The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[Healed_IHS]

To ProdigalSeeker,
I have no intention of trading research statements with you in the light of the truth of God’s word. You will only say you don’t agree with the ones I provide and I will no doubt disagree with the ones you provide.
Here is one just for the record … APA revises 'gay gene' theory (OneNewsNow.com)

This comes from an obviously biased source. By the APA's own words, it is unrealistic and harmful to tell gay people they can change their orientation... though I have a feeling I am unable to persuade you to read the article as you don't consider it God's word and, by extention, insist that God stopped speaking to us if it came after the Bible was compiled. Further, by refusing to look at the context in which the books of the Bible were written you are saying in essence… “I only care about what the Bible says… who, what, where, when have no relevancy”. This is a way to substitute our intentions for the original writer’s.

As I said God spoke creation into being, just how I am not interested this is a Christian section of the forum not a science one.

Ok. You won't be able to convince me the secular isn't related to the religious, but ok.

So why did you say one can’t expect someone to change if their sexuality is hardwired? Are you now withdrawing that line of argument?

No, that is not what I said. What I said is not all temptations is harmful. Temptations can be innate and yet not harmful.

I

f you are saying the criteria is harm then that’s subjective according to different people but the NT teaching shows sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body.


Well sorry but to me its obvious you are absolutely not taking any notice of the Bible as each Biblical reference I cite and refer to you contradict with one of your own ideas or some disputed scientific theory.

Yes, and you keep saying it is written in the Bible, and the Bible is infallible, therefore it is God as only God is infallible, ergo if it was written in the Bible it must be right. This is circular reasoning.

No its not vague at all… 1 Corinthians 6 just earlier in the chapter says 9Do 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 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So anyone who uses a sex toy in marriage is going to hell for sexual immorality? Masturbators go to hell, phone sex operators are going to hell? Damn. Heaven is going to be empty, it will just be you and Jerry Falwell.

On the contrary you see the word of God says not to lean on human experience and understanding but trust God and His word.1 Cor 3, the wisdom of the world is foolisheness to God. And anyway I dont agree with what you are claiming about human experiecne either. Furthermore if you think the NT says its ok to own slaves you will need to show me chapter and verse.

If it was important for Jesus to preach against the practice of owning slaves, don’t you think it would be written? Show me the place where it is spoken against. As you are relying on scripture to be the sole authority, the responsibility is yours to provide biblical proof.

My view is that the word of God makes sense its quite obvious that there are two sexes in the human species for sexual reproduction and a one sex union isnt possible, its just sexual gratification and dysfunction.

So now you are saying sex without procreation = using a condom, is going to lead people into hell as it is just for sexual gratification?

Well no lets not until you understand my question to you. The definition of gay in a sexual connotation means having a same sex attraction and as God created man and woman to be united and condemns same sex sexual relationships gay is really only a sexually immoral desire or act. It’s a concept that is excluded and condemned.

Jesus never said anything that wasn’t written down by men, neither Matthew, Mark Luke or John or Paul. Paul received his revelation not from man but from the risen Lord Jesus. So your statement doesn’t seem to have grasped some basics.

Again, you need to provide proof for your claims. Jesus must have not spoken that much from the time of His ministry beginning at Cana to the crucifixion, considering His words only appear in the four gospels, Acts, and Revelations. And yet, Jesus never speaks out against homosexuality? Unless of course you are equating homosexuality = immorality = use of sex toys in marriage. In which case, wow.

If you don’t think He was speaking to modern day people about what God had created in the beginning and then instructed disciples to pass on all He had taught, I cant see what relevance the Biblical Testimony of Jesus Christ has for you.

If you think that context doesn’t change anything let me state this: If someone takes a time travel machine from 1st century Jerusalem to my house, and I tell them someone is in “left field” with their ideas, they are going to be looking for a literal “left field”.

Just like the Bible isn't against women preachers. Paul was writing against the practice of women participating temple prostitution in Ephesus and Corinith. Just as the words would be relevant if temple prostitution would be relevant to me today in my hometown if this practice was occuring here. It isn't happening here = it isn't relevant = not everything in the Bible is necessary for my salvation, yet everything necessary for salvation is in the Bible, i.e - loving God and my neighbor.

Time changes things. It is a good book. It isn’t “the” good book. Reading the Bible isn’t the most important thing for being a Christian. If it was the first few centuries of Christians would be irrelevant. I am not saved by the Bible. I am saved by the Trinity.

Let me stop you there, there is no concept of gay in God’s word so you cant use it until you have established there is. Gay means having a same sex attraction, a couple of people who have same sex attraction and are thus gay could be a man and a woman.

