Thursday, August 27, 2009

ELCA (Lutheran Body) Votes to Allow Noncelibate Homosexual Clergy




ELCA (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: 4.6 million members) approved this resolution on 21 August 2009, by a vote of 559 to 451, at their biennial Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis. Previously, celibate homosexuals were allowed to be ordained. Now, it is required that a commitment to one (sexual) partner is the norm.

By so doing, it has removed itself from historic Protestant orthodoxy and moral teaching and makes inevitable a schism within the ranks that may be as momentous as that which has plagued Anglicanism, for the same reasons.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) has denounced the decision, as have the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS).

For the biblical, historic Christian teaching on homosexuality (on which all Christian bodies used to be united until recent times), see:

SHORTER PAPERS

Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?

Did Jesus Regard Homosexual Acts as Immoral and Prohibited by God?

St. Paul's Argument From Nature Against Homosexuality (Romans 1)

Reflections on Christian Opposition to the Sin of Homosexual Acts (+ Discussion)

Fr. Paul Ward: Homily on the Church's Teaching on Homosexuality

James White On the Side of the Angels: Decimating Debate Opponent's Absurd Pro-Homosexuality "Exegesis" of Romans 1

LONGER PAPERS

Dialogue on Homosexuality (Dave Armstrong vs. Sogn Mill-Scout)

Dialogue With a Homosexual

Dialogue With a Bisexual Agnostic on Homosexuality (+ Part II, which includes very extensive medical/scientific data)

Dialogue With a Bisexual Agnostic on Homosexuality, Round Two

Dialogue With an Atheist on Homosexuality

139 comments:

Martin said...

Though this is politically significant it of minimal moral significance as (I believe) the Lutherans as a body have long accepted abortion, a much greater sin.

Dave Armstrong said...

Good point. Most if not all of the mainstream denominations have long since gone pro-abortion.

Ken said...

John Piper commented on this and the tornado that came the day of their sinful vote/decision.

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_the_tornado_the_lutherans_and_homosexuality/#disqus_thread

Martin said...

So the Lutherans get a tornado when they are deciding to approve outright homosexual ministers and Ted Kennedy gets a tropical storm for his funeral Mass. I wonder who God objects to more.

If God truely used the weather to show his opinion I would have expected Washington DC to have been blown off the map years ago.

feetxxxl said...

as usual society is leading the church. however in time the church will come to the agreed upon the FACT that scripture NEVER said that homosexuality was a sin. not from lev where not every prohibition of itself was a sin, to genesis and romans which were given assigned meanings in spite of their words, to itim and icor where a fraudulent transposition of the word "homosexual" was made in man's attempt to add his own stroke to the law, to matthew where man again attempted to add his own stroke to the law by adding the word "only", to trying to resurrect the old covenant relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28, when our relationship to god in the new covenant is directly to him thru the one who lives in each believer.......christ(torn curtain),to the new covenant itself being without regulation (all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial) to ALL new covenant law being summed up in the 2nd commandment(love you neighbor as yourself) to make us "conscious" of NOT "loving our neighbor as ourself" and homosexuality not coming against the 2nd commandment.

Martin said...

ALL new covenant law being summed up in the 2nd commandment(love you neighbor as yourself) to make us "conscious" of NOT "loving our neighbor as ourself" and homosexuality not coming against the 2nd commandment.

In short, doing "whatever feels good" is not loving your neighbor. Since your a biblical person you might reflect on the FACT that God created man for woman and not another man. There are longer and more complex arguments. Dave posted several links above.

feetxxxl said...

"In short, doing "whatever feels good" ..............."

in short king david did what felt good.......had he loved his neighbor as himself he would have never stepped in what he did with bathsheba.

again, in regards to the law, there is no regulation under the new covenant as in deut 28.

read deut. there is no regulation such the so called called natural law, or about women teaching or speaking in church, or about drinking alcohol, etc.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi feet,

Do you intend to simply preach, or actually interact with the many biblical arguments I have provided, that condemn homosexual acts?

I know it's a novelty (dialogue), but just askin' . . .

feetxxxl said...

dave

it is such a rarity for someone to post a comment and then follow it up with comments. kudos to you.

i thought i addressed the first 4 questions. what comment do you want me to address?

feetxxxl said...

about abortion, i know of no church that is pro abortion. but i know a whole lot of churches that are pro choice, believing that the woman should have the right to chose according to her own beliefs, where the fetus is not viable. this allows for the morning after pill, all forms of contraception,etc.

i often wondered why there is so much difference between killing the possibly and killing the actual?

esp. when christ said dont be concerned with what kills the body, but instead about what brings death to the soul

Martin said...

the FACT that scripture NEVER said that homosexuality was a sin. not from lev where not every prohibition of itself was a sin,

From Dave's first link:

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (cf. 18:22)

I'm not sure how Feet would interpret that.

Martin said...

i often wondered why there is so much difference between killing the possibly and killing the actual?

Why do you say a fetus is a "possibility" and not "actual" What is it about being born that forms such a great divide between possible and actual?

feetxxxl said...

not every prohibition of lev was of itself a sin, and some of its directives to engage in ethnic slavery(take slaves for life to be given as inheritance to your children)(see also solomons slave labor camps,1kings) under the new covenant are considered intolerable evils because of their violation of the 2nd commandment(love your neighbor.....)

numbers15: 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

feetxxxl said...

cant help you.

Martin said...

not every prohibition of lev was of itself a sin, ....

So then you would hold that Lev 20:13 was a "rule" unrelated to moral law? Ditto for 1 Timothy 1:8-11 that lists "sodomites" with murderers?

cant help you. So you have no logical (or biblical) basis for maintaining that a fetus is not human?

feetxxxl said...

and slavery is not?
my understanding is that orientation is merely a tool for the bonding process, the important thing is the intention of the 2 adults bonding and the spirit in which they choose to bond(fruit of the spirit).

personnally for me the intention of the holy spirit for life is as important as life itself, but that is me and i would never attempt to force that understanding on someone else.

legality becomes part of the issue when there is viability. how ever i know of no laws that incarcerate a willing woman, therefore why should there be ones for a willing doctor. she's paying him. the doctor may be the assassin but it is under the mother's direction, she is much more guilty than him. in the same way that it would be with wife who hires someone to kill her husband.

there is no legality about a microscopic egg, etc.

Martin said...

and slavery is not?

That's a different question. Your main point was that "the church will come to the agreed upon the FACT that scripture NEVER said that homosexuality was a sin."

my understanding is that orientation is merely a tool for the bonding process, the important thing is the intention of the 2 adults bonding and the spirit in which they choose to bond(fruit of the spirit).

We are discussing an act. The action of homosexual "union" is objectively immoral.

legality becomes part of the issue when there is viability.

We are not discussing viability, whether a fetus can continue to live. We are discussing whether a fetus is a human being. Law does not decide if a person is human or not.

feetxxxl said...

"that's a different question"

no its not. the contention is that all the moral law of lev applies to the new covenant. it doesnt. surely slavery is a moral issue.

however same sex relations is not about morals, because it is consentual, and has the capacity to be as affirming, and supportive as anything heterosexual. because same sex relations is prohibited, has nothing to do with it being a sin.

there was also a prohibition of women wearing men's clothes that was also called abominable. that doesnt mean that of itself it is a sin.

abrahams marriage to sarah was in violation of lev.

Martin said...

As to whether slavery is the same kind of immoral as homosexual acts I will have to link to a discussion elsewhere on Dave’s site.

American slavery is not biblical slavery, which was governed by a code of conduct and was much closer to indentured servanthood. The Bible did not condemn slavery per se; yet the code of ethics taught in the New Testament eventually made it obsolete. It became practically non-existent in Christian medieval Europe, only to be revived again later on, under protest of the Catholic Church. For further reading on this complex topic, … Dave’s remarks elsewhere

however same sex relations is not about morals,\

Everything we do is about morals. Same sex, no sex, auto-sex whatever. The question is what do morals tell us.

because it is consensual, and has the capacity to be as affirming, and supportive as anything heterosexual. because same sex relations is prohibited, has nothing to do with it being a sin.

Cannot sin be consensual? I may consent to you whacking me over the head but that doesn’t make it moral.

there was also a prohibition of women wearing men's clothes that was also called abominable. that doesn’t mean that of itself it is a sin.

Somewhere else I read a great rebuttal to the “Leviticus banned this and that so it has nothing to do with me” argument. Not that that helps me now. My time is up. I won't be able to comment again (except quick, useless quips) for days. Thanks for the interaction. I never have this much time to interact with someone on issues.

If you quote and rebut an actual argument from Dave’s site he’s sure to reply. Note: Quote and rebut.

feetxxxl said...

As to whether slavery is the same kind of immoral as homosexual acts I will have to link to a discussion elsewhere on Dave’s site.

