Homosexuality

[DaveS]

There are many people out there who appear happy in their sin. Happiness and commitment does not equal right.

Stop avoiding the point!!1!!11!!1!

All I am saying is that I have seen many homosexual couples who have more love for eachother than many heterosexual couples. End of.

Any sinner can use that excuse. The debate is about whether the act is wrong or not. You can't say something isn't a sin because it's hard to change. It might be a lifelong struggle which will only be over in glory.

Homosexuality is not like other sins, it affects who you are and you are with it all your life through (it would seem) no choice of your own. Would God impose such a burden naturally on you that is so life changing and a slip up means hell fire? That is hardly a loving God.

We don't, we are merely debating whether the act is right or wrong. This argument would stop us debating anything moral at all.

I thought the reasoning behind homosexuality being wrong is because it is morally wrong... God doesn't do things without reason, that is the job of man.

While we should be sensitive to people's feelings, we cannot say something is right when it is wrong because it will hurt their feelings. Any number greater than two is a group of people, so by this argument any sin is okay if a group of people are doing it? This is not about condeming people, this is about debating whether an act is right or not. Would you be happy to be "rotting in hell" (your words, not mine) and find out someone didn't warn you about it because they might hurt your feelings.

Back to using the small brush instead of the large sweep. You must be sensitive to other people on many issues if they are doing wrong - telling them that they are going to rot in Hell for what they do is not exactly the way to go... as Thyneighbour brilliantly pointed out, pointing the way to Christ means leading to Christ, not telling them that they must rip apart their life as it is first and thus probably preventing salvation altogether.

If someone is doing wrong they will realise it under Christ.

Correct, he does, but that does not mean we will see or understand the reason. When you were a child, your parents told you to come in at a certain time. You didn't understand why. You didn't want to. It wasn't fair, your friends were allowed to stay out later. But your parents knew best. Now you know why, then you didn't.

We are talking about God, He gives reasons and does not keep back the answer so that you must do this or that to get it. By that notion you are almost producing a God that plays a game with our salvation. He does not play ball with something that important.

 

[artybloke]

Are you saying that the institution of marriage wasn't about love, and still isn't today?

For the vast majority of people in past ages, marriage was not about love. It's only in the last 500 years or so that love has come into the equation. Love as the ideal in marriage may even have started with what Jesus said about marriage. But it certainly took a long time to get through.

Even in the OT, people get married for the sake of procreation, political alliance and family property. The woman is seen as the property of the man (hence all that talk of coveting your neighbour's wife as well as his cattle: you covet other peoples' property) (and there's never any mention of women coveting other womens' husband: women weren't allowed to own property.)

There are love relationships in the Bible, but in the context of Romance literature like Ruth and the Song of Songs (where the relationship seems to be disaproved of) and are not seen as normal. Polygamy is allowed because the more wives you have, the more property you have.

Marriages were arranged in that culture, and things like financial stability and dowry were very important. People didn't "fall in love." They were also married for life: if they made a mistake, they had to live with it. People could grow to love each other, and often did; but it wasn't compulsory as long as children were produced to keep the family line going.

 

[IisJustMe]

Even in the OT, people get married for the sake of procreation, political alliance and family property. The woman is seen as the property of the man (hence all that talk of coveting your neighbour's wife as well as his cattle: you covet other peoples' property) (and there's never any mention of women coveting other womens' husband: women weren't allowed to own property.)

And please take no offense at this, but I'm getting really tired of Christian people taking a viewpoint opposite the teachings of the Bible who then proceed to prove they don't really know what the Bible says. Your last assumption about women owning property is completely in error.

During the 40 years' wanderings in the desert, Zelophehad died, leaving no male heirs. Tradition would have dispersed his wealth among his male heirs -- brothers, uncles and cousins. But Zelophehad's daughters questioned whether that is what God would want done, and they were right, because the Lord said to Moses:

"The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them. Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.' " (Numbers 27:7, 8)

My other point is this, as I've stated many times in this board and not gotten a single response from those who take a pro-homosexual viewpoint:

Why do you take your example of marriage from what man has made it? Man is sinful! And Among of the most sinful things man has done is take that which is God-given and perverted it. We do that all the time, with a lot of things, not just marriage and the gift of sexuality.

