The Homosexuality Issue

Inkfingers said:

Take a look at that avatar. Listen to the words.

Click to expand...

Can't find what you are talking about.

1stcenturylady said:

Can't find what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Try the very first post....

Spiritualized said:

I'm proud to say not many churches here in the UK reject LGBT folk. Gods love is for all. It's inclusive. Homosexuality as described in most of the Bible talks of gang rape and violence, which is not what homosexuality is about at all. Homosexuality was well known in the ancient times and not once did Jesus talk about homosexuality. I'ts a non story. We were commanded to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. Not judge and condemn. That's up to God at the end. Lets not be Gods and take our rightful place as his children called to do nothing other than LOVE everyone. Hopefully the "ex-Gay" therapies will be banned everywhere as they will be soon here in the UK. A good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit - no good fruit ever came from forcing someone to reject who they were made to be. I'm aware I'll likely get abuse over this post but I'll respond back with love. Let's spend less time judging and more time loving. Peace be with you.

Click to expand...

This posted is presenting homosexuality as being no problem and that churches should not condemn or exclude it.

Inkfingers said:

Try the very first post....



This posted is presenting homosexuality as being no problem and that churches should not condemn or exclude it.

Click to expand...

Firstly, another assumption by mentioning my avatar. The Rainbow is a sign of Gods peace and love for all living creatures, which is also the message I have been giving consistently. No matter who you are, what categories you fall into, your mistakes are never greater than Gods Love. If you believe otherwise, I would prayerfully request you return to scripture and the Good News that Jesus brought.

My initial post regarding homosexuality in the Bible was one of fact, not of promotion. The definition of "promoting" is the support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of something. My statement was talking about one of the main passages that people use to abuse LGBT folk. I was actually referring to the story of Sodom whereby they attempted gang rape and violence and stated how this is not the same thing as same-sex attraction. It would be the same as saying slavery against women in the Bible is the same as a traditional heterosexual relationship. They are both completely different things. That is not promoting either for or against, merely stating fact.

I get the feeling that you have a personal issue with LGBT folk and that is why you are so direct with accusations against anyone who says they are loved. Indeed, Gods Love is so unconditional it can offend a lot of people who deem others not as worthy as themselves. Some churches from experience cannot handle or accept Gods Love as it's too great for them to comprehend beyond their own biases. We should always be able to be in a place where we can accept God loves everyone even if we personally struggle to love them ourselves. Our prayers should be to become more like God and reflect more of his love every day.

Spiritualized said:

Firstly, another assumption by mentioning my avatar.

Click to expand...

Oh really?

Pro LGBT posts with Rainbow avatar and I'm "assuming".

I don't think so.

Gods Love is so unconditional it can offend a lot of people

Click to expand...

God's love is not unconditional. Malachi 1:3

Romans 1:26-27 describes homosexual acts as "vile". That is not the language of love.

You are hiding (not very well) a pro-LGBT agenda behind a claim of God's love.

Inkfingers said:

Oh really?

Pro LGBT posts with Rainbow avatar and I'm "assuming".

I don't think so.


God's love is not unconditional. Malachi 1:3

Romans 1:26-27 describes homosexual acts as "vile". That is not the language of love.

You are hiding (not very well) a pro-LGBT agenda behind a claim of God's love.

Click to expand...

You must not see anything past LGBT when you see a Rainbow is all I can surmise from this. The rainbow is about a whole host of things, of which only one branch is sexual orientation.

God's love is unconditional. There are a 101 passages I could quote back to you but you're never going to agree so let's agree to lovingly disagree.

I have no need to hide any agenda and I am proud to tell everyone in the world that God loves them. I won't withhold that or make someone feel they are despised.

We clearly have very different ideas about God and his character. You feel it's for a chosen few and I feel it's free to everyone and excludes no one. Not sure what more there is to say. Gods blessing upon you.

1stcenturylady said:

Any willful sin, whether lying or murder are equal, yes. And all sexual sins are equal, whether the perversions of a pedophile or homosexual, or a heterosexual fornicator or adulterer. But transgression is a lesser type of sin as it is unintentional. So in comparing willful sin against unintentional transgressions - "sin is sin" is not true. That phrase has been overused and has started false doctrines. That is what I object to. There are other phrases in the false doctrine category I also hate every time they come up; and on the forum they come up often, which leaves me to believe the Church is in big trouble!

Click to expand...

We have had this discussion before and for some reason you did not bother to go and verify what I am saying. And because you haven't, you are coming to a conclusion based on your modern and current understanding of English only.

