Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[drich0150]

My God, are two loving people who decide to have sex promiscuous?

Anyone Having Sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage is in Sin.
1 Corinthians 7:2 Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7 Hebrews 13:4

Let me ask you one thing in your Book Chapter And Verse manner; what is allowed between two males and what is not? May they kiss? May they stroke and caress each other? May they, pardon my language, blow each other? We know about the alleged sin of sodomy (the story is about a violation of the law of hospitality in truth), but what about all the other things? Are they literally prohibited? And if so, what about two men who call themselves a "couple", declare love and commitment but don't engage in sexual activities - are they sinners or not? Where does the Bible imply they are?
Now, if you agree such two are not sinners (which I doubt, but whatever), than what is so horrible about them having sex? Is love not a law for itself? Is sex more important than love and commitment and does it obscure the good fruits of such a relationship? I don't thing so. You'll of course say that there are no truly loving and committed gay relationships, which I don't agree with - but it's a matter of personal experiences and assumptions, so I think I can't fight it.

This argument Only reinforces what i stated earlier. You all Need, Desperately NEED, the pop Christian Hate or disgust responces for homosexuality, in order for you to speak from a position of perceived legitimacy. Why else Would you Need to graphically describe these activities if not inspire one to present a self righteous disgust for this sin? If you seriously were looking For Book Chapter and Verse then all of your Questions would be answered by Mt.5:27-30 Because in these three verse Jesus outlines the new depths that All Sexual Sin fall under. In Short Anything that even ignites lustful feelings in a man's heart is to be considered a sin. A sin like any other. One that needs to find forgiveness through repentance.

But your motives are quite different I suspect. I have successfully desegregated homosexuals from the rest of us sinners and are holding you all responsible to answer the call of repentance that the bible demands from all of us. Not as [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] or gays, but as brothers who are just as lost to sin as the rest of us are. The only difference being, is your pride will not allow you to accept your particular sin of choice to even be sin. Rather you misrepresent the Will of God as permitting sin, rather than offering redemption for sin, when one repents.

So now it is your turn:
Book, Chapter And Verse Please!!!

But what is even more important than all the above musings is the shock I experienced when I entered this section - one entitled ETHICS. What did I saw? The two most popular topics being about homosexuality! Is sex so important that it can cover the truly important issues of, let's say, feeding the hungry? Have a look at the Biblical image of the Last Judgment and infer the priorities yourself! Shame on all of us for wasting time for such rubbish.

Homosexuality is only the vehicle being used to spread this Anti-Jesus Doctrine. That is why Homosexuality seems to be the topic of choice. Rest assured, that if liars or thieves started preaching a doctrine of the permissibility of their sin of choice the argument would turn to them.

The Issue of redemption of sin is indeed paramount to all others because it effects the very salvation of one's soul. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loose his soul?

If it is not profitable for a man to sell his soul for all that the world offers, then how much less profitable is it for a man to sell his soul for a bowl of soup? It is foolish to feed a man's body and let the soul starve and die.

The Priorities of Scripture are concerned with the state and well being of one's Spiritual Health over that of a man's physical health.

Your rebuttal reeks of personal righteousness, and completely lacking in any scriptural substance. You would do well to remember This is a discussion of the will of God and how it pertains to the Church, or those who seek God.. It has nothing to do with your personal "feelings" or how you would run things if you were god.

So take no offense. If you wish to live a life doing all the things you so pridefully described in your post, then by all means, feel free to do so. Just do not represent your life's choices or your "feelings" as the will of God for those who seek Him, or for those who are in the Church.

 

[Phinehas2]

It is fair enough to ask questions but this is the Christian position.

Anyone Having Sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage is in Sin.
1 Corinthians 7:2Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7Hebrews 13:4

there is no other.

 

[Loukas]

It was not my intention to start a long discussion here - I've done it enough to feel fed up. Your most serious accusation is the one of self-righteousness... well, you're a quick judge, you are...

And read the questions we will be asked at the Judgment, just for Biblical training

 

[drich0150]

It was not my intention to start a long discussion here -

Your first post speaks to the contrary.

Your most serious accusation is the one of self-righteousness...

Self righteousness is a term that has lost it's meaning. In reality self righteousness is a righteousness generated through one's own sense of right and wrong. This sense of "righteousness" is Not apart of the Righteousness found in God, and subsequently is not found in scripture.

