Gay Christians: give it up

Crazy Liz

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2003
17,059
1,106
California
✟23,305.00
Faith
Christian
To Crazy Liz,

No I’m not showing you any more till you show me something, You made a claim without evidence and I disputed it with evidence. Show some evidence. … but be aware that Jesus fulfils the law and prophets, there is a lot more law about dietry requirements in the OT yet not so in the NT.
I suggest if one wants to follow Jesus Christ, one looks to Jesus Christ in order to do it.

I already gave the parable of the Good Samaritan as one example. Surely you understand how it teaches the elevation of social justice over purity.

Luke 11:37-41

While he was speaking, a Pharisee invited him to dine with him; so he went in and took his place at the table. The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash before dinner. Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? So give for alms those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you.

(Note: there are parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, not reproduced here.)

And what do you think the metaphor "whited sepulchres" means in Matthew 23?

I mentioned Micah before, too. Try chapter 6.

And what about Jeremiah 7, which is all about Josiah's cleansing of the Temple?

And what about Acts 10? How do you understand that WRT social justice and purity?

Or go all the way back to Genesis. What did Judah mean when he said to Tamar, "You were more righteous than I?" (Genesis 38)?

Again, an exhaustive list would require a discussion of all the Prophets and the Gospels, and much of the rest of the Bible as well, but the theme is very strong that social justice is more important than purity.

Please show some evidence with scriputre references because at present I am not unconvinced by your heresay.

I'm glad you're convinced.

Also, I know you misspelled the last word in your post, but I'm not sure which word you were trying to spell.
 
Upvote 0

Wade Smith

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2008
815
65
43
L.A.
✟1,385.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From my own experience in Pentecostal circles... Its very emotionally lead train. A "good" service is when everyone is apparantly "feeling" up to worship and from what I've gather after being in AoG for 7 years was that emotional instances like these lead to... rather weird situations. With them pressing we must speak tongues to be "baptised" in the Holy Spirit. People running around screaming. Other things that seem more in disorder than anything.

And yet, every miracle I have ever seen or heard of in modern times happened in a pentecostal or spirit filled non-denom church.

Why can't you see that?

Every person Jesus healed in the Bible, guess what? They couldn't shut up afterwards. They took off jumping and running too.


You are not ashamed to jump up and down and hoot and holler over a stupid football game, but you are ashamed to do the same for Jesus, your Lord and Savior.

That is hypocrissy.

Shouldn't our Faith be led by Faith? With emotions running tail?

I am not moved by what I hear. I am not moved by what I see. I am not moved by how I feel. I am move by what I believe.

You are not moved by what you see? And yet everything written by the Apostles is a record of what they experienced, what they saw and heard. Most especially the miracles. On many occassions, it is recorded in the gospels that the people believed on Jesus because of the Miracles that they SAW him perform.


The other curious thing I noticed among these pentecostal circles is... After 7 years and growing up and out of that season in my life. No one in that church ever really progressed in their faith. Progression was rated by how much emotion and speaking in tongues in service was portrayed. This isn't pressed, but looking back thats what I see.

Maybe I'm wrong though?

I don't know what churches you are talking about. To me "progression" is rated by the salvation of souls and by a sanctified life. The "Renewing of a right Spirit within me..."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wade Smith

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2008
815
65
43
L.A.
✟1,385.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Since I'm presently having problems with my sound card I can't hear what Wade has posted. However, I'm sure that I HAVE heard it all before. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe that the definition of 'tongues' that we see in Acts suddenly took on a different scriptural meaning ...and for NO good reason, I quickly add. Every instance of the word 'tongue/s' as in 'language' is the Greek word 'glossa'. It never means anything other than 'language' that is spoken and understood by SOMEONE of a particular nationality. There is no such thing as a literal UNKNOWN 'tongue/language'. EVERY language is known to someone.

'Babble' is NOT a language and cannot therefore even be understood by God.

How many times do I have to tell you that Pentecostal "tongues" is not Babble?

I even gave you several examples of how and why tongues works, and also books that you can buy online and read for youself, if you cared to do real research on the subject, but you don't care.
 
Upvote 0

Wade Smith

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2008
815
65
43
L.A.
✟1,385.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now, show me just ONE scripture that says purity is more important than social justice. I'll be surprised if you can find one.

First of all, you are using a parable completely out of context.

When I rebuke a sinner in love, and show them what the Bible says, I in fact am being a "Good Samaritan".

