Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

[KCKID]

He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One,

and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law;

- Daniel 7

You're even making THIS text one pertaining to the gay issue ...?

I don't think so.

 

[Phinehas2]

Thats what it says KCKID, whether you agree or not.

 

[drich0150]

If you read the factual definitions you will too see that the translation isn't what you thought it was. It has been assigned to Christianity to mean something that it typically isn't. I don't see what is so hard to understand. It says it is typically used for heterosexuals, but in the Bible it refers to all sexual immorality. I think that is pretty clear.

Ok I see you need me to walk you through this. In the First def that you provided it Gave a modern english term. One that is obviously not tied to any known standard, like say the dictionary. If it were you would have indeed left a cut and paste of the word and definition as I did from the actual dictionary.

The second definition was (the supposed) literal translated word from the greek, which included a multitude of definitions. What I am suggesting is that because there is a multitude of possible definitions for that word, and because the bible uses that word in a multitude of ways, then we/you need to expand your vocabulary to encompass all of the many different meanings of that word.

Kinda like when people say the word "Cool" and it doesn't have anything to do with temperature, or if someone said, "That is one sick car." You are aware that they are not referring to the car's health? In both instances people adapt their vocabulary to encompass the usage of the term. Having one word to describe different things is not new no is it a reason to cast doubt on something, unless you are trying to construct a weak argument that a 5 year old can see through. All anyone has to do is put that word into a context to determine a proper definition.

In the case of Porneia/fornication multiple examples or multiple usages of the word does not mean you can simple strike it from your vocabulary. Rather Multiple usages of the word demands that you adapt your vocabulary to accept each and every definition of that word, as apart of it's proper meaning.

Either way this is all moot point because even if you silence the usage of word that was translated into fornication, you still do not have a legitimate context in scripture where any sexual activity gay straight or otherwise is permitted out side of a sanctified marriage... So that means any sexual activity outside of a sanctified marriage is still a sin, no matter what word you do, or do not want to use to classify it.

Even though you may think your actions are christian, take a deep honest look and ask if they are Christ Like?

If you think that they are, then show me book chapter and verse where Jesus took the time to split hairs or definitions of words, so that sinners could live through a doctrine of acceptance of sin, rather than repentance.

Woe to the inventor of her own law, for she will have much to answer for.

 

[drich0150]

The only ones that I see brandishing their own personal version of righteousness are those who Bible-bash gays or anyone else they perceive as being 'beneath them' in the righteous department. The very Bible that they bash others with quite clearly states that NONE are righteous ...no, NOT ONE!

I know you want me to be a hateful bigot, because that is what makes your argument work. Please, just take the time to check your emotions and honestly read what is written rather than looking for words you can use to lash out with in your next post.

You quoted Paul in Romans 3:9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[a]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.,

That means that "we" are all in the same sin boat. That also means that in order for the Gay man to be forgiven of His sin. He, like the rest (as you have so graciously pointed out) of us Must repent of His sin. We have clearly shown that their is absolutely no context in which sex, any sex is permissible outside of the bounds of a sanctified marriage. We have also shown that a same sex marriage can never be sanctified before God. Which make any gay sex a sin, no matter how you wish to classify it.

My confused brother this is not hate. This is a call to repentance. The Same call (Again As You Pointed Out) All of Us Are Required To answer.

How can one man call another mans efforts hate, if his efforts show the way to eternal life? On the other hand how can you efforts be considered "tolerant" if it promotes the acceptance of sin (Which is the exact opposite of the doctrine Christ taught.) Which leads to the second death?

 

[.Iona.]

You really didn't get what I was saying at all did you. It's sad to see people who are so sure of themselves that they cannot for one minute just look at other facts. You are so caught up on one aspect that no matter what anyone says, you jump straight back to it, without even looking at the points raised.

I'm done with this, because I have love for my fellow humans and seeing the way you so called 'Christians' talk about others humans, just makes me sad. Just remember, only God can judge us, so all your hate for other people's private lives, will only work against you.

 

[Avniel]

Why do I have to be hateful, if I know someone is gay I pray for them with the same love I pray for a thief or a liar. I don't hate liars, or thieves I hate the sin. I'm not judging anyone if you tell lies and say its ok to lie then its ok to correct that person with scriptures but when it's a homosexual then its " Bible bashing?" I am no hypocrite we all fall short of the glory and correction may hit the heart but it comes out of love. How can a person correcting you out of love hate the same person?

 

[drich0150]

You really didn't get what I was saying at all did you. It's sad to see people who are so sure of themselves that they cannot for one minute just look at other facts. You are so caught up on one aspect that no matter what anyone says, you jump straight back to it, without even looking at the points raised.