1 Kings 9:20-22 (New International Version)

20 All the people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites), 21 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites could not exterminate [a] —these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day. 22 But Solomon did not make slaves of any of the Israelites; they were his fighting men, his government officials, his officers, his captains, and the commanders of his chariots and charioteers.


your point is ridiculous for several reasons. first of all how can you credit the jews as being ideal slave holders given the reputuation they have been credited for their abusive treatment of gentiles for the last 4000 years................gentiles who they cannot eat with, associate with etc.

second paul gave very specific instructions for how believing slave holders were to treat their slaves. it was believers who divided a church believing that if you didnt have slaves you didnt love god. did they treat their slaves in any way even close to paul's instructions? were his instructions ever mandated from the pulpit of this divided church.................no.

feetxxxl said...

if believing slave holders had treated their slaves according to paul's instructions they would have been considered ideal slave masters.

feetxxxl said...

American slavery is not biblical slavery, which was governed by a code of conduct and was much closer to indentured servanthood. The Bible did not condemn slavery per se; yet the code of ethics taught in the New Testament eventually made it obsolete. It became practically non-existent in Christian medieval Europe, only to be revived again later on, under protest of the Catholic Church. For further reading on this complex topic,

it was the catholic church who sent jesuit priests the the southern hemisphere of the new world to evangelize the new world indio slaves. because of the preference of indios to prefer suicide over being made slaves, a jesuit priest made the proposal that blacks should be brought over from africa to be made slaves instead. thus began the transporting of 11 million blacks from africa to be made slaves in christian colonized countries and states in the new world.

at no time did the church speak against this until 11 million had been transported from africa, but instead continued to send a supply of priests to evangelize them. this was even after having witnessed the terrible conditons that the blacks were subjected, the jesuits regretted their proposal.

feetxxxl said...

Everything we do is about morals. Same sex, no sex, auto-sex whatever. The question is what do morals tell us.

i know of no scripture that says that under the new covenant that we are to be led by regulation.

in romans paul says we are to be led by and serve the spirit of christ, the spirit of the one who lives in us.

if you know a scripture that says otherwise, please annotate.

csesget said...

Martin,

While the ELCA has accepted abortion, the confessional Lutheran church bodies in the US (LCMS, WELS, ELS) never have. I serve on the LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Commission; we are unswervingly pro-life.

In Christ JESUS,
+Christopher Esget
http://esgetology.com

Dave Armstrong said...

Praise God for that. I was aware of it, but thanks for pointing it out.

Jordanes said...

as usual society is leading the church.

Sorry, that is not usual at all. Usually it's the other way around, as it should be. When things are inverted, as they have been for some time, society suffers.

however in time the church will come to the agreed upon the FACT that scripture NEVER said that homosexuality was a sin.

Ha! Dream on. The Scripture will continue to say what it has always said, no matter how intricate the mental pretzels people twist themselves into trying to pretend their eyes aren't reading what they are reading.

not from lev where not every prohibition of itself was a sin

No, not every prohibition in Leviticus "of itself" was a sin. But every prohibition in Leviticus was indeed a sin. The prohibition of homosexual acts in Leviticus was, however, an intrinsic evil, independent of the temporary nature of the Sinaitic covenant.

to genesis and romans which were given assigned meanings in spite of their words

No, they were given the meanings that their words actually have. The Genesis episode (Sodom), for example, was given the traditional interpretation by St. Jude.

to itim and icor where a fraudulent transposition of the word "homosexual" was made in man's attempt to add his own stroke to the law, to matthew where man again attempted to add his own stroke to the law by adding the word "only",

The Church, who has custody of the Scriptures, does not agree with these hypotheses, ever so convenient for those who want to believe that perverted sex acts are normal.

to trying to resurrect the old covenant relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28, when our relationship to god in the new covenant is directly to him thru the one who lives in each believer.......christ(torn curtain),

Nonsense. Adherence to the natural law written in the human heart, spoken of by St. Paul, is not trying to resurrect the Old Covenant relationship to God.

to the new covenant itself being without regulation (all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial)

Rubbish. The Scriptures and Christian Tradition have never maintained that the New Covenant is without regulation. Lifting a line of St. Paul out of context doesn't do anything to establish that erroneous premise.

to ALL new covenant law being summed up in the 2nd commandment(love you neighbor as yourself)

Hey, Rabbi Hillel taught that all MOSACI law is summed up in the Golden Rule.

to make us "conscious" of NOT "loving our neighbor as ourself" and homosexuality not coming against the 2nd commandment.

Homosexuality is a psychosexual disorder, and homosexual acts are violations of the law of love. No one who loves his neighbor will engage in sodomy or any other unnatural acts, nor violate or subvert the natural order instituted by God in Eden.

Jordanes said...

about abortion, i know of no church that is pro abortion.

Sure you do.

but i know a whole lot of churches that are pro choice

That's an Orwellian euphemisim for "I believe women and doctors should be allowed to tear unborn babies limb from limb, or use poisons to end the babies' lives." Pro-choice churches ARE pro-abortion.

i often wondered why there is so much difference between killing the possibly and killing the actual? esp. when christ said dont be concerned with what kills the body, but instead about what brings death to the soul

Indeed, what's all this big deal about murder? As long as the soul gets to heaven, does it matter how the person dies? Let's just kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. After all there's no regulation in the New Covenant. Someday the Church will overcome its moral scruples against murder and come to the agreed upon the FACT that Scripture NEVER said that murder was a sin.

Jordanes said...

Arrgh! Typos!

Mosaic, not Mosaci.

Euphemism, not euphemisim.

Jordanes said...

feetxxxl might be edified to read some of the work of Protestant Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who explodes the modernist attempts to explain away what the Bible says about homosexuality.

http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm

Jordanes said...

Catholic blogger Christopher Blosser also explored the Scriptural teaching on homosexuality back in 2004:

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2004_12_01_ratzingerfanclub_archive.html

feetxxxl said...

"The prohibition of homosexual acts in Leviticus was, however, an intrinsic evil, independent of the temporary nature of the Sinaitic covenant"
how is that possible?

homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a friend, brother, engineer , soldier, pastor,administrator, teacher, etc compared to heterosexuals.

homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, and respect for a shared committed life together, the same as heterosexuals. homosexuals are attracted to the same sex from their first sexual memory, 24/7, their entire lives. those who are believers that marry ( the same sex) their lives and their marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit as those of believing heterosexuals.

would you say the same thing of those given over to the acts of the sin nature in gal5 compared to those that were not?

christ said "you will know them by their fruit" .......fruit of the spirit......the things that last.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
are you saying that those who dont know the law have an excuse?

if not then please explain what is in the essence of being gay that comes against the 2nd commmandment, or the spirit of christ, apart from the law.

feetxxxl said...

Catholic blogger Christopher Blosser also explored the Scriptural teaching on homosexuality back in 2004:

i dont need to. because you have read it, and can confront my understanding with his.

feetxxxl said...

"No, they were given the meanings that their words actually have."


romans because they exchanged the truth about god's love for a lie, they worshipped and served the created(powers and principalities), and because of this they were given over to that which served th ose powers and principalities..... "shameful lust". men and their women abandoned that which was of their natural inclination and gave them peace for that which was not and was without peace(peace the fruit of the spirit)

homosexuals have no women not from their earliest sexual memory. they cannot abandon that which they never had.

they dont bond out of shame or of lust.

please explain your version according TO THE WORDS.

feetxxxl said...

jordanes

you have made a lot of conjectures but have not offered one scripture to support your understanding, please quote them as well.

therefore what you have offered remains mere opinion.

everyone is entitled to their opinion without recrimination.

whether it can be supported by scripture is another matter.

Martin said...

jordanes

you have made a lot of conjectures but have not offered one scripture to support your understanding, please quote them as well.

therefore what you have offered remains mere opinion.

everyone is entitled to their opinion without recrimination.

whether it can be supported by scripture is another matter.


Precisely my point against your intial post before things got lost. You said, in time the church will come to the agreed upon the FACT that scripture NEVER said that homosexuality was a sin

I said: Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (cf. 18:22)

It matters not what you think about homosexual sex but this verse all alone demonstrates that the bible (OT) condemned homosexual sex. My post from Timothy shows the NT condemned homosexual sex.

Your statement that the bible never condemned homosexual sex is wrong. Later we can address whether it is a bad thing or a good thing but it is clearly condemned in the bible OT/NT.

Martin said...

While the ELCA has accepted abortion, the confessional Lutheran church bodies in the US (LCMS, WELS, ELS) never have. I serve on the LCMS Sanctity of Human Life Commission; we are unswervingly pro-life.

Praise God for that. As I wrote my post I feared I may have been spreading my net too wide. I am grateful to be corrected.

feetxxxl said...

no, i said that the bible prohibited same sex relations, but that is no indication that of itself it is a sin. no more than women wearing mens clothes, or doing household chores on the sabbath.

to do them is to evil not because of the essence of them is evil, but because god said not to do them.

feetxxxl said...

it is the same with parents saying to very small children not to touch the stove. touching the stove is not against the parents becuse of its essence, but only because they told the children not to.

feetxxxl said...

the parents told them not to because in all situatuions the stove was a danger, but because being small children they were not capable of determining when it was and was not dangerous.

because eventually they become an age when they could determine when it was and was not dangerous.

feetxxxl said...

has the mind of man evolved like that of little child? of course. look at the 2nd commandment.

in the beginning ones neighbor was someone in their own clan. yet as limited as this may seem, at that time loving ones clan neighbor as onesself was way beyond other cultures.

the understanding of neighbor became to mean anyone who treats you well, regardless of who they were.


and now today our neighbor has come to mean everybody else.

feetxxxl said...

the study of this evolvement is called "spirial dynamics"

Dave Armstrong said...

