"I'm Christian, unless you're gay"

[Hitch]

pastor could preach on genesis and say mentioned on the tree of life and i could be thinking and feeding off said similair image in revalation. happens alot to me.

I havent a clue

 

[jasoncran]

its a calling i have and that is how the holy spirit works with me. he always has done that. if the pastor is teaching on soemthing the holy spirit may speak to me on that sin that wasnt even mention by him.

that is how i knew being a bisexual was wrong as that happened the whole time i was in it.

 

[Milk-Drops]

No, I am not trying to win any argument. I simply can't understand why the simple truth given in Romans 1 is so twisted to dilute the wrath of God over all humans and not on the people who it is mentioned for?

Couldn't it also be a point to mention that why is Romans 1 used as an authority over matter of sexuality that weren't fully understood until the 20th century? Why is Romans 1 being twisted to that degree?

 

[reba]

Couldn't it also be a point to mention that why is Romans 1 used as an authority over matter of sexuality that weren't fully understood until the 20th century? Why is Romans 1 being twisted to that degree?

Your just like those of 500 years ago, a few thousand years ago, think you have stuff understood.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You just like those of 500 years ago, a few thousand years ago, think you have stuff understood.

Your statement makes no sense. I never said that I have stuff understood. I can however say that engineering, medical science, biology, chemistry, logic, physics, etc. has improved over the last thousand years. Accademia understand the world we live in better then Accademia of 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 1 year ago, etc. I don't see what problem you have with pointing out the obvious that the Understanding sexuality during the time of Paul has actually been studied more and breakthroughs have even been made since then.

Heck the word and modern meanings of Heterosexual, Homosexual, etc. are modern constructs created by 19th century Psychiatry.

 

[Christ_empowered]

The "progress" we've made in "understanding sexuality" is largely pseudo-scientific nonsense informed by PC relativism and the sort of "I'm OK, you're OK" thinking that has led to an entire culture filled with insipid personalities, weak character, and surprisingly dull, unoriginal thinking.

The pagans may have been immoral and debauched, but they had a better understanding of sexuality than we do because they had greater honesty about the business. If you'll notice, homosexuality (for instance) was often tolerated in ancient societies, particularly for upper-class men, but it was understood that such relationships were largely about sex, often exploitative, and often involved the exchange of money and/or the abuse of slaves.

Now, as a Christian, I think Paul and the early NT believers had it right. Debauchery of all sorts happens when people (both individuals and entire societies) reject God and His ways for their own selfish, wicked ends. Homosexuality is one particularly sinful form of debauchery that indicates a state of absolute immorality. John Piper had a video sermon on his site about this. He calls homosexuality "The Dark Exchange." Guess what? I think he's right. I think of it as a sort physical expression of extreme self-love, self-destruction, sinfulness, and hatred of God and His laws.

I imagine you might say that we now "know" that some people are born gay/inclined to homosexuality. OK. As a post-gay man working who has run through this issue for a while now, I'll say maybe you're right. Just remember that we--humans, that is, all of us--are born wicked and, without divine intervention, grow ever more wicked. Homosexuality, then, isn't a genetic abnormality or a simply a different form of sexual behavior. Homosexuality is simply a particularly destructive, selfish form of wickedness.

 

[Hitch]

Better tell him he's hateful Free.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The "progress" we've made in "understanding sexuality" is largely pseudo-scientific nonsense informed by PC relativism and the sort of "I'm OK, you're OK" thinking that has led to an entire culture filled with insipid personalities, weak character, and surprisingly dull, unoriginal thinking.

The pagans may have been immoral and debauched, but they had a better understanding of sexuality than we do because they had greater honesty about the business. If you'll notice, homosexuality (for instance) was often tolerated in ancient societies, particularly for upper-class men, but it was understood that such relationships were largely about sex, often exploitative, and often involved the exchange of money and/or the abuse of slaves.

Now, as a Christian, I think Paul and the early NT believers had it right. Debauchery of all sorts happens when people (both individuals and entire societies) reject God and His ways for their own selfish, wicked ends. Homosexuality is one particularly sinful form of debauchery that indicates a state of absolute immorality. John Piper had a video sermon on his site about this. He calls homosexuality "The Dark Exchange." Guess what? I think he's right. I think of it as a sort physical expression of extreme self-love, self-destruction, sinfulness, and hatred of God and His laws.

I imagine you might say that we now "know" that some people are born gay/inclined to homosexuality. OK. As a post-gay man working who has run through this issue for a while now, I'll say maybe you're right. Just remember that we--humans, that is, all of us--are born wicked and, without divine intervention, grow ever more wicked. Homosexuality, then, isn't a genetic abnormality or a simply a different form of sexual behavior. Homosexuality is simply a particularly destructive, selfish form of wickedness.

