Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
L
Loren Michael
Guest
Vic said:
that seems to speak more to not acting on emotions and temptations than to not having them, though.
also,
seems particularly resonant and relevant to this topic.
off topic, but reading all of Matthew 6 while listening to Sigur~Ros felt amazing.
I
itoldyounoalready
Guest
Okay s oI posted w/ my heart not my head, sorry to all those I just went off on.
Blazin Bones
Member
Vic said:
Vic, I've always looked at that question in light of what Christ taught us about lusting after a woman as being adultery. It is natural for man to desire woman. However, when that desire becomes focused on a particular someone, and we start to covet or lust after this person, we commit adultery in our hearts.
It is not natural to desire after someone of the same sex. In order to desire such, we must lust after that which God has deemed sin. If it is sinful for a man to lust after a woman, why then would it not be sinful for a man to lust after man.
L
Loren Michael
Guest
Vic said:
...oh. okay. i think we're on the same playing field, then.
...
...i'm not really sure what to say, now.
Timothy said:
in your first paragraph, desire precludes lust. in your second, lust precludes desire. which is it?
Blazin Bones
Member
Sputnik, I will reply to each portion of your last response to me.
Sputnik: I guess we all have been tainted with sin and are therefore not the ideal human model that God would have intended.
We can't be. Romans 3:23 makes that clear. However, those who profess Christ are new creations, and must strive to live as such.
Sputnik: Come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing a thread on "Christians and our immoral society". Maybe I should start one and see how many of the hostile 'anti-gays' come out to condemn it with similar enthusiasm. Or, how about a thread on "Christians and the sin of pride"? Or, how about ...? Oh my, the list could be endless.
While the topics you've presented are rather extensive, I can tell you that if it is a topic relating to Christians and sexual immorality, I'm more likely to respond. Sexual immorality is the #1 sin gripping the necks of my generation of Christians. If God, through a thread, gives me the chance to speak to such, I'm gonna try not to miss the chance.
As many know, every time I hit another 1000 posts, I post a small testimony of something God is doing or has done in my life. I had already intended my next testimony to speak to how God has taught me on the topic of sexual immorality. I hope you'll take the time to find it when I reach 6000. 8-)
Sputnik: That's right. And thanks again for the tone of your post, Timothy. It's actually less aggressive than mine.
As I just said, topics relating to sexual purity are very inportant to me. I try not to ruin my chance to speak God's truth on the subject by being a creep. It's by God alone, I am able to do so. 8-) Thank you for your kind words.
Sputnik: I guess we all have been tainted with sin and are therefore not the ideal human model that God would have intended.
We can't be. Romans 3:23 makes that clear. However, those who profess Christ are new creations, and must strive to live as such.
Sputnik: Come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing a thread on "Christians and our immoral society". Maybe I should start one and see how many of the hostile 'anti-gays' come out to condemn it with similar enthusiasm. Or, how about a thread on "Christians and the sin of pride"? Or, how about ...? Oh my, the list could be endless.
While the topics you've presented are rather extensive, I can tell you that if it is a topic relating to Christians and sexual immorality, I'm more likely to respond. Sexual immorality is the #1 sin gripping the necks of my generation of Christians. If God, through a thread, gives me the chance to speak to such, I'm gonna try not to miss the chance.
As many know, every time I hit another 1000 posts, I post a small testimony of something God is doing or has done in my life. I had already intended my next testimony to speak to how God has taught me on the topic of sexual immorality. I hope you'll take the time to find it when I reach 6000. 8-)
Sputnik: That's right. And thanks again for the tone of your post, Timothy. It's actually less aggressive than mine.
As I just said, topics relating to sexual purity are very inportant to me. I try not to ruin my chance to speak God's truth on the subject by being a creep. It's by God alone, I am able to do so. 8-) Thank you for your kind words.
Blazin Bones
Member
Loren said:
The reason it differs between paragraphs is because the two have different orders. Heterosexual desire is natural, but if left unchecked can produce lust.
Homosexual desire is unnatural. If it is unnatural, something besides natural desire must create the unnatural desire. This unnatural desire is a product of lusting after the sin of homosexuality.
I hope that helps.
L
Loren Michael
Guest
Timothy said:
thank you very much for the elaboration.
could you expound on how you reach the conclusion that homosexual desire is unnatural, though?
R
Rick W
Guest
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
"Natural" is defined as a norm, not the exception. In all things, or at least the vast majority anyway, one can find exception. Exception does not imply a natural state but something out of normal occurance. This can be seen in the fact that homosexuality composes only a very small percentage of the normal sexual preference of human sexuality.
definition of "unnatural"
Deviating from a behavioral or social norm
And isn't that what we're talking about? Social behavior?
And before someone posts something about animals I hope we don't have to go there. I don't think comparing homosexuals to animals is very complimentary. After all, they're not animals but human beings. Animals have no moral restrictions what-so-ever operating only within the confines of immediate urge and stimuli. I really believe social morality is what separates us from the animal kingdom unless it's one's desire to act like an animal.
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
"Natural" is defined as a norm, not the exception. In all things, or at least the vast majority anyway, one can find exception. Exception does not imply a natural state but something out of normal occurance. This can be seen in the fact that homosexuality composes only a very small percentage of the normal sexual preference of human sexuality.
definition of "unnatural"
Deviating from a behavioral or social norm
And isn't that what we're talking about? Social behavior?