Nothing man does is righteousness. At best it is a pale image of God's will for us, even when we act in faith. What man has made of marriage is irrelevant to the discussion. We are to model as closely as we can the elements of marriage that God has given us, and He didn't envision a perversion of His gift to us, but rather the union -- the becoming of one flesh -- of a man and a woman in love for Him and one another, to share their lives and hearts with Him and one another.

There are love relationships in the Bible, but in the context of Romance literature like Ruth and the Song of Songs (where the relationship seems to be disaproved of) and are not seen as normal.

I defy you to provide any proof of reading those texts in that manner.

Marriages were arranged in that culture, and things like financial stability and dowry were very important.

Dowries are a tradition of men, also, and therefore represent what man has done to to institution of marriage, not what God intended.

People didn't "fall in love."

That's where you're wrong. Despite all the things people did in contravention of God's will, there was still love. And your next statement ...

They were also married for life: if they made a mistake, they had to live with it.

... is further indication you don't understand that marriage for life is the will of God, and divorce was also a perversion of God's intent. Not that people in an abusive or adulterous marriage should remain in it, but that kind of relationship is what God had in mind for divorce, not the whim of man that he was "tired" of his partner and needed someone new.

 

[Mling]

Why do you take your example of marriage from what man has made it? Man is sinful! And Among of the most sinful things man has done is take that which is God-given and perverted it. We do that all the time, with a lot of things, not just marriage and the gift of sexuality.

That is my #1 reason for supporting gay marriage. Marriage--the ultimate expression and embodiment of love--I believe is the most beautiful thing God has given us. To see what modern man, and America has done to it tears at my heart. Divorce and reality shows did enough damage to how the process of marriage plays out, But the shot to the heart, as I see it, was taking the very essence of marriage--what it should be at its core--the embodiment of love and devotion, and perverting that. In the minds of many, now, marriage has been turned into a country club. An exclusive group where only the "right" types of people can join, and anybody who isn't good enough either isn't allowed, or has to lie about their identity to be able to join.

If an individual couple marries, and they should not have, that is for God to figure out. If an entire country twists the meaning of marriage into this elitist monstrosity, that is the ultimate degredation of God's gift of love to humanity. This perversion of marriage is the most repulsive I have seen or can imagine.

 

[intricatic]

That is my #1 reason for supporting gay marriage. Marriage--the ultimate expression and embodiment of love--I believe is the most beautiful thing God has given us. To see what modern man, and America has done to it tears at my heart. Divorce and reality shows did enough damage to how the process of marriage plays out, But the shot to the heart, as I see it, was taking the very essence of marriage--what it should be at its core--the embodiment of love and devotion, and perverting that. In the minds of many, now, marriage has been turned into a country club. An exclusive group where only the "right" types of people can join, and anybody who isn't good enough either isn't allowed, or has to lie about their identity to be able to join.

If an individual couple marries, and they should not have, that is for God to figure out. If an entire country twists the meaning of marriage into this elitist monstrosity, that is the ultimate degredation of God's gift of love to humanity. This perversion of marriage is the most repulsive I have seen or can imagine.

It's all about duality, not about elitism. Marriage has had the same basic dynamics since before Jesus' time, and the only addition Jesus made was to demonstrate how important it is.

 

[Mling]

I'm not sure what you mean by "duality" in this context.


But my point is, if somebody believes (as is commonly argued) that their own marriage will be defiled if "those types" are allowed to join the institution of marriage, then they are absolutely arguing from elitism.

 

[djbcrawford]

Stop avoiding the point!!1!!11!!1!

All I am saying is that I have seen many homosexual couples who have more love for eachother than many heterosexual couples. End of.

Whether your point is true or not, doesn't prove anything in this debate as to whether the act is right or not. If you feel it does, you will need to provide further explanation. Many couples who are having affairs behind their partners backs may seem more in love than couples who aren't. Does this make their actions right?

Homosexuality is not like other sins, it affects who you are and you are with it all your life through (it would seem) no choice of your own.

From your statement above, you seem to be saying that homosexuality is a sin, just different because it was imposed on you through no fault of your own and therefore isn't a sin?

Would God impose such a burden naturally on you that is so life changing and a slip up means hell fire? That is hardly a loving God.

