the law.
Do you live by an eye for an eye, if someone harms you then you harm them back in the same way? If not you aren't living by the law.

As far as the Ten Commandments go, then yes I believe those, and I believe that Jesus intended for us to keep those as the LAW. But I think the other things, like not eating pork, or sacrificing a lamb or taking grain to the storehouse were changed by Jesus that everything is clean, as in gentiles who were "unclean" in the OT...He made the unclean clean. He is the Lamb, the final sacrifice once and for all, because nobody was able to live up to the law...nobody... and as far as taking grain to the storehouse, you give what you have and help who needs help according to whatever you have to give and it doesn't have to be grain.

So if you only believe the OT, do you believe that the gentiles are unclean and not deserving of anything from GOD? Now that's a mindblower......so I'm destined for hades no matter what because the Jews deem me as unclean? No hope, only those that abide by the OT are going to heaven? Sounds like a merciless God to worship to me then.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> So the Jews were
> 
> bruised for MY iniquities?
> 
> ...





Have you not read the bible? Or ever learned anything about history? The Jews have been punished all through history for the sins of others.  For what sin of their own were they burned in the ovens during the Holocaust? They weren't. They paid for the sins of the ones who put them there.  I suppose I could go verse by verse, but that would take a very long time to find all the instances in history where these things have occurred.

However, I can pick out a quick few verses from the passages you quoted, if you can tell me how Jesus fits to them...  since Jesus had no children, how can he see his 'seed' (verse 10)?  It says that his days will be prolonged... dying at 31 or so sure isn't prolonged of days, not even in Jesus' time...  but that does fit the Jewish people, they are still here, still going strong, still seeing their seed.  Jesus was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief?  Where? 



> Why does God in most of the OT refer to His people as they and then He changed to single person? I don't get how you get a He was a they.



This is done all throughout the "OT".  God refers to the Jews as individuals and collectively.   But since this is questioning verses from Isaiah, I'll show you verses from there...

Isaiah 44:21  Remember these, O Jacob and Israel, for thou art My servant; I have formed thee; thou art My servant, O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of Me.

Who are Israel and Jacob? The Jews... the House of Israel and the House of Jacob, who the entire scriptures of the "OT" were written for.

Israel is also identified as the servant in Isaiah 41:8-9, Isaiah 44:1-2, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3.

And one more perfect example, from Hosea 11:1-2, 5
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images.  (5)  He shall not return to the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be  his king because they refused to return.

See how it works?

One thing you have to remember when reading the "Old Testament" is that the original scrolls have no paragraphs or verses numbered... it is meant to be read all as one.  The book if Isaiah is meant to be read as a complete book, not broken down into verses. If you read it in context, it is very clear who God is referring to here. And it's not Jesus.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Could you provide scripture.



Yes, of course... but are you asking because you truly have not ever read it, or  



> And do you still take wheat and grain into the storehouse? that's what it says to do in the OT. Do you sacrifice a lamb yearly for atonement? If not then you aren't following the law.
> Do you live by an eye for an eye, if someone harms you then you harm them back in the same way? If not you aren't living by the law.
> 
> As far as the Ten Commandments go, then yes I believe those, and I believe that Jesus intended for us to keep those as the LAW. But I think the other things, like not eating pork, or sacrificing a lamb or taking grain to the storehouse were changed by Jesus that everything is clean, as in gentiles who were "unclean" in the OT...He made the unclean clean. He is the Lamb, the final sacrifice once and for all, because nobody was able to live up to the law...nobody... and as far as taking grain to the storehouse, you give what you have and help who needs help according to whatever you have to give and it doesn't have to be grain.
> ...



Well, first of all, the Law was written for the House of Israel and the House of Judah (the Jews).  Since I'm not a Jew, I am not under the 'Law' that God gave the Jews through Moses.  I am a Gentile, same as you.  So no, I don't take any sacrifices, etc.  But even if I were a Jew, God gave instructions on what to do to make atonement for sins when there was no temple to offer up sacrifices (as there is no temple now). So they are still 'good'.  

