Lewes bonfire, and gays in the church

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
an irrational fear, LOL, chastity belt it is next time i go to the playhouse in Edinburgh. I have merely stated that it is contrary to nature (physiologically) and contrary to scripture, you will please now state why that fits your definition.

do you condemn all physical acts that are against nature?

Originally posted by galveston75
"What doesn't harm others are not sin: Eating of shellfish, wearing of fabrics containing multiple types of fiber, homosexuality, etc. "

Who says? You? Have you been granted some special insight as to what does harm to humans both physically, mentally and spiritually that only God can see?

But speaking still of homosexuality, even if they are con ...[text shortened]... n or would this person just laugh at God and say I'm going to do as I please no matter what?

can you clarify for me. is being a homosexual the same as practicing homosexuality? meaning if a homosexual man lives a celibate life is he okay with god?

Originally posted by OdBod
British Parliament voting on same sex marriage today. I think in the end unless differing faiths reflect wider social attitudes they will become increasingly marginalised with declining influence .

it could be a bad day for samantha cameron and miriam durentez. two quick divorces and david and nick can finally be together.

sonship here writing:

C'mon jaywill, in none of those passages does Jesus explicitly state or even imply that He considered homosexuality a moral matter as you claim.

Mathew 10:15 - "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Go back to Genesis 19 and find out what Jesus is talking about without being in denial. Why was the land of Sodom and Gomorrah judged by God ?

These words of Jesus indicate that the homosexuality of Sodom and Gomorrah at some future judgment of God, will be deemed more tolerable than the city in which the Son of God is being opposed and rejected.

I see no other logical interpretation.

Certainly none of the passages from Matthew or Luke even remotely imply this.

Jesus said that it would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in some future judgment of God.

We have two situations of things NOT tolerable to God.
We have two situations of men sinning.
One is the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The other is the sins of the contemporaries of Jesus opposing His ministry.

You tell us what was the sin for which the land of Sodom and Gomorrah was judged. I am not going to lead you by the hand through Genesis 19 to uncover WHY God judged Sodom and Gamorrah.

Matthew 11:23,24 implies the same principle of comparison this time linking the sin of Sodom with the sin of Capernaum. You have to go to the Old Testament (and New Testament supplimentally) to uncover WHY these cities offended God.

A posture of denial is unconvincing. It is self deceiving.

The verse from Mark 10:7 is in a passage where He is questioned about "whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife." The passage has nothing at all to do with how He views homosexuality. It's about how He views marriage between a man and wife.

The point of the Mark passage was to underscore what Jesus Christ thought of the divinely instituted act of marriage.

"But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Your "C'mon jaywill" posturing is not quite convincing enough. Where in this this teaching do you see room for God ordaining the male to be joined in marriage with another male?

Where in this passage do you see indication of God's ordination that a woman be joined in marriage with another woman ?

I do not say an explicit condemnation of homosexuality is the reason for His word there. The reason for His word there is to teach that DIVORCE was allowed because of man's hardness of heart (v.1-5).

A necessary byproduct of the teaching is that in marriage MALE is mateched with FEMALE. FEMALE is paired up with MALE. The man is joined to His [singular wife] who is of the OPPOSITE SEX.

Dance and posture as you like. I will not be C'moning with you into self deception. I don't like to be self deceived. I don't like to lie to myself until I actually believe my own lie.

Perhaps the fact that you believe that any of the these passages indicates that Jesus considered homosexuality a moral matter is an indication of how deeply your prejudice runs.

The twisting and dancing you would like to do on Matthew 10:15; 11:23,24 indicates that you are desparate to recruit Jesus to agree with you that God did not judge as sin the homosexual behavior of the men of Sodom and Gamorrah.

If you want to understand what Jesus did and did not consider to be sin, I suggest you look at what He did say:

Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

And the next verse says "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."

I count as false prophets men who twist away the teaching which Christ refered to Matthew 10:15; 11:23,24. Ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing must have basically destructive attitude towards the ministry of Jesus in order to twist away the apparent intention He had in those passages.

Sodom and Gamorrah had sinned and been judged. But it was more serious to reject the Son of God. That is what Matthew 10:15; 11:23,24 is about.

Appeals to "do to others as you would they do to you" doesn't work to justify such twisting.

Besides, nowhere is loving someone leading them to act against God's ordination. If you perusuade someone to act against what God intended - (one man for one woman, rather than one man for one man or one woman for one woman) that is not really a love of the other. That is SELF love USING the other.

Now considring Luke 17:28,29 - "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; ... But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimestone from heaven, and destroyed them all."

Jesus plainly refers to the judgment of Sodom. Why was Sodom rained upon with fire and brimestone ?

The burden is totally on you to demonstrate the Jesus believed that that raining of fire on Sodom had nothing to do with their homosexual devotion.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about us undestanding that Jesus derived His facts from the Old Testament and believed them. He was after all God incarnate. You do not have to believe it. It is important that He believed and taught that.