There are plenty of life-changing events which are imposed on us through no fault of our own. Our choice is how we deal with it. For example, most abusers have been abused themselves, but does that mean it is right for them to carry on the cycle? While we can understand why they feel the way they do, we cannot justify their actions if they abuse someone else. God is a loving God because he paid the ultimate price to save us from hell. Would he have done this if he could simply have chosen to look the other way to sin?

I thought the reasoning behind homosexuality being wrong is because it is morally wrong... God doesn't do things without reason, that is the job of man.

Correct, that is what this discussion is about. But moral laws have reasons behind them and that is what we are discussing as well.

Back to using the small brush instead of the large sweep. You must be sensitive to other people on many issues if they are doing wrong - telling them that they are going to rot in Hell for what they do is not exactly the way to go... as Thyneighbour brilliantly pointed out, pointing the way to Christ means leading to Christ, not telling them that they must rip apart their life as it is first and thus probably preventing salvation altogether.

I agree. In every post I have made I have been at pains to point out that this debate is not about telling people they will Rot in Hell, it is a debate about whether a particular act is right or wrong. In fact most of the times the "Rot in Hell" statement has been brought up, it has been by homosexual act supporters to attack people who disagree with their position.

If someone is doing wrong they will realise it under Christ.

Even the apostle Peter himself had to be chastised by Paul for going wrong (enforcing circumcision on non-jews who became Christians). If even he didn't realise on his own under Christ that he was doing something wrong, what chance have we? How do we find if something is wrong under Christ? By how we feel or by reading the bible, praying and going to church. What will you say to these new converts when they open their bibles and find all these passages condeming same sex actions? "Don't worry, we don't believe that any more", or "God felt it was too difficult and changed his mind"?

We are talking about God, He gives reasons and does not keep back the answer so that you must do this or that to get it.

Really? Do you have any scripture to back that up? Did Abraham know the reason God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Did Job understand the reasons at the time for why his life fell apart? There are multitudes of examples in the bible when God told people to do something without giving them the reasons at the time. As I said in an earlier post, faith is believing God when you don't understand. Believing God when you do understand isn't faith, it's just common sense.

 

[djbcrawford]

But my point is, if somebody believes (as is commonly argued) that their own marriage will be defiled if "those types" are allowed to join the institution of marriage, then they are absolutely arguing from elitism.

Agreed, the only person who can defile a marriage are the two people in it. That argument would appear to be more about pride and snobbery than about truth and IMO should be disregarded. However the debate can continue without it.


(Hmmm, not sure how I managed to post this twice???)

 

[IisJustMe]

That is my #1 reason for supporting gay marriage. Marriage--the ultimate expression and embodiment of love--I believe is the most beautiful thing God has given us.

God gave it to us, we being sinful make a mess of it, so your response is to support another human mess and claim it honors God's original intent? I'd love to see you rationalize that, but I fear it would give me a gigantic headache.

What part of this do you not understand?

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.' (Leviticus 18:22)

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26, 27)

Click on the links. They will take you to the Hebrew and Greek lexicons at 'www.studylight.org' so you can see for yourself the exact nature of the words used by Moses and Paul in these passage. Despite biblical evidence, despite being a Christian, despite the perfect will of God, you claim you support "homosexual marriage" because it is more pure than man's execution of the sacrament? Again, I'm flabbergasted, almost (but obviously not quite) speechless. I'm amazed anyone could offer this paragraph as support for an unbiblical concept. Lord Jesus, come quickly!

 

[djbcrawford]

But my point is, if somebody believes (as is commonly argued) that their own marriage will be defiled if "those types" are allowed to join the institution of marriage, then they are absolutely arguing from elitism.

Agreed, the only people who can defile a marriage are the two people in it. That argument would appear to be more about pride and snobbery than about truth and IMO should be disregarded. However the debate can continue without it.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

As a citizen living in a pluralistic and secular society, one that guarantees me freedom of worship and expression, I desire to see others experience the same freedom, liberty, and respect. I will vote and, wherever necessary, act to protect and ensure the rights implied in our Constitution.

