But it was not a Choice...

[UberLutheran]

So, what it basically boils down to -- because the "Truth" is found only in the Baptist church, using only the Baptist interpretations of Scripture (since the Baptist interpretation of Scripture is the only true, correct interpretation), and if anyone deviates so much as one iota from the Baptist Faith and Message -- then one is living in sin and must repent and preferably become a Baptist, since that is where the "Truth" is found (because Baptists hold an exclusive monopoly on correct intepretation of Scripture)?

If that's what this boils down to, would you just say so, so the rest of us can get on with living our baby-baptizing, trans- or consubstantiating, reading-our-prayers-out-of-a-book, lighting-candles-in-front-of-our-statues-of-the-Blessed-Virgin, making-the-sign-of-the-cross, listening-to-our-female-pastors and Biblically non-literalist lives?

And by the way: I very much do remember the Baptist pastor of the ultrafundamentalist church where I grew up saying, definitively, that NO non-Baptists go to Heaven, period. Maybe it's unfair that you (and other Baptists) being compared to him -- but nobody ever said anything about life being fair.

 

[Zaac]

So, what it basically boils down to -- because the "Truth" is found only in the Baptist church, using only the Baptist interpretations of Scripture (since the Baptist interpretation of Scripture is the only true, correct interpretation), and if anyone deviates so much as one iota from the Baptist Faith and Message -- then one is living in sin and must repent and preferably become a Baptist, since that is where the "Truth" is found (because Baptists hold an exclusive monopoly on correct intepretation of Scripture)?

Man that's laughable. Is your problem with Christians or with Baptist Christians?

Baptists don't have a monopoly on God. But God certainly is not a liar. And everyone who keeps saying that there is nothing sinful about committing homosexual acts is calling God a liar.

If that's what this boils down to, would you just say so, so the rest of us can get on with living our baby-baptizing, trans- or consubstantiating, reading-our-prayers-out-of-a-book, lighting-candles-in-front-of-our-statues-of-the-Blessed-Virgin, making-the-sign-of-the-cross, listening-to-our-female-pastors and Biblically non-literalist lives?

Boy, what I told you about all that unneeded sarcasm?

And by the way: I very much do remember the Baptist pastor of the ultrafundamentalist church where I grew up saying, definitively, that NO non-Baptists go to Heaven, period. Maybe it's unfair that you (and other Baptists) being compared to him -- but nobody ever said anything about life being fair.

Shoot man. I know pastors who still say that all homosexuals are going to burn in hell. Doesn't make that true either.

We just complicate things too much. God's Word was not intended to be complicated. we just want it to say what we want it to say and then it all falls apart because we have tried so desperately to align it all with what we think one passage says.

God did a perfect job in putting His Word together. That's why ALL will do well to accept it for what it is.

 

[UberLutheran]

God did a perfect job in putting His Word together. That's why ALL will do well to accept it for what it is.

You've never heard of the Nicene Council, have you?

 

[GwynApNudd]

You should because that is in accordance with God's Word. So at what point do you jump to some homosexual acts being okay if sex is to be reserved for the marriage covenant? Does God at any point example Himself joining in covenant with two people of the same sex?

There are many who would point to Jonathan and David as exactly that sort of covenant. I, myself, do not claim to know how physical their love was, but the only reason for rejecting even the possibilty is the a priori assumption that God's Word can't espouse their love.

Ain't nothing about that statement Biblical. You just openedthedoor again for confusion. The marriage covenant is one with CHRIST. AN extramarital affair is one in addition to marriage. I'm talking about marriage period. If Christ has said that a man is to be joined to a wife, and calls fornication wrong while continuing to give examples of the marriage covenant between man and wife and not man/man or woman/woman, then why would what the world says change what He says is wrong to right?

I'm just saying that if the church or the state wrongly refuses to recognize a marriage covenant that does not, perforce, example God's plan. When, in the sixties, the state forbade interracial marriage -- and quoted the Bible to support the ban -- that state was in the wrong. I never said God's Word was wrong or that it had changed.

Of course it does. That's what sin is: an ACT. You choose to disobey or obey. Which is why when you read God's Word, He speaks to homosexual acts and not homosexuality. Which is why He speaks to adultery, and not heterosexuality.

Sin is an ACT.

That is unresponsive to my point. Your use of the word "committing" presupposes that any such act is sinful. If I accept your use of the word "committing" I am giving up any chance of explaining the truth.