In Hebrew, which matters because messiah and the disciples were Jewish... there are three words that WE (in English) tend to treat the same, we tend to call them all sin, but they are very distinct concepts. They are:

Chata'ah - The best way to understand this concept is to imagine a man with a bow and arrow. He is aiming at the target and ALWAYS DESIRES AND TRIES to hit the target, but being in a fallen state he simply misses from time to time. This is sin, it is unintentional because the attempt was to hit God's target (His righteousness) and he simply misses once and a while.

Avon - usually translated as iniquity or transgression... same archer, same target, same intent EXCEPT in this case he gets caught up in an emotion that steers him into aiming at another target... a DIFFERENT target than God's righteousness. When this person calms down, they generally get back to aiming at the proper target. But for a time, they were clearly aiming at another target.

Pesha - rebellion, plain and simple. Same archer, but this time there is no intent to hit the proper target. In fact, the person KNOWS the target God desires them to aim at and they deliberately choose another target "on purpose."

So.... if a person KNOWS something is sin and they do it anyway... that is rebellion, pesha. If they don't know it is sin and do it, it is still sin but it is unintentional... and they are showing the need to be better taught.

This is how the bible divides behavior. Whether you accept this or not, this is where I am coming from when I speak in this subject.

Ken Rank said:

No, but I have personally seen many who have given a pastor 4 or 5 chances after he sleeps with women not his wife... so we just let that go on and pounce on the homosexual like he just committed the unpardonable sin? The goal is the walk in and speak what is RIGHT... not be a legalist who stands there pointing out where everyone else is wrong. Usually those people are the ones who spend time trying to remove tooth picks from the eyes of some while they themselves have 2 X 4's hanging from their own eyes.

Click to expand...

First off, a legalist is not one who stands on the Word of God or who judges by the Word of God. A legalist is someone who put his own rules, laws, standards, or judgements above or equal to the Word of God. One form of legalism is the over use of Grace to the point it becomes license or close to it. Judgements about sin using the Bible is not legalism. Setting a side the Word of God for one's own idea of Grace that the bible does not authorize is a sin and a form of self-righteousness, and legalism.

Second, not all churches are truly Christian, any church who would allow a minister to sin in such a way and remain in his position is in a state of apostasy, Revelation 2 and 3. Also the old tired argument of everyone is doing it so what is the big deal does not work with God.

Thirdly, there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing a sin or living in sin. Christians who commit a sin are covered by the blood of Jesus and God's Grace ( 1John 1:5-7). John talks about walking in darkness in his book 1 John this walking in darkness is the practicing of sin or living in sin. Someone who has not repented of his sins including homosexuality in not covered by grace. If a Christian who struggles with homosexuality but has repented of that sin and at a moment of weakness sins, Grace is there to cover that sin. If a Christian turns away from God's word and the Faith (1Timothy 4:1) and starts practicing the sin of homosexuality or any sin for that matter he has turned from God and has fallen from grace. ( 1 John 1:8-10 )

Thedictator said:

First off, a legalist is not one who stands on the Word of God or who judges by the Word of God. A legalist is someone who put his own rules, laws, standards, or judgements above or equal to the Word of God. One form of legalism is the over use of Grace to the point it becomes license or close to it. Judgements about sin using the Bible is not legalism. Setting a side the Word of God for one's own idea of Grace that the bible does not authorize is a sin and a form of self-righteousness, and legalism.

Second, not all churches are truly Christian, any church who would allow a minister to sin in such a way and remain in his position is in a state of apostasy, Revelation 2 and 3. Also the old tired argument of everyone is doing it so what is the big deal does not work with God.

Thirdly, there is a difference between committing a sin and practicing a sin or living in sin. Christians who commit a sin are covered by the blood of Jesus and God's Grace ( 1John 1:5-7). John talks about walking in darkness in his book 1 John this walking in darkness is the practicing of sin or living in sin. Someone who has not repented of his sins including homosexuality in not covered by grace. If a Christian who struggles with homosexuality but has repented of that sin and at a moment of weakness sins, Grace is there to cover that sin. If a Christian turns away from God's word and the Faith (1Timothy 4:1) and starts practicing the sin of homosexuality or any sin for that matter he has turned from God and has fallen from grace. ( 1 John 1:8-10 )

Click to expand...

Like all words, legalism has many meanings. It is what you said, and it is me forcing my view on you in order for you to join my group. Bylaws, if used as a litmus test to allow membership, is a form of legalism. As for the rest, read my post above, #186, to first century lady. That is how and why I view sin as I do.

Ken Rank said:

We have had this discussion before and for some reason you did not bother to go and verify what I am saying. And because you haven't, you are coming to a conclusion based on your modern and current understanding of English only.

