FSTDT.com

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Well he isn't replying

Oh and about that Sodom and Gomorrah episode, I'd suggest everyone take a look at verses 19:30-38 :

30And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Aye, I'm familiar with that story. I even hinted at it when I said God had plans for Lot and his family, namely to create the Moabite and Ammonite peoples from them. It's yet one more reason for thinking they were no paragons of virtue, and I don't believe anyone ever suggested they were, or that they should be emulated.

 

[Nadiine]

Aye, I'm familiar with that story. I even hinted at it when I said God had plans for Lot and his family, namely to create the Moabite and Ammonite peoples from them. It's yet one more reason for thinking they were no paragons of virtue, and I don't believe anyone ever suggested they were, or that they should be emulated.

Has anyone ever read 2 Peter 2 on this topic of Lot's spiritual condition?

6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked
8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—

Sodom & Gom. DID bother Lot as he watched their depravity & evil.

For whatever reasons Lot found himself in S&G, he was not happy and fine with the immorality surrounding him.

And I'd point out that we're talking some 5000 years ago - people in general were alot more barbaric and crude in their thinking and practices in ancient times.
Not to mention that they were in an age of Ignorance prior to the Holy Spirit being sent to the world to convict it of sin.
(John 16).
7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;
11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

Acts 17:30
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked,
but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

So there was some lenience given by God towards those who believed in Him that is not present anymore today after the Light (Christ) has come and brought revelation of truth and His Spirit who would work in the world to convict it of sin. We're in a different era.

In God's eyes, prior to Grace [covenant] thru Christ coming thousands of years later, Lot was righteous becuz he believed God and accepted God's Law, he didn't participate, support or promote the wickedness of those in his community. That made him righteous in God's eyes.
Just like it made King David righteous, etc. etc.

I'd also like to point out that NONE of us are "righteous" in how we live today either - we live in the center of evil that goes on around us.
We live in a city/state/country that condones the random slaughter of infants in and 1/2way out of the womb and many other sick things. Just as Lot lived in the midst of those people.

The ONLY righteousness we have (erm, that is, for a genuine born again Christian which is definitely an issue of proper definition in this forum) is in Christ's sacrifice we accept over us.

 

[Nadiine]

I don't get the homophobia accusation w/ Paul? people who are sharply opposed to it aren't homophobes anymore than being sharply opposed to abortion makes me an abortaphobe or being sharply opposed to hypocrisy makes me a hypophobe lol.

Phobia is fear - I/we do not FEAR homosexuals, we are against it as a practice becuz God has forbidden it and it is immoral/outside God's design for mankind.
I'm as against homosexuality as I am beastiality or incest or polygamy; I don't FEAR any of the above, I find them all to be sexual perversions in violation of God's moral law (violating what God ordained & designed for humanity). Nothing more.

With that said, that is how I view Paul on the matter of homosexuality and any other sin he instructed against. And if he were sexist, he wouldn't have any women holding any prominant positions of leadership or power in the church.
Or kept them as such close friends as he did - he elevated them in his epistles.

I think we have to take his Phariseeical background into context of his personality. He was a cut and dry, no nonsense man - he sought holiness and hated that he couldn't live how he wanted to, but fell short miserably.

It's very possible that he was so headstrong becuz he once used to murder the very people he became (Christian)... it would tend to make him alot more adamant about truth and against sin in general imho. He was given the difficult task of being an example for the NT church as it was being established AND to lead them with God's truth given to Him by Christ directly.

 

[Nadiine]

We could adjourn to the Debate subforum of this one, and Desmalia has suggested that, but as Mr. Miyagi said, "Too much advantage, your dojo." WWMC would be where I'd feel most comfortable discussing it, but I don't know how much WWMC would appreciate it either. This would actually be the proper place for it, though it's a jungle.

They mite as well turn that forum into
"is homosexuality right or wrong and why".
EVERY thread ends up turning into the debate on is it sin or not no matter what the specific topic is. lol

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Nadiine,

Thanks for the reference to 2 Peter 2. I hadn't remembered that, or hadn't read it, I'm not sure which.

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine,

Thanks for the reference to 2 Peter 2. I hadn't remembered that, or hadn't read it, I'm not sure which.

It's a pretty obscure verse to find OR remember lol =)~

 

[desmalia]

So...let me try and understand you.
The reason why you dont comment on those thing, what I just said, is because your not a member of the fundamentalist forum, and therefore refuse to make a comment? Doesnt that seem like the easy answer, and the easy way out? The more and more I try to present something, such as what I said in my previous post, the more people refuse to comment on them.

