Think I'll sit down here for a bit... (12)

[seajoy]

Let them be silenced. The truth can always be preached without promoting sin.

Amen!

 

[Luther073082]

Let them be silenced. The truth can always be preached without promoting sin.

I just don't agree with that I'm sorry. You start saying its ok to silence the opposition (in anything) and before long you will find yourself silenced.

It also doesn't say much good about us if we are afraid of having people openly oppose our beliefs.

 

[DaRev]

I just don't agree with that I'm sorry. You start saying its ok to silence the opposition (in anything) and before long you will find yourself silenced.

The Church silences the promotion of sin all the time. Do you feel that's wrong as well? Should the Church start endorsing sinful behavior for the sake of teaching against it? That logic makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Luther073082]

The Church silences the promotion of sin all the time. Do you feel that's wrong as well? Should the Church start endorsing sinful behavior for the sake of teaching against it? That logic makes no sense whatsoever.

But CF is not a church but a public forum and is ment for Christians of all stripes and also for atheists, agnostics as well as people of other faiths.

I have no problem with the church saying that as a church we arn't going to promote homosexuality. In fact I would support that 100%

I would also support that rule in the confessional Lutheran forum we are on here. As part of being a confessional Lutheran is beliving homosexuality is a sin.

However as far as part of being a part of the Lutheran congregational forum as CF as defined it that isn't a part of it.

Also what to do about groups like the UCC. They have their own congregational forum and their doctrine promotes homosexuality. In other words they arn't allowed to promote their own doctrine in their own forum?

And the ELCA people arn't allowed to promote their doctrine in their ELCA sub-forum on here?

 

[seajoy]

Coffee anyone? I'm sitting out on my deck enjoying my day. One of the most beautiful so far this summer.

 

[Zecryphon]

The Church silences the promotion of sin all the time. Do you feel that's wrong as well? Should the Church start endorsing sinful behavior for the sake of teaching against it? That logic makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay, but how does the Church silence promotion of sin? By hearing the sin being promoted and teaching against it from Scripture. That's not being allowed here. We can no longer present proper teaching on same-sex sexual relations because the other side can't put forth anything contrary to what the Scriptures teach, without CF jumping on them for "promotion of homosexuality."

I personally think we need to move away from the word "homosexuality" and use same-sex sex or same-gender sex, so we make it clear that it is the act we are against and not the orientation of the person. But what we need from CF is a statement as to what constitutes promotion of same-sex sex. As I recall they never really defined that, they just said promotion of it is now against the rules and discussion of it is only allowed in these areas:

● Do not promote homosexuality on Christian Forums. Homosexuality can only be discussed, without promotion, in Christian Communities and Faith Groups. Homosexuality may also be discussed in the Recovery and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with struggles overcoming same-sex attractions, and homosexual issues.

 

[DaRev]

But CF is not a church but a public forum and is ment for Christians of all stripes and also for atheists, agnostics as well as people of other faiths.

My understanding is that CF is privately owned and can instill whatever guidelines and restrictions the owners wish.

Also what to do about groups like the UCC. They have their own congregational forum and their doctrine promotes homosexuality. In other words they arn't allowed to promote their own doctrine in their own forum?

And the ELCA people arn't allowed to promote their doctrine in their ELCA sub-forum on here?

Why would we want them to promote an abominable sin? The matter can be discussed within the guidelines of the site, so the proper Biblical teaching against it can be proclaimed without having to first promote it.

Okay, but how does the Church silence promotion of sin? By hearing the sin being promoted and teaching against it from Scripture. That's not being allowed here. We can no longer present proper teaching on same-sex sexual relations because the other side can't put forth anything contrary to what the Scriptures teach, without CF jumping on them for "promotion of homosexuality."

There is nothing in the guidelines which prohibits proclaiming the Biblical teaching on the matter. To say it can only be taught by first being promoted is simply wrong. No one has to say "Homosexuality is true and right and God pleasing" for us to say that the word of God teaches that same-gender relations are sinful.

I personally think we need to move away from the word "homosexuality" and use same-sex sex or same-gender sex, so we make it clear that it is the act we are against and not the orientation of the person.