Please avoid explicit sexual talk, describing various acts. Thanks.We can discuss the topic without getting into all that.

I deleted one post of that nature.

And feet, please tell us what your religious affiliation is (or lack thereof).

Martin said...

no, i said that the bible prohibited same sex relations, but that is no indication that of itself it is a sin. no more than women wearing mens clothes, or doing household chores on the sabbath.

thank you for the clarity. I stand corrected on your point. You maintain that the bible prohibibits same sex in the same sense of other Levetical prohibitions.

In the NT the prohibitions have nothing to do with women's clothes. I copy from Dave's first link. Note his second link follows Pauls "natural law" argument. These are not arguments from the Law.

Romans 1:24-27: Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:8-11: Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (emphasis added)

Jude 7: just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (emphasis added; cf. Gen. 19:4-7 and 2 Pet. 2:4-10; the latter describes the behavior of the Sodomites as not merely violent rape but "licentiousness of the wicked" and "lust of defiling passion

Pilgrimsarbour said...

If God truely used the weather to show his opinion I would have expected Washington DC to have been blown off the map years ago.

I can't argue with that other than to say that judgement begins with the household of God. I sometimes think our nation is living on "borrowed time" when it comes to God's judgement.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

I have been away for a couple of days and have missed out on this discussion. I think it's an important one and hope that those here will be amenable to me joining in now that I am back home and online again.

I have a few questions for feetxxxl but would like to take them one or two at a time, at least until I can get caught up with the discussion.

feetxxxl said...

not from lev where not every prohibition of itself was a sin...

I'm sorry if you've already gone over this in the comment thread and I've missed it, but could you tell me how do we determine which prohibitions are sins and which are not, how we can know the difference, and what prohibitions we should or should not obey? In other words, why prohibit something of which God doesn't care whether we obey Him or not?

Thanks

feetxxxl said...

martin

there has been a lot discussed while you were away. consider reading all the thread and giving your own understanding of romans 1 ACCORDNG TO ITS WORDS.

feetxxxl said...

your overreaction to the words "anus" and "anal" is disturbing, but is consistent with those who hold your same views.
the point is that the subject that threatens you so much, youare unwilling or are unable to discuss it directly.

Martin said...

@feet: Not a big point but there are multiple voices in here. Pilgramsarbor was on vacation (Hope you, Pilgramsarbor, enjoyed it and the family is well rested)and he asked the questions you immediately responded to.

I quoted Romans 1, here, in part, "Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

I anticipate you making the case that this is a case of lust and that not all homosexual sex is lust(and I would disagree with that point) . I would make the point that clearly Paul does not simply mean people given in general to lust but having given up "natural relations" for "un-natural relations".

Actually if you read the page you'll find that Dave has already outlined basic objections in a very concise manner: Marriage and Family

Ken said...

Feet,
You are just wrong. Homosexual sex is always sin and condemned by God.

Just as He condemned idolatry, child sacrifice (v. 21), adultery (verse 20), and bestiality (v. 23) there in Leviticus 18:20-30. they are all sins and all condemned and all called "abominations", disgusting, hated acts.

The argument of using food laws and wearing opposite sex's clothes does not follow. Jesus and the NT clearly changed the food laws. (Mark 7:19, Acts 10-11); but the NT clearly condemns homosexual acts as sin and intrinsically and inherently sinful, as murder, adultery, lying, greed, thieves, drunkards, revilers. Romans 1, I Cor. 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:8-11; all of these passages are clear that homo sex is sin.

As others have pointed out, Romans 1 clearly says that is against nature and against the natural function of the body. It goes against the design of the creator. Like cramming something in an electrical socket that is not designed or created to go in there; which causes a short or fire or explosion; and stripping a plumbing pipe of its threads because of forcing something not created or designed to go in there. Electricity and Plumbing also prove homosexuality is wrong.

Jeremiah 7:9-10 includes stealing, murder and dishonesty as examples of an “abomination”, the same Hebrew word for homosexual sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Jeremiah 7:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9"Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal and walk after other gods that you have not known,

10 then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, 'We are delivered!'--that you may do all these abominations?

see my debate with a liberal/pro-homosexual argument guy named Chris:

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-homosexuality-and-sin.html

Scroll down to July 5 to the end for our debate; in the comment section; he was arguing for homosexuality and did not like me mentioning the graphic details. So, you are wrong that conservative Christians won't even mention some words, etc.

In fact, Chris the liberal/universalist/theistic evolutionist wanted me to stop using graphic terms.

I agree with Dave and Pilgrimsabour and Martin that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and you need to repent of it. Jesus condemned it, because all of the Bible is His word; He quoted the OT and gave His word to the apostles to write the other NT books and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in perfect unity with each other in inspiring the Scriptures. 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21

Debate with liberal / universalist/ pro-homosexuality as not a sin; named Chris:

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-homosexuality-and-sin.html

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Martin,

Thanks. Not so much rested as refreshed.

I would like feetxxxl to respond to my questions about prohibitions, though, if he is willing.

Blessings,

Pilgrimsarbour

feetxxxl said...

im still waiting for you to respond to ALL MY POINTS on romans. what is it? do you want me to have one conversation with jordanes and then to repeat the same coversation to you?

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Are you asking me to comment on Romans 1?

I would be willing to do that if you will please address the questions I just asked regarding prohibitions.

As I said, I have only just arrived in the discussion. It will take me some time to get up to speed on the other points brought out in the thread before now.

Ken said...

Feetxxxl wrote:
i know of no scripture that says that under the new covenant that we are to be led by regulation.

in romans paul says we are to be led by and serve the spirit of christ, the spirit of the one who lives in us.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 says the new covenant will put be one in which God’s laws will be written in their hearts.
31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
33"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "
I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it ; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

And this is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12 and 10:16.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 also says that the new heart of the new covenant will be such that God “causes” them to walk in His statutes”. Jeremiah ( “law”) , Ezekiel (“statutes”) – these are regulations. The Spirit does not contradict the word.
Romans 1:26-27
26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

In Romans 1:27, when it says that the males “abandoned the natural function of women” it does not necessarily mean that they all once had heterosexual experience and then went to homosexual experience; (but some do; I have even counseled some who confessed this; to switching back and forth, etc.)
It certainly includes that; but it says it started with “degrading passions” (shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable internal desires). This shows that the desires itself are disgraceful and shameful and wrong. You cannot claim that homosexual desires are some kind “living by the spirit” in Romans 8:13 and/or Galatians 5:16ff. Those are subjective and sinful. It means that by “burning in their desire for one another” (same sex desire); and then when committed these shameful and disgusting acts with one another, they abandoned the natural function (usage that was created, designed, in-born, by nature, innate) of women.
In verse 26, the females exchanged that which is natural for unnatural.
Nothing could be more clear that homosexual sex is wrong and sinful and inherently and by nature sinful.

Ken said...

I meant Romans 8:14, not 8:13
(if that is what you are claiming by you think that "living by the Spirit" is possible and be homosexual. )

It is not possible.

Ken said...

feetxxxl wrote:

romans because they exchanged the truth about god's love for a lie, they worshipped and served the created(powers and principalities), and because of this they were given over to that which served th ose powers and principalities..... "shameful lust". men and their women abandoned that which was of their natural inclination and gave them peace for that which was not and was without peace(peace the fruit of the spirit)
. . .
please explain your version according TO THE WORDS.

For someone to demand argumentation "according TO THE WORDS"; you have added lots of your own subjective interpretation and added words to the text of Romans 1. nothing about "God's love", or "powers and principalities" or "peace" in Romans 1:18-27. Romans 1:18 says those kinds of sins (including homosexuality) are under the wrath of God. You suppress the truth by unrighteous desire and actions and your subjective justifications for sin; calling something sinful something good and affirming, etc.

Dave Armstrong said...

your overreaction to the words "anus" and "anal" is disturbing, but is consistent with those who hold your same views. the point is that the subject that threatens you so much, you are unwilling or are unable to discuss it directly.

No, the point is that there are standards of civilized discourse (*particularly in the Christian world, which this blog is part of) and lines that need not be crossed. You disagree? Tough. If you want to discuss it here, where you are a guest, you need to respect the wishes of the blogmaster (me).

If we were "threatened" then you wouldn't see the vigorous responses you have been getting. I've already argued it 20 times and so can simply refer folks to my existing papers.

Dave Armstrong said...

2nd time asking the question:

And feet, please tell us what your religious affiliation is (or lack thereof).

In my post, "Thoughts on Constructive and Amiable Dialogue," on the sidebar, I wrote:

"I would like to request that, whenever possible, people use their real names on this blog, so others will know who they are talking to, and to also freely indicate personal beliefs such as denomination, atheist, Muslim, etc. - especially when asked (a website or blog listed would also help people get a handle on posters).