A Good example of Self Righteousness is proclaiming a doctrine like the permissibility of sin. This doctrine can not be found in scripture, but even so, there are many who promote it. That means it is a form of righteousness not found in the expressed will of God.(this is why I continually ask for Book, Chapter, and Verse) If it is not of God, then it is a righteousness born of self. Or rather a Self-Righteousness...

But as I said in the beginning The Term "Self Righteousness" has completely lost it's meaning. It is now just a petty insult thrown about as an attempt to cut someone to the quick. That is why (in part) I started using the term: Personal righteousness to describe your/this type of behavior. I want to be able to demonstrate to you and others, that (In this case) your particular doctrine of permissibility of sin, is of a Personal Righteousness, and not of God's. In a way that is not immediately dismissed as a an insult.

I have said that to say, because I have shown book Chapter and verse for the argument I represent, it means the righteousness I represent is not of self, but from God. so even if I qualify for your personal usage of the term, Your actions and argument in fact more closely follow the truest definition of that term.

well, you're a quick judge, you are...[/QUOTE]
(Allow me to finish) ...Not allowing a false Doctrine to be represented as the spoken word of God to His Church, nor to those who seek a relationship with Him.

..Also You mistake Discernment for judgment. I do not judge your actions or the actions of others. I have clearly stated that you can perform any or all acts you posted in this thread to another Man or Woman, and it makes absolutely no difference to me. If I had given you the argument you were fishing for, then you could make the a ligament case about me, judging you or homosexuals in general.

What you have Mistaken or misrepresented as Judgment, is in fact called biblical discernment. What that means is that I have compared what you have represented as the will of God and compared it to Scripture. Then I Gave you a line by line analysis as to where the doctrine you have been representing is in error. We are called to discern, but not to judge in a manner that we are not able to be judged. there is a difference.

If you want a good look at what a honest effort of a self righteous Judgment looks like, re-read your first post to me. You have condemned Me and all who represent God's will as it pertains to sin. All of this with out even making an attempt of using scripture. Know that the measure you have used against me/us will in turn be waiting for you. that is unless you repent of your sins and seek God's will over your own.

And read the questions we will be asked at the Judgment, just for Biblical training

Not too sure what any of this means

 

[KCKID]

"On the church?" or By the church?

Both 'on' and 'by'. 'On' the Church as a whole 'by' Christian Fundamentalists. I would say that the majority of Christians would be in complete ignorance as to where the supposed 'clout texts' pertaining to homosexuality are even located in scripture. Similarly with other scriptures that they 'quote' in parrot fashion. They have merely been 'taught' by hearsay alone that homosexuality is a sin. I would go even further than that ...I suggest that the overwhelming majority of Christians claim Christianity through lip service alone.

If you are saying that Homosexuality is the biggest beat up ever perpetrated By the church then do a little more research.. Witch hunts, the inquisition.. The church can be a very evil place.

Yes, it can. And I see little difference in the witch hunts and the inquisitions of the past and what is currently going on within the Church pertaining to homosexuality.

That aside, "the church" aside, True Christianity at it's core is about God providing a way for humble sinners to start and maintain an ever lasting relationship with Him. There is only one condition. The we must accept His Sons sacrifice and repent of our sin.

So, as long as we apply that criteria for forgiveness/salvation then the same criteria needs to be applied to every divorced/remarried person within the Church. They need to repent of the sin of scriptural adultery, annul their present marriage and either return to their former spouse (if alive) or otherwise remain celibate from hereonin. But we all know that will not happen, don't we? So, it's with a great deal of hypocrisy that some groups of people and their 'sins' are targetted by Christians while other people and their 'sins' are not.

Where is the "beat up" in that message?

Christians (those for whom the shoe fits) have focused on a thimble-full of ambiguous scriptures ...scriptures that probably don't even mean what they think they mean. They have used these conveniently selected texts to take up a 'righteous call' to condemn those people to whom these scriptures supposedly address. They have accused these people of hideous crimes against God. They have alleged that these people are 'conspiritors', that they are infliltrating the Church and indoctrinating their children with filth and evil. These people are, in effect, the scum of the earth and should be disposed of.

I'd call that a 'beat up'.

 

[KCKID]

This is a weak attempt of trying to avoid the challenge that I specifically issued. In that If you preach a doctrine of permissibility and represent it as God's expressed will then it is up to you to present Book Chapter And Verse.