There weren't just 10 commandments given to the Jews... there are 613. God is very clear throughout the Torah (the first 5 books of the bible) that ALL of the commandments are to be followed, not just the first 10.

I have studied with members of all three Jewish sects.. Orthodox, Reformed and Conservative.  None of them say that there is no place in 'heaven' for the Gentile.  They believe that all have a part in Olam Haba... the 'world to come'.   

But since you brought it up, speaking of merciless gods... you don't think it would be merciless of your God to say only those who believe the stories of the NT are going to heaven?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 1, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> He is the Lamb, the final sacrifice once and for all, because nobody was able to live up to the law...nobody...



And, for the record, God said that David as well as many others in the bible kept the law 'perfectly'... so your theory here is wrong.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 1, 2008)

Somebodies thread got derailed.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That entire passage is talking about the Jews (Israel). Not the messiah and not Jesus.


 
There are several parts of Isaiah 53 that point out that there is NO way Israel can be the "suffering servant", here are just two of them...

The prophet said: _"It pleased the LORD to bruise him."_ Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, _"It pleased the LORD to bruise him?"_ Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement.

--

The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: _"Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!"_ He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, & 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had _"done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth"
_

There are several more (maybe ought to go on another thread), but since this thread is de-railed anyway, I thought I'd put a couple points here


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And, for the record, God said that David as well as many others in the bible kept the law 'perfectly'... so your theory here is wrong.


David killed a man to steal his wife...that's perfect?...alrighty then.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 1, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes, of course... but are you asking because you truly have not ever read it, or
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 *I'm just going by what He said....He would provide Himself a lamb to take away the sins of the world, because no one would ever be perfect...no one, and unless you're perfect you don't go to heaven. By the blood we are saved. Just like the passover, the blood of the lamb over the doorpost spared the Jews. Not because the angels knew where the Jews lived but because they were directed to passover the houses covered under the blood.*

Anyway I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe both the OT and the NT. My merciful God gave us a way out of hades, everyone. 
Anyway I've studied the Bible enough to know that the Jews considered everyone unclean except for themselves in the OT.

And I do believe that there are enough Hebrew scholars that can correctly translate the Bible and correct any errors if there are any....it's not like they can't translate from Hebrew to English.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 2, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> David killed a man to steal his wife...that's perfect?...alrighty then.



If you don't like it or don't agree, you'll have to take it up with God.  He's the one who said it, I just repeated what the 'Old Testament' says.  God said in the "OT" that David kept the law perfectly, his son Hezekiah kept it perfectly, as well as other sons of his.

I guess there must be a difference between keeping the law perfectly and being sinless?      The "OT" says that no one is sinless, but says that the law is able to be kept, and that there were men who kept it.



mtnwoman said:


> *I'm just going by what He said....He would provide Himself a lamb to take away the sins of the world, because no one would ever be perfect...no one, and unless you're perfect you don't go to heaven. By the blood we are saved. Just like the passover, the blood of the lamb over the doorpost spared the Jews. Not because the angels knew where the Jews lived but because they were directed to passover the houses covered under the blood.*
> 
> Anyway I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe both the OT and the NT. My merciful God gave us a way out of hades, everyone.
> Anyway I've studied the Bible enough to know that the Jews considered everyone unclean except for themselves in the OT.




You don't have to be perfect to go to 'heaven'.  God never said that.  If he expected us to be perfect, he wouldn't have given us free will.



> And I do believe that there are enough Hebrew scholars that can correctly translate the Bible and correct any errors if there are any....it's not like they can't translate from Hebrew to English.



They don't want to correct the errors, because it takes away from the 'proof' of Jesus.

Your statement above reminds me of a story I got in my email recently, which I'm sure is not true but still teaches a valuable lesson.

An English professor wrote the words, “Woman without her man is nothing” on the blackboard and directed his students to punctuate it correctly. 

The men wrote: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”

The women wrote: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.” 

Just goes to show how you can have the same sentence and have it read totally different, depending on what your own interest is.  Add to that translating from an ancient language, and, well, I'm sure you can see where problems will arise.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 2, 2008)

David's son raped his own sister, David's daughter.
Maybe that's where the translation mistakes come in.

