My interactions with libearls on this site.

[Nadiine]

following Sec's post, yes - which commands do we pull out to obey
& which will we reject?

The problem is, people aren't viewing sin as bondage. They're viewing
it as "natural" and a natural "Right" that all humans should have;
to be HAPPY in their lifestyle choices.

Until they see that sin is bondage & harms us physically, spiritually
and/or emotionally, it looks like a mean God is just
out to restrict them becuz it's fun or He doesn't want them to
be happy.

So they'll continue to cherry pick the bible & claim they're
Christians - as they like the 'dashboard' Jesus version -
but don't want that bible stuff.

 

[Secundulus]

There is nothing new under the sun. Irenaeus wrote this about heretics in the 2d Century. Sound familiar?

Link

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition.

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

 

[That_Guy_Josh]

Followers4Christ posted back on page 8 this:

Because the Bible which is the word of God says it's a sin. God Bless

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Genesis 19:4-13)

I wanted to say this but after I worked it all up the thread was closed:

I think it's interesting that these bible verses were conveniently ignored when they were posted a while back. This is a Christian Forum and only a handful of times was the bible even quoted. I find that interesting.

From reading these verses, I believe that it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. So when you ask me why so many Christians think that being gay is a sin, as a Christian I too would have to say the bible but that doesn't seem to be a good enough answer in this thread.

A sin is a sin is a sin. No sin holds a greater weight then another because even if you have one blemish in God's eyes and the lack of Jesus Christ's Salvation in your life you will not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. The bible tells me that also by the way.

I am not here to judge, just to simply state my answer to the question. I am not a homosexual but I do struggle with other sins that make me not perfect. Of course that isn't between me and you but between me and God. Things I have to deal with. So with that being said I leave you with this:

Matthew 7:3

Why do you look at the of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

What do you think the response to this would have been? FYI I am being completely sincere when stating all this.

 

[That_Guy_Josh]

Followers4Christ posted back on page 8 this:

Because the Bible which is the word of God says it's a sin. God Bless

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Genesis 19:4-13)

I wanted to say this but after I worked it all up the thread was closed:

I think it's interesting that these bible verses were conveniently ignored when they were posted a while back. This is a Christian Forum and only a handful of times was the bible even quoted. I find that interesting.

From reading these verses, I believe that it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. So when you ask me why so many Christians think that being gay is a sin, as a Christian I too would have to say the bible but that doesn't seem to be a good enough answer in this thread.

A sin is a sin is a sin. No sin holds a greater weight then another because even if you have one blemish in God's eyes and the lack of Jesus Christ's Salvation in your life you will not enter into the kingdom of Heaven. The bible tells me that also by the way.

I am not here to judge, just to simply state my answer to the question. I am not a homosexual but I do struggle with other sins that make me not perfect. Of course that isn't between me and you but between me and God. Things I have to deal with. So with that being said I leave you with this:

Matthew 7:3

Why do you look at the of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

What do you think the response to this would have been? FYI I am being completely sincere when stating all this.

 

[Secundulus]

What do you think the response to this would have been? FYI I am being completely sincere when stating all this.

They will tell you that the scripture is irrelevant. It is simply the writings of men 2000 years ago and has little relevance to the modern world. They will tell you that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality in the Gospels and that Paul is a lunatic to be ignored.

One of them would have then made the profound comment that God hates shrimp.

It's all very predictable.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

They will tell you that the scripture is irrelevant. It is simply the writings of men 2000 years ago and has little relevance to the modern world. They will tell you that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality in the Gospels and that Paul is a lunatic to be ignored.

If I were arguing that side of it (which I'm not, and which I won't, at least not on CF where everything this controversial escalates to a flamefest), I wouldn't say that stuff. I couldn't, because I believe scripture is very relevant and that Paul is awesome. Instead, I'd say those scriptures are mistranslated and misunderstood, and I'd show how, referring to the original Greek. And Melancholy's historical argument (in post 229) has some merit too.