And before someone posts something about animals I hope we don't have to go there. I don't think comparing homosexuals to animals is very complimentary. After all, they're not animals but human beings. Animals have no moral restrictions what-so-ever operating only within the confines of immediate urge and stimuli. I really believe social morality is what separates us from the animal kingdom unless it's one's desire to act like an animal.
Blazin Bones
Member
Thank you for that passage Potluck. Loren, there it is in God's word. In addition, I'd like to again point out that scientists have yet to this point come up with any conclusive genetic link suggesting that people may be born homosexual.
G
greyfeather
Guest
How about those who are born transgender, with both female and male parts ? It use to be that doctors whould say to the parents they had to make a decision on which gender the child would be. Now if no desision is made untill the child is old enough to understand and make that choose. If that person says I do not want any opertions nor hormones , I am who I am. Would this person be catragised as a homosexual if they date someone , since they are of both genders ?
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.
R
Rick W
Guest
greyfeather said:
How many people are we talking about?
An extreme case calls for extreme decisions and depends on the parents options.
I can imagine those being born with all sorts of birth defects and these cases warrant out-of-the-ordinary study and action whether medical or otherwise.
What do you think greyfeather?
L
Loren Michael
Guest
PotLuck said:
actually, we're talking about whether the behavior is sin, or the attraction itself. behavior is something that is exhibited, observed. it's fully possible for a person to disguise their feelings and whatnot.
also, again, Romans 1:27 refers to lust, which is a sin no matter who it is for.
L
Loren Michael
Guest
greyfeather said:
that is a very interesting point, to bring up gender identity and ambiguity. there are many cases where actual gender is simply in the eye of the beholder. what are they to do? what does god wish of them?
R
Rick W
Guest
"leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"
Lust yes, but I fail to see how one can ignore the rest of the verse to focus simply on one word... lust. "lust one toward another" and "men with men" sounds an awful like MSM if you ask me.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
"natural" and "against nature" used in the same sentence. How does one reconcile that to fit a pro-gay stance?
"change natural use"
What is being refered to here? What is it the women were doing? What was changed anyway?
And what was going on that Paul saw fit to rebuke? Lust? Yes, of course. But lust in what capacity? Lust for what? What behavior was being rebuked?
Lust yes, but I fail to see how one can ignore the rest of the verse to focus simply on one word... lust. "lust one toward another" and "men with men" sounds an awful like MSM if you ask me.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
"natural" and "against nature" used in the same sentence. How does one reconcile that to fit a pro-gay stance?
"change natural use"
What is being refered to here? What is it the women were doing? What was changed anyway?
And what was going on that Paul saw fit to rebuke? Lust? Yes, of course. But lust in what capacity? Lust for what? What behavior was being rebuked?
L
Loren Michael
Guest
PotLuck said:
i'm simply arguing that sex between two people of the same gender isn't the same as feelings of affection between two people of the same gender. that perhaps one is a sin and the other isn't.
also,
wouldn't any change from the norm for these people be against nature?
for the sake of argument, assume that homosexuality is not a sin in any way, shape, or form.
still with me?
okay, now, consider that same verse in the bible. if they were heterosexual people in the first place, a change to homosexuality would be unnatural.
i'll use myself as an example. no matter how i feel about gays and lesbians, whether i feel that they are super-awsome triple+++ great or that i think they should be kicked to the curb, or whatever, if i am a heterosexual person forced into a homosexual position, it is unnatural. because it is a change from my personal norm (of not being gay).
sorry for the laborous and ponderous reading, but do you see where i'm coming from?
R
Rick W
Guest
Loren Michael said:
Agreed
I love my brother, I love the guys that discipled me and I love my pastor. Affection is not a sin. Heck, I've been known to hug anyone (males included) especially recieving family into my home or a close friend I've not seen for some time.
Loren Michael said:
How can I assume homosexuality isn't a sin?
Using an opposite assumption as a springboard to debate that which is cannot prove what is as being wrong. If the opposite assumption is true then that which is isn't.
still with me?
Loren Michael said:
Then if it IS a case of a man raping another man then isn't the rapist's lust of preference to have sex with another man homosexuality?
I'll use myself as an example:
If I, a man, prefer to have sex with another man even through rape am I a homosexual?
In no way do I claim gays are rapists but you brought it up in the first place of forced sex.
I see no victim here, I see nothing to indicate a forced act or rape in any case. And "one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly" doesn't indicate heterosexuality no matter how you read it.
R
Rick W
Guest
Sign in store window reads:
Giant book sale!!
What?
1) Giant sale on books
2) Giant books are for sale
3) Books for giants are for sale
Never ceases to amaze me how people will choose 2 or 3 to avoid admitting #1.
Giant book sale!!
What?
1) Giant sale on books
2) Giant books are for sale
3) Books for giants are for sale
Never ceases to amaze me how people will choose 2 or 3 to avoid admitting #1.
L
Loren Michael
Guest
PotLuck said:
sorry, i was unclear. i wasn't talking about nonconsentual sex. i was talking about a change from a person's norms. if i were to "become" homosexual, it would be unnatural because i am (normally) not homosexual. if a change takes place from a state of normalcy, the change itself is abnormal. it would be analogous to a situation where i started liking country music. sure, i'd enjoy it, but it would be abnormal, and in my gut, i would know that something horrible had happened.