I care for the policy of refusing to reveal one's own religious affiliations even less than I do for the pervasive nicknames. People are entitled to know where the other person is coming from. This makes for much better and fairer discussion, in my experience. If your dialogue partner knows what broad category you are in, that (at least potentially, if they are considerate) fosters more respect and understanding, because they will be able to be more sensitive to your particular opinions due to knowing what they are in the first place. Makes sense to me, anyway . . . I certainly talk and argue differently, depending on who I am talking to."

feetxxxl said...

a point of order every comment i make is to everybody unless i specify otherwise. i will quote the point i am addressing and the then make my own point.

those responding please do the same. thank you.

feetxxxl said...

For someone to demand argumentation "according TO THE WORDS"; you have added lots of your own subjective interpretation and added words to the text of Romans 1. nothing about "God's love", or "powers and principalities" or "peace" in Romans 1:18-27. Romans 1:18 says those kinds of sins (including homosexuality) are under the wrath of God. You suppress the truth by unrighteous desire and actions and your subjective justifications for sin; calling something sinful something good and affirming, etc.


since "god is love" then any lie about god would be about denying that essence.

powers and principalities are definitely created by god, and are the things that jesus specifically said we were to battle against.

are essence is created through the and by the spirit of christ. the things that are of him are of peace, peace(one of the fruit of the spirit) is the essence of christ, that which is not comes against it.

are you saying the fruit of the spirit of christ is the same as those of powers and principalities?

"godlessness and wickedness" your subjective opinion is that it is referring to homosexuality, yet neither you or anyone else can explain how the essence of being homosexual comes against the summation of all new covenant law.........the 2nd commandment(love your neighbor....)

feetxxxl said...

the law that he put in our hearts and minds is that law that makes us "conscious"(romans) of not loving our neighbor as ourself.

this is the entirety of all the law of the new covenant.

Romans 13:8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

paul did not teach thru the law,even about the man who had his father's wife, nor attempt to set up a set of new covenant laws.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

It strikes me as subjective and arbitrary for any one of us to pick one attribute of God and elevate it above all others ascribed to Him in the Scriptures.

God is love. Yes. But God is also wrath, justice, mercy, righteousness, light, life, all being, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. and etc.

However, there is precedent in the Scriptures and in Hebrew culture for underscoring one particular quality or attribute of God. The attribute of God to which we are to pay most careful attention is described in passages like Isaiah 6; God is Holy, Holy, Holy. This is a Hebrew literary device, the tripling of the attribute, which signifies deep import. No other attribute of God's in the Scriptures is "tripled" in this way.

It is a lesson and a warning to us to pay very special attention to the purity of God and how He regards the wickedness of sin and its consequences.

feetxxxl said...

Just as He condemned idolatry, child sacrifice (v. 21), adultery (verse 20), and bestiality (v. 23)

idolatry = worshipping and serving the created.

child sacrifice= killing children in religious ritual

adultery =violating ones vows of fidelity.

beastiality= having sex with animals

homosexuality = mutual consented bonding by 2 adults out of mutual. love, respect, affection, devotion, and trust for a shared committed life together( the same as with heterosexuals.)

homosexual believers who marry, their lives and marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as those of heterosexual believers.

Dave Armstrong said...

3rd time asking the question:

And feet, please tell us what your religious affiliation is (or lack thereof).

Either answer, or I'll start deleting your posts.

feetxxxl said...

"but the NT clearly condemns homosexual acts as sin and intrinsically and "

the transposition of the word "homosexual" into 1cor and 1tim was for the kjv "defiling onesself with mankind"and wycliffe "lechery with mankind". the kjv is extremely broad, to warrant this specificity, and lechery is about obsession with sexual pleasure , which is a sin among heterosexuals as well.
it was done in victorian england, no seperation between church and state, the queen is head of the church, after a law had been n the books for 400 years that punish homosexual sex with hanging, enacted by another head of the church(1500) king henry. no written explanation was ever given for the transposition.

if paul, an exremely learned man, was attempting to communicate the prohibiton of lev he would have written arseno and koitai seperately as they were written in the text of lev. instead he combined the 2 words into a compound word like ladykiller and dragonfly, referring to a specific acts that have to do with defilement of romans "shameful lust". compound words have a different meaning from their words seperated.

homosexuality isnt about shame and it isnt about lust.

feetxxxl said...

"As others have pointed out, Romans 1 clearly says that is against nature and against the natural function of the body. It goes against the design of the creator. Like cramming something in an electrical socket that is not designed or created to go in there; which causes a short or fire or explosion; and stripping a plumbing pipe of its threads because of forcing something not created or designed to go in there. Electricity and Plumbing also prove homosexuality is wrong."

i addressed all this but it was deleted.

feetxxxl said...

" But God is also wrath, justice, mercy, righteousness, light, life, all being, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. and etc."

yes........but all this is done out of, thru,etc........his love.

1cor13 says that ANYTHING that is WITHOUT love is nothing and gains nothing.

Dave Armstrong said...

Okay, feet, you're done, for not answering my simple question, and arguably trollery.

I'll leave what you have already written, but everything after this post will get deleted.

Jordanes said...

feetxxxl said: "The prohibition of homosexual acts in Leviticus was, however, [prohibition of] an intrinsic evil, independent of the temporary nature of the Sinaitic covenant"
how is that possible?


In the same way that the Sinaitic prohibitions against stealing, lying, idolatry, and murder were prohibitions of intrinsic evils, independent of the temporary nature of the Sinaitic covenant. Sex and marriage were created by God at the beginning, not at Mount Sinai. God instituted the natural law when He formed Adam and Eve, whereas He did not hand down the Law of Moses until the 1400s B.C.

homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a friend, brother, engineer , soldier, pastor,administrator, teacher, etc compared to heterosexuals.

No one is contending that homosexuals are not human beings, just that homosexuality is disordered and homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and contrary to nature.

homosexuals bond out of mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, and respect for a shared committed life together, the same as heterosexuals.

No, they don't. It's not the same as normal human sexual bonding, but a perversion of it. That's not to say that homosexuals are incapable of love, affection, devotion, trust, and respect. It has been established, however, that there's far less of this in homosexual relationships (especially homosexual men) than homosexualist propaganda likes to pretend. Quite the opposite, male homosexuality in particular is characterised by a shocking promiscuity.

homosexuals are attracted to the same sex from their first sexual memory, 24/7, their entire lives.

No, not all homosexuals, nor is this disorder and orientation lifelong or unchangeable. Female homosexuality in particular often manifests itself after years of normal sexuality in which the woman neither had nor expressed even the slightest attraction for women. I personally know one woman who was married for a couple decades, bearing eight children. Then after the marriage busted up (her husband was a ne'er-do-well, and she had been raised in the hyperstrict Jehovah's Witnesses cult by a VERY physically abusive father), she befriended a woman who happened to be Lesbian, and decided she'd give that "lifestyle" a try. With women homosexuality is frequently about a need for affection coupled with a repulsion towards men due to physical or sexual abuse at a young age, and is less about sex acts.

those who are believers that marry ( the same sex) their lives and their marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit as those of believing heterosexuals.

No, they're not. Furthermore it is as impossible for two persons of the same sex to marry as it is for two refrigerators.

would you say the same thing of those given over to the acts of the sin nature in gal5 compared to those that were not?

Homosexual sex falls under the categories of "immorality, impurity, licentiousness, . . . acts of selfishness, . . . orgies . . ., all of which the Holy Spirit condemned through St. Paul in Gal. 5:19-21.

christ said "you will know them by their fruit" .......fruit of the spirit......the things that last.

The fruit of homosexuality is well documented: it's NOT a happy way of life.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
are you saying that those who dont know the law have an excuse?


I didn't say anything of the sort. Rather, I pointed out that St. Paul says the natural law is written on the human heart. That is why even those who know nothing of Mosaic law are without excuse. (cf. Rom. 2:14)

Jordanes said...

if not then please explain what is in the essence of being gay (sic) that comes against the 2nd commmandment, or the spirit of christ, apart from the law.

God established human nature and sexual complementarity, mandating from the beginning that the man and the woman are to be united in marriage for the procreation and upbringing of children. Jesus raised marriage to the level of a sacrament, making it a channel of saving grace. Going against that natural and supernatural order causes real and lasting material and spiritual harm. It's no more a fruit of the Spirit to engage in sodomy than it is chop off one's own healthy limbs.

"Catholic blogger Christopher Blosser also explored the Scriptural teaching on homosexuality back in 2004"
i dont need to. because you have read it, and can confront my understanding with his.


Yes, you need to. I've read Gagnon and Blosser. So can you. I've given you the link. You can and should read them too. Then you can confront your understanding with theirs.

Jordanes said...

you have made a lot of conjectures but have not offered one scripture to support your understanding, please quote them as well.

Others had already quoted the Scriptures. You hadn't exactly quoted a lot of Scripture yourself up to that point. But I did refer to a few Scriptures. My argument is scripturally-based, but is not a collection of prooftexts. Not everything that is true is found explicitly laid out in Scripture.

therefore what you have offered remains mere opinion.