The Greek word "malakos" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 speaks to the nature of the man, and has been argued to speak of the orientation. The arguments on both sides of this particular interpretation are compelling. I'm personally not so certain that the orientation is always a non-issue when regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality. There are various causes of the orientation, including one's personal preference and not necessarily a physical or hormonal condition.

 

[seajoy]

I agree with Rev 100% on this subject.

 

[seajoy]

Today is my son and wife's 4th anniversary. Time sure floats on by. I am so blessed in who my children married. Daughter has been married for 6yrs.

A week from tomorrow, all our summertime guests start coming. July is sure busy. We start off with a party at the lake on sunday. We were invited to our friend's place. What is everyone doing for this weekend?

 

[Zecryphon]

There is nothing in the guidelines which prohibits proclaiming the Biblical teaching on the matter. To say it can only be taught by first being promoted is simply wrong. No one has to say "Homosexuality is true and right and God pleasing" for us to say that the word of God teaches that same-gender relations are sinful.

I didn't mean to say that it can ONLY be taught by first being promoted as okay. What I'm saying is that by silencing the other side, you're gonna have really short threads on this proper Biblical teaching. If we start a thread that says "same-sex sex is wrong" and provide Scriptural support for our assertion, we'll get nothing but agreement, since right now no one is allowed to disagree without being accused of "promotion of homosexuality." That's why I think CF needs to define what they consider to be "promotion." Because right now it looks like CF is saying:
"We can't define promotion of homosexual activity, but we'll know it when we see it."

I don't like those kinds of loose rules. They're too easily abused. And suppose the shoe was on the other foot and it was the promotion of proper Biblical teaching on this issue that were outlawed here. Would you be fine with that as well? The message I'm getting is that censorship is fine as long as it works out in our favor. Censorship of ideas, whether right or wrong, is never right or good.

The Greek word "malakos" in 1 Corinthians 6:9 speaks to the nature of the man, and has been argued to speak of the orientation. The arguments on both sides of this particular interpretation are compelling. I'm personally not so certain that the orientation is always a non-issue when regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality. There are various causes of the orientation, including one's personal preference and not necessarily a physical or hormonal condition.

Well homosexuality as an orientation is no more inherently sinful than heterosexuality because both orientations can commit the same sinful acts. We just do those sins with partners of different genders.

I agree there are various causes of homosexuality and I also think that the last thing liberals ever wanna find is that there is a gene that makes a person a homosexual. Because then science is going to see if that gene is normal or not. If it's not a normal gene, if it's defective somehow then I think medicine will try and fix it and conservative Christians will get blamed for all of it, when it's the liberals who have been looking for this gene for years as a defense for homosexuality.

 

[Luther073082]

Why would we want them to promote an abominable sin? The matter can be discussed within the guidelines of the site, so the proper Biblical teaching against it can be proclaimed without having to first promote it.

We don't want them to promote it, but we want them to have the right to do so.

And the reason we want that is because when you start restricting one minority's right to freedom of speech, then before long you are in the minority on something else and your right to free speech is taken.

Before long you can't promote the sacraments as a means of grace because thats offensive to others. And I know you well enough Rev that you would just say "fine" and leave because of that rule. Either that or you would do it anyways and get banned.

But my point is that it shouldn't have to come to that. If someone else is told that they can't promote their beliefs on here. . . how long is it before they start telling me, you, us as confessional Lutherans in general that we can't promote some of our beliefs?

I also think that the last thing liberals ever wanna find is that there is a gene that makes a person a homosexual. Because then science is going to see if that gene is normal or not. If it's not a normal gene, if it's defective somehow then I think medicine will try and fix it and conservative Christians will get blamed for all of it, when it's the liberals who have been looking for this gene for years as a defense for homosexuality

Finding a gene would not determine if a gene is normal or not because there arn't really any normal genes or abnormal genes. We have genetic defects and they are labeled defects by society only based on societies definition of what a defect is. In this case a homosexuality gene would not likely be regarded as a defect because the psychologists stopped considering it a disorder in the 70's.

What I do agree with is that the last thing the liberals want is for any sort of treatment for homosexuality to be found. Treatment would imply abormality.

But the problem is that abnormality is society defined. Epilepsy and Essential tremors (two conditions I have) are considered abnormal because society says they are. Mainly because most people don't have them and they can restrict your life somewhat. (The level of this depends on how bad they are. My epilepsy isn't bad so it doesn't affect my life as much as it may for others.)