The thieves and robbers who beat the guy up and took his stuff in that parable, they represent the man's own sins. The Oil and Wine represent the Holy Spirit and Word of God, who is Christ, respectively.



However, I can find several instances where you will see "purity" is just as important, if not moreso than what you are errantly labeling "social justice".

You definition of "social justice" is "license to sin".

But this is what Paul had to say about the sexually immoral.

Apparantly, Purity was important enough in the 1st century to warrant kicking someone out of the church, and permanently if need be.

1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

Uh, oh! You mean Paul "Judged" a sinner? Yes, he did indeed. And the verdict was excommunication, as we shall shortly see.


4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.


Matthew Henry
Paul had judged that he should be delivered to Satan (v. 5), and this was to be done in the name of Christ, with the power of Christ, and in a full assembly, where the apostle would be also present in spirit, or by his spiritual gift of discerning at a distance. Some think that this is to be understood of a mere ordinary excommunication, and that delivering him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh is only meant of disowning him, and casting him out of the church, that by this means he might be brought to repentance, and his flesh might be mortified. Christ and Satan divide the world: and those that live in sin, when they profess relation to Christ, belong to another master, and by excommunication should be delivered up to him; and this in the name of Christ. Note, Church-censures are Christ’s ordinances, and should be dispensed in his name. It was to be done also when they were gathered together, in full assembly. The more public the more solemn, and the more solemn the more likely to have a good effect on the offender. Note, Church-censures on notorious and incorrigible sinners should be passed with great solemnity. Those who sin in this manner are to be rebuked before all, that all may fear, 1 Tim. 5:20. Others think the apostle is not to be understood of mere excommunication, but of a miraculous power or authority they had of delivering a scandalous sinner into the power of Satan, to have bodily diseases inflicted, and to be tormented by him with bodily pains, which is the meaning of the destruction of the flesh. In this sense the destruction of the flesh has been a happy occasion of the salvation of the spirit. It is probable that this was a mixed case. It was an extraordinary instance: and the church was to proceed against him by just censure; the apostle, when they did so, put forth an act of extraordinary power, and gave him up to Satan, nor for his destruction, but for his deliverance, at least for the destruction of the flesh, that the soul might be saved. Note, The great end of church-censures is the good of those who fall under them, their spiritual and eternal good. It is that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, v. 5. Yet it is not merely a regard to their benefit that is to be had in proceeding against them. For, IV. He hints the danger of contagion from this example: Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? The bad example of a man in rank and reputation is very mischievous, spreads the contagion far and wide. It did so, probably, in this very church and case: see 2 Co. 12:21. They could not be ignorant of this. The experience of the whole world was for it; one scabbed sheep infects a whole flock. A little heaven will quickly spread the ferment through a great lump. Note, Concern for their purity and preservation should engage Christian churches to remove gross and scandalous sinners.

v. 13
Here the apostle advises them to shun the company and converse of scandalous professors. Consider, I. The advice itself: I wrote to you in a letter not to company with fornicators, v. 9. Some think this was an epistle written to them before, which is lost. Yet we have lost nothing by it, the Christian revelation being entire in those books of scripture which have come down to us, which are all that were intended by God for the general use of Christians, or he could and would in his providence have preserved more of the writings of inspired men. Some think it is to be understood of this very epistle, that he had written this advice before he had full information of their whole case, but thought it needful now to be more particular. And therefore on this occasion he tells them that if any man called a brother, any one professing Christianity, and being a member of a Christian church, were a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, that they should not keep company with him, nor so much as eat with such a one. They were to avoid all familiarity with him; they were to have no commerce with him; they were to have no commerce with him: but, that they might shame him, and bring him to repentance, must disclaim and shun him. Note, Christians are to avoid the familiar conversation of fellow-christians that are notoriously wicked, and under just censure for their flagitious practices. Such disgrace the Christian name. They may call themselves brethren in Christ, but they are not Christian brethren. They are only fit companions for the brethren in iniquity; and to such company they should be left, till they mend their ways and doings. II. How he limits this advice. He does not forbid the Christians the like commerce with scandalously wicked heathens. He does not forbid their eating nor conversing with the fornicators of this world, etc. They know no better. They profess no better. The gods they serve, and the worship they render to many of them, countenance such wickedness. "You must needs go out of the world if you will have no conversation with such men. Your Gentile neighbours are generally vicious and profane; and it is impossible, as long as you are in the world, and have any worldly business to do, but you must fall into their company. This cannot be wholly avoided.’’ Note, Christians may and ought to testify more respect to loose worldlings than to loose Christians. This seems a paradox. Why should we shun the company of a profane or loose Christian, rather than that of a profane or loose heathen? III. The reason of this limitation is here assigned. It is impossible the one should be avoided. Christians must have gone out of the world to avoid the company of loose heathens. But this was impossible, as long as they had business in the world. While they are minding their duty, and doing their proper business, God can and will preserve them from contagion. Besides, they carry an antidote against the infection of their bad example, and are naturally upon their guard. They are apt to have a horror at their wicked practices. But the dread of sin wears off by familiar converse with wicked Christians. Our own safety and preservation are a reason of this difference. But, besides, heathens were such as Christians had nothing to do to judge and censure, and avoid upon a censure passed; for they are without (v. 12), and must be left to God’s judgment, v. 13. But, as to members of the church, they are within, are professedly bound by the laws and rules of Christianity, and not only liable to the judgment of God, but to the censures of those who are set over them, and the fellow-members of the same body, when they transgress those rules. Every Christian is bound to judge them unfit for communion and familiar converse. They are to be punished, by having this mark of disgrace put upon them, that they may be shamed, and, if possible, reclaimed thereby: and the more because the sins of such much more dishonour God than the sins of the openly wicked and profane can do. The church therefore is obliged to clear herself from all confederacy with them, or connivance at them, and to bear testimony against their wicked practices. Note, Though the church has nothing to do with those without, it must endeavour to keep clear of the guilt and reproach of those within. IV. How he applies the argument to the case before him: "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person, v. 13. Cast him out of your fellowship, and avoid his conversation.’’
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
However, I can find several instances where you will see "purity" is just as important, if not moreso than what you are errantly labeling "social justice".

