Homosexuality

[davedjy]

If your child were playing with matches or trying to light the house on fire, would you not punish them? Or how about playing out in traffic? Would you find it loving to let them do whatever they wanted?

SO the punishment for setting the house on fire or playing in traffic is eternal punishment?



Wow, you really know how to paint out a picture of an all-knowing, graceful, merciful God.

 

[intricatic]

I think you should update yourself in regards to Narth. Exodus and even Dr Throckmorton have recently distanced themselves from this group. Their latest outrage was advocating that children with gender differences be exposed to teasing and ridicule. Comments were also made that Blacks were better off under slavery and that Gays can wwill themselves straight.

I haven't seen the other two, but I read the article Schoenewolf wrote and I don't see what the issue is with it. He wasn't saying slavery is a good thing that we should revert to, or that it was a good thing then, but that good things eventually came from bringing slaves to America - which I hardly think anyone could argue with reasonably. It seems to be more of an example to support the thesis of the paper (which wasn't anything to do with slavery or Africa) than a statement about the morality of slavery.

Now, the rest of the article I had a couple issues with, but we won't go there because it's not relevant to this thread.

 

[angelmom01]

Good deal, I can't argue with that.

It's often misrepresented.

Not sure what you are referring to?

What is often misrepresented? Marriage? Sin? The law? Homosexuality? Morality?

No. But marriage is the essential design for intimate human relationships.

Why do you say “essential”? And don’t you think you can have intimate human relationships outside of marriage? Or do you mean sexual?

Yes. It's actually a wonderful example of what the law stood for.

Yes? You believe the laws were spiritually understood?

I don’t. I believe they only knew the letter of the law and not the spirit (in most, if not all, cases).

Were they not the same?

I don’t see them as the same.

If they were, then why did Christ say ‘You have heard it said…. But I say unto you’? Why is it called the NEW wine? And a NEW Covenant? Why are we told that we are no longer under the law but under grace (if so be that we have Christ in us). Etc.

I see them as connected, for the commandments that Christ gave (only 2) fulfill the laws that were given by Moses (just as Christ did). For who if he loves God and loves his neighbor as himself will dishonor his parents, or murder or commit adultery, etc?

The law of Moses was only a shadow of what was to come. And now we know that one can murder without ever shedding blood, one can commit adultery without taking any physical action, one can keep the Sabbath without ever stepping foot into a temple…etc, etc.

Israel was never cast off. There were never new commandments given. The only difference between the old and the new is that the new is bound by the Spirit while the old was bound by the letter.

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Even if you stick with just the 10 Commandment, there is more to it than just the letter (as you say) but there is no more "an eye for an eye" and there is no more stoning one to death for their sins (etc).

Here are only two places were scripture shows that Israel was cast off/away (and why):

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Rom 11:7-16 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

They were “cast away” (according to these verse and others), but that doesn’t mean that they are beyond reconciliation, rather it is through their fall that salvation was brought to the Gentiles. Israel shall be restored, for it possible for God to graft them back in.

Read Jeremiah 31. He's talking about two individual ideas represented by the sun and the moon.

I’ll go read it because I’m not familiar with it from memory, but I see the sun and the moon being representative of God, even Christ is called the SUN of righteousness and the MOON is turned to blood.

The moon gets it’s light from the sun. The sun rules/lights the day and the moon the night.

He further explicates this idea;
Quote:
19 And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 “Thus says the LORD: ‘If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’”
(Jeremiah 33)

AMEN!! Who are those who walk IN THE DAY and who are those who sleep IN THE NIGHT? Christ is Lord over BOTH. He has a covenant with BOTH.

What makes you believe otherwise? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious about your reasoning.

He was received "into a cloud" and he will return "in like manner". I do not take that be physical/literal, as those who believe are called "a cloud of witnesses"; he comes "in the clouds of heaven".

I was thinking of doing a thread on what and where is heaven, but I haven't put it together yet. Just remember that the "stars" are in his right hand and Paul was received "as an angel". He was also sent to "reap" (and "the reapers are the angels").

And "the clouds" are the "dust of his feet" (man is "dust").

Who does he come to when he comes the second time?

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

He comes unto them THAT LOOK FOR HIM; that is why we are told to WATCH for his appearing.