I'm done with this, because I have love for my fellow humans and seeing the way you so called 'Christians' talk about others humans, just makes me sad. Just remember, only God can judge us, so all your hate for other people's private lives, will only work against you.

All that you have witnessed in your last post is a doubled edged sword, it cuts both ways. All that you have said against is also true about you.

You should also know there is absolutely no hate in my words or the words i represent. A call to repentance for sin, is not hate. Identifying sin in a life that claims no sin exists, is not hate. Telling a fellow sinner he must repent is not hate. Repenting of one's sins is what Christ expects from all of us. We have clearly identified sin in the Homosexual life style. As such like any sin, That sin needs to find repentance. Otherwise you doom the sinner to the second death with an unbiblical doctrine of acceptance of sin, rather than the Good news of forgiveness by repentance, Jesus offered through His blood.

There is no hate in Jesus nor is there any hate in representing His gospel.

At best, you are mistaken.

 

[KCKID]

Thats what it says KCKID, whether you agree or not.

What it says and what it actually means are two vastly different things, Phinehas. That text has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Hint: Try correlating that text with actual history and with the RCC and you might start getting somewhere.

 

[KCKID]

There is no hate in Jesus nor is there any hate in representing His gospel.

Correct. And, His gospel states nothing about homosexuality so why are some of us presenting it as if it does?

 

[KCKID]

I know you want me to be a hateful bigot, because that is what makes your argument work.

Then you know me wrongly. If my 'argument' on this forum and on this subject is only to initiate and draw out such responses (hateful bigotry) from others then my own conscience would cause me to disqualify myself from participating. I hope that I'm here for more than that. I've said this before and I say it again ...I truly believe that 'homosexuality' has become the biggest 'beat up' ever perpetrated on the Church. And, it's because I do that I'm here participating in these 'discussions'.

 

[drich0150]

Correct. And, His gospel states nothing about homosexuality so why are some of us presenting it as if it does?

The Gospel of Christ Speaks directly to the repentance and forgiveness of Sin. No matter how you wish to view Homosexuality, it has been identified in scripture and in this thread as a sin. A sin like any other that needs to find repentance. Not acceptance. No where in the Ministry of Christ has a sin been accepted, or tolerated by an unrepentant sinner.

Forgiveness was only found by those who were meek and humble at heart. Meaning those who have repented and sought forgiveness for their sin. If one fools himself and others into accepting sin, then how or why would that person seek forgiveness? If one does not repent of sin, then forgiveness can not be found.

So in short this is why "We" are presenting homosexuality/sin and forgiveness as apart of the Gospel of Christ: Because Homosexuality is a sin. A sin like any other. It needs to find forgiveness, or it will separate the unrepentant sinner away from God for eternity.

Is this what you want?

 

[drich0150]

I truly believe that 'homosexuality' has become the biggest 'beat up' ever perpetrated on the Church. And, it's because I do that I'm here participating in these 'discussions'.

"On the church?" or By the church?

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.

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.

Where is the "beat up" in that message?

 

[Phinehas2]

The Gospel of Christ Speaks directly to the repentance and forgiveness of Sin. No matter how you wish to view Homosexuality, it has been identified in scripture and in this thread as a sin. A sin like any other that needs to find repentance. Not acceptance. No where in the Ministry of Christ has a sin been accepted, or tolerated by an unrepentant sinner.

Amen, absolutely
The Christian approach to sin is to lead people to Christ and repentance. Unbelief is also sin, denying a sin that God's word has identified and described is also sin and needs repentance.

 

[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)

 

[AngelusSax]

No matter how you wish to view Homosexuality, it has been identified in scripture and in this thread as a sin.

Homosexual activity done by people who are seen as being heterosexual is identified as a sin. Activity designed to denegrate someone to a "lower status" - like that of a woman (as viewed back then), is. But the Bible does not speak of people with a homosexual orientation, and thus there is no condemnation of them in a relationship of mutuality, where one is not denegrated lower than the other.

At least, that's one interpretation. It's not about forcing people to accept sin. It's about trying to distinguish between real sin and things people want to be sin because they don't understand it for their own lives. Oh, and what Polycarp said, too.

 

[KCKID]

Homosexual activity done by people who are seen as being heterosexual is identified as a sin. Activity designed to denegrate someone to a "lower status" - like that of a woman (as viewed back then), is. But the Bible does not speak of people with a homosexual orientation, and thus there is no condemnation of them in a relationship of mutuality, where one is not denegrated lower than the other.