Your definition of "social justice" is "license to sin".

:amen: Very happy to see that I'm not the only one who noticed this.
 
Upvote 0

LogosRhema

Awake
Oct 22, 2007
1,723
129
Fort Wayne
✟10,022.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Married
And yet, every miracle I have ever seen or heard of in modern times happened in a pentecostal or spirit filled non-denom church.

Why can't you see that?
What constitutes as a miracle? Feeling really good and that apparent high leads people to believe they were healed? I've been in these circles. If they did not "feel" God in the service they regard the service not as highly as another service where they "felt" God. Have you gotten back with these folks who were healed weeks later? Or was it in the moment of their high they felt relieved? Like on a drug perhaps?

I'm not doubting you, but I tend to think differently than others may expect.

Shouldn't a service be good regardless of feelings? It seems they pursue this drug like "high" of God. I may be wrong, but God operates beyond feelings and does not always operate within our feelings. Our faith is not based on how we feel. Its based on truth from the word of God.

Every person Jesus healed in the Bible, guess what? They couldn't shut up afterwards. They took off jumping and running too.


You are not ashamed to jump up and down and hoot and holler over a stupid football game, but you are ashamed to do the same for Jesus, your Lord and Savior.

That is hypocrissy.
And do you know what Christ told them to do upon after being healed? Be quiet and go on your way. Every instance where healing occurred He asked them to be calm and go on their way. Quote an instance where this is not recorded and you got me wrong. But you are right in regards to this about people being excited.

I jump and holler at football games? Well I did not notice you spying on me, but you got the wrong guy. I don't watch football and if I do, I'm relatively calm as always. I'm a pretty level headed guy, even in my faith. My level of excitement varies in how it is shown, but I rarely am hopping up and down. Not that I condemn it, its just not something I do.

Btw, nice to meet you. I'm LogosRhema :wave:

You are not moved by what you see? And yet everything written by the Apostles is a record of what they experienced, what they saw and heard. Most especially the miracles. On many occassions, it is recorded in the gospels that the people believed on Jesus because of the Miracles that they SAW him perform.
Are you forgetting about the religious scholars who saw and did not believe still? How about the others the Bible says that God will not send down a sign. Our faith should not be based on what we see. Just because there are apparent miracles occurring does that mean they are? Can you tell me the many times in our time that these occur and the leader of the "revival" turns out to be false? Again I'm not saying this doesnt happen, but again... our faith is not based on what we see.

If our faith is based on what we believe, I do believe miracles follow BEHIND this.

I don't know what churches you are talking about. To me "progression" is rated by the salvation of souls and by a sanctified life. The "Renewing of a right Spirit within me..."
Progression in our faith is about how many we "save"? Last I checked you and I are the saveD. We can save no one. We aren't out to save the world. Its by the witness of our lives to the world that we might bring others to Christ.