I do not see that as Christ dropping out of the sky for all the world to see.

Christ said to His diciples: I will not leave you comfortless, I WILL COME TO YOU.

He comes “as a thief IN THE NIGHT" (so we are told NOT TO SLEEP, as those who sleep sleep in the night.)

But all of this is really for another topic. So if you want to keep discussing it, give me some time (either tonight or tomorrow) and I will put together that thread.

angelmom

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

If your child were playing with matches or trying to light the house on fire, would you not punish them? Or how about playing out in traffic? Would you find it loving to let them do whatever they wanted?

No but I would not torture them

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I haven't seen the other two, but I read the article Schoenewolf wrote and I don't see what the issue is with it. He wasn't saying slavery is a good thing that we should revert to, or that it was a good thing then, but that good things eventually came from bringing slaves to America - which I hardly think anyone could argue with reasonably. It seems to be more of an example to support the thesis of the paper (which wasn't anything to do with slavery or Africa) than a statement about the morality of slavery.

Now, the rest of the article I had a couple issues with, but we won't go there because it's not relevant to this thread.

Whats relavent that the so called heavies in the ExGay movement, are distancing themselves from Nnarth and rethinking the label itself "Exgay" Throckmorton has published an article denying that he is a reparative therapist.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I haven't seen the other two, but I read the article Schoenewolf wrote and I don't see what the issue is with it. He wasn't saying slavery is a good thing that we should revert to, or that it was a good thing then, but that good things eventually came from bringing slaves to America - which I hardly think anyone could argue with reasonably. It seems to be more of an example to support the thesis of the paper (which wasn't anything to do with slavery or Africa) than a statement about the morality of slavery.

Now, the rest of the article I had a couple issues with, but we won't go there because it's not relevant to this thread.

I think maybe we ought to allow our Black brothers and sisters to weigh in on that. I would tendd to think that they might disagree.

 

[angelmom01]

I dont understand the confusion- if you are tempted- and harbor the temptation and dwell on it, then this is sin. If you are tempted, and you dismiss it out of your mind, and move on- this is not sin. The difference is what you do on it- Jesus is saying, you can harbor these temptations, and act on them in your mind- this is also sin. We are called not to dwell on these things.



see above



We are all tempted, and left with unmet desires. God has said, He will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear.



Hetero gazing longingly on another's husband/wife, and harboring thoughts to this affect, is a sin. We are called to dismiss these thoughts.



Nope- its the same for all of us.



We ALL have the avenue of marriage- lets not paint this into something it isnt. Additionally, we all have temptation- and God will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear.



I cant answer this- God's Word would then be different- and I would have to know more about it. However- God's Word is as it is, and we DO know what He says about marriage, sex, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.

G

I apologize, then. That distinction wasn't being made, not even when I asked about it before. It was being presented as though the thought/desire/attraction didn't matter at all so long as you didn't "act" on them.

Not all that was said about marriage (etc) stayed the same after Christ came. If it had women would still be wearing head coverings and only men would be studying the scriptures.

angelmom

 

[StTherese]

So lust is not a sin? Only acting on it is?

Willfully lusting is a sin...which requires an ACT of the WILL!

and I say "lust" because no one would even be compelled to ACT on an attraction if it had nothing to do with lust. So I am not talking about simply finding someone physically attractive or appealing where no lust is involved

Physical/Sexual attraction is something that happens naturally and is NOT the same as lust.

You went so far as to say the attraction was strong enough that you had to make a choice NOT TO ACT on it (so I am assuming that such an attraction would be "lustful" or "sexual" in nature).... and you claimed that because you didn't ACT on it that it WASN'T sinful.

Temptation is not sin...until we consent!

That is not how I interpret what Jesus said when he said that if you even LOOK upon someone to LUST after them then you have already committed adultery with them IN YOUR HEART. No "act" involved in that

You have to consider the INTENTION.

It may be "beyond your control" but according to God it is still a sin. Are you saying that you CAN'T overcome feelings and attractions that are "beyond your control"?

Yes...I am saying that we have no (or very little) control over our feelings and attractions...Yet we have total control of our will. It is not how we FEEL that matters...its what we DO.