 

[Secundulus]

If I were arguing that side of it (which I'm not, and which I won't, at least not on CF where everything this controversial escalates to a flamefest), I wouldn't say that stuff. I couldn't, because I believe scripture is very relevant and that Paul is awesome. Instead, I'd say those scriptures are mistranslated and misunderstood, and I'd show how, referring to the original Greek. And Melancholy's historical argument (in post 229) has some merit too.

The problem with the argument in 229 is that it is wrong and ignorant of real history.

This was the premise of the post. "Before the 1100's Homosexuality was not even frowned upon"

The fact is that homosexuality was a Capitol Offense in the Roman Empire by the early fourth century and was illegal and occasionally punished by death before Christianity even existed.

In 342 (Codex Theodosianus, 9, 7, 3,) the first law was enacted in Milan regarding passive homosexuals. Harsher penalties were introduced by Theodosius I in a law addressed to the prefect of Rome in 390, with execution by burning for "those given to the infamy of condemning the male body, transformed into the female, to the toleration of practices reserved for the other sex" (Coll. Legum Mos. et Rom., 5.3). This law was inserted in the Theodosian Code of 438 (9, 7, 6), but substantially modified and with a wider scope. The new compilation condemned to burning all passive homosexuals without distinction. With the Emperor Justinian the legislation was broadened; every kind of homosexuality was repeatedly condemned with the death penalty. Theodosius gave as his reason the desire to rid Rome, "the mother of all virtues", from all contamination. Justinian also added religious reasons. Link

Even before Christianity existed anywhere in the world Homosexuality was illegal in Rome and was occasionally punished by death.
See Lex Scantinia

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I don't think Christians will, or should, regard pagan Roman practices as normative. What Christian Emperors did is more relevant. But as I said, I'm not arguing that case. I just wanted to suggest a more reasonable tack such an argument might take.

 

[Nadiine]

The problem with the argument in 229 is that it is wrong and ignorant of real history.

This was the premise of the post. "Before the 1100's Homosexuality was not even frowned upon"

The fact is that homosexuality was a Capitol Offense in the Roman Empire by the early fourth century and was illegal and occasionally punished by death before Christianity even existed.

In 342 (Codex Theodosianus, 9, 7, 3,) the first law was enacted in Milan regarding passive homosexuals. Harsher penalties were introduced by Theodosius I in a law addressed to the prefect of Rome in 390, with execution by burning for "those given to the infamy of condemning the male body, transformed into the female, to the toleration of practices reserved for the other sex" (Coll. Legum Mos. et Rom., 5.3). This law was inserted in the Theodosian Code of 438 (9, 7, 6), but substantially modified and with a wider scope. The new compilation condemned to burning all passive homosexuals without distinction. With the Emperor Justinian the legislation was broadened; every kind of homosexuality was repeatedly condemned with the death penalty. Theodosius gave as his reason the desire to rid Rome, "the mother of all virtues", from all contamination. Justinian also added religious reasons. Link

Even before Christianity existed anywhere in the world Homosexuality was illegal in Rome and was occasionally punished by death.
See Lex Scantinia

wow, I didn't know this - we sure don't learn that in school do we?

& I know the Greek lexicons are thorough about homosexuality -
namely the word arsenokoites which includes male sperm with
bed chambering... it's quite explicit.

Plus with history, I don't see how we can use the lost world as some litmus
test on morality of God?
We should be sticking to Israel's history if anything - & even then, they
fell short & God had to judge them for their disobedience to His law

 

[Secundulus]

wow, I didn't know this - we sure don't learn that in school do we?

& I know the Greek lexicons are thorough about homosexuality -
namely the word arsenokoites which includes male sperm with
bed chambering... it's quite explicit.

Plus with history, I don't see how we can use the lost world as some litmus
test on morality of God?
We should be sticking to Israel's history if anything - & even then, they
fell short & God had to judge them for their disobedience to His law

Here is something else that Liberals have deluded themselves into thinking. This is reflected also in post 229 where it says "Even Nuns and the clergy were openly homosexual and at the time Leviticus was seen by most clergy to have been abolished along with animal sacrifice because of the atonement of Jesus."

We can see what the earlier Church thought of this notion by looking at the quotes of prominent Church authorities throughout the ages. I'll post just a couple. More are at the link.

Link

Tertullian
"[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Augustine
"[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

Actually, this is another good reason not to argue with liberals because actual facts mean nothing to them. If reality doesn't support their belief then they make things up.

 

[Nadiine]

Here is something else that Liberals have deluded themselves into thinking. This is reflected also in post 229 where it says "Even Nuns and the clergy were openly homosexual and at the time Leviticus was seen by most clergy to have been abolished along with animal sacrifice because of the atonement of Jesus."

We can see what the earlier Church thought of this notion by looking at the quotes of prominent Church authorities throughout the ages. I'll post just a couple. More are at the link.

Link

Tertullian
"[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities" (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).

Augustine
"[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

Actually, this is another good reason not to argue with liberals because actual facts mean nothing to them. If reality doesn't support their belief then they make things up.

Exactly, they don't care about facts - they don't care what's
clearly written out in the bible ...
& again you're right, they just recreate things to make a case.

It is quite pointless - if God's word is ignored, we can't expect to
gain more ground than God can in our own words.

 

[desmalia]

[FONT=\"Verdana\"][SIZE=\"2\"]Well, I have been in the liberal section for a bit... especially debating homosexuality in this thread:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7098875
It finally broke down into me getting insulted and my faith being questioned by the liberals! <img src=\"http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif\" border=\"0\" alt=\"\" title=\"razz\" smilieid=\"32\" class=\"inlineimg\" />[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=\"Verdana\"][SIZE=\"2\"]
(Note their forum\'s motto!!!!)

I just thought you all might enjoy watching how the argument progressed and collapsed and why I believe liberalism is not an intellectual ideology but is rather an emotional ideology based around emotional attachments to positions and ideas that are rooted not in reason but emotion and preference.

You can see that in the posts today on December 22nd-23rd where my academic arguments are treated as equal to personal attacks on par with me being referred to as an SOB and having the genuineness of my faith questioned.

Please tell me what you think!

Edit note: Misspelled the title... oops. <img src=\"http://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif\" border=\"0\" alt=\"\" title=\"razz\" smilieid=\"32\" class=\"inlineimg\" />
[/SIZE][/FONT]

A couple of things:

Keep in mind you\'re debating a sin issue with unbelievers. I\'ve generally found this to be completely fruitless. Maybe there are exceptions, but I\'ve not seen any so far. The ultimate focus of the thread is a particular sin, and in the end all it does is give those who embrace that sin lots more opportunity to solidify their attachment to it. The Gospel doesn\'t even get to be preached.

If you have spent much time around WWMC you have no doubt seen many threads started with a so-called question, but not really looking for an answer. That thread is an example of it. It\'s just a place for people who share the same belief in something to come together and rag on anyone who does not support homosexuality. So even though the forum claims to be for whosoever, it is really only for liberals. And if/when anyone comes in to actually try and answer the question, they will get attacked every single time, no matter how kind or respectful that person tries to be.
We have lots of threads in CC where we talk with like-minded individuals about things that frustrate us. I\'m not suggesting that\'s a bad thing. It\'s kind of the point of having all these subforums, and it is something we all need. The problem is that the liberal forum claims to be part of the Christian section, and claims to be for everyone, when in fact it is really neither. I\'ve always felt it should be renamed for clarification. And as Nadiine pointed out, it should be in the unorthodox section.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

A couple of things:

Keep in mind you\'re debating a sin issue with unbelievers. I\'ve generally found this to be completely fruitless. Maybe there are exceptions, but I\'ve not seen any so far. The ultimate focus of the thread is a particular sin, and in the end all it does is give those who embrace that sin lots more opportunity to solidify their attachment to it. The Gospel doesn\'t even get to be preached.