No, please understand, Iz is not avoiding the topic out of fear or anything. As a guest here, she is respecting the rules of the Fundamentalist forum. In the same respect, we fundamentalists are not permitted to share our opinions on the subject in the liberal forum (WWMC).

Iz, I share Nadiine's sentiments about the Homosexual debate forum. It's an ugly place where real discussion rarely, if ever, happens. I see no purpose in posting there. I understand why you wouldn't want to debate with all of us here (well, all = what, three or four, tops? lol). The main reason I suggested it is that at least we have an official debate subforum where such discussion is allowed and where I believe people will maintain a sense of respect and decorum. AND if people wander in from wherever to cause trouble the mods can shut it down or move it to the Homosexual debate forum. Additionally, I suspect you are not alone in your point of view on this subject, even among the regular non-members who post in the fundie forum. So the numbers would likely be pretty even. I know for sure that WWMC is not a place where any of us would be welcome to share our beliefs on the issue. That's basically written right into your FSG's. And you guys don't have a debate subforum. But if there is no place to discuss it further, that's just how it goes, I guess.

Has anyone ever read 2 Peter 2 on this topic of Lot's spiritual condition?

6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;
7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked
8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—

Sodom & Gom. DID bother Lot as he watched their depravity & evil.

For whatever reasons Lot found himself in S&G, he was not happy and fine with the immorality surrounding him.

And I'd point out that we're talking some 5000 years ago - people in general were alot more barbaric and crude in their thinking and practices in ancient times.
Not to mention that they were in an age of Ignorance prior to the Holy Spirit being sent to the world to convict it of sin.
(John 16).
7"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;
11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

Acts 17:30
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked,
but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

So there was some lenience given by God towards those who believed in Him that is not present anymore today after the Light (Christ) has come and brought revelation of truth and His Spirit who would work in the world to convict it of sin. We're in a different era.

In God's eyes, prior to Grace [covenant] thru Christ coming thousands of years later, Lot was righteous becuz he believed God and accepted God's Law, he didn't participate, support or promote the wickedness of those in his community. That made him righteous in God's eyes.
Just like it made King David righteous, etc. etc.

I'd also like to point out that NONE of us are "righteous" in how we live today either - we live in the center of evil that goes on around us.
We live in a city/state/country that condones the random slaughter of infants in and 1/2way out of the womb and many other sick things. Just as Lot lived in the midst of those people.

The ONLY righteousness we have (erm, that is, for a genuine born again Christian which is definitely an issue of proper definition in this forum) is in Christ's sacrifice we accept over us.

It is always edifying to hear from our resident prophetess!

 

[Duo]

No, please understand, Iz is not avoiding the topic out of fear or anything. As a guest here, she is respecting the rules of the Fundamentalist forum. In the same respect, we fundamentalists are not permitted to share our opinions on the subject in the liberal forum (WWMC).

Well, please understand me, it seems as though before we really got into the topic it was somewhat a debate and sharing of beleifs before, why now bring up the fact that you cant debate? Isnt debating one of the major puposes of a forum? It seems as though everyone else happened to be sharing their opinions before.

 

[Nadiine]

Well, please understand me, it seems as though before we really got into the topic it was somewhat a debate and sharing of beleifs before, why now bring up the fact that you cant debate? Isnt debating one of the major puposes of a forum? It seems as though everyone else happened to be sharing their opinions before.

sharing some general differences is one thing, getting into full blown debate back & forth is another.
It's not allowed in most all congregational areas as a courtesy to those of that particular denom. where it's supposed to be their "safe haven" to fellowship & discuss btwn themselves without outside conflicts.

It may seem harmless if just you are debating in 1 thread in this congregational forum, but when you multiply that by all the others that should equally be allowed to get into full debating on issues here, it turns into an area of hostility & fighting instead of a place for those of that denom. to enjoy; there's a reason the debating was removed from general congregational forums; things can be freely debated in specific debate areas elsewhere. =)

 

[AnneSally]

I don't get the homophobia accusation w/ Paul?

Neither do I.

 

[AnneSally]

It is always edifying to hear from our resident prophetess!

Is it ever. I wish Nadiine would post here more often!

 

[spinningtutu]

I agree...

and, take it from me, Paul absolutely was not homophobic.

 

[AnneSally]

I don't get the homophobia accusation w/ Paul? people who are sharply opposed to it aren't homophobes anymore than being sharply opposed to abortion makes me an abortaphobe or being sharply opposed to hypocrisy makes me a hypophobe lol.

Phobia is fear - I/we do not FEAR homosexuals, we are against it as a practice becuz God has forbidden it and it is immoral/outside God's design for mankind.
I'm as against homosexuality as I am beastiality or incest or polygamy; I don't FEAR any of the above, I find them all to be sexual perversions in violation of God's moral law (violating what God ordained & designed for humanity). Nothing more.