Isn't that what some here are asking homosexuals to do? And telling them that it is something that they SHOULD do and CAN do?

No. We should not be saying that they are wrong for their uncontrollable feelings and attrations, but that they would be wrong to choose to ACT upon them...which would be a sin.

Now let's say that they don't ACT on it. Then it's NOT SIN (anymore)?

How can you commit a sin without willing it? Now, if someone wants to do it, then they are willing it even if they don't actually do it...but, sin is a deliberate choice.

That isn't what Christ said about lust? The ACT is not required to be quilty of the sin. So it seems to me that if homosexuality is a sin, then whether you ACT on it or not you are GUILTY (as long as the attractions/feels are still THERE).

So what if someone has these attractions unwillingly? They do not want to have the attraction, and yet they still do? Then what? Would you say they are sinning?

 

[intricatic]

Not sure what you are referring to?

What is often misrepresented? Marriage? Sin? The law? Homosexuality? Morality?

Morality and sexual ethics. I like Thomas Aquinas style of debating because it was consistently honest to the subject and his opposition. He actually presented a more clear picture of what his opponents were saying than they, themselves did, more times than not. I find that's very rarely the case when one gets into this topic, though.

Why do you say “essential”? And don’t you think you can have intimate human relationships outside of marriage? Or do you mean sexual?

I mean in the design of what human relationships are meant to be. I don't mean that all people should be married, or that anyone who's not married is bad, as it has been pointed out that Paul actually advocated celibacy and for good reason. I mean that the original dynamic was established in creation and that original dynamic is what was meant to be a guiding force behind human romantic relationships.

Yes? You believe the laws were spiritually understood?

Yes, otherwise those people in Heb. 11 would not have been called to righteousness by God.

I don’t. I believe they only knew the letter of the law and not the spirit (in most, if not all, cases).

What about Abraham? Moses? David?

I don’t see them as the same.

The Law served to point out human weakness in the areas that we lacked in. It wasn't meant to save, but it served a purpose of drawing people to God. This is the model overall;

7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.
(James 4)

But not by my power...

If they were, then why did Christ say ‘You have heard it said…. But I say unto you’? Why is it called the NEW wine? And a NEW Covenant? Why are we told that we are no longer under the law but under grace (if so be that we have Christ in us). Etc.

Because, as I said above, the Law was to point out human folly, to point out weakness, it wasn't meant to save. The spiritual law is meant to save because we do not justify ourselves by it. When the Law was given by Moses, he said;

11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
(Deuteronomy 30)

How is that so? The Law was never simply writ on paper, the letter of the Law serves to point out sin, but it was never declared to save by any means. One could obey it completely and yet stumble at one point and be condemned by his own actions. It was reliance on God. Or, as Moses also pointed out...

1 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD. 4 Your garments did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years. 5 You should know in your heart that as a man chastens his son, so the LORD your God chastens you.
(Deuteronomy 8)

I see them as connected, for the commandments that Christ gave (only 2) fulfill the laws that were given by Moses (just as Christ did). For who if he loves God and loves his neighbor as himself will dishonor his parents, or murder or commit adultery, etc?

Very true, but it's the point of the matter in that we love God because He first loved us. Gods commandments are morally binding for all time, but we were saved apart from the Law to do the good works that God ordained before our salvation. We don't justify ourselves by the Law, which is Christ's point. All the Laws can be simplified to the two commandments that Christ gave, but we must first understand - as if taught by a tutor - what love is in order to give His commandments definition. The reason those two commandments were given is because they are completely apart from the Law, but they're also found in the Law as a whole.

The law of Moses was only a shadow of what was to come. And now we know that one can murder without ever shedding blood, one can commit adultery without taking any physical action, one can keep the Sabbath without ever stepping foot into a temple…etc, etc.


Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Even if you stick with just the 10 Commandment, there is more to it than just the letter (as you say) but there is no more "an eye for an eye" and there is no more stoning one to death for their sins (etc).

That was the Just aspect of the Law, yes. We condemn ourselves in the action of enacting that kind of personal justice because it implies our desires float away from God's will and towards our own. It's a self-contradictory aspect of our reaction to the Law that causes it. The Law itself doesn't contradict Jesus' teaching, but that's what makes His message so horribly and crushingly ironic. He was pointing out our own internal contradiction, and clarifying our need for a mediator between us and God. Thus, Christ, through God is also our arbiter.