Despite how you have tried to bundle up and dismiss our efforts, you fail to address the core of scripture that I have represented in my argument. In that Gay sex like any other sex outside the confines of marriage is a sin. Show Me Where It Is Not. As I have told one other, You Will Not Be Permitted to simply ride the momentum you previously enjoyed when you first believed that you silenced scripture about homosexuality. You are pretending to be representing God's Expressed Will. If this is the case then show us. His Will could not be considered "Expressed" if it were not "expressed" in scripture. So If what you say is true, Then Show us All Book Chapter and Verse..

Otherwise Know my original observation has been proven. (with your last post) "That you need us to be bigoted hate mongers in order for your arguments to work.." Otherwise show us Book Chapter And Verse, and lets turn this discussion from our mean spirited intentions to the actual substance found in the bible.

Why is it that we are required to name the Book, Chapter and Verse of the Bible before we can take a breath? Is being able to name any of the aforementioned part of the criteria for being a Christian?

But, since you ask for Book, Chapter and Verse knowing full well that they don't exist ...let me also play the game if only to prove a point. I ask you to present the Book, Chapter and Verse where God revoked the 4th-command of the Ten Commandments. Can you do that? I ask this pretty well knowing or assuming anyway that you don't give allegiance to the 4th-command. Most Christians don't. If not, where is the scripture (Book, Chapter and Verse) that gives you permission to disregard this VERY IMPORTANT command? There was only ever one Creation and only one sabbatical day that God blessed and sanctified so we can't pick and choose whatever might suit us.

The facts are that the 4th-command HAS been done away with by Christians without any scriptural authority whatever! There IS no Book, Chapter and Verse where GOD - the same God who gave the Ten Commandments - told us in scripture that we no longer have to obey the 4th-command.

 

[drich0150]

Both 'on' and 'by'. 'On' the Church as a whole 'by' Christian Fundamentalists. I would say that the majority of Christians would be in complete ignorance as to where the supposed 'clout texts' pertaining to homosexuality are even located in scripture. Similarly with other scriptures that they 'quote' in parrot fashion. They have merely been 'taught' by hearsay alone that homosexuality is a sin. I would go even further than that ...I suggest that the overwhelming majority of Christians claim Christianity through lip service alone.

Again even if you choose to ignore what the bible says directly about homosexuality specifically, I have demonstrated that it is still a sin no matter how you want to classify it. Simply because there is not a scriptural context in which Sex outside of a sanctified marriage is permissible.. So unless you can show me Book Chapter and verse that says otherwise accept that your argument, this speculation, and personal judgment of those who you have spoken with, is all pointless.

So, as long as we apply that criteria for forgiveness/salvation then the same criteria needs to be applied to every divorced/remarried person within the Church. They need to repent of the sin of scriptural adultery, annul their present marriage and either return to their former spouse (if alive) or otherwise remain celibate from hereonin. But we all know that will not happen, don't we? So, it's with a great deal of hypocrisy that some groups of people and their 'sins' are targeted by Christians while other people and their 'sins' are not.

Can you show book chapter and verse that says this is the prescribed form of repentance for All Divorced couples? Then why do you think this is what is needed in All cases of divorce? Can you even show one case where this is the prescribed form of repentance for any divorced couple?

Christians (those for whom the shoe fits) have focused on a thimble-full of ambiguous scriptures ...scriptures that probably don't even mean what they think they mean. They have used these conveniently selected texts to take up a 'righteous call' to condemn those people to whom these scriptures supposedly address. They have accused these people of hideous crimes against God. They have alleged that these people are 'conspirators', that they are infiltrating the Church and indoctrinating their children with filth and evil. These people are, in effect, the scum of the earth and should be disposed of.

AGAIN, this is what you need our argument to be if you have absolutely any hope of making your argument even appear semi legitimate. Since the beginning of my efforts here, I have shown that these accusations are misrepresented at best, when it comes to the will of God. He only want you to repent of your sin. There is no beat up their.

Homosexuals (Like the rest of us) are sinners. Because in their case, Gay sex Like any sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage does not have a scriptural context in which it is permitted. That being the case, Gay sex is a sin. Like any other sin, this sin needs to find the forgiveness that comes through repentance, not acceptance.