Here is the simplest way to point out the major problem with what you are trying to convey to me. Paul stated that the Sexually Immoral would not Inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul was calling people Sexually immoral based on Levitican law. The words Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual, etc. are constructs invented by 19th and 20th century psychiatry and Psychology to categorize sexuality by MODERN understanding.

I'm pointing out the obvious that Paul couldn't have been talking about Psych terms that wouldn't exist for a few centuries later. That's it. Now, if you want to say that Modern heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Bisexuality is sexually immoral based on Levitical law, that's groovy.

I'm pointing out that the point has been missed and people are zeroing in on only a specific group when Sexual Immorality applies to the entire gamut of classifications.

Basically, you are claiming that Modern Understanding of Sexuality is pseudo Science, but at the same time, you want to use the terms from modern psychology that you claim to not believe. That is why your rant makes no sense to me.

 

[Hitch]

Here is the simplest way to point out the major problem with what you are trying to convey to me. Paul stated that the Sexually Immoral would not Inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul was calling people Sexually immoral based on Levitican law. The words Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual, etc. are constructs invented by 19th and 20th century psychiatry and Psychology to categorize sexuality by MODERN understanding.

I'm pointing out the obvious that Paul couldn't have been talking about Psych terms that wouldn't exist for a few centuries later. That's it. Now, if you want to say that Modern heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Bisexuality is sexually immoral based on Levitical law, that's groovy.

I'm pointing out that the point has been missed and people are zeroing in on only a specific group when Sexual Immorality applies to the entire gamut of classifications.

Basically, you are claiming that Modern Understanding of Sexuality is pseudo Science, but at the same time, you want to use the terms from modern psychology that you claim to not believe. That is why your rant makes no sense to me.

Neither does yours.

What is the most important difference ,in your view, of the way Paul uses the term ,homosexual, and the way it is used and understood here?

 

[Christ_empowered]

I probably should have just said sodomy. Oops.

 

[Milk-Drops]

[/B]
Neither does yours.

What is the most important difference ,in your view, of the way Paul uses the term ,homosexual, and the way it is used and understood here?

Mainly, Paul never said the word Homosexual. Paul dosen't even describe Homosexuality. In Romans 1, Paul simply states that the sexually Immoral won't inherit the kingdom of God. Paul is making his case based on Christian doctrine. The constructs of Homosexual, Bi Sexual, and Heterosexual where created based on the modern study of human sexuality, and are just lables.

According to Romans 1, Heterosexuals, Bi Sexual, and Homosexuals are all accused of being sexually immoral. This is because what Paul said applies to the entire gamut of human sexuality.

I'm pointing out that trying to shove modern words and meanings into Paul's mouth is also twisting the scripture. Paul didn't say Homosexuals themselves where immoral, but that anyone who has sex with a member of the same gender. A homosexual dosen't have to have sex with the same gender to be a homosexual. The person only has to be attracted to the same gender, so sex is secondary.

Paul actually points out several aspects of Heterosexuality to be sexually immoral as well. Such as adultery and incest.


The main point is that the entire point is being missed.

 

[Hitch]

Mainly, Paul never said the word Homosexual. Paul dosen't even describe Homosexuality. In Romans 1, Paul simply states that the sexually Immoral won't inherit the kingdom of God. Paul is making his case based on Christian doctrine. The constructs of Homosexual, Bi Sexual, and Heterosexual where created based on the modern study of human sexuality, and are just lables.

According to Romans 1, Heterosexuals, Bi Sexual, and Homosexuals are all accused of being sexually immoral. This is because what Paul said applies to the entire gamut of human sexuality.

I'm pointing out that trying to shove modern words and meanings into Paul's mouth is also twisting the scripture. Paul didn't say Homosexuals themselves where immoral, but that anyone who has sex with a member of the same gender. A homosexual dosen't have to have sex with the same gender to be a homosexual. The person only has to be attracted to the same gender, so sex is secondary.

Paul actually points out several aspects of Heterosexuality to be sexually immoral as well. Such as adultery and incest.


The main point is that the entire point is being missed.

Well 8+2=10 isnt identical to 5+5=10.

 

[reba]

Your statement makes no sense. I never said that I have stuff understood. I can however say that engineering, medical science, biology, chemistry, logic, physics, etc. has improved over the last thousand years. Accademia understand the world we live in better then Accademia of 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 1 year ago, etc. I don't see what problem you have with pointing out the obvious that the Understanding sexuality during the time of Paul has actually been studied more and breakthroughs have even been made since then.

Heck the word and modern meanings of Heterosexual, Homosexual, etc. are modern constructs created by 19th century Psychiatry.

Guess it just the way you sound to me....

Do you really think sex is that different then a couple thousand years ago?

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The words used do not change what it is.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well 8+2=10 isnt identical to 5+5=10.

