Fundamental challenge

minister50 said:

Jesus said: (Mark 12:24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? If ye know the Scriptures and know Christ Jesus by the Re Birth than you know He alone can deliver from all sin and unrighteousness. "The Power of God". The Lord's Word does not change and stands and sin is sin and no amount of trying to twist Scripture to condone a sinful lifestyle will change that fact.

Click to expand...

Wrong, minister. Being gay is not a sin. My minister is gay. She is not sinning by being who she is.

WarEagle said:

I think it's funny that some people believe that the power of God is enough to help the drunk stop drinking, help the thief stop stealing, help the fornicator stop fornicating, but the homosexual can't be helped.

Click to expand...

The only help that gay Christians need is help in teaching fellow Christians to accept us as we are.

WarEagle said:

I think it's funny that some people believe that the power of God is enough to help the drunk stop drinking, help the thief stop stealing, help the fornicator stop fornicating, but the homosexual can't be helped.

Click to expand...

But even when he stops drinking, the drunk is still an alcoholic. Likewise, the substance abuser is still addicted to drugs, etc. They need to call upon the strength of the Holy Spirit from day to day, even from moment to moment.

The OP has previously stated that he has admiration for someone who similarly calls upon the Spirit to enable them to resist unwanted homosexual desires. But the desires remain. The person is still gay.

The OP's issue is not with the person struggling against their orientation, but with the organizations that promise unrealistic results and then blame their victims when the inevitable failure is exposed.

Ohioprof said:

The only help that gay Christians need is help in teaching fellow Christians to accept us as we are.

Click to expand...

The only help that some people need on here is to have faith in the literal resurrection of Jesus.

JohnChapter14 said:

The only help that some people need on here is to have faith in the literal resurrection of Jesus.

Click to expand...

That's not what I believe, but you are certainly free to believe that.

I think it's unfair and cruel for people to insist that a gay person repress his or her sexuality in order to conform to a rigid interpretation of the Bible that not all Christians even subscribe to. There is no broad consensus among Christians that "homosexuality" is a "sin." Different Christians regard this issue in different ways, as we see from the debate in these forums.

I think it is possible for someone to choose to be celibate rather than express his or her God-given sexuality. But why should they? Why should a gay person be expected to live a life without intimate love with a spouse simply because some Christians interpret scripture a particular way?

Few gay people are ever going to buy this argument that they should remain celibate for life, especially when there are Christian churches that accept us as we are. Why should a gay person conform to a life devoid of intimate spousal love when there are Christian churches that welcome gay people as gay people? There are welcoming churches that do not demand that gay people try to change ourselves magically into heterosexuals, or that we be celibate to please those who don't like us. That's where the gay people go to worship. We mostly don't go to churches that tell us that our love is "sin." Why would we?

Ohioprof said:

That's not what I believe, but you are certainly free to believe that.

Click to expand...

The resurrection is a fact. Jesus resurrected body bore the marks of the nails on his hands.

Ohioprof said:

I think it's unfair and cruel for people to insist that a gay person repress his or her sexuality in order to conform to a rigid interpretation of the Bible that not all Christians even subscribe to. There is no broad consensus among Christians that "homosexuality" is a "sin." Different Christians regard this issue in different ways, as we see from the debate in these forums.

I think it is possible for someone to choose to be celibate rather than express his or her God-given sexuality. But why should they? Why should a gay person be expected to live a life without intimate love with a spouse simply because some Christians interpret scripture a particular way?

Few gay people are ever going to buy this argument that they should remain celibate for life, especially when there are Christian churches that accept us as we are. Why should a gay person conform to a life devoid of intimate spousal love when there are Christian churches that welcome gay people as gay people? There are welcoming churches that do not demand that gay people try to change ourselves magically into heterosexuals, or that we be celibate to please those who don't like us. That's where the gay people go to worship. We mostly don't go to churches that tell us that our love is "sin." Why would we?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between loving someone, and loving someone with lust. God commands us to love others in agape love, not eros love.

But of course, eros love is only allowed between men and woman who are married. Otherwise that kind of love is immoral.

JohnChapter14 said:

The resurrection is a fact. Jesus resurrected body bore the marks of the nails on his hands.

Click to expand...

Again, you can believe that. I don't.

Ohioprof said:

Again, you can believe that. I don't.

Click to expand...

Ohioprof, read John 20:24-29.

I believe it is apostasy to believe Jesus wasn't literally resurrected.

Ohioprof said:

I think it's unfair and cruel for people to insist that a gay person repress his or her sexuality in order to conform to a rigid interpretation of the Bible that not all Christians even subscribe to. There is no broad consensus among Christians that "homosexuality" is a "sin." Different Christians regard this issue in different ways, as we see from the debate in these forums.

I think it is possible for someone to choose to be celibate rather than express his or her God-given sexuality. But why should they? Why should a gay person be expected to live a life without intimate love with a spouse simply because some Christians interpret scripture a particular way?

Few gay people are ever going to buy this argument that they should remain celibate for life, especially when there are Christian churches that accept us as we are. Why should a gay person conform to a life devoid of intimate spousal love when there are Christian churches that welcome gay people as gay people? There are welcoming churches that do not demand that gay people try to change ourselves magically into heterosexuals, or that we be celibate to please those who don't like us. That's where the gay people go to worship. We mostly don't go to churches that tell us that our love is "sin." Why would we?

Click to expand...