Here are only two places were scripture shows that Israel was cast off/away (and why):

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Rom 11:7-16 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

They were “cast away” (according to these verse and others), but that doesn’t mean that they are beyond reconciliation, rather it is through their fall that salvation was brought to the Gentiles. Israel shall be restored, for it possible for God to graft them back in.

They weren't cast off. We are grafted onto the vine of Israel when we're saved. Those who are cast off are the ones who continue in their hard-headed stubbornness and refuse to accept Christ as their salvation. In that sense, it's sort of a spiritual Israel and New Jerusalem in the same sense as the first and second covenant, but if you recall, Israel wasn't established until after the sealing of the Law. The gift of the Mosaic covenant was the promised land, as it is with us. God's chosen people is still Israel, though. Christianity is an originally Jewish religion, afterall.

I’ll go read it because I’m not familiar with it from memory, but I see the sun and the moon being representative of God, even Christ is called the SUN of righteousness and the MOON is turned to blood.

It was representative of the first and second covenant, and the symbolism is quite good; the first fades (setting sun) and the second becomes clear (moon and stars at night). However, the sun still exists just as the moon still exists when the sun is set. Christ was before the world was created, afterall. (Excellent observations, as well )

But to clarify the section, as well, of Israel being cast off....

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
(Jeremiah 31)

You could consider this the 'expanded context' because it's right before the metaphor of the sun and moon is visited.

34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
35 Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 “ If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
37 Thus says the LORD:
“ If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD. (Jeremiah 31)

The covenant was made with Israel and Judah. We're grafted into the vine of God's chosen people through baptism (of the Spirit, of course...). The ordinances (sun and moon, etc...) cannot be removed until the end of all things.

AMEN!! Who are those who walk IN THE DAY and who are those who sleep IN THE NIGHT? Christ is Lord over BOTH. He has a covenant with BOTH.

Yup!

He was received "into a cloud" and he will return "in like manner". I do not take that be physical/literal, as those who believe are called "a cloud of witnesses"; he comes "in the clouds of heaven".

Did He not ascend into Heaven? What else could have happened after the resurrection?

I was thinking of doing a thread on what and where is heaven, but I haven't put it together yet. Just remember that the "stars" are in his right hand and Paul was received "as an angel". He was also sent to "reap" (and "the reapers are the angels").

And "the clouds" are the "dust of his feet" (man is "dust").

That's a lot of symbolic language to consider. All I really need to know is that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Whatever that may mean, Jesus literally conquered death, otherwise our hope and faith is in vain.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

He comes unto them THAT LOOK FOR HIM; that is why we are told to WATCH for his appearing.

I do not see that as Christ dropping out of the sky for all the world to see.

That's part of it, though. But now we're getting into Eschatology and I'd imagine fairly off of the original point.

Christ said to His diciples: I will not leave you comfortless, I WILL COME TO YOU.

He comes “as a thief IN THE NIGHT" (so we are told NOT TO SLEEP, as those who sleep sleep in the night.)

But all of this is really for another topic. So if you want to keep discussing it, give me some time (either tonight or tomorrow) and I will put together that thread.

angelmom

Certainly, it's a topic I really need some motivation to research more thoroughly. I've never been really versed in Eschatological thinking along these lines. I always took the idea of not sleeping to mean that we shouldn't sink back into structured legalism or uncertainty of faith, as the two are the reverse sides of the coin; sleeping implies slipping back into a more lazy and slothful position as far as our hope in Christ goes. I've always seen the revival of the mid-19th century to be a good example - that is, the thing that sparked it being too much sleep in Church pews.

 

[StTherese]

So you belive that a loving God is going to sit by and watch us writhing in pain and screaming in horror, because we are attracted to the same gender? Answer me this question; If your children disobey you, could you put them in a furnace and sit by and watch as their skinned burned off their flesh and they screamed and begged you for help? We you find this Loving? just curious

The horror of having to sacrafice your fleshly desires to do the will of God! How could He ask us of such a thing? ..............