Jesus Christ came and died for the repentance and forgiveness of sin, not for the acceptance of proud unrepentant sinners.. Teaching people that they do not have to repent of sin is condemning that person and yourself to hell.
Do you hate Gay people? Then Why would you actively dissuade them from finding the only path to forgiveness, and eternal life with God? If anything this is the only "beat up" represented in our discussions. However Your beat up echos through the rest of eternity.

Know that the Doctrine you teach is not of God.. That is unless you can show Book Chapter and Verse, you will have to accept that your efforts here are little more than an angry man's attempt at personal righteousness. Now because this is a discussion about the Expressed Will of God and how is pertains to the Church, and those who seek His expressed will, you should know your personal opinions and contrite remarks have little to no value here.
If you wish to continue with this discussion I ask you arm yourself with Book Chapter and Verse.

 

[drich0150]

Why is it that we are required to name the Book, Chapter and Verse of the Bible before we can take a breath?

Perhaps if you listed at least one scriptural reference that solidifies any part of your position I would have not have to ask for Book chapter and verse at the end of every point I reconstruct.

Is being able to name any of the aforementioned part of the criteria for being a Christian?

Only when the Gospel you teach changes the core values of Christianity from being a forgiveness based faith, to an open sin accepting based faith. At which point what you teach ceases to be Christian. Again this is why I ask for Book Chapter and verse, so that you may know that what you teach is NOT of The Expressed Will Of God. We Know this Because God's Expressed Will, Has Been Expressed In Book, Chapter And Verse.

But, since you ask for Book, Chapter and Verse knowing full well that they don't exist ...let me also play the game if only to prove a point. I ask you to present the Book, Chapter and Verse where God revoked the 4th-command of the Ten Commandments. Can you do that? I ask this pretty well knowing or assuming anyway that you don't give allegiance to the 4th-command. Most Christians don't. If not, where is the scripture (Book, Chapter and Verse) that gives you permission to disregard this VERY IMPORTANT command? There was only ever one Creation and only one sabbatical day that God blessed and sanctified so we can't pick and choose whatever might suit us.

Col2:

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d] 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Romans 14: 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

The facts are that the 4th-command HAS been done away with by Christians without any scriptural authority whatever! There IS no Book, Chapter and Verse where GOD - the same God who gave the Ten Commandments - told us in scripture that we no longer have to obey the 4th-command.

I would say that the Apostle Paul had the Authority to make these changes wouldn't you agree?

Now can we get back on the topic at Hand? I have play along with your attempt to make a point. So now I ask that If you want to discuss this or any thing else off topic, that you start another thread. Changing the topic will not legitimize your position, neither will point out flaws in religion. Remember God and religion are not the same thing. Your call to repentance is a mandate directly from God. It is the Reason Christ Died on the Cross. Their is no getting around that. Also know, It has nothing to do with how or when we choose to worship.

This whole post screams of desperation, and injured pride. If you continue to flounder like this i will have to simply stop our conversation. There is no honor in beating a defeated man. I am not looking to humiliate you or to win an argument i am looking to represent God, and His word to the best of my limited ability. That said, If conversation ceases to be about the Church, the bible, or God's Expressed Will then i will have nothing else to say, and you can take the last word.

 

[KCKID]

[/color][/color]
Perhaps if you listed at least one scriptural reference that solidifies any part of your position I would have not have to ask for Book chapter and verse at the end of every point I reconstruct.

Only when the Gospel you teach changes the core values of Christianity from being a forgiveness based faith, to an open sin accepting based faith. At which point what you teach ceases to be Christian. Again this is why I ask for Book Chapter and verse, so that you may know that what you teach is NOT of The Expressed Will Of God. We Know this Because God's Expressed Will, Has Been Expressed In Book, Chapter And Verse.

Col2:

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d] 16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Romans 14: 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

I would say that the Apostle Paul had the Authority to make these changes wouldn't you agree?

I certainly would NOT!! What you are saying is that Paul is the EQUIVALENT of God and has the authority to actually change a specific day (for NO reason, mind!) that the real God set aside, blessed and sanctified AT CREATION. If that is not blasphemy I don't know what is!