Thou shalt not kill,
David killed a man to steal his wife...that isn't keeping the law. Somebody got their story wrong I suppose, or translated something wrong.
There can be translation errors in the OT just like in the NT....correct? maybe to make David appear to be perfect, same people that wanted Jesus to exist...eh?...however if he did kill someone he did not keep the law...and scripture says he did.
Ya know it all works the same way....if there's mistakes in translation for one part of the bible then there's mistakes in the other part. Just proves a point.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 2, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Ok, sure... then the Mormons are right, since their Book of Mormon says they are....
> 
> And you should believe them, because they say that it's true.  They have their BOM that proves it.



Nope....but they THINK they are right.  Just like Christians and just like Jews.

Guess we'll find out in the end, huh?



My point is that no one....no matter which religion they are can prove that they are right.  It's a matter of the heart and that is why I keep telling you that no one will ever be able to give you that rational argument that you're looking for.  They won't be able to give you the logic explanation that you seem to need.  Yes, there are many points of logic that can lead you in that direction.  But, in the end, if you leave no room for faith, you'll never get to the end of that road and I just hate that.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Nope....but they THINK they are right.  Just like Christians and just like Jews.
> 
> Guess we'll find out in the end, huh?
> 
> ...



Besides the Holy Spirit is the one that helps us see, without Him, all of us are blind. He intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
That's why God sent Jesus and left the Holy Spirit, because the folks in the OT just weren't gettin' it.
Once the scales fall from your eyes then there's no going back, but until that happens, no amount of arguing is going to change someone's mind who does not believe, or is not saved.


----------



## StriperAddict (Oct 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> But, in the end, if you leave no room for faith, you'll never get to the end of that road and I just hate that.


 
Me too  ,  for my family also, I hope one day they 'see'


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Oct 19, 2008)

mtnwoman said:
			
		

> Why does God in most of the OT refer to His people as they and then He changed to single person? I don't get how you get a He was a they.



Well, think of it as being the same as what the NT does... how it talks about believers being the 'church', and the 'church' is the 'bride'.  Unless you think that the 'bride' of Jesus is actually a single woman....  

Jews are Israel, and Israel is the Servant.  This is very clear throughout the "Old Testament" scriptures.


----------



## CRT (Oct 20, 2008)

How was Paul qualified to be an apostle? He was a murderer. As was Moses, and David. Problem is, we don't trust God and His ability to save. And we are arrogant enough to think that we will "settle up" with God as if He is just another fish in the pond. I fear for men who think so lowly of God. 

One thing that makes this issue so "gray" is that we are so quick to pronounce a person saved because they said a prayer and want to "work" in the church. That is unbiblical. We are to examine and test them and see if they bear the fruit of salvation. The church I used to attend just had one of the childrens' SS teachers come out as a homosexual. But if the leadership of that church would have been more careful to test her out first, they would have seen that she had no business teaching children God's Word in the first place. 

I have two children. I would have concerns about a former homosexual or child molestor teaching them, but if they have been examined and tested, and have shown evidence of salvation, then I must trust that the work God has done in them, He will see to completion. I must also trust that God is sovereign and that whatever happens to my children is in His perfect will, for our good and His glory.

Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## CRT (Oct 20, 2008)

Please disregard my post,

I didn't realize this thread was as long, and had gotten as off topic as it is/has. And there is so much bad theology being spewed out now, that it will never (except by a miracle) be cleared up. 

By the way, homosexuality, addiction, pedophilia and the rest are all genetic. Its called SIN!!! And only Christ can free us from the condemnation we are under due to sin and the bondage that we are under by sin. But when He does, we are free indeed! 

The book of Romans would be a good place to start. 

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 20, 2008)

5pointCal said:


> And there is so much bad theology being spewed out now, that it will never (except by a miracle) be cleared up.



Care to pronounce upon us some of the bad theology that you would care to clear up?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 20, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Care to pronounce upon us some of the bad theology that you would care to clear up?



It's rampant


----------