If you have spent much time around WWMC you have no doubt seen many threads started with a so-called question, but not really looking for an answer. That thread is an example of it. It\'s just a place for people who share the same belief in something to come together and rag on anyone who does not support homosexuality. So even though the forum claims to be for whosoever, it is really only for liberals. And if/when anyone comes in to actually try and answer the question, they will get attacked every single time, no matter how kind or respectful that person tries to be.
We have lots of threads in CC where we talk with like-minded individuals about things that frustrate us. I\'m not suggesting that\'s a bad thing. It\'s kind of the point of having all these subforums, and it is something we all need. The problem is that the liberal forum claims to be part of the Christian section, and claims to be for everyone, when in fact it is really neither. I\'ve always felt it should be renamed for clarification. And as Nadiine pointed out, it should be in the unorthodox section.

Good points, Des. A good many of the WWMC regulars are atheists, pagans and believers in the Christian tradition who are such extreme liberals that they don't believe most of what makes up what we understand to be the definition of Christian. Conservative Christians don't share enough common ground with those groups to have a basis for a productive discussion on this kind of issue.

But OTOH "liberal Christian" isn't just one thing, but covers a spectrum of belief. It's possible to wear that label and still believe all the essentials of the faith, and many WWMC regulars do. Those are the liberals I have enough common ground with, and so they're the ones I like to talk theology with. I'd bet most of them didn't participate in that thread. It's the kind of topic that attracts those with the most polarized opinions.

 

[ReformedChapin]

A couple of things:

Keep in mind you\'re debating a sin issue with unbelievers. I\'ve generally found this to be completely fruitless. Maybe there are exceptions, but I\'ve not seen any so far. The ultimate focus of the thread is a particular sin, and in the end all it does is give those who embrace that sin lots more opportunity to solidify their attachment to it. The Gospel doesn\'t even get to be preached.

If you have spent much time around WWMC you have no doubt seen many threads started with a so-called question, but not really looking for an answer. That thread is an example of it. It\'s just a place for people who share the same belief in something to come together and rag on anyone who does not support homosexuality. So even though the forum claims to be for whosoever, it is really only for liberals. And if/when anyone comes in to actually try and answer the question, they will get attacked every single time, no matter how kind or respectful that person tries to be.
We have lots of threads in CC where we talk with like-minded individuals about things that frustrate us. I\'m not suggesting that\'s a bad thing. It\'s kind of the point of having all these subforums, and it is something we all need. The problem is that the liberal forum claims to be part of the Christian section, and claims to be for everyone, when in fact it is really neither. I\'ve always felt it should be renamed for clarification. And as Nadiine pointed out, it should be in the unorthodox section.

Welcome to my world.

 

[Nadiine]

Good points, Des. A good many of the WWMC regulars are atheists, pagans and believers in the Christian tradition who are such extreme liberals that they don't believe most of what makes up what we understand to be the definition of Christian. Conservative Christians don't share enough common ground with those groups to have a basis for a productive discussion on this kind of issue.

But OTOH "liberal Christian" isn't just one thing, but covers a spectrum of belief. It's possible to wear that label and still believe all the essentials of the faith, and many WWMC regulars do. Those are the liberals I have enough common ground with, and so they're the ones I like to talk theology with. I'd bet most of them didn't participate in that thread. It's the kind of topic that attracts those with the most polarized opinions.

The problem Iz, is that these members are IN the Christian Congregation section & alot of nonChristians are posting in there; making it appear like that is a
Christian area posting Christian content....

Imagine what it must look to guests & the unsaved to see all this.