I would, however, distinguish secular marriage from sacred matrimony. While I support the rights and liberties of homosexuals within this society to live, worship, and join as they will, I will not agree in sanctioning marriage within the Orthodox Church for same-sex couples. If the Episcopalians wish to do so, that's their prerogative.

In short, I make a very clear distinction between sacred and secular, wherein my values are not foisted upon others, nor theirs upon me and mine.

I therefore have very serious qualms with how homosexuality and homosexual marriage is sometimes presented in public schools. I embrace respect and kindness, taught as values...but equating the love between various couples at a moral ilevel s deeply problematic- in the same way it would be if schools were teaching that homosexual unions were morally wrong. In other words, I don't want the government making moral judgements for my kids- whether I agree with those moral judgements or not.

Respect is morally neutral. So is kindness.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Stop avoiding the point!!1!!11!!1!

All I am saying is that I have seen many homosexual couples who have more love for eachother than many heterosexual couples. End of.

There is no point being made there.

Your claim requires me to give credence to your ability to know and recognize the difference between lust and love, between love demonstrated and able to stand comparing it to God's declared definition of love and other demonstrations that would fail.

For example, an adulterer may be kind, patient, etc. toward his wife, but claiming that he demonstrates pure love as is defined by God and generally spoken without taking all factors into consideration (including the infidelity) would be ignorant. If you observe heterosexual couples failing to demonstrate love, that might be your failure to recognize or "judge" or their failure. It does nothing to prove anything or bolster other sinful coupling, because the standard of what God declares righteousness and what is wicked
isn't based on the guy next to us or graded on a curve. Such worldview is relativism and is echoing the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14.

You will have to forgive me if I refrain from giving a stranger on the Internet the authority and credentials to dictate that "their observation" is enough to outweigh my own or even to speak on such things as love in such a manner.

Homosexuality is not like other sins,

The same claim is made my many others trapped in sin.
Adultery, addiction to drugs, alcohol, sex, whatever you want to put in the blank. The claim there is hollow and directly contradicts Christian teaching. It is a message of hopelessness as opposed to the Good News that is the Gospel.:

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

... it affects who you are and you are with it all your life through (it would seem) no choice of your own. Would God impose such a burden naturally on you that is so life changing and a slip up means hell fire? That is hardly a loving God.

Such a declaration presumes to judge God based on man being the one with the authority to decide what is possible, what is all involved, etc.
It also would crumble if there was merely one homosexual that repented and embraced God's provisions for intimacy, leaving a sinful life behind... which we know has been done.
www.lovewonout.org
Joe Dallas
Mike Haley
Alan Chambers
etc.

And lastly, such grandiose assertions of hopelessly being trapped in a sin can't even pass secular examination on the topic of homosexuality. It would require that everyone was either on one end of the extreme position on the Kinsey scale or the other, which is not even supported by the worldly view.

I thought the reasoning behind homosexuality being wrong is because it is morally wrong... God doesn't do things without reason, that is the job of man.


Back to using the small brush instead of the large sweep. You must be sensitive to other people on many issues if they are doing wrong - telling them that they are going to rot in Hell for what they do is not exactly the way to go... as Thyneighbour brilliantly pointed out, pointing the way to Christ means leading to Christ, not telling them that they must rip apart their life as it is first and thus probably preventing salvation altogether.

If someone is doing wrong they will realise it under Christ.

A bit simplistic, but there is some truth in that.
However, it is neglecting to address situations such as those that would knowingly or unknowingly deceive, sin, teach when they should be listening, those that are moved by God to confront someone so as to wake them in their slumber of sin, the fact that the very Gospel is preaching repentance and forgiveness, etc. If I were to take what was said above in your post and make it an over-generalized rule of thumb, I see possible follies where believers might keep their Good News to themselves in fear that the repentance part would "offend" someone or that people would be clueless as from what they should repent.

As I said, there was some truth in what I read in that portion of the post, but it risks being a fallacy of over-generalization just as it would be for someone to say that everyone should be confrontational to non-believers and be in their face until they were enlightened.
God has many servants and He knows how they should preach His message and what His will is for those servants. To make a generalized declaration of "how" in such an area would be presumptuous. Consider timid Timothy vs. John the Baptist - Far be it from me to presume one was right and one was wrong based soley on how "I" viewed their agressiveness or how they made certain people "feel".