Actually, you are the one saying that there is no concept of gay in God’s word, then saying that God’s word is the Bible, then saying that the Bible rebukes homosexuality. Therefore, by your own words you are saying there is the concept of gay in God’s word and it is rebuked. Why are you still saying there is no concept?

Yes but this is the word of God against cultural deviances.

Absolutely, God's word preaches against deviancy, such as the oppresive nature of irrumatio and temple prositution.

Look, I have spent over an hour working on this one response which (going on your responses) you are just going to reply to by contradicting your own words (such as no concept of gay, yet gay is condemned). As fun as it has been, there is a better use for my time.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,

This comes from an obviously biased source.

On the contrary, your link does. As I said it’s a waste of time trading scientific studies as I can see there are two sexes in the species for sexual reproduction in union, I can see the wood for the trees and the reality.

By the APA's own words, it is unrealistic and harmful to tell gay people they can change their orientation...

Why, what is so wrong with them that they cant take any criticism? Jesus Christ’s NT teaching shows it is Christ who changes peoples lives. (1 Cor 6) Are you not interested in Jesus Christ and His teaching?

insist that God stopped speaking to us if it came after the Bible was compiled.

Nope, nor did I say that. Pay attention. The NT is a record of what Jesus Christ said and did, He said for disciples to obey all He taught, your position is contrary to that and in addition He poured out the Holy Spirit to all who believe, the Holy Spirit guides in truth and reminds us of all He said, it doesn’t lead us to reject it as though we know more, that, which you are proposing is what Jesus Christ says is rejecting Him.

Ok. You won't be able to convince me the secular isn't related to the religious, but ok.

Not bothered, God spoke creation into being, the Big Bang may explain some physical mechanisms but it doesn’t allow for God so I don’t see where God would fit into your original statment.

No, that is not what I said. What I said is not all temptations is harmful. Temptations can be innate and yet not harmful.

no, I was referring to your comment

that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and is hardwired into us... I don't see how any homosexual can be a clergyperson if we expect them to remain celibate.

If clergy have chosen to follow Christ they can’t follow anything except man/woman faithful marriage or celibacy which is Christ’s teaching as shown.

Yes, and you keep saying it is written in the Bible, and the Bible is infallible, therefore it is God as only God is infallible, ergo if it was written in the Bible it must be right. This is circular reasoning.

So if the Bible is fallible to you, you don’t know what is of God or not, or even know God. Why would you be bothered then that some scripture is vague if you don’t know it is even reliable.

No its not vague at all… 1 Corinthians 6 just earlier in the chapter says 9Do 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 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So anyone who uses a sex toy in marriage

Let me stop you there, the passage says homosexual offenders shall not enter the Kingdom, it doesn’t say sex toys. Its not vague, it only vague to you because you cant see how clearly it says homosexual offenders shall not enter the Kingdom.

Heaven is going to be empty, it will just be you and Jerry Falwell.

The word of God which you seemingly don’t seem to believe says that Jesus is the judge, not you or me and so He will decide who gets to eternal life.

On the contrary you see the word of God says not to lean on human experience and understanding but trust God and His word.1 Cor 3, the wisdom of the world is foolisheness to God. And anyway I dont agree with what you are claiming about human experiecne either. Furthermore if you think the NT says its ok to own slaves you will need to show me chapter and verse.

If it was important for Jesus to preach against the practice of owning slaves, don’t you think it would be written?

It is. I asked you to show me some scripture to back up your claim.

As you are relying on scripture to be the sole authority, the responsibility is yours to provide biblical proof.

No I am relying on scripture and the Holy Spirit, you are relying on neither because you haven’t provided any scripture which the Holy Spirit reminds us of because it inspired its writing.

So now you are saying sex without procreation = using a condom, is going to lead people into hell as it is just for sexual gratification?

No I am saying what I wrote which was the word of God makes sense its quite obvious that there are two sexes in the human species for sexual reproduction and a one sex union isn’t possible, its just sexual gratification and dysfunction.

Again, you need to provide proof for your claims.

No I don’t because I have already have done so and on this forum many times.
You need to show some proof that what I have said isnt the case.

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
If you don’t think He was speaking to modern day people about what God had created in the beginning and then instructed disciples to pass on all He had taught, I cant see what relevance the Biblical Testimony of Jesus Christ has for you.

If you think that

I don’t think I know, and I am referring to what you have written and what the text says.

Time changes things. It is a good book. It isn’t “the” good book. Reading the Bible isn’t the most important thing for being a Christian. If it was the first few centuries of Christians would be irrelevant. I am not saved by the Bible. I am saved by the Trinity.

According to the Trinity you may not be as homosexual offenders cant enter the Kingdom.

Actually, you are the one saying that there is no concept of gay in God’s word, then saying that God’s word is the Bible, then saying that the Bible rebukes homosexuality.