Right. Sorry, but you can't slide out of countering the logical basis of someone's arguments just because you want to see a few Scripture quotes.

everyone is entitled to their opinion without recrimination.

No, not really. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and are able to hold it, but is not necessarily "entitled" to it, with or without recrimination.

whether it can be supported by scripture is another matter.

See Gagnon and Blosser.

feetxxxl said...

it good that you are shutting it down, the discussion has lapsed into opinionated conjecture.....................and for the record, episcopal

Dave Armstrong said...

I didn't shut anything down. I said that if you couldn't answer a simple question about affiliation, that I would delete your posts. So now you answer. Why did it take me asking you three times?

Turretinfan said...

LOL about the simple question and it only taking three times.

Dave Armstrong said...

Yep, you are very funny TAO.

feetxxxl said...

my argument stands and falls on its own merit, whether i am a catholic, or baptist, or episcopalian means...........NOTHING.

i have no intention of engaging in a discussion of apperances

Dave Armstrong said...

It falls from Scripture. You don't have a leg to stand on. If you want to argue from Holy Scripture, then you have to accept what is in it.

Dave Armstrong said...

And it does mean something if you are a practicing homosexual, since you have a vested interest in molding Scripture into something that it is not, in order to justify your own belief-system and way of life.

This would account for the bizarre eisegesis that you have been engaging in.

I explained why I like people to identify their affiliation. That has nothing directly to do with argument; only indirectly. It's honest and straightforward and makes for better discussion, to know where a person is coming from, rather than being some anonymous who-knows-what.

Dave Armstrong said...

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (RSV): Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Ken said...

Dave and Jordanes are right on this issue, "Feet" -- if you are practicing homosexual, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God calls you to repent and rebukes your lifestyle, actions, and the way you have twisted Scripture as sin and an abomination.

"Whom the Lord loves, He reproves and disciplines, therefore, be zealous, and repent." Rev. 3:19

You cannot justify homosexuality and sin by appeals to "God is love". God's love actually rebukes your sin!

Much of the Episcopal Church has committed apostasy from "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints". It figures that you are from that kind of church; and Dave was right to ask you where are coming from.

feetxxxl said...

again you are talking about appearances...........the way you look at it, but has nothing to do with the merit of my reasoning.

romishgraffiti said...

Now that everyone's cards are on the table, let me suggest that the "appearances" objection has been sufficiently resolved, and to not let it turn into a means for stalling on anyone's part. So, before I go back to lurking, let me request we get back to the topic at hand.

Scott Waddell

P.S. Oh yeah. My cards: I'm a practicing Catholic who accepts all the teachings the Church proposes for belief.

Dave Armstrong said...

For an excellent treatise on the Greek words Paul uses in 1 Tim. 1:8-11 and 1 Cor 6:9, and the absurd "pro-homosexual practice" counter-arguments to them, see:

"Paul and malakos and arsenokoites"

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/Malakosandarsenokoites.htm

feetxxxl said...

the one thing that romans, tim ,and cor is that they are talking about defilement, a spiritual tearing down of the the fruit of the spirit of christ, love, joy, peace,kindness, goodness, self-control,patience,gentleness, and faithfulness, the essence of the spirit thru which we were created.



i said homosexual believers and marriages(spirit relationship ) are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as those heterosexual, that is my witness in christ in fellowship of walking in the light. in fellowshiping in worship, in friendships, in the work place their lives evidence that christ lives within them in all the same ways, as with the heterosexual believers that i have fellowshipped with throughout my life.

this is my witness in christ, the one who lives within me, thru whom i witness everything.

my witness leads my understanding of scripture, because, as paul said in romans, we are led by the spirit. because christ(triune god) living in me has become the foundation of my life, it is thru him i witness.

its interesting that in this discussion of what is of christ, there is no discussion of witness thru fellowship thru him in walking in the light(1john1), instead it is about legalizations and resurrecting a relationship to god thru regulation as in the old covenant.

from your collective attitude , it would appear that your intention is to deny fellowship, and for this you applaud yourselves. yet 1john says that we are led by our love for our neighbor and which makes us look for oppurtunities to fellowship in christ's love and spirit.

my request is still for an explanation as to how being homosexual comes against the 2nd commandment apart from the law, based on romans 1:20. adding your own stroke to the law, by saying that the law was put in our hearts and minds in creation, obviously says nothing.

paul made a compound word creating a new word, without qualification, just as jesus used an old word euneuche in matthew 19 without qualification. in both cases it was a message for all time. the lack of qualifications means that the understanding will come from the leading of the spirit of christ thru witnessing the truth, life and the way thru the holy spirit thru fellowship, not, where one sees it over another not seeing it. but instead it is with both seeing it together as revealed by the holy spirit.

in my kairos ministry in state prison, the one thing that was consistent among all the inmate brothers given to christ, who participated, was that they openly offered, without any influence from without, repentence for their crimes, that put them in prison. we had no regulation for anyone to join the ministry

the difference between you and homosexual believers is that they offer their understanding out of the their love of christ, while you appear to offer yours, out legalization, traditional understanding along with fear. you would know this about them, if you ever fellowshipped with them.

so what what is your witness of fellowship, with those homosexuals who believe in christ.

Dave Armstrong said...

Our understanding is not "legalistic" at all. It comes straight from Paul's statements.

As for love: it is a loving act to tell someone if in fact he is in sin, just as Jesus was loving the Pharisees when He rebuked them for their hypocrisy. It's an act of love to inform someone that they are falling victim to a sin that they are convinced (for various reasons) is not a sin.

If I tell someone he or she is a glutton or greedy or selfish, chances are they will get very angry at me and probably deny it.

The ones so confronted almost always get angry. Nothing new there. It's the usual human reaction. We all don't like being told we are wrong, or in some sin. If I tell someone who favors legal abortion, that abortion is a sin repeatedly condemned in the Bible, they get angry at me and/or try to explain away all the biblical passages involved (or deny biblical authority altogether).

So you get angry with us and have to believe in your mind that we have nefarious motives simply because we are expressing to you what we believe the NT undeniably teaches.

You have to have some way to lash out at us, and justify your own position, and so we see various approaches you have taken: putting us down in one way or the other, since we disagree with you and desire to tell you something that is for your own good.

Martin said...

my request is still for an explanation as to how being homosexual comes against the 2nd commandment apart from the law, based on romans 1:20.

In short. We were created to love one another, yes, and whatever (true)love you have for your fellow man is the fruit of the spirit. But man was created to share their sexual love man with woman. To attempt to share sexual love from man to man or woman to woman is to abuse our sexual beings. To attempt sexual love between same sexes is to violate the law of true love.

Another quick way to explain this is with Barbar Bonacci's "pizza love" example. I love pizza, I love my wife, I kiss my wife, I eat pizza...it would be wrong to kiss pizza and eat my wife.

You can bond to another person of the same sex without attempting sexual relations. The bonding is real and a good thing. There are several examples of cannonised Saints that were life-long "buddies". They never had sex with one another.

feetxxxl said...

please quote the scripture!

feetxxxl said...

so in essence you have no fellowship witness!

Martin said...

so in essence you have no fellowship witness!

1. You use the word "essence" alot but I'm not sure precisely what you mean when you use that word.

2. "Fellowship witness" ...I'm not sure what I said that leads to this. "Fellowship witness" as a working phrase is not something I'm familiar with so I know I'm missing something you are trying to say.

feetxxxl said...

1john1:1 that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life.........7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.

the apostles knew the same law as the pharisees, which said a heretic should be put to death. the difference was that when jesus said he was the son of god, they knew it was true, because of the spirit in him(life) they witnessed. but when he said the same thing to the pharisees because they were caught up in their mindset, their belief systems, their legalities, they were incapable of seeing anything of the spirit in him and they executed him.

the same was true of the martyrs executed by the church.

anything understood about scripture that is not substantiated thru witness of the spirit remains just that, an unsubstantiated belief. anything that is substantiated is substantiated thru the fellowship of walking in the light in a 1john1 witness.

Ken said...

Amazing that "feet" asks for Scripture, when we have already quoted many passages of Scripture that prove homosexuality is sin and wrong and should be repented of.

more

"love does not rejoice in unrighteousness(homo-sex is unrighteousness, evil, an abomination); but rejoices with the truth."

I Corinthians 13:6

Love does no wrong to its neighbor - Romans 13:10


Doesn't matter if it is "consensual" - it is intrinsically wrong to do that kind of gross act even to a consenting adult. there is no fellowship of the Holy Spirit of God in this kind of relationship.

The Word of God, nature, creation, and plumbing and electricity prove homo-sex is sin and wrong.

feetxxxl said...

ken

i know of no scripture in genesis that says the law was put in adam's mind and heart.

therefore if you cannot explain what it is about being gay that makes it come against the spirit of christ , that thru which we were created, APART FROM THE LAW. then in regards to romans 1:20 you are saying man had an excuse.

it is not thru what god made do we know it is a sin, but only thru the law.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

The false premise that the law is abolished in the love of Christ is clearly refuted by His own words:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17).

feetxxxl said...

fulfillment of the law is love. romans

all......all .....new covenant law being about making us conscious of NOT loving our neighbor as ourselves. in other words if its not about that, then its not a law of the new covernant.romans

if king david had loved his neighbor as himself he would have automatically obeyed the law.....and he would have done more than that, he would have done as christ did, he would have fulfilled it.

all new covenant law being summed up in the 2nd commandment.(love your neighbor......)romans

Pilgrimsarbour said...