So, whatever happened to Sodom in the days of Lot was from Himself as God before His incarnation.

Matthew 22
39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Excuse me. The passage in context consists of the FIRST and the SECOND commandment. The first concerns the verticle love to God. The second concerns the horizontal love towards neighbours.

"Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.

This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

You are rather conveniently overlooking the FIRST in the pair. How can you say you love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind if you oppose His will and ordination ?

He said in Genesis in the creation of man - one man for one woman - male joined with female.

It is unconvincing to reject this outright and excuse rebellion by imagining that you love others as you love yourself.

Interpreting this passage sloppily you could reason that all the rebellion against the law and prophets by Israel in the Old Testament was justified because the rebels loved others as they loved themselves. However the judgments of God upon their breaking the law demonstrate that horizontal love did not excuse verticle rebellion.

What harms others are sin: Murder, lying, rape, stealing, etc.

When God ordained one man for one woman - male for female in marriage then going against His will there would be harming of humans. The twistedness of the revolt harms. For we were created male and female for the romantic joining. So the experimentation of revolt would be a using men and women in a way not intended by their Creator.

What doesn't harm others are not sin: Eating of shellfish, wearing of fabrics containing multiple types of fiber, homosexuality, etc.

I already spoke to the ritual matters of diet and other things which Jesus downplayed. I already spoke to His making the moral commandments more penetrating. This would be going around in circles to repeat that explanation.

And you still have not demonstrated to me that Paul's treatment of the sin of homosexuality was not proportional, even handed, and not particularly highlighted above other sins in his listings.

Originally posted by e4chris
i dunno. to be honest i don't expect a christian church to bless gay weddings or say that homosexuality is great, no, but i think Christians could pick there targets a bit better. there are far bigger evils out there, poverty for one.

Gay marriage is immportant in some ways, its good that gay couples can commit to one another, and financially speaking hav ...[text shortened]... r world seems, like i said, glorified school bullying, they really should pick another tartget.

The "target" is to lead people to Christ.

Jesus did not commission the church to go "put down sin" here and there and everywhere.

You may get that impression from places like Westfield Baptist Church in thier "God hates fags" compain.

But we many of us are not preaching a "sin centered" gospel but a Jesus Christ centered gospel.

At the same time some of us won't easily let people like ThinkofOne try to put concepts in the teaching of Christ which are their own concepts.

Some will say "Well, I was BORN this way."
Since the fall of Adam we were all born in iniquity and brought forth with a sinning nature.

Okay. I was born to want to collect pornography too.
I was born to want 600 wives like Solomon.
I was born to want to steal.
I was born to want to lie.
I learned it quite young and quite naturally.

I was born to want a lot of tendencies to run free in my flesh and soul.
The being "born" with this or that tendency is not the point.

The point is what the SECOND birth brings into us - and that is the Overcomer of all sin, the Victor, the Son of God. He can blend with us and be joined to us and live through us.

That is very good news.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you condemn all physical acts that are against nature?

the question that I asked was, why is it homophobic to state that physiologically, homosexuality is contrary to nature and in the context of the Bible anti scriptural, thanks in advance, for it appears to me entirely typical of those who are advocates of the practice to level the accusation of homophobia without the slightest substantiation, in fact, its almost mandatory for them to do so.

Originally posted by e4chris
against nature

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3258/3126519407_c8f803ed46_z.jpg?zz=1

mu ha ha, sorry robbie

don't be sorry, but do try to answer the question, for clearly, physiologically, the anus is not 'designed', for intercourse and penetration, this not only makes the practice contrary to nature, it makes it irrational as well.

Originally posted by e4chris
i'm sure they are just good friends

but on the against nature . it is a genetic trait and it has survived for a long time, you seem to think gay ppl are obsessed with sex, but actually i think a lack of interest in the opposite sex makes gay people more rational, more concerned with there surroundings then tits, and that why its survived so long. my theory anyway.

you have still failed to answer the actual question, let me repeat it, why is stating that homosexuality is physiologically opposed to nature and anti Biblical, homophobic, again thanks in advance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have still failed to answer the actual question, let me repeat it, why is stating that homosexuality is physiologically opposed to nature and anti Biblical, homophobic, again thanks in advance.

firstly, it is not opposed to nature. nature does not lay down a bunch of rules for us to follow. nature is just a word we use to describe organic world around us.

a part of our body may have developed for a specific reason but their is nothing to say we cannot find other uses for them. fingers may have grown to help us catch and grip food, however it is not against any universal nature laws to shove my finger in my ear or nose or lady gardens. there are hundreds of examples of parts of the body being used for things they were not specifically developed for. i dont see you making a fuss about those.

you are homophobic because you think that it is wrong to be gay. saying the bible tells you so is not an excuse. you are homophobic there is no escaping the fact.