I do not claim that what you do with your wife is "committing" sinful heterosexual acts, and if I did and you accepted my phrasing, then you would not be able to properly defend yourself. The phrasing is akin to the classic question "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Dear, you're blatantly confused.

First, I am not your "dear." Second I object to people who take terms of endearment and use them as cusswords. It cheapens them And don't bother to deny that instead of "dear" you wanted to call me "you *&%#$" There is no other reason to address me like that.

And I most certainly am not confused. There is no reason to patronize me other than the fact that you don't want to address the issues.

If you get married and your marriage is outside of what God says a marriage is, your ACT of getting married that way is a sin.

I don't disagree with this as stated. Lots of people get married for the wrong reasons. But getting married for sinful reasons does not invalidate the marriage. And, more to the point, nothing you have said shows that a same-sex marriage is a wrong and sinful marriage just because it is same-sex.

We're on two different pages here. I'm speaking to the committing of homosexual acts as sinful. Not homosexuality

And that is exactly what I called you on. Rephrase the question so that you don't automatically presume that any example must be sinful.

Why don't you answer the question that was asked? Is the committing of homosexual acts under every circumstance sinful?

Gladly, once you rephrase the question.

Gwyn,unless you're espousing what God's Word says as far as the committing of homosexual acts, you are a false teacher in accordance with God's Word.

If I should assume that your last sentence is a reply to my last sentence quoted immediately before, the read my post again. I did not tell you to read the Bible to find out that I am right.

I suggested that you study the Bible with an open heart and a receptive mind to learn whatever the Holy Spirit would have you learn. I don't see how that can be called a false teaching.

---------

But in response to the claim that I don't espouse what God's word says about sin:

Every homosexual act that God's word calls sin is sin. Every heterosexual act that God's word calls sin is sin. Every spiritual act that God's word calls sin is sin. Every natural act that God's word calls sin is sin. But that does not mean that every natural act is sin. That does not mean that every spiritual act is sin. That does not mean that every heterosexual act is sin And that does not mean that every homosexual act is sin.

 

[GwynApNudd]

That is unresponsive to my point. Your use of the word "committing" presupposes that any such act is sinful. If I accept your use of the word "committing" I am giving up any chance of explaining the truth.

I do not claim that what you do with your wife is "committing" sinful heterosexual acts, and if I did and you accepted my phrasing, then you would not be able to properly defend yourself. The phrasing is akin to the classic question "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The following exchange between you and ChaliceThunder is the perfect example of what I am talking about.

You are accusing me of a choice that you have no evidence I made.

Tell me exactly which homosexual acts I chose to commit, or kindly retract.

Please and thank you.

I have your testimony. Did you not choose to be in a homosexual relationship with your partner the last 23 years? Did you not choose to commit homosexual acts with that partner?



You tell me. It's your relationship. Are you having sex with your partner of 23 years or have you guys been celibate the entire time?

If someone were as rude as that to ask about your private life with your wife, and to imply that whatever they learn about it will be condemned as fornication would you just meekly stand by and take it? Or would you explain to him that he is being rude? And that he has no excuse for getting personal? And that his attitude toward you and toward your relationship with your wife are outside the bounds of civilized behavior?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

No, The bible calls homosexuality an abomination. That means one of you (you or God) is lying. I don't believe it is God.

It does NOT mean one of us is lying.

Why do you want to call God a liar!?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

God's word clearly condemns homosexuality in more than one verse of the bible. That is how we determine the full counsel. What does not contradict, is correct (to put it very, very simply). Homosexuality being ok goes against the verses that condemn homosexuality, and the verses that talk about the sanctity of marriage and what marriage involves (man and woman).

If it is so clear, then why are so many scholars divided over the issue.

No - what's clear is some people make the bible a god. Some people have raised the bible to the status of 4th person of the Trinity.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Zaac, let's suppose we all agree that homosexuality is a sin. Then what? You know that you can't stop people from sinning. You can't even stop yourself from sinning, because we all sin.

And this goes to the "mote in one's own eye" verse.

 

[GwynApNudd]

No, The bible calls homosexuality an abomination. That means one of you (you or God) is lying. I don't believe it is God.

No, the Bible does not call "homosexuality" an "abomination." It calls "man-lying" a toevah. Man-lying is a specific act, it is not a sexual orientation.