We are talking about God, He gives reasons and does not keep back the answer so that you must do this or that to get it. By that notion you are almost producing a God that plays a game with our salvation. He does not play ball with something that important.

Incorrect viewpoint.
It almost makes one's rejection of God and His ways as the authority of whether or not God is right or has given the person grace or not. It could even be a condition of someone's ignorance being the authority over what is right or not. Last I checked, there is but one Authority above all and it isn't ignorance or rebellion.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

 

[Argent]

And please take no offense at this, but I'm getting really tired of Christian people taking a viewpoint opposite the teachings of the Bible who then proceed to prove they don't really know what the Bible says. Your last assumption about women owning property is completely in error.

During the 40 years' wanderings in the desert, Zelophehad died, leaving no male heirs. Tradition would have dispersed his wealth among his male heirs -- brothers, uncles and cousins. But Zelophehad's daughters questioned whether that is what God would want done, and they were right, because the Lord said to Moses:

"The daughters of Zelophehad are right in their statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them. Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.' " (Numbers 27:7, 8)

My other point is this, as I've stated many times in this board and not gotten a single response from those who take a pro-homosexual viewpoint:

Why do you take your example of marriage from what man has made it? Man is sinful! And Among of the most sinful things man has done is take that which is God-given and perverted it. We do that all the time, with a lot of things, not just marriage and the gift of sexuality.

Nothing man does is righteousness. At best it is a pale image of God's will for us, even when we act in faith. What man has made of marriage is irrelevant to the discussion. We are to model as closely as we can the elements of marriage that God has given us, and He didn't envision a perversion of His gift to us, but rather the union -- the becoming of one flesh -- of a man and a woman in love for Him and one another, to share their lives and hearts with Him and one another.
I defy you to provide any proof of reading those texts in that manner.
Dowries are a tradition of men, also, and therefore represent what man has done to to institution of marriage, not what God intended.
That's where you're wrong. Despite all the things people did in contravention of God's will, there was still love. And your next statement ...
... is further indication you don't understand that marriage for life is the will of God, and divorce was also a perversion of God's intent. Not that people in an abusive or adulterous marriage should remain in it, but that kind of relationship is what God had in mind for divorce, not the whim of man that he was "tired" of his partner and needed someone new.

Wow! Reps to you, Bro!!!

 

[Argent]

I had a homosexual who had the desire since early childhood but had received Christ come to me for counseling within my being supervised by the counseling center. He had practiced it some in college. He came seeking freedom from his desires. Non of his own efforts worked. This is usually the case when a person seeks to live the Christian life from their own resources. I was trained to counsel people to build an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and totally surrender to Christ so that Christ can deal with their problems. People cannot overcome sin by trying to. Sins are overcomed by surrendering self-life for Christ life. Love for Christ gains the victory which is a far cry from obedience because you are suppose to. Which is easier. Obedience because you do not want to do anything to displease God or because you are commanded to. Love for God, which He freely gives to those who seek to love Him, is the source of freedom from temptation.
This person was freed from his bondage out of a spiritual love relationship with Jesus. He expresses his gratitude every time we meet.
Even if one never gains freedom from this bondage he will still go to heaven but have much loss of heavenly rewards, provided he had truly received Jesus. David killed Goliath with God's power then later committed adultery and murder when he stopped depending on God. David then repented and Jesus called David a man after His own heart. Interesting facts to ponder, isn't it?

You know, Brother, there are a number of homosexuals who have come to the Lord in my church, and I don't think any of them would agree with you on how you see their future in heaven.

What do you mean "never gains freedom from this bondage"? Exactly what is your definition of "freedom from bondage"?

Loss of heavenly rewards? What? Are they going to have to sit on the back row, and clean the toilettes, or work K.P. in the kitchens while the rest of us lounge by the pool?

I'm glad to hear you are actually trying to help these people. Most churches don't really care beyond giving lip-service to the "hate the sin, but love the sinner" motto, but telling them that they are going to be second class citizens in heaven if they don't fit your definition of sanctification is just a further insult to people who already get pushed around by some of their Christian brothers and sisters, which shouldn't be happening in the first place.

 

[Argent]

There is no point being made there.