Having said that, you are taking the above scriptures out of context and putting your own slant on them. Paul NEVER changed the Creation Sabbath and he would never have attempted to. For all of your perceived knowledge of the scriptures you obviously don't know what Paul is making reference to in the above scriptures. They have nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath but those 'sabbaths' and rituals that pointed to Jesus. As you say, this is not topic related but it has made me realize that you cannot argue from a scriptural perspective ...at least not on the Sabbath issue.

Now can we get back on the topic at Hand? I have play along with your attempt to make a point. So now I ask that If you want to discuss this or any thing else off topic, that you start another thread. Changing the topic will not legitimize your position, neither will point out flaws in religion. Remember God and religion are not the same thing. Your call to repentance is a mandate directly from God. It is the Reason Christ Died on the Cross. Their is no getting around that. Also know, It has nothing to do with how or when we choose to worship.

It was quite obvious why I deviated from the topic at hand by asking YOU for the very items that you ask of others. You did NOT give me Book, Chapter and Verse where "GOD" abbrogated the 4th-command!

This whole post screams of desperation, and injured pride. If you continue to flounder like this i will have to simply stop our conversation. There is no honor in beating a defeated man. I am not looking to humiliate you or to win an argument i am looking to represent God, and His word to the best of my limited ability. That said, If conversation ceases to be about the Church, the bible, or God's Expressed Will then i will have nothing else to say, and you can take the last word.

Oh my, get a grasp on yourself, man. I will not even comment on the bolded parts of your post except to say that I can handle myself quite adequately when dealing with this particular issue and scripture.

 

[Phinehas2]

KCKID,
drich0150 wrote..

Again even if you choose to ignore what the bible says directly about homosexuality specifically, I have demonstrated that it is still a sin no matter how you want to classify it. Simply because there is not a scriptural context in which Sex outside of a sanctified marriage is permissible.. So unless you can show me Book Chapter and verse that says otherwise accept that your argument, this speculation, and personal judgment of those who you have spoken with, is all pointless.

I agree, this is all pointless, all you are doing is denying the Christian position on this. Denial is no basis for an argument.
Nor can one say it is a fundamental Christian position, that just tries to imply there is another, which of course there cant be. The pro-gay argument is baseless and not the Christian position. It is false teaching.

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1

I find it fascinating that this meekness and humbleness of heart that repents of sin and adheres to the Scriptural commandments somehow manages to cherry-pick its way past the abundant material in the Gospels about judging your own sin, not those of others, unless they have sinned directly against you, and even in such cases, to forgive and extend forgiveness as you yourself have been forgiven.

'He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,But their heart is far from Me.'"' (Mark 7:6)

Drich0150 has answered that well.

The scripture you have quoted speaks directly to those in the Church who give lip service to God, by calling themselves and their actions "Christian," but their hearts are indeed far from Him.

God's word countenances faithful man woman union or celibacy and prohibits same sex relationships, so up holding the word of God is humility and honouring God.
To deny this and propose same sex realtionships is to pay lip service to God and have hearts far from Him. It is also pride to think one knows better than God.
It is also false testimony because drich0150 has upheld the word of God about homosexuality, he has not judged the sin of others, others have identified their sin.

 

[Polycarp1]

Polycarp1
Drich0150 has answered that well. [/COLOR]

God's word countenances faithful man woman union or celibacy and prohibits same sex relationships, so up holding the word of God is humility and honouring God.
To deny this and propose same sex realtionships is to pay lip service to God and have hearts far from Him. It is also pride to think one knows better than God.
It is also false testimony because drich0150 has upheld the word of God about homosexuality, he has not judged the sin of others, others have identified their sin.

Do you ever post anything but the bit about "god's creation purpose is man and woman"? Because I was addressing directly the comments about meekness and humbleness in an immediate previous post. And I'm getting very irritated about the accusations of turning against the word of God which you continually levy against me whenever I speak in defense of Christians dealing with same sex attraction.

 

[drich0150]

I certainly would NOT!! What you are saying is that Paul is the EQUIVALENT of God and has the authority to actually change a specific day (for NO reason, mind!) that the real God set aside, blessed and sanctified AT CREATION. If that is not blasphemy I don't know what is!

Submitting to the authority of the bible is apart of what it means to be Christian. Paul wrote with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So yes Paul was given the authority to point out that the Law was nailed to the cross.

If you do not recognize the authority of Paul then perhaps it would be easier for all who interact with you to simply change the name in which you worship under, so as not to cause anymore confusion.