Love is not some syrupy feeling that comes and goes with the wind. Charity is love in action. God's chastisement and discipline are also two aspects of His love in action.

As was stated before, the very best expression of my love for you is to warn you of the wrath of God which attends the sin of homosexuality, as well as other sins.

I can offer you nothing more than my sincerest hope and prayer that you will repent. And if you truly love Him, you will do so in His strength and by His grace.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

In addition, it is not loving of me to let my neighbour proceed speedily toward Hell without warning him of God's wrath to those who do not belong to Him.

If a car is about to hit my neighbour, the loving thing to do is to warn him about impending disaster. What kind of neighbour would I be if I said, "Oh, I'd better not warn him about the car that's about to hit him. He might get scared and upset and then hate me. Then he'll make hate crimes legislation against me and I'll lose my house. What will my family do then?"

This shows that the priority is actually myself, not my neighbour. So I would not at all be loving or helping my neighbour if I chose not to warn him of what is so abundantly clear in the Scriptures.

feetxxxl said...

pilgrim

you are so convicted that homosexuality is a sin, yet you are unable how to say how it is sin according to romans 1:20,apart from the law or how it comes against the second commandment, apart from the law.

if i asked the same question about murder you would have no problem.

feetxxxl said...

pilgrim

that is because loving ones neighbor, is about honoring his life expereiences, his sincerity of life, the spirit that he is given over to in his life.

but to do this, requires the hands on fellowship of 1john1.

your being led by your interpretation of the law, like the pharisees, demands that you deny any possiblity of fellowship.

feetxxxl said...

but in denying fellowship are you not ignoring jesus's words on the sermon on the mount, about loving your enemy, and jesus words "if you do it to the least of these, you are doing it to me.

Martin said...

A trenchant quote from Dave's link,The linguistic problem seems to me to be exactly analogous to this: suppose I have an Old Testament text which says, “it is unlawful to lay bricks,” and I have a New Testament text that says “bricklayers are lawbreakers.” It would seem inconceivable to me to say that “Greek scholars don’t know exactly what bricklayer means.” Yet Mel White claims (with an apparently straight face) that “Greek scholars don’t know exactly what arsenokoitai means.”

Martin said...

that is because loving ones neighbor, is about honoring his life expereiences, his sincerity of life, the spirit that he is given over to in his life.

No, loving one's neighbor is "love in truth" that is a desire to see him see God in the next life.

Now if I may fellowship witness with you.

Among the poster's here in the discussion there are very serious disagreements in matters of significance. Yet, all of us here having read and studied the Sriptures( including Romans Chapter 1) and saving further sought the Spirit's confirming word have found that homosexual sex is clearly an offence against God and man. This is no personal opinion but the fellowship of the Spirit in the light of Christ.

We have tried to explain to you that you conflate luv(human emotion) with love. We have explained to you that the fruit of the homosexual spirit is a bitter one, not of the tree of life. You persist in your unbelief. I can say no more.

Jordanes said...

i know of no scripture in genesis that says the law was put in adam's mind and heart.

You also know of no Scripture in Genesis that says God created homosex. You do know of the Scripture, however, that says God formed Adam and then created Eve from Adam's flesh, joining them in marriage so that they become one flesh.

therefore if you cannot explain what it is about being gay that makes it come against the spirit of christ , that thru which we were created, APART FROM THE LAW. then in regards to romans 1:20 you are saying man had an excuse.

Not according to St. Paul. He said even the Gentiles who are ignorant of the Law have it written on their hearts, and that the evidence of God's existence and attributes can be discerned in His creation, so that even sinners who have never heard of the Law of Moses are without excuse. That's a New Covenant teaching, feetxxxl, not an Old Covenant one. You may not accept what St. Paul taught by the Holy Spirit -- but if you don't, don't pretend you're a Christian.

it is not thru what god made do we know it is a sin, but only thru the law.

According to Holy Scripture, God made and handed down the Law. Thus you've posited a distinction without a difference.

feetxxxl said...

jordanes

i didnt respond to your last email because you offered no basis for your many opinions. which i can see hasnt changed.

narth is a pseudo scientific organization formed to substaniate one basic conclusion. in the scientific process one follows where the facts lead them, not manipulates them to support a predetermined conclusion.

romans 2:12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Dave Armstrong said...

A man convinced against his will retains his original belief still.

feetxxxl said...

my intention is to convict no one, that is for the holy spirit.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

feetxxxl,

Since I don't buy your premise that God's law no longer applies to believers, your question about Romans in incoherent.

Frankly, I can't follow your arguments anyway, which seem to rely on some manufactured theological terms and definitions that only those who are desperately trying to justify their sinful lifestyle would dare develop. I have nothing further to offer and believe this conversation to be both pointless and fruitless.

Peace,

Pilgrimsarbour

Pilgrimsarbour said...

*should read:

"...your question about Romans is in coherent."

Pilgrimsarbour said...

LOL! *"incoherent."

What in the world is wrong with me today?!

You all feel free to give a hollow laugh at my expense. You've earned it.

Jordanes said...

i didnt respond to your last email because you offered no basis for your many opinions. which i can see hasnt changed.

Right back atcha. I responded to your comment even though you have offered no basis for your many opinions, which I see hasn't changed. The Scriptures explicitly contradict your opinions, and you are at great pains to explain away how it was that the Church failed to understand from her very founding that homosexuality is of Christ.

narth is a pseudo scientific organization formed to substaniate one basic conclusion.

That's your opinion. Their findings are solid, however. There's nothing wrong with organizations formed to substantiate one basic conclusion, if that conclusion is correct and agrees with Christ's revelation.

in the scientific process one follows where the facts lead them, not manipulates them to support a predetermined conclusion.

Of course. That's one of the ways we know that homosexual behavior is unnatural.

What is your intention in quoting Romans 2:12-16? I've already referred to it a few times, and now you've quoted it. It says what I said it says -- the natural law is written in the human heart, in the human conscience. It's not necessary that one be a Jew, or that one have received the Torah, to know that homosexuality is a disorder. Thus we see St. Paul in Romans 1 basing arguments against homosexual perversion upon the natural law, not upon any ordinances or statutes of the Torah.

feetxxxl said...

"That's your opinion. Their findings are solid, however. There's nothing wrong with organizations formed to substantiate one basic conclusion, if that conclusion is correct and agrees with Christ's revelation."

my understanding is that they went to the bars, and the health clinics ( the addictive sector of gay community) and compared the numbers with those in their right wing churches.

the scripture does not say what requirements of what law was written in their hearts, does that include slavery(solomomns slave labor camps,1kings) as well, executing people for violating the sabbath*(num15), women wearing men's clothes(which was called an abomination).

you pick and chose your law and your interpretation of that law.

yet you credit the spirit with with nothing.

homosexuals believers, and the heterosexual churches that support them celebrate, affirm, support their orientation from the pulpit, and their worship, and lives are filled with the fruit of the spirit, as much and if not more than those that dont.

what do you suppose would be the fruit of the spirit of churches that celebrated, affirmed, or supported murder, thievery, or adultery? from having known individuals who did, i would have to say there would be none.

Jordanes said...

my understanding is that they went to the bars, and the health clinics ( the addictive sector of gay community) and compared the numbers with those in their right wing churches.

You've been seriously misinformed. That is NOT how NARTH does its research.

the scripture does not say what requirements of what law was written in their hearts

Not only that, but the Scripture doesn't even say "requirements." It says "work" or "operation." But the context of the Epistle to the Romans shows that St. Paul is speaking in that text of the law of human nature, that is, what is morally good and morally bad for human beings. That is the law on which the Torah, the Law of Moses, derives its moral authority.

does that include slavery(solomomns slave labor camps,1kings) as well, executing people for violating the sabbath*(num15), women wearing men's clothes(which was called an abomination).

Yes, the natural law regulates all three of those circumstances: treatment of workers and slaves, observance of Sabbaths and holy days, and proper dress for men and women. The specific Sinaitic ordinances, however, are not necessarily a part of the natural law.

you pick and chose your law and your interpretation of that law.

It seems to me that's exactly what you're doing.

yet you credit the spirit with with nothing.

I don't know what you mean by that. I credit the Spirit with EVERYTHING good.

homosexuals believers, and the heterosexual churches that support them celebrate, affirm, support their orientation from the pulpit, and their worship, and lives are filled with the fruit of the spirit, as much and if not more than those that dont.

A bald assertion, unsupported by (and practically unsupportable by) evidence.

what do you suppose would be the fruit of the spirit of churches that celebrated, affirmed, or supported murder, thievery, or adultery?

Pretty much the same as those apostate churches that embrace the homosexual perversion and reject what Jesus and the Apostles have to say about it.