And while toevah is often translated as abomination, it means one of two things: either an act associated with a related act of idolatry (for example temple prostitution or buying meat sacrifised to idols) or a ritual impurity that cannot be washed away with water, but which needs blood. In some cases it has required the perpetrator's life-blood.

True abominations are designated by the word zimmah. This word is also translated as wicked. Sexual perversions and adultery are always referred to as zimmah, never as toevah.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I have your testimony.

Please do go find the actual quote of mine where I described my sexual acts with my partner.

Once again you have assumed too much.

You tell me. It's your relationship. Are you having sex with your partner of 23 years or have you guys been celibate the entire time?

I have not asked you about your private bedroom life.

You will now refrain from asking me about mine.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

I guess I'm trying to figure out why it matters so much that we all agree it's a sin. If you know in your heart it's a sin, and you avoid the sinful behavior, what's the problem? What is the point of browbeating other people who feel differently? It's like holding someone's head in a toilet bowl "Do you believe it's a sin now? How about now? I'll make you believe it's a sin, darn it!"

This is sick but that analogy kinda made me laugh. It's a big deal to me and Zaac because it is clearly a sin in the bible and there really isn't a way around it. It's bothersome when people twist scripture to fit what they want it to be when it clearly is not.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

It does NOT mean one of us is lying.

Why do you want to call God a liar!?

I'm calling YOU a liar.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

If it is so clear, then why are so many scholars divided over the issue.

No - what's clear is some people make the bible a god. Some people have raised the bible to the status of 4th person of the Trinity.

Are you accusing me of something here? I don't hold the bible to the level I do God. The bible is the word of God , however, therefore it is important to follow it.

Perhaps because non-believers are closed to the true message.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

This is not the scripture that first convicted me, but it is one that makes clear the difference between what is traditionally taught and what is written in the Word of God:
[bible]Jude 1:7[/bible]

I had always understood this verse to claim that homosexual lust is a sin, and that it was the primary reason that God judged Sodom to be wicked. Whenever anyone spoke of Sodom they would say that Sodom's sin was "lusting after strange flesh." I did not notice that they were misquoting the verse.

No other passage in the Bible (with the possible exception of Genesis 19 and the story of the attempted political gang-rape of Lot's visitors) connect Sodom with homosexual practices. But, I thought, this seems to clearly do just that.

After I became convicted on this issue, this verse became a stumbling block. The explanation that Jude was not condemning the Sodomites for "lusting" after "men" (homosexuality), but for lusting after beings that were not human (xenophilia, normally but not in this case meaning bestiality) seemed forced and did not accord with the fact that the Scripture was inspired of the Holy Spirit.

When I finally looked at the verse for myself, and at the words that Jude actually wrote, I discovered that the phrase is not "lusting after strange flesh," but "going after (or following after) [as one would follow after a teacher or teaching] the other (or another) flesh/carnality" In other words, Jude is saying that Sodom and Gomorrah chose sexual immorality and a religion of hedonism, and that this wickedness has made them the premiere example of God's wrath.

This agrees with all of the other verses which list Sodom's sins, but don't include homosexuality. For example,
[bible]Ezekiel 16:49-50[/bible]
[bible]Jeremiah 23:9-14[/bible]

I encountered the same theory you just gave recently, that the men were condemned for lusting after beings that weren't human. That doesn't make any sense when you think about it. The men of the city thought the angels were men. So their intent was homosexual. A straight man may lust after a transvestite thinking that it is a woman, and although it is actually a man, the desire/lust is heterosexual. That same applies for what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don't doubt that there is more to Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction than sexual immorality. However, Jude 7 and Genesis 19 were referring to the sexually immoral aspects, and those aspects were homosexual lusts.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

No, the Bible does not call "homosexuality" an "abomination." It calls "man-lying" a toevah. Man-lying is a specific act, it is not a sexual orientation.

And while toevah is often translated as abomination, it means one of two things: either an act associated with a related act of idolatry (for example temple prostitution or buying meat sacrifised to idols) or a ritual impurity that cannot be washed away with water, but which needs blood. In some cases it has required the perpetrator's life-blood.

True abominations are designated by the word zimmah. This word is also translated as wicked. Sexual perversions and adultery are always referred to as zimmah, never as toevah.

what do you mean by, 'it's a specific act, not a sexual orientation' ? Are you talking about homosexual sex, or something else?

