21 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou really should concede ToO's point Whodey. A little humility goes a long way, and I've not read anything that defends ToO's arguement , that he has consistently made. Sorry, but it sounds to me like your a homophobe.
You are presenting a strawman here and you are either incapable of understanding what I have been saying or unwilling. Either way I'm done.
21 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe debate is over two issues. One is as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered a sin. Biblically, it is both in the OT and NT. Secondly, the question is what do church leaders do about other church leaders who openly sin. It has nothing to do with homophobia.
You really should concede ToO's point Whodey. A little humility goes a long way, and I've not read anything that defends ToO's arguement , that he has consistently made. Sorry, but it sounds to me like your a homophobe.
For example, there have been people confronted in my church who have openly sinned, being church leaders that is, that had nothing to do with being a homosexual. I am being attacked simply because I hold the position that homosexual activity is sinful.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyOk,it may be sinful,but I dont consider it a very grave sin at all.Our energies could surely be better spent focussing on more destructive sins-not sins of 'love'
The debate is over two issues. One is as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered a sin. Biblically, it is both in the OT and NT. Secondly, the question is what do church leaders do about other church leaders who openly sin. It has nothing to do with homophobia.
For example, there have been people confronted in my church who have openly sin ...[text shortened]... ual. I am being attacked simply because I hold the position that homosexual activity is sinful.
You may not be a homophobe, but you come across as one. Sorry.
21 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelI in no way ever wished to focus on homosexual relations. However, those that were attacking me would not talk about anything else. I don't go around actively persecuting homosexuals nor does my church talk about it frequently as being sinful. However, as Christians we must stand for what we think is right according to God's will. For example, a member in the church had a somewhat open adulterous relationship once and was confronted. They chose not to repent and were asked to step down. Of course, they swore it was because they "loved" the other person, but does that make it right? As I said before, sex does not always equal love and just because love may be in the mix does not necessarily make it right either. If this person had been allowed to continue as a chruch leader, what kind of message would that give those under him? In fact, what if he began to promote such relationships in his teachings?
Ok,it may be sinful,but I dont consider it a very grave sin at all.Our energies could surely be better spent focussing on more destructive sins-not sins of 'love'
You may not be a homophobe, but you come across as one. Sorry.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesits about not eating scavengers. bottom feeders and scavengers don't have fins and scales. its a health law
Isn't that the most ridiculous Bible verse?
Most things that live in the water don't have fins or scales. What is it about living in the water that makes a specimen abominable, and what is it about fins and scales that ought to impart immunity from this condition?
Does this verse actually reflect the will of God, or does it rather betray an extremely primitive grasp of zoology, botany and biology in general?
perhaps homosexuality is a health law like eating fat or shellfish. I suppose they can circumvent it by wearing condoms then.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyPaul condemened all sin, not just homosexuality, but Paul learned somevery important lessons about being humble, and relying on God. In 2 Corinthians he says," 8 Three different times I begged the Lord to take it away. 9 Each time he said, “My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness.” So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ can work through me. 10 That’s why I take pleasure in my weaknesses, and in the insults, hardships, persecutions, and troubles that I suffer for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
As for the rest, I'm not sure of what you are referring to. I will say that with the coming of Christ, the whole issue of making sacrifices and such was done away with because he became our sacrifice. In addition, after Christ had come you still had Paul condemning homosexuality. So the abomination of homosexuality apparently did not end after Christ came ...[text shortened]... . You would then have to conclude that some other event that we are unaware of transformed the law
Paul was a conoissuer of misery, and his epistles are seen through the eyes of someone who himself struggles with sin. Yet interestingly enough the english translations that you often read condemning homosexuality are themselves innacurate. Take 1 Corinth 6:9 for example: Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
here Paul uses the word "malakoi"(in some cases arsenokoitai) which does not mean homosexual, but is better translated as one of loose morals, can be used to describe soft or fine clothing, or in some cases effeminate or unmanly. If he wnated to refer to homosexual behavior he would have used the word "paiderasste."
John Wesley syays this of the word malakoi: Those who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship. But how is this? These good-natured, harmless people are ranked with idolaters and sodomites! We may learn hence, that we are never secure from the greatest sins, till we guard against those which are thought the least; nor, indeed, till we think no sin is little, since every one is a step toward hell."
Do you see how easily your argument is dismissed? Trying to to grasp God's word through poor english translations is like trying to by a train ticket in Tokyo while speaking Spanish to a ticket seller, when your native tongue is English. Paul thought and spoke in hebrew, the translations used were greek into english. Don't get hung up on the details, but try to see the bigger picture.
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyHowever, as Christians we must stand for what we think is right according to God's will. For example, a member in the church had a somewhat open adulterous relationship once and was confronted. They chose not to repent and were asked to step down.
I in no way ever wished to focus on homosexual relations. However, those that were attacking me would not talk about anything else. I don't go around actively persecuting homosexuals nor does my church talk about it frequently as being sinful. However, as Christians we must stand for what we think is right according to God's will. For example, a member in ...[text shortened]... those under him? In fact, what if he began to promote such relationships in his teachings?
"God's will"? As has been shown repeatedly on this thread, you are willing to ignore "God's will" when it comes to Clams, shrimp, lobster, etc.; wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together; gluttony; laboring to be rich; etc.;
Just because you've dealt harshly with someone in an "open adulterous relationship" don't make it any less hypocritical. That was hypocrisy also.
21 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by darvlayNo, not really, I feel as all should pray for them, that they may change in their ways, as I do, pray for them.
So you'd approach some homosexual couple on the street, who are minding their own business, and tell them to their face how they are living in sin and should be ashamed of themselves?
You would do that? Or at least you feel that this should be done?
21 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyIt is you who don't understand. You are trying to defend the indefensible.
You are presenting a strawman here and you are either incapable of understanding what I have been saying or unwilling. Either way I'm done.
All of your arguments thus far have been shown to be double standards. How you continue to deny this is beyond me.
22 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThen your church seems homophobic.
I in no way ever wished to focus on homosexual relations. However, those that were attacking me would not talk about anything else. I don't go around actively persecuting homosexuals nor does my church talk about it frequently as being sinful. However, as Christians we must stand for what we think is right according to God's will. For example, a member in those under him? In fact, what if he began to promote such relationships in his teachings?
Gosh,what if that leader promoted those type of adulterous relationships? Who cares? Relationships(sexual or otherwise ) are between 2 people. As you have just shown, doesn't matter who you may be, everyone is subject to desires of the heart(and the penis). Just let it go man...
22 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo tell me, why did Christ come to earth? Was it not to free of us sin? Was it not to convict us of sin so that we would desire to repent of our sin? Of course, if we cannot even agree that sin exists, we might as well throw out the reason he came at all. What good to us is he if the whole notion of sin is of no importance?
Then your church seems homophobic.
Gosh,what if that leader promoted those type of adulterous relationships? Who cares? Relationships(sexual or otherwise ) are between 2 people. As you have just shown, doesn't matter who you may be, everyone is subject to desires of the heart(and the penis). Just let it go man...