Having said that, you are taking the above scriptures out of context and putting your own slant on them. Paul NEVER changed the Creation Sabbath and he would never have attempted to. For all of your perceived knowledge of the scriptures you obviously don't know what Paul is making reference to in the above scriptures. They have nothing to do with the weekly Sabbath but those 'Sabbath's' and rituals that pointed to Jesus. As you say, this is not topic related but it has made me realize that you cannot argue from a scriptural perspective ...at least not on the Sabbath issue.

This is what I asked you to put into another thread. As it is not relevant to the topic at hand. Again Changing the topic does not lend credibility to your argument. If we were talking about the sabbath or about any other ceremonial law and not the moral code, I could see how this would be relevant. But as It stands you are trying to introduce drastic changes to the Moral law by using weak examples of ceremonial change. Again this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. So again please if you wish to explore this aspect of Christianity then start another thread.

It was quite obvious why I deviated from the topic at hand by asking YOU for the very items that you ask of others. You did NOT give me Book, Chapter and Verse where "GOD" abbrogated the 4th-command!

Again, I did. As any true Christian can testify, We believe Paul was Given the authority By the Holy Spirit (GOD) to Pen The Bulk of the New Testament. Much like Moses was given the authority to pen the OT law. It is not my responsibility to provide you with scripture that appeals to specific religion or way of worship.

Oh my, get a grasp on yourself, man. I will not even comment on the bolded parts of your post except to say that I can handle myself quite adequately when dealing with this particular issue and scripture.

If this is true then now would be a good time to begin. You best efforts thus far seem to consist of little more than tearing pages from your bible and a whole lot of "I said so theology."

 

[drich0150]

Do you ever post anything but the bit about "god's creation purpose is man and woman"? Because I was addressing directly the comments about meekness and humbleness in an immediate previous post. And I'm getting very irritated about the accusations of turning against the word of God which you continually levy against me whenever I speak in defense of Christians dealing with same sex attraction.

It's kinda ironic don't ya think? Maybe too Ironic, how your soap box speech about meekness and humility, was turned into a Very Irritated response, by what seems to be unchecked pride.

It is almost as if you did not mean what you wrote, nor does it seem to permeate in your life. It's as if you were simply using the words of God to suit your own purposes.. Could this also be the case in your defense of Christians dealing with same sex attraction. In that you simply use the word of God to back how you already feel despite what scripture actually says? For your sake I hope this is not the case.

 

[Polycarp1]

It's kinda ironic don't ya think? Maybe too Ironic, how your soap box speech about meekness and humility, was turned into a Very Irritated response, by what seems to be unchecked pride.

It is almost as if you did not mean what you wrote, nor does it seem to permeate in your life. It's as if you were simply using the words of God to suit your own purposes.. Could this also be the case in your defense of Christians dealing with same sex attraction. In that you simply use the word of God to back how you already feel despite what scripture actually says? For your sake I hope this is not the case.

I am doing my best to try to become what God wants me to be. If you see my failings, or even if you don't, please pray for me.

As for my point: You're right that there is a great deal of arrogance and pride, on both sides of the argument. I will be frank, even at risk of sounding like I'm insulting him and hence setting myself up for a rules violation -- Phinehas2's insistence on seeing seemingly everything remotely related to human sexuality in terms of what he terms "God's creation purpose of man and woman", and his overt or thinly veiled innuendo that anyone who disagrees with him is disagreeing not with him but with God and presumably doing so to excuse away sin, does in fact bother me greatly. Because what I am interested in is seeing everyone, including gay people and conservative Christians, treated in the manner Jesus commanded us all to treat them, with love, compassion, and ready forgiveness, and to see everyone come to Christ, without barriers of human misprision of God's expectations, put in their way. If a gay person turns to Christ, and it is His will that he or she turn from gay sex, the Holy Spirit is surely capable of both convicting him or her of his/her sin and strengthening him/her to resist it. But the conservative evangelicals of this particular forum seem hell-bent (and I use the term intentionally) on demanding that gay people stop what they consider sin first, going so far as to say there is no such thing as a gay Christian, and anyone who thinks he/she is one must be deluded. To spell out what our Lord's stated grounds for judging people implies about them for doing so would be quickly flagged as a rules violation, but I am sure people can follow my logic (Cf. Matthew 7:1-2, and 25:31-46).