Your premise is wrong because what Paul is saying would be the equation 1+4=5, while what Modern Psychology is saying is that Yellow + Blue = Green. The subject matter is in completely different fields, based on different terms, different rules, etc.

The big point is that Paul wasn't a Psychologist, he was a preacher for the word of Jesus, reiterating rules that applied to a flock.


Jesus had nothing to say on Homosexuality, because Jesus also had nothing to say on Fuel Combustion, or Aerodynamics, Newtons Laws, etc.

I don't see what is so hard to grasp about this.

 

[reba]

CE

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


AMEN?

 

[roger_dodger]

Here is the simplest way to point out the major problem with what you are trying to convey to me. Paul stated that the Sexually Immoral would not Inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul was calling people Sexually immoral based on Levitican law. The words Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual, etc. are constructs invented by 19th and 20th century psychiatry and Psychology to categorize sexuality by MODERN understanding.

This is a completely false and specious arguement. The idea that the terms mentioned are modern constructs is utterly false and does not change the fact that the acts themselves and earlier terminology used for them are universally condemned as abominations in both Old and New Testaments.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, men 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. Romans 26-27 NIV

Note the absence of modern terms. Note that the acts themselves are described in an obvious and self-evident fashion. Note that they are referred to as "shameful", "unnatural", "indecent" and "perversion".

Lest you repent and cover yourself in the blood of the Lamb, you will arrive before the throne of God already condemned and have your place in the lake of fire. I pity you and, even more, I pity those who harken to you.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Guess it just the way you sound to me....

Do you really think sex is that different then a couple thousand years ago?

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

The words used do not change what it is.

I'm not saying sex itself is differnt. I do want to clear up what I'm saying. Paul is talking about acts of sex being immoral. The modern terms Homo, hetero, Bi, poly, etc. are lables given to varying sexualities that don't mean just acts. Sexuality is very complex and deals with emotional, psychological, and physical traits of a person.

When Paul is talking about how having sex with the same gender is a sin, he isn't saying homosexuality is a sin, but the act of having sex with the same gender is a sin. So Paul is actually calling out all the branches of sexuality. Romans 1 is calling out even the Heterosexual. For Paul lists acts of that heterosexuals do as sins as well.


That is why when I state its is a twisting of the scripture to say homosexuality is a sin, when the reality is that its the act of sex.

I don't know if that makes sense, like I said, its a complicated area of study and the terms tends to be used incorrectly.

 

[Hitch]

Your premise is wrong because what Paul is saying would be the equation 1+4=5, while what Modern Psychology is saying is that Yellow + Blue = Green. The subject matter is in completely different fields, based on different terms, different rules, etc.

The big point is that Paul wasn't a Psychologist, he was a preacher for the word of Jesus, reiterating rules that applied to a flock.


Jesus had nothing to say on Homosexuality, because Jesus also had nothing to say on Fuel Combustion, or Aerodynamics, Newtons Laws, etc.

I don't see what is so hard to grasp about this.

Well its kinda like hearing some old man walking down the street carrying on a violent argument, alone.

 

[Milk-Drops]

This is a completely false and specious arguement. The idea that the terms mentioned are modern constructs is utterly false and does not change the fact that the acts themselves and earlier terminology used for them are universally condemned as abominations in both Old and New Testaments.



Note the absence of modern terms. Note that the acts themselves are described in an obvious and self-evident fashion. Note that they are referred to as "shameful", "unnatural", "indecent" and "perversion".

Lest you repent and cover yourself in the blood of the Lamb, you will arrive before the throne of God already condemned and have your place in the lake of fire. I pity you and, even more, I pity those who harken to you.

You do not understand my argument then. The act of having sex with the same gender is a sin yes. However, the modern constructs of the words Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, etc. dose not mean, having sex. These terms are based on physical, emotional, and psychological aspects of the modern understanding of human sexuality. To say that Romans 1 was talking about modern understanding of sexuality, is like saying that every time the Bible said the word Donkey, it was talking about a car.

 

[Hitch]

I'm not saying sex itself is differnt. I do want to clear up what I'm saying. Paul is talking about acts of sex being immoral. The modern terms Homo, hetero, Bi, poly, etc. are lables given to varying sexualities that don't mean just acts. Sexuality is very complex and deals with emotional, psychological, and physical traits of a person.

When Paul is talking about how having sex with the same gender is a sin, he isn't saying homosexuality is a sin, but the act of having sex with the same gender is a sin. So Paul is actually calling out all the branches of homosexuality.


That is why when I state its is a twisting of the scripture to say homosexuality is a sin, when the reality is that its the act of sex.

I don't know if that makes sense, like I said, its a complicated area of study and the terms tends to be used incorrectly.

Look around, it appears those having trouble with the terms number exactly one.