In Hebrew, which matters because messiah and the disciples were Jewish... there are three words that WE (in English) tend to treat the same, we tend to call them all sin, but they are very distinct concepts. They are:

Chata'ah - The best way to understand this concept is to imagine a man with a bow and arrow. He is aiming at the target and ALWAYS DESIRES AND TRIES to hit the target, but being in a fallen state he simply misses from time to time. This is sin, it is unintentional because the attempt was to hit God's target (His righteousness) and he simply misses once and a while.

Avon - usually translated as iniquity or transgression... same archer, same target, same intent EXCEPT in this case he gets caught up in an emotion that steers him into aiming at another target... a DIFFERENT target than God's righteousness. When this person calms down, they generally get back to aiming at the proper target. But for a time, they were clearly aiming at another target.

Pesha - rebellion, plain and simple. Same archer, but this time there is no intent to hit the proper target. In fact, the person KNOWS the target God desires them to aim at and they deliberately choose another target "on purpose."

So.... if a person KNOWS something is sin and they do it anyway... that is rebellion, pesha. If they don't know it is sin and do it, it is still sin but it is unintentional... and they are showing the need to be better taught.

This is how the bible divides behavior. Whether you accept this or not, this is where I am coming from when I speak in this subject.

Click to expand...

I agree, except you are showing one more on the unintentional side, but still showing the same difference that I am that there are unintentional and willful sins. All I'm saying is I hate the phrase "sin is sin" as it denotes equality between unintentional and willful sin, and there is not equality in God's eyes.

I would like to see your scriptures where those words are used, and what the English word is. And what about the New Testament. Are there different Greek words also?

Inkfingers said:

Try the very first post....



This posted is presenting homosexuality as being no problem and that churches should not condemn or exclude it.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about practicing homosexuals being allowed to fellowship, but those who are seeking God to free them of this demonic influence they've allowed into their lives. They are abstaining. I guess I didn't make that clear.

1stcenturylady said:

I agree, except you are showing one more on the unintentional side, but still showing the same difference that I am that there are unintentional and willful sins. All I'm saying is I hate the phrase "sin is sin" as it denotes equality between unintentional and willful sin, and there is not equality in God's eyes.

I would like to see your scriptures where those words are used, and what the English word is. And what about the New Testament. Are there different Greek words also?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't because... look, the KJV (and I am not using them to promote one version over another) actually tried to differentiate between chata'ah, avon and pesha. It translated chata'ah as sin, avon as iniquity and transgression, and pesha as rebellion (most of the time on all three). So, chata'ah is chata'ah.... because chata'ah is unintentional. If somebody begins to follow God, is taking their first steps, and they... go both ways... play for both teams... and they don't YET know it is sin, then it is chata'ah, unintentional. Once they KNOW, then the words change and it is no longer "sin" but rather iniquity or rebellion. Somebody who KNOWS God said, "if a man lays with a man as he would a woman it is an abomination" and does it anyway... that isn't "sin," that isn't chata'ah... it is rebellion and if you use the word "sin" you HAVE TO include the word "intentional" before it.

So... ANY time we miss the mark while trying to hit the mark... it's sin, and sin is sin. It only changes when the INTENT changes. That's the difference.

Ken Rank said:

No it doesn't because... look, the KJV (and I am not using them to promote one version over another) actually tried to differentiate between chata'ah, avon and pesha. It translated chata'ah as sin, avon as iniquity and transgression, and pesha as rebellion (most of the time on all three). So, chata'ah is chata'ah.... because chata'ah is unintentional. If somebody begins to follow God, is taking their first steps, and they... go both ways... play for both teams... and they don't YET know it is sin, then it is chata'ah, unintentional. Once they KNOW, then the words change and it is no longer "sin" but rather iniquity or rebellion. Somebody who KNOWS God said, "if a man lays with a man as he would a woman it is an abomination" and does it anyway... that isn't "sin," that isn't chata'ah... it is rebellion and if you use the word "sin" you HAVE TO include the word "intentional" before it.

So... ANY time we miss the mark while trying to hit the mark... it's sin, and sin is sin. It only changes when the INTENT changes. That's the difference.

Click to expand...

Interesting. But people today who don't understand Hebrew, see "sin is sin" and include both intentional and unintentional. What do you say to them? Don't you think is better with our limited vocabulary to include the intent? Willful and Unintentional? I do. Otherwise, no one could be saved but a Jew. I think I have the most trouble understanding Avon then, because I see iniquity as rebellion.

I'm going to copy and paste all this into a personal document so I can always refer to it. So thanks. Keep going...

Kevin Snow said:

And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. ~1 Corinthians 5:2

No, homosexuals are certainly not allowed in the fellowship of believers. They are to be shamed.

Click to expand...