As demonstrated. You are the one disputing it and referring to gay. To do so in an argument you need to argue for that concept or I cant accept any of your subsequent arguments it is based on.

Absolutely, God's word preaches against deviancy, such as the oppresive nature of irrumatio and temple prositution.

It preaches against men with men instead of the natural with women as error, where does it preach that this is only wrong when in temple prostitution?

 

[brightmorningstar]

We now have a supposed gay Muslim get a law amendment to allow the celebrtion of perverted same sex relationships in churches (where of course the churches are non believing on the issue)
Gay marriage plan threatens churches says Bishop of Winchester -Times Online

The Anglican Chuch needs to deal with those disobedient non-believing clergy!

 

[Healed_IHS]

Your claim that the APA's findings are just ludicrous. In order for findings to be accepted as valid, they are printed in a journal where they are critqued by peers, at which point any bias would lead to the invalidity. As opposed to the Bible which hasn't been critiqued in such an organized way since what, council of Nicea? As such it doesn't allow for God's continued revelation to us, in the form of science. Therefore, epilepsy and schizophrenia are both caused by demons, right?

You still haven't broken away from the circular logic which is why I won't even get into the other points, as I don't find it will get us anywhere.

 

[Healed_IHS]

According to the Trinity you may not be as homosexual offenders cant enter the Kingdom.

Excuse me? Not that I am offended, but neither am I gay.

 

[Healed_IHS]

We now have a supposed gay Muslim get a law amendment to allow the celebrtion of perverted same sex relationships in churches (where of course the churches are non believing on the issue)
Gay marriage plan threatens churches says Bishop of Winchester -Times Online

The Anglican Chuch needs to deal with those disobedient non-believing clergy!

That's funny. I would rather they defrock the fundamentalists in our midst. Seems neither of will get what we want, but I am willing to let is slide and let our BCP unite us.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Prodigalseeker,

Your claim that the APA's findings are just ludicrous.

I don’t find the APA’s statement I linked ludicrous, I find it basically true.
But as to your response, Jesus said that a blind man will lead another blind man into a pit, which I can see is logical as well.
Yes the Bible has been critiqued the NT was written by a number of a community which saw and heard what they recorded, and agreed.
What you are saying is like saying the evidence for evolution isn’t necessarily evidence just because some people see it.

Excuse me? Not that I am offended, but neither am I gay.

Nor did I say you were I said you may be, but according to the Trinity those who lead others astray with false teaching are potentially not going to see the Kingdom. (ie 2 Peter 1)

That's funny. I would rather they defrock the fundamentalists in our midst. Seems neither of will get what we want, but I am willing to let is slide and let our BCP unite us.

To you the Anglican church would be labelled ‘fundamentalist’, bit what humans call people doesn’t affect their salvation.

 

[Healed_IHS]

To Prodigalseeker,
I don’t find the APA’s statement I linked ludicrous, I find it basically true.
But as to your response, Jesus said that a blind man will lead another blind man into a pit, which I can see is logical as well.
Yes the Bible has been critiqued the NT was written by a number of a community which saw and heard what they recorded, and agreed.
What you are saying is like saying the evidence for evolution isn’t necessarily evidence just because some people see it.

Nor did I say you were I said you may be, but according to the Trinity those who lead others astray with false teaching are potentially not going to see the Kingdom. (ie 2 Peter 1)

To you the Anglican church would be labelled ‘fundamentalist’, bit what humans call people doesn’t affect their salvation.

Yes, well to you sex with a condom is sexual immorality because it doesn't lead to procreation, so I doubt we will agree on much.

 

[mark46]

Let's vote on the correct interpretation of the APA's findings and based on that decide what is sin and what is not.

?????????????????

 

[MKJ]

Let's vote on the correct interpretation of the APA's findings and based on that decide what is sin and what is not.

?????????????????

Whether the APA thinks homosexuality is a mental illness, can be changed, or is caused by nature or nurture, has no bearing on the question of whether engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin.

Anger is a natural and "inate" emotion, and a particulary bad temper may result from genetics, up-bringing, or circumstances. But losing your temper and flattening someone is still a sin, though culpability may be much reduced in some cases.

I don't see why one would argue over what the APA says on this at all since it isn't really relevant.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Let's vote on the correct interpretation of the APA's findings and based on that decide what is sin and what is not.

?????????????????

That’s valid. Then we have to use the same lens of scripture over science and tell people who are epileptic that they have demons.

Whether the APA thinks homosexuality is a mental illness, can be changed, or is caused by nature or nurture, has no bearing on the question of whether engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin.

Anger is a natural and "inate" emotion, and a particulary bad temper may result from genetics, up-bringing, or circumstances. But losing your temper and flattening someone is still a sin, though culpability may be much reduced in some cases.