And as we all know, absolutely anybody can grab a Christian icon of
any kind & post anti anti Christian statements & teachings they want
just as long as they're not the ones directly in the FSG of that area
or CF generally (which leaves it basically wide open) - & even then there's posts
in the [Christian only] theology area denying Christ's deity that I just
had to report (again).

They let the unorthodox come & post as Christians in THeology!


This has become a nitemare to bother defending the gospel anymore
and frankly I'm getting annoyed.

 

[ReformedChapin]

doh..

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49871371&postcount=21

 

[Nadiine]

doh..

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49871371&postcount=21

oh the Theology/phil.-ethics forum.

his whole premise is based on slavery from the OT mainly.

As long as that existed, he feels he has license to decide
what's moral and what isn't without scripture authority.
(while he uses it elsewhere as truth)......

 

[Nadiine]

A couple of things:

Keep in mind you\'re debating a sin issue with unbelievers. I\'ve generally found this to be completely fruitless. Maybe there are exceptions, but I\'ve not seen any so far. The ultimate focus of the thread is a particular sin, and in the end all it does is give those who embrace that sin lots more opportunity to solidify their attachment to it. The Gospel doesn\'t even get to be preached.

If you have spent much time around WWMC you have no doubt seen many threads started with a so-called question, but not really looking for an answer. That thread is an example of it. It\'s just a place for people who share the same belief in something to come together and rag on anyone who does not support homosexuality. So even though the forum claims to be for whosoever, it is really only for liberals. And if/when anyone comes in to actually try and answer the question, they will get attacked every single time, no matter how kind or respectful that person tries to be.
We have lots of threads in CC where we talk with like-minded individuals about things that frustrate us. I\'m not suggesting that\'s a bad thing. It\'s kind of the point of having all these subforums, and it is something we all need. The problem is that the liberal forum claims to be part of the Christian section, and claims to be for everyone, when in fact it is really neither. I\'ve always felt it should be renamed for clarification. And as Nadiine pointed out, it should be in the unorthodox section.

Des this is a SUPERB post (as usual).

Lots of interesting points I hadn't thought about; like the angle people
are coming from (sin) & why it doesn't work.
That's very true - but I do think a sin angle can work in talking w/ people
but only if the Lord's been working in their spirit first & lead them
to hearing instead of shutting it out.

& the thread questions that they don't really want answers to....
I don't go in there to know what they do :/

But it's SO true that going after sin just emboldens them to hang
onto the sin that much more in rebellion. I used to be like that in my
younger years w/ my music & alcohol.
The more I heard them preaching against it, the more fond of it
I got. Paul mentions that about the Law tho too.
He said something to the effect that since it's in the law, it makes us
WANT to do those things all the more - the minute they're off limits,
our interest in it peaks.

CRAZY. I guess it's just sin nature that brings that up in us.

Anyways, I sure wish I knew what was going on with the programming
of this site that keeps your computer wacked out.
I don't want you to have to stay away so long, but I really do
understand that you cant' hardly take it anymore.

You almost have to type out a post on Notepad, copy it,
then slam it into a post & submit it... but it looks like you can't even
format it once you do paste it in.


MERRY CHRISTMAS to you & your husband,
I hope you have a really special holiday & God bless
your new year sister.
I hope to see you around still.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh let's just be honest...WWMC is an extension of the Ethics & Morality section of the Society Section.

 

[Nadiine]

Oh let's just be honest...WWMC is an extension of the Ethics & Morality section of the Society Section.

I honestly don't know if it is since I just don't go into WWMC.

But from what I saw of the thread link Atlant. posted, yes it's
identical to what I see. Even to the rejection of scripture as
God's truth/authority.

I had been spending most of my time in here the past months &
instead was going into theology... I'm already beyond frustrated
w/ what's going on.
I don't know what the difference was in removing non Christians
or the point of it.
They do the work for Atheists in removing biblical credibility;
they don't even need to show up now