With that said, that is how I view Paul on the matter of homosexuality and any other sin he instructed against. And if he were sexist, he wouldn't have any women holding any prominant positions of leadership or power in the church.
Or kept them as such close friends as he did - he elevated them in his epistles.

I think we have to take his Phariseeical background into context of his personality. He was a cut and dry, no nonsense man - he sought holiness and hated that he couldn't live how he wanted to, but fell short miserably.

It's very possible that he was so headstrong becuz he once used to murder the very people he became (Christian)... it would tend to make him alot more adamant about truth and against sin in general imho. He was given the difficult task of being an example for the NT church as it was being established AND to lead them with God's truth given to Him by Christ directly.

This is an excellent critique on Paul. I agree.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I don't get the homophobia accusation w/ Paul? people who are sharply opposed to it aren't homophobes anymore than being sharply opposed to abortion makes me an abortaphobe or being sharply opposed to hypocrisy makes me a hypophobe lol.

Right, but those who disagree with opposition to homosexual practice were devilishly crafty enough to come up with a good label for their enemies.

Phobia is fear - I/we do not FEAR homosexuals, we are against it as a practice becuz God has forbidden it and it is immoral/outside God's design for mankind.

A "phobia" is *literally* a fear, specifically an "irrational" one. But as a suffix, the term also connotes "aversion," and by popular definition, bigoted hatred. Technically, those who are "averse" to homosexual practice can be considered homophobic.

At the risk of repetition, it is a devilishly clever ploy of the homosex advocates to consistently assign the most negative definitions to *everyone* who is in any way "averse" to homosexual practice.

 

[AnneSally]

At the risk of repetition, it is a devilishly clever ploy of the homosex advocates to consistently assign the most negative definitions to *everyone* who is in any way "averse" to homosexual practice.

You don't sound repititious at all X, what you just said hit me between the eyes with its clarity. Thank you.

Because this is EXACTLY what happened between myself and Hyperbole when he was trying to lay that charge at me, he wouldn't hear me out, but kept employing the "devilishly clever ploy" as you put it.

 

[Nadiine]

Right, but those who disagree with opposition to homosexual practice were devilishly crafty enough to come up with a good label for their enemies.

A "phobia" is *literally* a fear, specifically an "irrational" one. But as a suffix, the term also connotes "aversion," and by popular definition, bigoted hatred. Technically, those who are "averse" to homosexual practice can be considered homophobic.

At the risk of repetition, it is a devilishly clever ploy of the homosex advocates to consistently assign the most negative definitions to *everyone* who is in any way "averse" to homosexual practice.

I disagree that homophobia is even technically correct - becuz you CAN BE against it and NOT have "fear" of it. thus the Phobia part is inaccurate entirely. It is in my case.
It would technically mean that one has to have aversion to it - AND FEAR - both of which I don't.

That would mean that anytime I have an aversion to anything, it's bigoted and throws me into fear of it and that's not the case.

It's a false term over people who call it what the Bible calls it. Sin.

 

[Aleksander]

"And I'd point out that we're talking some 5000 years ago - people in general were alot more barbaric and crude in their thinking and practices in ancient times.
Not to mention that they were in an age of Ignorance prior to the Holy Spirit being sent to the world to convict it of sin.
(So there was some lenience given by God towards those who believed in Him that is not present anymore today after the Light (Christ) has come and brought revelation of truth and His Spirit who would work in the world to convict it of sin. We're in a different era.

In God's eyes, prior to Grace [covenant] thru Christ coming thousands of years later, Lot was righteous becuz he believed God and accepted God's Law, he didn't participate, support or promote the wickedness of those in his community. That made him righteous in God's eyes.
Just like it made King David righteous, etc. etc......

I'd also like to point out that NONE of us are "righteous" in how we live today either - we live in the center of evil that goes on around us.
We live in a city/state/country that condones the random slaughter of infants in and 1/2way out of the womb and many other sick things. Just as Lot lived in the midst of those people."

The ONLY righteousness we have (erm, that is, for a genuine born again Christian which is definitely an issue of proper definition in this forum) is in Christ's sacrifice we accept over us"


Okay now this brings up a point that I have wondered about since I could read: Since the Old Testament is mostly inapplicaple to modern times, why do we still use it? It seems irrelavent to me, seeing as how we have modern ammenities such as the New Testament.

 

[jamielindas]

*Gay atheist walks into the room*

 

[Nadiine]

Hi =)

 

[Nadiine]

looks around.............