Yes I read what Scripture says But I read it with an eye to context, to see what my Lord wants me to do first and foremost. (Matt 7:12 and 22-34-40, John 13:35, along with the Great Commission at the end of Matthew). And focusing in on sins, or supposed sins, the mortal self is unable to combat without divine help, is not doing that job.

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1,

Do you ever post anything but the bit about "god's creation purpose is man and woman"? Because I was addressing directly the comments about meekness and humbleness in an immediate previous post. And I'm getting very irritated about the accusations of turning against the word of God which you continually levy against me whenever I speak in defense of Christians dealing with same sex attraction.

The word of God is living and active and judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, It has not judged anyone in particular, those who have felt judged by the word of God have accused those who uphold the word, it is the word that has done that.

To be meek and humble is to uphold God’s word, to dispute it by such as your argument does, reasoning one knows best, is pride.
Yes I have repeated the scriptures of God’s creation purpose upheld throughout the Biblical testimony, and will do so every time someone posts about sexuality, homosexuality or heterosexuality as these are modern false concepts, this is a Christian section of the forum and you must expect the Biblical scriptures to be upheld.

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1,

including gay people and conservative Christians

No such thing as either in this matter. If one upholds the clear Biblical teaching on countenanced faithful man/woman marriage or celibacy and the error of sexual relations outside that including same sex relations, then that is the Christian view. Its not conservative Christian, it is the only Christian view.
There is no such thing as gay people and gay sex in God’s word. I will keep repeating God’s word, His creation purpose for man and woman in faithful union, which you keep objecting to, every time you come up with this humanistic view.

 

[KCKID]

There is no such thing as gay people and gay sex in God’s word. I will keep repeating God’s word, His creation purpose for man and woman in faithful union, which you keep objecting to, every time you come up with this humanistic view.

God's 'creation purpose for man and woman' was one of male dominance and ownership, Phinehas, PERIOD. 'Faithful union' as you keep putting it was in actuality a man taking ownership of property which his wife was. Do you understand that? The man's home was his most prized piece of property and his wife, servants, cattle, etc. came after that. Have you ever read the 7th-commandment? That's a commandment about property that A MAN owns. There is no such thing as 'women's rights' in God's plan.

So, what are you saying, Phinehas? Should we return to the not-so-long-ago days when the value of a woman was less than a man's home and just a step above cattle? Is that what you're suggesting? Or, do you really not know what you're saying ...?

 

[Phinehas2]

KCKID,

God's 'creation purpose for man and woman' was one of male dominance and ownership, Phinehas, PERIOD.

Nope, the Bible says God looked for a companion for man and made woman, it was for this reason a man shall be united with his wife. God’s word says it was that reason and not the reason you are giving. The views you are presenting are not Christian.

The point is there is no such thing as ‘gay people’ in the Bible and ‘gay sex’ can only be condemned same sex relations. To keep using these humanistic concepts is contrary to the word of God.

 

[KCKID]

Submitting to the authority of the bible is apart of what it means to be Christian. Paul wrote with the authority of the Holy Spirit. So yes Paul was given the authority to point out that the Law was nailed to the cross.

Paul's 'pointing out' that the laws contained in the ordinances having been nailed to the cross has NOTHING to do with what I asked of you and you know it. I asked for the Book, Chapter and Verse where GOD canceled the 4th-command (thereby making the Ten Commandments NINE Commandments!) and made it non-applicable to Christians. All you have offered is a red herring because YOU KNOW that no such scripture exists but that the majority of Christians disregard the 4th-command anyway. One's practicing what they preach in one regard adds credibility to that person's views on other issues ...or, vice verse.

If you do not recognize the authority of Paul then perhaps it would be easier for all who interact with you to simply change the name in which you worship under, so as not to cause anymore confusion.

There is nothing unChristian in questioning Paul. And I DO question some of the scriptures of Paul as do many other Christians. Where in scripture are we told to recognize authority in Paul ...or else? Paul has nothing to do with one's salvation. Being a Christian is being a believer in Jesus ...not Paul!

This is what I asked you to put into another thread. As it is not relevant to the topic at hand.

As said, the question I asked of you - though off-topic - WAS relevant in regard to Book, Chapter and Verse that you were demanding of others. But I will drop this issue for now so as not to further derail. However, I do believe that I made my point which was all that I wanted to do.