I'm of the mind that the scripture doesn't leave much room for "interpretation" in the first place. But that is not an argument worth getting into, Frankly, if you can look in the bible and see that Christ did NOT ressurect, then I don't think we could come to a concensus on pretty much anything else in there.

But I understand why you wouldn't go to a church that held to a differing viewpoint than you. It's rather frequent, and it isn't just about Gays. It's called church shopping. going around until you find a church which teaches you what you already decided you are willing to believe in the first place.

I'm married, but I think I'd like to have sex with other women (not really. It's an example.) I guess I can't go to the church I've been going to, they don't believe that is OK! they interpret adultery too literally for my taste. I wonder what church I can fnd that won't give me flak about it! That's where I'll go.

JohnChapter14 said:

There is a difference between loving someone, and loving someone with lust. God commands us to love others in agape love, not eros love.

But of course, eros love is only allowed between men and woman who are married. Otherwise that kind of love is immoral.

Click to expand...

Not in my view. There is nothing "immoral" about a committed same-sex couple loving each other in marriage. Lust has nothing to do with it.

Uphill Battle said:

I'm of the mind that the scripture doesn't leave much room for "interpretation" in the first place. But that is not an argument worth getting into, Frankly, if you can look in the bible and see that Christ did NOT ressurect, then I don't think we could come to a concensus on pretty much anything else in there.

But I understand why you wouldn't go to a church that held to a differing viewpoint than you. It's rather frequent, and it isn't just about Gays. It's called church shopping. going around until you find a church which teaches you what you already decided you are willing to believe in the first place.

I'm married, but I think I'd like to have sex with other women (not really. It's an example.) I guess I can't go to the church I've been going to, they don't believe that is OK! they interpret adultery too literally for my taste. I wonder what church I can fnd that won't give me flak about it! That's where I'll go.

Click to expand...

People should choose the church that reflects their beliefs and their world view. That's what religious freedom is about: enabling people the right and the opportunity to choose for themselves what faith tradition suits them best. You imply that there is something wrong with this. I think people should make c choices like that. Conforming to a particular set of beliefs simply other people believe them makes no sense. God gave us brains to think for ourselves, to make choices in our lives. It makes no sense to me or to most gay people that some Christians insist that our love is immoral Why should we listen to them? They claim to speak for God, but they don't. They just speak what they believe, the same as anyone else.

All reading of the Bible, or of any text, involves interpretation. You can't read without interpreting. Good Christians have differed in their interpretations of the Bible over the centuries, which is part of why Christianity consists of so many different sects. That's not bad, in my view; I think it's healthy. People will come to different understandings of God and of the meaning of, or the nature of, the Bible. I personally do not believe that the Bible is the word of God; I believe the Bible was written by human beings who were seeking to know and understand God. The Bible is not authoritative for me in shaping my beliefs. I certainly would never let any book dictate my beliefs. I think for myself, and I make up my own mind about what I believe. I was raised Lutheran, and I left that faith tradition, because I didn't agree with most of the doctrine preached there, and the faith tradition did not suit me. That was long ago....35 years ago. I chose Unitarian Universalism as my faith tradition, because it most closely reflects my values and beliefs. I also find the Quakers and the UCC churches comfortable, but my choice is Unitarian Universalism. When my daughter grows up, she can choose her faith tradition. Right now he is growing up UU, but I want her to have the freedom to choose for herself when she comes of age, and I will encourage her to choose for herself.

Uphill Battle said:

I'm of the mind that the scripture doesn't leave much room for "interpretation" in the first place. But that is not an argument worth getting into, Frankly, if you can look in the bible and see that Christ did NOT ressurect, then I don't think we could come to a concensus on pretty much anything else in there.

But I understand why you wouldn't go to a church that held to a differing viewpoint than you. It's rather frequent, and it isn't just about Gays. It's called church shopping. going around until you find a church which teaches you what you already decided you are willing to believe in the first place.

I'm married, but I think I'd like to have sex with other women (not really. It's an example.) I guess I can't go to the church I've been going to, they don't believe that is OK! they interpret adultery too literally for my taste. I wonder what church I can fnd that won't give me flak about it! That's where I'll go.

Click to expand...

You have to make that decision (about adultery) for yourself. I personally believe adultery is immoral, not because of anything the Bible says about it, but because it is dishonest, and it contradicts marriage vows, and it harms someone you have committed to love. But you have to live your life; I can't live it for you.

Ohioprof said:

You have to make that decision (about adultery) for yourself. I personally believe adultery is immoral, not because of anything the Bible says about it, but because it is dishonest, and it contradicts marriage vows, and it harms someone you have committed to love. But you have to live your life; I can't live it for you.

Click to expand...

you did notice I said (not really. Just an example.) right?

JohnChapter14 said:

I believe it is apostasy to believe Jesus wasn't literally resurrected.

Click to expand...

Again, you are free to believe what you choose. So am I. I do not believe that Jesus was literally resurrected.

Uphill Battle said:

you did notice I said (not really. Just an example.) right?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. I don't think you are really intending to commit adultery, my friend. My "you" should be generic, not specific to you personally.

Ohioprof said:

Again, you are free to believe what you choose. So am I. I do not believe that Jesus was literally resurrected.

Click to expand...

The Resurrection of the Dead

1 Corinthians 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

I believe scripture addressed this. Of course, I'm sure you have your own interpretation of it.