 

[intricatic]

I think maybe we ought to allow our Black brothers and sisters to weigh in on that. I would tendd to think that they might disagree.

Are you implying anyone would be better off in Africa than in America? I mean, America ain't as great as it's cracked up to be, but I somehow doubt Africa is any better, given the political atmosphere today.

The guy said, right before the previously quoted portion;

This is not to say that the Civil Rights Movement was or is wrong. Of course, racial
discrimination does exist and many horrible things have happened to
African-Americans; the question is not whether or not it exists, but how one interprets
it and how one reacts to it. Civil rights leaders insist there is only one meaning and one
way to react. The Marxist view is superimposed on the race issue: Only an absolute
and simplistic view of the issue is allowed--one which divides people into good guys and
bad guys--either you're with us or you're against us.

Which makes the whole situation kind of ironic if you think about it. He's essentially saying throughout the entire article that there are many ways of addressing social justice, but polarizing on two ends of "good guy" and "bad guy" isn't a very helpful way of doing it. The problem I have is that he's trying to address plurality with plurality. Which seems kind of pointless. It'd be better to address the way he's approaching the issue rather than doing a knee-jerk kind of reaction towards the fact that he talks about race and slavery and he's a conservative.

 

[davedjy]

The horror of having to sacrafice your fleshly desires to do the will of God! How could He ask us of such a thing? ..............

Your opposite sex attractions are "fleshly desires" too then under the same token. You like all the rest of the conservatives have not proven that any of the writings of the Bible address sexual orientation.

Easy for you to call something a fleshly desire when you are married w/children, fulfilling your life.

Straight is great, right?

 

[chris777]

So you belive that a loving God is going to sit by and watch us writhing in pain and screaming in horror, because we are attracted to the same gender? Answer me this question; If your children disobey you, could you put them in a furnace and sit by and watch as their skinned burned off their flesh and they screamed and begged you for help? We you find this Loving? just curious

I am not God, his ways are above ours.

I do believe that everything that is written in the OT is True, including all of the judgements where God poured his vengance out on mankind.

Jesus hinself used A parable About hell
[19] There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[20] And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[21] And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
[24] And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[25] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
[26] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
[27] Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
[28] For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
[29] Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[30] And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
[31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So Yes I believe it, I also believe as a piece of clay it is not my place to question the potters wisdom

 

[chris777]

If your child were playing with matches or trying to light the house on fire, would you not punish them? Or how about playing out in traffic? Would you find it loving to let them do whatever they wanted?

A spanking or burns, potentially third degree?
A spanking, or broken, bones, severe internal injuries or death?

Think about it

Gods ways are not our ways.

 

[StTherese]

Your opposite sex attractions are "fleshly desires" too then under the same token. You like all the rest of the conservatives have not proven that any of the writings of the Bible address sexual orientation.

Easy for you to call something a fleshly desire when you are married w/children, fulfilling your life.

Straight is great, right?

We ALL struggle with fleshly desires...some are just different than others. But no matter what, we need to align our will with the will of God.

 

[angelmom01]

Willfully lusting is a sin...which requires an ACT of the WILL!


Physical/Sexual attraction is something that happens naturally and is NOT the same as lust.
Temptation is not sin...until we consent!


You have to consider the INTENTION.


Yes...I am saying that we have no (or very little) control over our feelings and attractions...Yet we have total control of our will. It is not how we FEEL that matters...its what we DO.

No. We should not be saying that they are wrong for their uncontrollable feelings and attrations, but that they would be wrong to choose to ACT upon them...which would be a sin.


How can you commit a sin without willing it? Now, if someone wants to do it, then they are willing it even if they don't actually do it...but, sin is a deliberate choice.

So what if someone has these attractions unwillingly? They do not want to have the attraction, and yet they still do? Then what? Would you say they are sinning?

I don't intend to keep going back and forth on this.

Christ said if you LOOK at a women to LUST after her then you have committed adultery already in your heart. He didn't say IF YOU ACT ON IT and he didn't say IF YOU WILLINGLY (vs UNwillingly) look at her to lust after her.

LUST IS LUST. It's not the "act" that makes it lust and it's not the "act" that makes it sin.