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

If we would all only be more humble, then we'd not feel an urge to be the Judge, but that's not all.

As we are humble, we instinctively know that we need to continue to read Christ's Words even though we already feel we have.

Then we'd continue to be renewed and take to heart the lessons and messages He is giving to us. See, we need to continue to listen to Him.

When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

dreadnought said:

You don't seem to be addressing the issue of pastors teaching that homosexuality isn't a sin, when the Lord told us it is (Lev 18:22). No one wants to see their church led astray.

Click to expand...

I was addressing post #2, but will address your important question. Sorry I didn't already.

Regarding the modern word "homosexuality", see the note below about accurate translation and meaning -- (*). But the bigger question here, phrased fully is --

Is it okay for a church to preach that some sin, like adultery or sodomy or greed is ok, just fine? Not simply to refuse to highlight a sin we don't do (which is actually the right approach; it's never the case that other people's sins are somehow more important than our own, to only highlight one or two sins and ignore the rest) -- but instead to actually endorse a sin?

For instance, suppose a preacher endorses material greed. Says a version of "let's get rich and accumulate lots of material wealth and goods, and seek to get more".

Is that ok?

The answer is definitely No!

I think these verses (especially 9-10) are a useful aid to us about this bigger question (NIV translation):

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [more likely more accurately: "sodomites" as in YLT] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

See? A variety of common sins, even slander -- saying bad things about people we barely know that may be false statements -- even just the everyday commonplace malicious gossip, slander, means losing the Kingdom of God!

Let's review that list!

Leads to Death when unrepented from:
Sexual immorality
Idolatry
Adultery
Sodomy
Greed (! the commonplace American sin)
Theft
Being a drunkard
Slander [any forms of saying bad things about other people that are false or even may not be true -- commonplace]
Swindlers [including we can guess all forms, such as fraud also]

...

Wow, quite a list, right?

How many are going to make it?

Christ said: "For many are called, but few are chosen."


------------
* Note on the modern word "homosexuality"
This word used to translate at times loses some of the meaning in scripture as I found using more literal translations -- the older translation that retains the full meaning is "sodomy" and "sodomite". See, it's not being gay that is referred to but instead the act of sodomy intercourse specifically.
For example, a gay person that is continent (refrains from sodomy) is not doing the sin. That's important. We are not to alter or change the real meaning of scripture. The real meaning is about the act of sodomy, not being gay. The fact is that traditional man/women married couples have also done this same sin. That seems to be the reference in Romans 1:26 -- that woman can do this same wrong, same sin, when they do sodomy intercourse.

1stcenturylady said:

Interesting. But people today who don't understand Hebrew, see "sin is sin" and include both intentional and unintentional. What do you say to them? Don't you think is better with our limited vocabulary to include the intent? Willful and Unintentional? I do. Otherwise, no one could be saved but a Jew. I think I have the most trouble understanding Avon then, because I see iniquity as rebellion.

I'm going to copy and paste all this into a personal document so I can always refer to it. So thanks. Keep going...

Click to expand...

I am me and talking to you about a subject I already talked to you about before and I still got challenged? Kind of frustrating!

See how serious the problem could be if a preacher is preaching against 'homosexuality' (or even the more accurate 'sodomy') but neglecting a more common sin in his church that actually will lead to hell for many in the church like:

Greed
Slander

Things can go very wrong in a church, without the people even knowing it, when they focus their judging on outsiders doing sodomy, and neglect to focus on their own sins actually happening.

It would be different if the church is full of sodomy -- the preaching about it could help.

But when the church is actually full of slanders or greed, then preaching on homosexuality when it's nearly or entirely absent would be the pastor is leading his congregation astray. They are failing to do as they should and examine their own real sins that are deadly and present, and need confession and repentance.

Of course, every situation can be different, and generally we can't even guess at people's sins. But instead we need the messages about examining our own selves!

Ken Rank said:

I am me and talking to you about a subject I already talked to you about before and I still got challenged? Kind of frustrating!

Click to expand...

That wasn't nice, Ken. I'm just now learning a few things I didn't know before, and am hungry to know more, but if you are going to be frustrated, then there are a couple fruit of the Spirit you need to cultivate. Just put me on ignore, and I'll do the same.

1stcenturylady said:

That wasn't nice, Ken. I'm just now learning a few things I didn't know before, and am hungry to know more, but if you are going to be frustrated, then there are a couple fruit of the Spirit you need to cultivate. Just put me on ignore, and I'll do the same.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying not to be nice, I always enjoy your posts. But like I said, I had already posted specifically to you, a couple of months ago, the same information about those 3 Hebrew words. To be challenged for saying "sin is sin" didn't do anything for either of us. Sorry to see you go.