As Revelations says:
Let those who do evil continue to do evil, let those who are holy be holy, let those who are wicked be wicked, and let those who are righteous continue to be righteous.

Again we aren't here to save the world. Christ came already that He might save the world. Why do we need to do it again?

Beyound that our faith is based on a life that is continually going forward from glory into glory nonstop until our death here on Earth. And like you said... Renewing of a right Spirit in me.

Maybe I'm wrong? This is where I'm at though.
 
Upvote 0

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟8,224.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Sex or any kind of sexual stimulation outside of marriage is sinful.
Marriage is blessed by God as between a man and a woman.
Therefore sex between men and sex between women is wrong.

Argument:

If sex and not marriage then sin
Marriage is blessed
____________________________
gay sex is wrong

Standard Form:

If A and not B then C
B is D
__________________
E

INVALID, UNSOUND


Sex has two purposes: to seal the binding God-given covenant between a man and a women, and to reproduce. Gay sex does neither of these, therefore it is not natural.

Argument:
Sex is covenant and reproduction
Gay sex is not covenant and not reproduction
_______________________________________
Gay sex is not natural

Standard Form:

If A and B then C
Not A and Not B
________________
Not D

INVALID, UNSOUND
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Crazy Liz,
I already gave the parable of the Good Samaritan as one example. Surely you understand how it teaches the elevation of social justice over purity.

Luke 11:37-41
But these do not refer to sexual matters, sexual immorality, murder, greed etc still remain sin. I offer direct references and your offer generalisations which you assume cover sexual matters and I assume don’t.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest
To sannabannna94,
I think you have misunderstood the question. Gay is having a same sex attraction, not a same love attarction. Love and sex are two different things.

You do not know what you are talking about, brightmorningstar.

You and others keep bringing it back to sex. (which, in your mind, and in the mind of others, is a dirty thing...one can surmise from all your postings)

Gay is having same GENDER attraction.
Sex can be a part of it, but it doesn't need to be.
Funny...just like opposite GENDER attraction.
 
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You do not know what you are talking about, brightmorningstar.

You and others keep bringing it back to sex. (which, in your mind, and in the mind of others, is a dirty thing...one can surmise from all your postings)

Gay is having same GENDER attraction.
Sex can be a part of it, but it doesn't need to be.
Funny...just like opposite GENDER attraction.

Hey. If yall are gay an d just loving each other and not engaging in homosexual sex or lust, more power to ya. But homosexual sex and lust are still sin.

I call the people whom I love and am not having sex with or lusting after friends,not partner.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Hey. If yall are gay an d just loving each other and not engaging in homosexual sex, more power to ya. But homosexual sex is still sin.
Despite the fact that the Bible doesn't actually say this. Same-sex temple prostitution and rape are sins in the Bible, but not consentual, loving same-gender relationships.
 
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Despite the fact that the Bible doesn't actually say this.


I don't know what Bible you're reading. But mine makes it clear that same sex sex is sin.

Same-sex temple prostitution and rape are sins in the Bible, but not consentual, loving same-gender relationships.


You don't get any instances of consentual same sex sex as sin because the issue is addressed with fornication. Sex outside of God ordained marriage between a man and a woman is fornication. As such, God's Word doesn't have to say it is sin. He already covered that it's sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hey. If yall are gay an d just loving each other and not engaging in homosexual sex or lust, more power to ya. But homosexual sex and lust are still sin.

Hey. If yall are straight and just loving each other and not engaging in heterosexual sex or lust, more power to ya. But heterosexual sex and lust are still sin.

Unless it is within a loving, committed relationship -- called marriage. Likewise, CT's marriage is a loving, committed relationship, blessed by God.

I call the people whom I love and am not having sex with or lusting after friends,not partner.

Is your relationship with your wife all about sex and lust? If not, why do you demonize CT's relationship with his spouse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnemyPartyII
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Hey. If yall are straight and just loving each other and not engaging in heterosexual sex or lust, more power to ya. But heterosexual sex and lust are still sin.

Almost true. Heterosexual sex outside of God ordained marriage between a man and a woman would still be sin.:)

Unless it is within a loving, committed relationship -- called marriage. Likewise, CT's marriage is a loving, committed relationship, blessed by God.


If CT is gay and involved with a same sex person, CT ain't married according to how God's Word defines marriage.

And God does not bless disobedience.



Is your relationship with your wife all about sex and lust? If not, why do you demonize CT's relationship with his spouse?

I didn't demonize anything. If CT is in a relationship with another guy and they love each other, good for them. But if they are having sex or lusting after each other it is sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums