• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Of course: GwynApNudd doesn't agree with you, nor does GwynApNudd accept the Baptist Faith and Message in toto -- and that makes GwynApNudd a dangerous person.

Kinda like me.

Nothing at all like you. You're on one side of the fence.

Could care less what the Baptist Faith and Message says. It ain't God's Word and is not the standard by which the Christian righteously judges.
 
Upvote 0

UberLutheran

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2004
10,708
1,677
✟20,440.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Oh, OK. God married Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve in a Christian ceremony in the Garden of Eden, and then then pronounced them "man and wife" and that's why God has never blessed men having multiple wives and concubines (even though God explicitly told men to take multiple wives and concubines; and the great heroes of the Bible through David and Solomon had multiple wives and concubines which the Lord had given them).

Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

It's not supposed to make sense to you cause you think other than what God says. The marriage covenant is a GOD thing.
 
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

With the goats, I presume?

I didn't say you were a goat. You're just on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to the issue of sexual acts between members of the same sex. Doesn't make you a nonChristian. It just makes you stubborn and out of line with God's Word on this. But that's the case for a lot of Christians on a lot of different issues.

Which always brings me back to whether or not something is the way we want, we should, as Christians beable to look at God's Word and admit that HE is right.

Without going into all the silliness about word origins and twists about what something was. We as Christians should be able to look at the FULL COUNSEL of God's Word and admit that even though He says this, I'm doing something else because I want to. And though it may not be right, I can't, or I don't want to change how I feel because I'm happy this way and willing to stand in judgment before God if I have done wrong.

You've questioned things in the past that lead me to believe that your heart has not completely hardened.
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I just asked a simple question, wondering about how a particular doctrine held by some fundamentalists works itself out under a certain set of circumstances.

Suddenly there are two pages of an argument between Zaac and UberLutheran on an unrelated issue. I'm not even sure what that issue is. Both of you, please take your argument somewhere else.

I'd like to get this thread back on track.

I'm looking for someone who believes that gays cannot love to explain that doctrine, and how that doctrine would affect the two men (the modern friends, not the Biblical Jonathan and David) in my initial post.
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You speculate because you desperately want it to be true. It is not.​

Huh???

I am asking a question because I want to learn. It is a doctrine that does not make sense to me. But it must make sense to the people who espouse it. I just want to hear their explanation.

What is it that you claim I desparately want to be true? That gays can't love?
 
Upvote 0
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest
I believe the relationship between David and Jonthan is misunderstood by many people to be a sexual one.
I think the relationship between Jonathan and David shows a beautiful intimacy...an intimacy so indescribable that the author had to use "surpassing the love of a woman."

Regardless if they were sexual lovers or not, they rejoiced in God and in each other. And that is absolutely beautiful!
 
Upvote 0
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest
That is one for the record books, dayhiker!

Imagine the headline: Machismo CAUSES homosexuality!
 
Upvote 0
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest
You raise good questions.

For my own part, when Jim and I met each other at age 24, it was not at all about lust. We found so much in common, and much in opposition which provided for great conversation. (he was a 'Young Republican' while I was a protester at nuclear sites.)

God drew us together from the very first moment. And it has grown daily for the last 23 years. Praise God from whom ALL blessings flow!
 
Upvote 0
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest
I have maturity in Christ - and I don't see it at all.

Gwyn is making perfectly cogent statements.
 
Upvote 0
C

ChaliceThunder

Guest
Then play fair and ask the other side why they always paint Christians with a broad brush as hateful and bigoted.

There is nobody in my very large congregation that I would call the least bit hateful or bigoted. As a matter of fact, of all the Christians I call friends - there are many - I can't name ONE who is hateful and bigoted.



No need for confusion. You seem to have a knack for putting down Christianity in your threads before you make your point. That's all I was pointing out.
I don't think he is putting down Christianity per se.

I think he is calling to question a certain stripe of Christian.


You seem to have an established pattern of demonizing some aspect of Christendom in order to garner support for the point you're trying to make.

Not demonizing...just telling the truth about certain Christians.
 
Upvote 0

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

I was referring to the erroneous idea that Jonathan and David were gay.

The doctrine is not an attack on a homosexual's ability to love, however, the bible is clear that anything outside the covenant of marriage (between a man and a woman) is sexual sin.
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I was referring to the erroneous idea that Jonathan and David were gay.

But I specifically said that this post was not about Jonathan and David being or not being gay. That is why I framed the question about two present-day friends.

The doctrine is not an attack on a homosexual's ability to love, however, the bible is clear that anything outside the covenant of marriage (between a man and a woman) is sexual sin.

I assume that you are describing the doctrine that you hold to. And if you are, it is a more compassionate and understanding doctrine than the one I'm asking about.

But the doctrine I asked about is one I have heard repeated many, many times. Maybe it is only a very small segment of Fundamentalist Christianity that hold this doctrine, but if so, it is an unusually vocal segment.
 
Upvote 0

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Sorry!:o

That is indeed the doctrine I hold to.
 
Upvote 0

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
73
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives


Somewhere they crossed the line, just as perverse as pedophilia. You just don't naturally desire a friend in that way. God did not place that desire in us.

As Christian men, they would have to repent, and get counselling, and even drop their ministries, and seek restoration to leadership, as they would have made a serious breach.
 
Upvote 0

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
and, from another thread:

Thank you for responding and letting me know that you agree with the doctrine that I'm asking about.

So, if I understand you correctly, then the one act, shows that they were only fooling themselves, that they were really only motivated by lust for all those years. And once that fact is exposed, it negates their entire testimonies and ministries. They can, if they truly repent, start over with a clean slate, but everything that went before was counterfeit and counts as dross. Is this right?
 
Upvote 0