Martin said...

my understanding is that they went to the bars, and the health clinics ( the addictive sector of gay community) and compared the numbers with those in their right wing churches.

…and there’s a firewall between the two? I suspect if we could look we would find some notable fence jumping between the two communities. I say this based on the behavior of unchaste heterosexuals who have no problem with Saturday night sins and Sunday affirmations.

the scripture does not say what requirements of what law was written in their hearts,…

Yes it does as has been shown over and over and over here. No murderers, fornicators….oh, why do I even try?

you pick and chose your law and your interpretation of that law.

No, we follow what the scripture shows, the church teaches and what the spirit confirms as we have for the last 2000 years.

feetxxxl said...

antiquity has never been a litmus test for the truth.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

antiquity has never been a litmus test for the truth.

Neither are homosexual theological innovations.

The continuing attempts of modern man to "make Christ and His Church relevant" to today's morally rudderless, weak and promiscuous societies is attested well by Romans 1:18 ff.

feetxxxl said...

"Pretty much the same as those apostate churches that embrace the homosexual perversion and reject what Jesus and the Apostles have to say about it."

yet jesus said "we would recognize by their fruit"..........fruit of the spirit.

are you saying jesus was wrong, that we are incaple of acknowledging where the spirit rests or are incapable of acknowledging that whose fruit is the fruit of the spirit?

are you saying that the fruit of the spirt is less in those one than in the other?


the fruit of the spirit being love, joy, peace , kindness, patience,goodness,self-control, gentleness, and faithfulness.

or are you one is more than the other because it agrees with your interpretation of scripture.

scripture would disagree with you.
how could anything, which if followed gives no righteousness, be anything that determines the presence of spirit?

of course the same is not true for faith.

galatians3:1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

Hebrews 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves

feetxxxl said...

but you cannot say what is in the spirit in being homosexual, that comes against the spirit of the 2nd commandment(love your neighbor)

if you say out of regulation

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

feetxxxl said...

how can the law be the spirit if the law came from the spirit.

how can the shadow equate itself equal to the light that caused it.

feetxxxl said...

Not according to St. Paul. He said even the Gentiles who are ignorant of the Law have it written on their hearts, and that the evidence of God's existence and attributes can be discerned in His creation, so that even sinners who have never heard of the Law of Moses are without excuse. That's a New Covenant teaching, feetxxxl, not an Old Covenant one. You may not accept what St. Paul taught by the Holy Spirit -- but if you don't, don't pretend you're a Christian.


you are confusing law with the spirit. you are equating one with the other. how can the shadow be equal to the light that caused it.

heb 10:1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Romans 3:19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

what i am talking about is living into this righteousness by living the three commanmdments of love thru the spirit of christ, which by doing so we do much more than follow the law we fulfill it.

this is greater than living by the law, for which we receive no righteousness.

rather than reaching for the greater you appear to instead want to be led by the lesser for the sake of your theology.

as i said before if king david had loved his neighbor as himself he would have automatically avoided violating a number of laws, and at the same time fulfilled the law.

Jordanes said...

yet jesus said "we would recognize by their fruit"..........fruit of the spirit. are you saying jesus was wrong, that we are incaple of acknowledging where the spirit rests or are incapable of acknowledging that whose fruit is the fruit of the spirit?

Just because moral virtues can be found in a community doesn't mean those virtues originate in justifying and sanctifying grace. Even the unregenerate can do good.

Again, the Holy Spirit tells us through St. James that if you keep the Law but fail in one point, you're guilty of breaking the whole Law. It's no good to point to a community's positive moral virtues as if they make up for it's grievous immorality.

are you saying that the fruit of the spirt is less in those one than in the other?

I'm saying there's no practical way to say which community has the fruit of the Spirit, since we're not talking about any actual communities here, only hypothetical ones. We have to look at real persons to discern whether or not the Spirit is bearing His fruit in their lives. Bald assertions that some communitiy somewhere IS bearing that fruit are pointless.

the fruit of the spirit being love, joy, peace , kindness, patience,goodness,self-control, gentleness, and faithfulness.

Love, joy, peace, kindness, self-control, gentleness, and fidelity are not usually characteristics of persons who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder.

scripture would disagree with you.

And yet the Scriptures that support the Christian teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and the disordered nature of homosexuality have been quoted here over and over again. Those Scriptures disagree with you, and you're not fazed by that at all.

how could anything, which if followed gives no righteousness, be anything that determines the presence of spirit?

You're referring to the Law. No one here is a Pelagian.

but you cannot say what is in the spirit in being homosexual, that comes against the spirit of the 2nd commandment(love your neighbor)

Sure we can. That which is spiritually contrary to the second great commandment of the Law in being homosexual is the violation of the neighbor's God-created nature and personal integrity as a man or a woman, and the disregard for the neighbor's spiritual, emotional, and corporeal health and well-being, in order to satisfy unnatural lusts.

you are confusing law with the spirit. you are equating one with the other.

No, I am not doing that at all. You, however, seem to be confusing the Sinaitic Law with the law of God that binds our consciences.

what i am talking about is living into this righteousness by living the three commanmdments of love thru the spirit of christ, which by doing so we do much more than follow the law we fulfill it.

It is impossible to do that, however, unless one accepts and lives by the teachings of Christ. Those who claim homosexuality is natural and normal, and that homosexual conduct is morally approved by God, do not accept and live by the teachings of Christ.

as i said before if king david had loved his neighbor as himself he would have automatically avoided violating a number of laws, and at the same time fulfilled the law.

Just as those who love their neighbor as themselves do not engage in sodomitic conduct. . . .

Jordanes said...

antiquity has never been a litmus test for the truth.

True, but if the Church has been clearly proclaiming something to be the truth for 2,000 years, she can never change and start proclaiming that the opposite is the truth. Moral evils don't become moral goods just because time passes by and human societies change.

Ken said...

"Feetxxxl" -

homosexual consensual sex is actually doing harm to each other, and a violation of Jesus' second great commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. no matter how much "niceness" and gentleness and "love" is claimed; it actually hating your neighbor to engage in that activity.

". . . men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27

I wonder if the inspired writ is talking about all the gross diseases that male homosexuality fosters, not only AIDs but many other diseases and problems.

Please Read, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffery Sattinover. Baker Books

It is by nature wrong and sin and the Spirit of God speaks against it, because He is the author of all the word of God. (the law, the prophets, Psalms, gospels, epistles, all)

The Spirit and the law are in complete harmony. Only the ceremonial, sacrificial, foods, feasts, etc. and civil laws of Israel were fulfilled and no longer binding; the moral laws still stand. Homosexuality is immoral, the desire and the act. so, you should repent of it and quit justifying your selfish desires.

You are not walking by the Spirit nor filled with the Spirit nor in harmony with the Spirit of God and you do not have the Spirit of God, since you twist His own word against Him and keep quoting verses about the Spirit, yet it is the "Word of God, which is the Sword of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17) that is speaking against your sin and He is against your justifying it, you are calling evil "good" and that is disgusting, as Isaiah says.

feetxxxl said...

ken

where is your personnal witness, You are merely making speculation according to your theology. do you actually have a intimate friendship with a gay believer?

have you actually had fellowship of walking in the light with a gay believer.

then how can substaniate where the spirit rests?

feetxxxl said...

jordanes

if our righteousness is apart from the law why would you think the fruit of the spirit has anything to do with the law...........love, joy, peace, kindness, patience, goodness, self control,faithfulness, and,gentleness.

feetxxxl said...

jordanes

the thing that you are calling conscience is the essence what we were created thru(christ) so that god in genesis could call us "very good."

so romans 1:20 is about recognizing the essence of spirit which we ourselves were made of.

history has shown that conscience can be conditioned. people can actually feel guilty for not doing something that is against christ.

the spirit on the other hand remains consistently the same.

Ken said...

There is no such thing as a "gay believer". oxymoron

I have led two former homosexuals to Christ; they repented and God turned their life around.

One later died of AIDS; but I sincerely believe he went to heaven; because he repented and trusted Christ.

The other later married and has four children.

God can transform lives, by the power of the truth and the Holy Spirit.

Again, repent and turn from your sin.

You cannot claim to be a believer in the Jesus of the Bible and hold your views.

"My sheep hear My voice and follow Me." John 10

feetxxxl said...

ken

do think that those 2 speak for 320 million worldwide and 12 million in this country.

if our righteousness is apart from the law why would that differences in the law would nullify what comes from a persons faith?

romans 10:8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

ephesians2: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

understandings about the law are works.

Ken said...

You asked for personal witness, so I gave it. I also know others who were former homosexuals and repented.

grace alone saves us; faith alone in Christ alone justified us; but that grace does not leave us alone, it changes us and gives us power to repent and change, and that faith does not remain alone, it is living and results in hatred of sin and turning from sin.
Acts 26:20 - "performing deeds appropriate to repentance."
Ephesians 2:10
James 2:14-26

"Without holiness, no one will see the Lord" Heb. 12:14

Jordanes said...

if our righteousness is apart from the law why would you think the fruit of the spirit has anything to do with the law

Your question assumes that "our righteousness is apart from the law" is contrary to "the fruit of the spirit has something to do with the law." You're reasoning from erroneous premises.