Your claim requires me to give credence to your ability to know and recognize the difference between lust and love, between love demonstrated and able to stand comparing it to God's declared definition of love and other demonstrations that would fail.

For example, an adulterer may be kind, patient, etc. toward his wife, but claiming that he demonstrates pure love as is defined by God and generally spoken without taking all factors into consideration (including the infidelity) would be ignorant. If you observe heterosexual couples failing to demonstrate love, that might be your failure to recognize or "judge" or their failure. It does nothing to prove anything or bolster other sinful coupling, because the standard of what God declares righteousness and what is wicked
isn't based on the guy next to us or graded on a curve. Such worldview is relativism and is echoing the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14.

You will have to forgive me if I refrain from giving a stranger on the Internet the authority and credentials to dictate that "their observation" is enough to outweigh my own or even to speak on such things as love in such a manner.

The same claim is made my many others trapped in sin.
Adultery, addiction to drugs, alcohol, sex, whatever you want to put in the blank. The claim there is hollow and directly contradicts Christian teaching. It is a message of hopelessness as opposed to the Good News that is the Gospel.:

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.
Such a declaration presumes to judge God based on man being the one with the authority to decide what is possible, what is all involved, etc.
It also would crumble if there was merely one homosexual that repented and embraced God's provisions for intimacy, leaving a sinful life behind... which we know has been done.
www.lovewonout.org
Joe Dallas
Mike Haley
Alan Chambers
etc.

And lastly, such grandiose assertions of hopelessly being trapped in a sin can't even pass secular examination on the topic of homosexuality. It would require that everyone was either on one end of the extreme position on the Kinsey scale or the other, which is not even supported by the worldly view.
A bit simplistic, but there is some truth in that.
However, it is neglecting to address situations such as those that would knowingly or unknowingly deceive, sin, teach when they should be listening, those that are moved by God to confront someone so as to wake them in their slumber of sin, the fact that the very Gospel is preaching repentance and forgiveness, etc. If I were to take what was said above in your post and make it an over-generalized rule of thumb, I see possible follies where believers might keep their Good News to themselves in fear that the repentance part would "offend" someone or that people would be clueless as from what they should repent.

As I said, there was some truth in what I read in that portion of the post, but it risks being a fallacy of over-generalization just as it would be for someone to say that everyone should be confrontational to non-believers and be in their face until they were enlightened.
God has many servants and He knows how they should preach His message and what His will is for those servants. To make a generalized declaration of "how" in such an area would be presumptuous. Consider timid Timothy vs. John the Baptist - Far be it from me to presume one was right and one was wrong based soley on how "I" viewed their agressiveness or how they made certain people "feel".


Incorrect viewpoint.
It almost makes one's rejection of God and His ways as the authority of whether or not God is right or has given the person grace or not. It could even be a condition of someone's ignorance being the authority over what is right or not. Last I checked, there is but one Authority above all and it isn't ignorance or rebellion.

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 12:50
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

I couldn't agree with you more!

 

[ThyNeighbor]

Gal 5:1 STAND fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,* and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

​

From David Guzik’s Commentary:
1. (1) Summary statement: in light of all that Paul has said previously, he now challenges the Galatians to walk in the truth

a. The fact is that Jesus has set us free; it is our job, with God's strength, to walk in that freedom, and to not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage

i. The Jews themselves spoke of the law as a yoke, but they used the term in a favorable light - Paul sees it as slavery

b. Someone who is legally made free in Christ can still live in bondage; they are deceived into placing themselves back into slavery.

d. The idea of a yoke of bondage reminds us of what Peter said in Acts 15:10 about those who would bring the Gentiles under the law: Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? The Jews themselves were not able to justify themselves before God by the law, so they shouldn't put that heavy, burdensome yoke on the Gentiles!