I don't see why one would argue over what the APA says on this at all since it isn't really relevant.

So totally does. What is and what isn’t a sin changes as society defines it. As mentioned in a previous post. Sex with 12 year old girls is considered, in poor taste, to put it milidly. Yet, Mary, Mother of Jesus, was probably no older than this when she gave birth to Him.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,

Yes, well to you sex with a condom is sexual immorality because it doesn't lead to procreation, so I doubt we will agree on much.

no to me sex with a condom isnt, and neither have I given any indiaction of it. Why do you make stuff up and misreprestent me to avoid the issue?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Prodigalseeker,

So totally does. What is and what isn’t a sin changes as society defines it.

But Christ has died to save us from sin, society is doomed to destruction because it doesn’t know what is right and wrong.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Ok. Let me break it down into little pieces:

My view is that the word of God makes sense its quite obvious that there are two sexes in the human species for sexual reproduction and a one sex union isnt possible, its just sexual gratification and dysfunction.

You said:

1. There are two sexes to allow for procreation.

Sure, of course.

2. Any sex that is one gendered doesn't allow for procreation.

Still with you.

3. Sex that doesn't allow for procreation = sexual gratification and dysfunction

Starting to lose me. Gratification, yes. Intimate bond, yes. Dysfunction, no.

Therefore, using the same lens "Sex is for procreation, and if there is no intent to procreate = dysfunction.

Use of condom doesn't = procreation, therefore = sexual gratification and dysfunction

I had asked in several posts if that was what you meant. Are you just now starting to realize that???

 

[Healed_IHS]

To Prodigalseeker,
But Christ has died to save us from sin, society is doomed to destruction because it doesn’t know what is right and wrong.

Right and wrong is a universal concept... though its standandards change over time, there are plenty of non-Christians who do what is right and have "faith" as expressed by Jesus when he met the pagan Roman centurion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,
No. Sorry you need to break it down not make it up.
There are two sexes in the human species for sexual reproduction and a one sex union is possible

2. Any sex that is one gendered doesn't allow for procreation.

This neither makes sense nor addresses what I wrote. Each of the sexes is one gendered. Male isn’t male and female. What you have written doesn’t make sense.

3. Sex that doesn't allow for procreation = sexual gratification and dysfunction

That doesn’t make sense as one sex therefore cant have sexual intercourse because there are two sexes in the species for that.

Starting to lose me. .

Not at all I can see exactly where you are going wrong, you don’t understand reality.


Try and address what I have written rather than what is on your mind.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,
But Christ has died to save us from sin, society is doomed to destruction because it doesn’t know what is right and wrong.

Right and wrong is a universal concept... though its standandards change over time,

No, read 2 Peter 2, what you are saying is at odds with the inspired truth passed on from Jesus.

there are plenty of non-Christians who do what is right and have "faith" as expressed by Jesus when he met the pagan Roman centurion.

Not according to Jesus who is the truth. Faith expressed by Jesus is faith in Him rather than the world. Non-Christians often think doing right is all that matters, but they do what they think is right rather than what Christ has taught, and you are doing the same as them.

 

[MKJ]

So totally does. What is and what isn’t a sin changes as society defines it. As mentioned in a previous post. Sex with 12 year old girls is considered, in poor taste, to put it milidly. Yet, Mary, Mother of Jesus, was probably no older than this when she gave birth to Him.

Sometimes society does change it's view on what is correct or not.

God, however, does not. This is a basic philosophical truth about God.

In some cases, society changes because the context has changed. This is likely the case as far as whether it is appropriate for a 12 year old to marry. Many today would consider sexual interest in a 12 year old to be pedophilia. But strictly speaking, sexual interest in pubescent girls is biologically normal, unlike sexual interest in children. We do not allow it to be pursued by adults because it is seen to have other negative consequences which are mostly based on culture - a 12 year old is still very much a child, legally, intellectually, and especially psychologically. In the past this was not always the case, and societies were also set up in a way that could be considered more regular and more stable. Young women, for example, were in many cases given less freedom, and so were protected against those who might take advantage of their inexperience.

In other cases, society might just be wrong. There are all kinds of examples of this.

Sorting out the two can be tricky.

 

[mark46]

I think that we should all poray on this statement. In the end, the choice is between God's system of truth and society's.

What is and what isn’t a sin changes as society defines it.

 

[JasonV]

I think that we should all poray on this statement. In the end, the choice is between God's system of truth and society's.

God's system of truth = someone's opinion about what God supposedly said.

What is and what isn’t a sin changes as society defines it.

Which is precisely why the Bible is problematic. It was written by a specific cultural group that is foreign to anything we have today. Useful as it may be, we need to look beyond the Bible and communicate with God on a more personal level for inspiration.