But all of this is a tangent, a distraction from the fact that the Scriptures and Christian Tradition univocally condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. You seek to evade that by advocating a heretical misinterpretation of St. Paul's soteriology, a species of antinomianism.

the thing that you are calling conscience is the essence what we were created thru(christ) so that god in genesis could call us "very good."

No, that is not what I am calling "conscience."

so romans 1:20 is about recognizing the essence of spirit which we ourselves were made of.

Um, no, it's about recognising who and what God is, and who and what we are in relation to Him, with its consequent mandates for how we are to live. Your formulation seems like more of a New Age-y take on things.

history has shown that conscience can be conditioned. people can actually feel guilty for not doing something that is against christ.

True. The conscience must be properly formed, and not warped or twisted so as to think something good is bad, or something bad is good. People can actually feel that something that is against Christ is just fine, or can feel that something is bad that isn't against Christ.

do think that those 2 speak for 320 million worldwide and 12 million in this country.

Your figures are inflated. More likely the numbers of homosexuals in the U.S. are from 2.5 million to 7.4 million (1-3% of the population age 14 and up).

But the two repentant, former homosexuals Ken mentioned do not speak for all the homosexuals who have not yet repented. Nevertheless, St. Paul told the Corinthians, "Such WERE some of you -- but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (I Cor. 6:9-11)

Ken said...

there are no "gay believers", (and the word "gay" was co-opted by the sodomite/homosexual movement) but there are believers who struggle with that sin, but know it is wrong and are seeking to be free from its bondage. A true believer does not justify the sin and claim he is happy; but a true believer who has that problem will be grieved and sad and not happy. (ie, not "gay")

Ken said...

Yes, I Cor. 6:9-11 - that was one of the key verses I had in might I as I wrote these posts; thanks Jordanes.

feetxxxl said...

"But all of this is a tangent, a distraction from the fact that the Scriptures and Christian"

why would you say this is tangent, when jesus made recogning the fruit of the spirit, the core of recognizing what was of god.

what scripture would you use to negate ot trump "you will recognize them according to their fruit"

understandings about the law are about works.

since our righteousness is apart from the law it would seem that issues about the law would be tangent as to what is of god.

Ken said...

the deeds of the flesh are obvious.

Homosex is sin; deeds of the flesh

"and things like these" Gal. 5:21
Links it to other sin lists in I Timothy 1:8-11; I Cor. 6:9-11; Romans 1:23-29; etc.

those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

There is no "fruit of the Spirit" in homosexuality; it is rotten and gross and an abomination; ugly; sinful.

feetxxxl said...

ken

you are merely expressing a mindset. you are expressing no reasoning.

im not interested in comparing mindsets

C. Andiron said...

Not to intrude on your discussion with Ken, but I'm intrigued by the phrase:
understandings about the law are about works.
that you keep repeating over and over again. I'd always understood that the law is good and just in itself. By the law comes knowledge of sin. Therefore understandings of the law are not about works, they are about sin.

Thinking you can be justified by the law is 'about works', but just understanding the law does not seem to me to be about works.
Do you see my point? Can you please clarify what you mean?


since our righteousness is apart from the law it would seem that issues about the law would be tangent as to what is of god.

Our righteousness is apart from our perfect obedience to the law, but our righteousness is still grounded in the law, through Christ's perfect obedience. The word 'righteousness' has no meaning apart from the law.

Can I suggest that you read Romans 6. We are not to be slaves to sin. You do believe there is a such a thing as sin, yes? And it seems that the bible, including the New Testament takes it seriously, would you agree? How can you define sin apart from the law?


what scripture would you use to negate ot trump "you will recognize them according to their fruit"

Yes. But you cannot redefine 'fruit' to suit your own personal tastes. If you use that verse, it seems to me the responsible thing would be to make sure you are not making any mistakes about the definitions of the words involved.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

I would argue that homosexuality is, in fact, "natural," in that it may be in the "nature" of some people.

But we must keep in mind that created nature is fallen, broken, perverted, tainted through and through with sin. So appeals to things that are "natural," meaning that there is some inherent goodness in the mere fact that they are natural, is pointless.

We, as sinners, must struggle constantly throughout our entire lives to fight what comes "naturally" to us, for our own good, the good of others, and to the glory of God. Even many of those who are not followers of Jesus Christ fight the "monkeys on their backs" all their lives, i.e., alcohol and drug addiction to name a couple of endemic problems. People with addictive personalities find that these things come naturally to them.

It is in our nature to kill.

It is in our nature to steal.

It is in our nature to covet, commit adultery and fornicate.

How can we say that we should not fight against all these things, though in God's strength by His grace?

It is by the strength of God's Holy Spirit in grace that we fight our nature for the glory of Him and that glory which awaits us after this life is over.

Martin said...

I would argue that homosexuality is, in fact, "natural," in that it may be in the "nature" of some people.

It's important here not to conflate the two definitions of "natural".

One is the philosopher's definition. That word means roughly what something is made to do. It is in our nature to worship God. Sin is in that sense, "unnatural".

The other definition is the more common usage. "What is found in nature" would be the idea. Once, when a friend of mine was waxing poetic about male swans mating for life proving that homosexuals were "natural" I told her I was afraid to go home for dinner.

"Why", she asked.

"Because my wife wants me home for dinner and I'm scared she will kill me and eat me"

"Don't be silly, that's not natural"

"It is for Black Widows and Praying Mantises"

This is a big part of feet's problem. He continuously conflates terms. "Christian joy" for "I'm happy with what I'm doing", "Christan peace" with "my conscience isn't bothering me"

Most importantly he confuses "fruit of the spirit" with "I'm happy with my life."

feetxxxl said...

natural would be the inclination of a person, that when pursued brings peace and self actualization and personal affirmation.

and homosexuals in bonding thru mutual love, devotion,affection, trust ,and respect, the same as heterosexual, for a shared committed life together EXPERIENCE THIS.

and if those whose work has been to say otherwise had ever fellowshipped with them, they would know this.

work: anything a person does out of their own effort, as opposed to the things from heaven received thru grace that are of the fruit of the spirit, love, joy, kindness, patience, gentleness, self -control, goodness, and faithfulness. these are the things that last.

Pilgrimsarbour said...

natural would be the inclination of a person, that when pursued brings peace and self actualization and personal affirmation.

Psychobabble. And not the true test of real faith. To sear our consciences by suppressing the truth in our unrighteous thoughts and acts is to deceive ourselves into believing we have a right relationship with God. To be comfortable in our sin, to hold it close, to cherish it, is to be very far from God. I preach to myself here as well, or maybe even primarily.

Let's see God's assessment of our inclinations:

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time (Genesis 6:5).

Regarding the overwrought dichotomy between law and grace in this thread (which is really a grasping justification for a sinful lifestyle):

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification (Romans 6:15-19).

Why does Paul talk about obedience in this passage if Christ does not require it of us?

We war against our natural desires because they are of the flesh:

17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do (Galatians 5:17).

It is natural for man to be inclined to evil because of the fall. We need to rise above these natural desires through the grace of His strength.

C. Andiron said...

and homosexuals in bonding thru mutual love, devotion,affection, trust ,and respect, the same as heterosexual, for a shared committed life together EXPERIENCE THIS.

You cannot use personal experience to determine whether an action is moral. What if there were 'mutuality' in a pedophilic or incestuous relationship? Should it be legal because of that? The emotions stirred within you because of an evil act cannot redeem that evil act, no matter how noble these emotions might be in their proper context. If EnRon's accountant got artistic satisfaction from coming up with his complex fraudulent schemes, what he did would still be wrong. Do you understand this? And given the norm within gay culture (the behavior during 'pride' parades, restrooms, molestations, John Waters, etc. for starters) this point of yours is moot anyhow. You are talking about theoretical gays that don't seem to exist in the real world.

and if those whose work has been to say otherwise had ever fellowshipped with them, they would know this.

Nope. Let's say you knew a mafia family, and that there was real love and bonding within that family. You could still say that what they do is wrong and that their children would be better off in another environment. The unrepentant sin of the adults would seep into and poison all other aspects of life. They would hang over it like a pall.

work: anything a person does out of their own effort, as opposed to the things from heaven received thru grace that are of the fruit of the spirit, love, joy, kindness, patience, gentleness, self -control, goodness, and faithfulness. these are the things that last.

Thank you for giving a definition of work. But I hope you will be able to see how it argues against your own position. You cannot be said to be faithful or in possession of self control if you disregard the teachings of the faith, and lack all self control, making your desire the be all and end all of morality. Don't let your impulses master you and turn you into a puppet. You can find freedom from their control in Christianity.

feetxxxl said...

andiron

i have interest in hypotheticals. i have known gypy families, who have premeditatively lived by theft, and the family was filled with darkness.

i have known mafia who premeditatively lived by murder, they were filled with more than darkness.

i have no use for hypotheticals, homosexuality stands and falls on its own merit, as well as an other issue you chose to bring up.