Gal 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
Gal 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

​

From David Guzik’s Commentary:
2. (2-4) The danger of embracing the law as a way to walk with God

a. When we embrace the law as our rule of walking with God, we must let go of Jesus; He is no longer our righteousness, we attempt to earn it ourselves

i. The legalists among the Galatians wanted them to think that they could have both Jesus and a law-relationship with God; Paul tells them that this is not an option open to them - the systems of grace and law are incompatible

b. When we embrace the law as our rule of walking with God, we must embrace the entire law - we become debtors to keep the whole law

i. Again, the legalists among the Galatians wanted them to think they could observe some aspects of the law without coming under the entire law; but when we choose to walk by law, we must walk by the whole law
ii. No amount of obedience makes up for one act of disobedience; if you are pulled over for speeding, it will do not good to protest that you are a faithful husband and a good taxpayer; you have still broken the speeding law and are guilty under it

iii. We will later see that Paul doesn't care one way or another about circumcision (Galatians 5:6); what he detests is the theology of circumcision as presented by the legalists

c. When we embrace the law as our rule of walking with God, we depart from Jesus and His grace; we have fallen from grace

i. The danger of falling from grace is real; we often think of "falling away" in terms of immoral conduct, but we are not saved by our conduct. However, we are saved by our continuing reliance by faith on the grace of God; someone may fall from grace and be damned without ever falling into grossly immoral conduct
ii. Boice on you have fallen from grace: "The phrase does not mean that if a Christian sins, he falls from grace and thereby loses his salvation. There is a sense in which to sin is to fall into grace, if one is repentant. But to fall from grace, as seen by this context, is to fall into legalism. . . . Or to put it another way, to choose legalism is to relinquish grace as the principle by which one desires to be related to God."

Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.


​

From David Guzik’s Commentary:

3. (5-6) The answer of faith to the legalist

a. Those walking in the Spirit are waiting for the hope of righteousness by faith; they are not trying to earn it by performing good works
b. Those walking in the Spirit know that being circumcised or uncircumcised means nothing; but faith working through love (both of which were conspicuously absent in the legalists) matters

i. As said by Paul in Romans 14:17 - for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Gal 5:7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
Gal 5:8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you.
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Gal 5:10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.
Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.
Gal 5:12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

​

From David Guzik’s Commentary:

4. (7-12) A final confrontation

a. Paul recalls their good start in the faith (you ran well), but remembers that it isn't enough to start well - they are still in danger of falling from grace
b. Paul knows that the false teaching comes from a person (who hindered you); but it isn't from Jesus (Him who calls you)


i. At root, the Galatians were leaving Jesus to pursue man's doctrine - in this case legalism

c. The warning is driven home - the corrupting influence of legalism and other doctrines which diminish Jesus are like leaven in a lump of dough; a little soon corrupts the entire mass
d. Wanting to leave the confrontation on a positive note, Paul expresses his confidence in the Galatians (which is really a confidence in the Lord who is able to keep them); yet Paul is equally confident that judgment awaits those who are leading them astray and away from Jesus


i. Remember Jesus' solemn warning against those who would lead one of these little ones astray (Matthew 18:6-7)

e. Paul makes it clear that he no longer preaches the necessity of circumcision; the fact that he is persecuted by the legalists is evidence enough of this. Instead, Paul proudly bears the offense of the cross
d. Finally, Paul wishes that those who demanded circumcision among the Gentiles would go all the way themselves, and amputate their genitalia altogether, not merely their foreskins


i. Sacred castration was known to citizens of the ancient world; it was frequently practiced by pagan priests in the cults in the region of Galatia; the idea is something like this: "If cutting will make you righteous, why don't they do like the pagan priests, go all the way and castrate themselves?"
ii. Paul also is wishing that these legalists would be cut off from the congregation of the Lord as required by Deuteronomy 23:1: He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.

 

[owencrab]

Niether shall murderers, adulterers and fornicators and most rich people.

"But where shall we go? For you have the words of eternal life"
St. Peter

it's a mental disorder...period

 

[united4Peace]

it's a mental disorder...period

That is complete Ignorance!!
I Pray that none of your children have any have any questions about their sexuality....
I couldn't imagine telling my child that they were mental because they "loved" the wrong person (sex) .

 

[IisJustMe]

That is complete Ignorance!!
I Pray that none of your children have any have any questions about their sexuality....
I couldn't imagine telling my child that they were mental because they "loved" the wrong person (sex).

... forsaking the natural function for the unnatural, which is precisely what the Bible calls it?

I seriously doubt Owencrab's children will have a question about their sexuality, since their parent(s) wouldn't be afraid to call sin, sin.

 

[crazymichael]

it makes a big difference whether you refer to sexuality as a choice or not