This is probably correct. One of the problems of Fundamentalist Christians is that they read what they read with no consideration at all for the culture/superstitions/worship practices/religious taboos, etc. of the day. They then attempt to apply those ancient texts to present-day situations which simply do not and cannot work. But, try offering a different and probably more accurate interpretation based on the times and the circumstances surrounding the said texts and they brand you as a heretic or (gasp) a dreaded 'liberal'. They don't even seek an interpretation ...as said, they read what they read and that's good enough for them.

At least, that's one interpretation. It's not about forcing people to accept sin. It's about trying to distinguish between real sin and things people want to be sin because they don't understand it for their own lives. Oh, and what Polycarp said, too.

Agreed.

 

[drich0150]

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)

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. This is witnessed in that their actions and teachings of a doctrine of permissibility, rather than a doctrine of repentance and forgiveness, as Christ Himself taught. And As I have here. i have only identified Homosexuality or Gay sex as a sin, not to segregate or persecute, but to verify it as a sin. One like any other, it needs to find forgiveness through repentance. Not acceptance. Acceptance of sin is not a teaching of Christ no matter how or what you personally believe.

 

[drich0150]

Homosexual activity done by people who are seen as being heterosexual is identified as a sin. Activity designed to denegrate someone to a "lower status" - like that of a woman (as viewed back then), is. But the Bible does not speak of people with a homosexual orientation, and thus there is no condemnation of them in a relationship of mutuality, where one is not denegrated lower than the other.

Actually this is a completely incorrect representation of scripture. Even if you choose to Ignore what the bible directly says about homosexuality as being a sin, you have only managed to silence the bible on that topic specifically. In which case the homosexual act (Gay sex) would fall under every other law or code about sex in general. In which case would still make gay sex, like any sex a sin if not performed with in the confines of a sanctified marriage.

If you contend that there is a law or command that permits Gay sex specifically, Sex in general, outside of the confines of a sanctified marriage, Or the sanctification of a same sex marriage, then Please By All Means Provide us With Book, Chapter, And Verse. Otherwise you must concede to the point the Gay Sex Like Any other Sex performed outside the boundaries of a Sanctified Marriage is a SIN. And Like Any other Sin It can find forgiveness, but only through repentance...

So you see this has absolutely Nothing to do with the state of affairs between Heterosexual and homosexuals jocking for social status or legitimacy. Because when it comes to sex outside of a sanctified marriage we are indeed all in the same sin boat.

At least, that's one interpretation. It's not about forcing people to accept sin. It's about trying to distinguish between real sin and things people want to be sin because they don't understand it for their own lives. Oh, and what Polycarp said, too

As I have demonstrated polycrap argument, this argument, and the one you lead with, are all based on a doctrine of acceptance. Know that this doctrine is not one found in the Bible. Also know that I have conclusively shown that very nature of Homosexuality to be rooted in sin, even if you wish to ignore what the bible says about it specifically. Because at it core Homosexuality is sex, a type of sex that has absolutely no way of being made legitimate in the life of the believer. That being the case all homosexuality can be classified as a sin.

Now the Burden of proof is on you to show Book Chapter and Verse that preaches the permissibility of sin, or you have to show where Sex any Sex is permissible outside of the boundaries of a sanctified marriage. Other wise you must concede to the biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin. A sin like any other, and as such it will need to be forgiven through repentance of that sin.

Silencing the bible is not the same as representing a doctrine from it.
You must Show Book Chapter and Verse that represents the homosexual doctrine that you have attempted to represent here. otherwise know that you will not be allowed to ride the momentum you have previously enjoyed when you first used this argument to silence scripture. So before you spell out any more pop culture based conjecture be ready to defend it with book Chapter and verse otherwise I will quickly Identify it as conjecture or personal opinion, and dismiss it.

If your going to represent God, Sin or The expressed will of God then it needs to be backed with the appropriate scripture. Because "I said so" is not going to be good enough to be taken as God's word or expressed will.

 

[drich0150]

This is probably correct. One of the problems of Fundamentalist Christians is that they read what they read with no consideration at all for the culture/superstitions/worship practices/religious taboos, etc. of the day. They then attempt to apply those ancient texts to present-day situations which simply do not and cannot work. But, try offering a different and probably more accurate interpretation based on the times and the circumstances surrounding the said texts and they brand you as a heretic or (gasp) a dreaded 'liberal'. They don't even seek an interpretation ...as said, they read what they read and that's good enough for them.

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.

 

[Loukas]

permissibility and represent it as God's expressed will

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

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.
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 on such rubbish.