I never questioned the intentions, even Paul said that when he DID SIN that it was NOT HIM, but the sin that dwelled in him (in his members) and that he could not always DO what he wished he COULD DO and that he could not always STOP DOING those things that he wished NOT TO DO.

The ONLY thing that I addressed was the claim that it was the ACT that was a sin and NOT THE DESIRE/ATTRACTION/LUST.

IMO, that is not what Christ said. It was, in fact, what he was EXPOUNDING upon. Under the law of Moses it was the ACT of adultery that was considered the sin and what made one worhty of death. Christ took it a step further and said that if you even LOOK upon another with lust that you have already commited adultery in your heart.

And I don't know what your definition of lust is if you don't think that sexual attraction is a form of lust.

angelmom

 

[intricatic]

I don't think anyone addressing the topic of the morality of homosexuality means to imply that homosexual orientation is a sin, but that homoeroticism is a sin. But maybe I'm the only one noticing this as a running theme.

 

[StTherese]

I don't intend to keep going back and forth on this.

Christ said if you LOOK at a women to LUST after her then you have committed adultery already in your heart. He didn't say IF YOU ACT ON IT and he didn't say IF YOU WILLINGLY (vs UNwillingly) look at her to lust after her.

LUST IS LUST. It's not the "act" that makes it lust and it's not the "act" that makes it sin.

I never questioned the intentions, even Paul said that when he DID SIN that it was NOT HIM, but the sin that dwelled in him (in his members) and that he could not always DO what he wished he COULD DO and that he could not always STOP DOING those things that he wished NOT TO DO.

The ONLY thing that I addressed was the claim that it was the ACT that was a sin and NOT THE DESIRE/ATTRACTION/LUST.

IMO, that is not what Christ said. It was, in fact, what he was EXPOUNDING upon. Under the law of Moses it was the ACT of adultery that was considered the sin and what made one worhty of death. Christ took it a step further and said that if you even LOOK upon another with lust that you have already commited adultery in your heart.

And I don't know what your definition of lust is if you don't think that sexual attraction is a form of lust.

angelmom

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm
Lust

The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse. Every such criminal indulgence is a mortal sin, provided of course, it be voluntary in itself and fully deliberate. This is the testimony of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, v. 19:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, . . . Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God."​

Do you not believe that the flesh battles the spirit?​

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/145/Theology_of_the_Body__Spirit_vs._Flesh.html​

So what does St. Paul mean when he says that the spirit and the flesh are directly opposed (Gal 5:13-18)?​

Good question. When Paul is condemning “the flesh,” he is not talking about the human body, created by God. Rather, he is using “flesh” is a code word for the distortion that original sin introduced into human nature. “The flesh” twist and misdirects natural desires so as to make them destructive and degrading. Lust is not another name for sexual desire. It is what “the flesh” does to sexual desire, making it an instrument of self-gratification and exploitation, rather than committed love and the miracle of new life, as intended by God. Pride is not the drive for greatness and excellence. Such drive naturally arises from our being made in the image and likeness of God. No pride is what “the flesh” does to this natural drive, causing it to refuse submission to legitimate authority, even God, exalting itself at the expense of others and seeking to dominate and belittle others.​

The flesh, before the coming of the Spirit, tyrannized human beings from within. The Law of Moses, the Ten Commandments, tell us that we should not act on these distorted desires, but our willpower is too weak on its own to win battle after battle. Left to willpower alone, we are bound to lose, and lose big. Even David, the greatest of Israel’s kings, yielded to lust and then tried to cover his adultery with murder.​

 

[davedjy]

We ALL struggle with fleshly desires...some are just different than others. But no matter what, we need to align our will with the will of God.

What is the will of God? If you don't have any clue what you speak of, how are you able to know what His will is? how are you able to know, from a book 3,00 years old not addressing people born with innate, same sex attractions? please inform all of us here, we would love to know!

 

[chris777]

I don't think anyone addressing the topic of the morality of homosexuality means to imply that homosexual orientation is a sin, but that homoeroticism is a sin. But maybe I'm the only one noticing this as a running theme.

That is the direction that several people are attempting to drive the debate into, by changing homosexuality from a sin into a birth defect, or disease. however, it is not nessesarily the way things actually are.

Plus this mentality also brings up other questions as well