 

[GwynApNudd]

No, The bible calls homosexuality an abomination. That means one of you (you or God) is lying. I don't believe it is God.

It does NOT mean one of us is lying.

Why do you want to call God a liar!?

I'm calling YOU a liar.

I agree with ChaliceThunder. It only means that one of them is a liar if your first statement is true. It is demonstrably false (and, in fact, I demonstrated exactly that).

To continue to assert that someone is lying when you can't even show that he is mistaken is a breach of common decency.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

I agree with ChaliceThunder. It only means that one of them is a liar if your first statement is true. It is demonstrably false (and, in fact, I demonstrated exactly that).

To continue to assert that someone is lying when you can't even show that he is mistaken is a breach of common decency.

He didn't demonstrate how his lifestyle is scriptural, and then made mention of me calling God a liar. I did show he was mistaken. you didn't demonstrate it was false you made assumptions that because other scripture talks about the other sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, that means that there was no sin regarding homosexuality, when Genesis 19 and Jude 7 actually parallel each other in that sense, as I explained.

 

[GwynApNudd]

what do you mean by, 'it's a specific act, not a sexual orientation' ? Are you talking about homosexual sex, or something else?

What I mean is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that people who were born homosexual are an abomination and they should be killed. What Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 say is that the specific act of "man-lying" is toevah.

It is unclear, from those verses alone, whether it is toevah because the act referred to is associated with idolatry (that is, it is condemning a specific pagan practice) or if it is toevah because the participants are ritually defiled. As we continue reading Leviticus 20, however, we see that the laws in that chapter are written to warn the children of Israel to separate themselves from the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites.
[BIBLE]Leviticus 20:22-23[/BIBLE]

This suggests that "man-lying" was forbidden because that act was tainted by idolatry.

But it also continues with a reminder of the dietary laws, separating the clean animals from the unclean animals, which suggests that the acts forbidden in Leviticus 20 are likewise part of the holiness code.
[BIBLE]Leviticus 20:24-26[/BIBLE]

 

[GwynApNudd]

He didn't demonstrate how his lifestyle is scriptural, and then made mention of me calling God a liar.

You were the first to state categorically that either CT was a liar or that God was a liar. You based that entirely on his disagreeing with your previous sentence. A sentence which makes a statement that is patently false.

I did show he was mistaken.

You said "No, The bible calls homosexuality an abomination." That does not "show he was mistaken. It shows that you disagree with him. You could be (and I demonstrated how you were) the one who was mistaken.

you didn't demonstrate it was false you made assumptions that because other scripture talks about the other sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, that means that there was no sin regarding homosexuality,

No, I examined the words used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. I looked at how they are used in the rest of Leviticus, the rest of the books of Moses, and the rest of the Hebrew scriptures. I went into more detail in my last post, at your request, still using the words of Leviticus.

when Genesis 19 and Jude 7 actually parallel each other in that sense, as I explained.

When and where did you explain that? I must have missed it. Oh never mind, I just found it. You posted while I was still writing my last post. I'll comment on that separately.

 

[GwynApNudd]

I encountered the same theory you just gave recently, that the men were condemned for lusting after beings that weren't human. That doesn't make any sense when you think about it. The men of the city thought the angels were men. So their intent was homosexual. A straight man may lust after a transvestite thinking that it is a woman, and although it is actually a man, the desire/lust is heterosexual. That same applies for what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

You did not read my post. You simply skimmed for buzzwords. Otherwise you would not claim that I was proposing the angel-lust theory.

I specifically stated that because that was the usual "debunking" of Jude, I had trouble accepting the position that God was leading me toward. In order to believe that explanation you have to deny that the Scriptures were devinely inspired.

I don't doubt that there is more to Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction than sexual immorality. However, Jude 7 and Genesis 19 were referring to the sexually immoral aspects, and those aspects were homosexual lusts.

Genesis 19, like Judges 19, 2 Samuel 10, and 1 Chronicles 19 speaks to a political act of terrorism and intimidation. Yes, there is a sexual aspect to gang-rape, but it is not driven by lust, but by other base insticts. How can you not know the difference between sex and rape?

And, as I explained, Jude does not say that the Sodomites "lusted after strange flesh," but rather that they followed after another, fleshly, religion. Earlier in the verse, he does mention their giving themselves over into fornication, but he does not indicate that that fornication was different in any way from other fornication. In particular, he does not mention same-sex fornication.