However it makes little sense to me why homosexuality is considered normal. As my wife said, "If you can't see that a penis is designed for a vagina then you are blind."

I will also say I'm a person that belives that the orientation is the result of sin entering the world. I don't think homosexuality is anyone's fault and I find current claims of treatment to be questionable. I'd like treatment to be available for them as it is for me for my epilepsy. I'm just not convinced that it is.

 

[Zecryphon]

Finding a gene would not determine if a gene is normal or not because there arn't really any normal genes or abnormal genes.

Yes Luther, simply finding a gene does not determine if it's normal or not. I never said that it did. That statement was made to address an argument put forth by homosexuals which basically says that there is a "gay gene" out there, they just haven't found it yet. Then I went on to give my opinion as to why they don't want to find that gene as desperately as they think they do.

We have genetic defects and they are labeled defects by society only based on societies definition of what a defect is. In this case a homosexuality gene would not likely be regarded as a defect because the psychologists stopped considering it a disorder in the 70's.

Just because the psychiatric community does not regard homosexuality as a disorder anymore, does not mean the gene itself, if ever found, could not be found to be defective in some way.

What I do agree with is that the last thing the liberals want is for any sort of treatment for homosexuality to be found. Treatment would imply abormality.

Right now, the homosexuals are looking for a gene as proof as to why they're gay. If found, they're going to say "God made me this way," with even more emphasis than they do now.

But the problem is that abnormality is society defined. Epilepsy and Essential tremors (two conditions I have) are considered abnormal because society says they are. Mainly because most people don't have them and they can restrict your life somewhat. (The level of this depends on how bad they are. My epilepsy isn't bad so it doesn't affect my life as much as it may for others.)

That's interesting, because when I was mis-diagnosed as having Epilepsy, I wasn't told by society, I was told by a neurologist.

 

[seajoy]

~sigh~

 

[DaRev]

We don't want them to promote it, but we want them to have the right to do so.

And the reason we want that is because when you start restricting one minority's right to freedom of speech, then before long you are in the minority on something else and your right to free speech is taken.

Before long you can't promote the sacraments as a means of grace because thats offensive to others. And I know you well enough Rev that you would just say "fine" and leave because of that rule. Either that or you would do it anyways and get banned.

But my point is that it shouldn't have to come to that. If someone else is told that they can't promote their beliefs on here. . . how long is it before they start telling me, you, us as confessional Lutherans in general that we can't promote some of our beliefs?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Don't compare homosexuality, which is clearly spoken against in Scripture, with the Sacraments, which are clearly taught as means of grace in Scripture.

And, sure, the minute we are told we cannot defend Scriptural truth is when this can no longer be called "Christian" Forums.

 

[LilLamb219]

Hey guys, get outta the kitchen with this talk You should know better than to clutter up Angie's place where we come for relief!



What's everyone doing this evening? We just had a storm roll through.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Wow, so much for the fellowship thread.

Once I get out of class Friday at noon, I don't have to be back until Tuesday at 9 a.m.!!!!!

On Sunday, we plan on going to our daughter and son-in-law's returning on Monday sometime. Ben and Andrew are planning on running the 8K, Michelle, David and myself will be walking the 5K on Monday morning.

I would like to ask for prayers for my mother-in-law. She fell during the night last night and has lots of bumps and bruises as well as a wrist fracture. There are 3 fractures in her wrist as well as some bone was crushed as well. David is heading back to Omaha to spend a couple of days with her. She is having pain and will be seeing the doctor in a week to decided what to do. Normally they do surgery, but the doctor has not done this surgery on one who is in their late 80's. We have been seeing signs of deteriorating hearing and mental capacity the last few years as well as becoming more frail and now this. We are thankful that she did not break her hip. She has been very healthy and active her whole life, but age is catching up with her.

 

[LilLamb219]

Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law! I'm definitely praying for her!

 

[seajoy]

I feel badly for your mom-in-law, Quilty. I hope they can figure something out for her to feel better.

 

[LilLamb219]

Good Morning!

Happy 4th of July weekend to all who celebrate it!

 

[seajoy]

My own darn fault - but I forgot to take my meds for 2 nights in a row. I don't feel so good today.

Yes, Lambie, Happy 4th of July Weekend!