Homosexuality

[carpe diem]

Hey Aspen. I think one of the reasons that homosexuality is such a hotly debated topic, is not so much that it's whether its a 'bad' sin or not, it's the fact that people are trying to claim it's not a sin at all. God made marriage for man and woman...one man and one woman. Anything outside of that is sexual sin. It doesn't make gay sin any better or worse than other sexual sin, but it is still sin. The very huge problem we have today within our churches is that we are being pressured into accepting homosexuality as no sin at all. "If God is a God of love, why wouldn't he want us loving each other...in any form?" We should not forget for one moment, that while God's nature is loving, it is equally wrathful, against sin and sinners. No matter the public or political pressure, we should never forget that what God has declared sinful we cannot declare righteous. Sexual relationships are for one man, one woman....that's how He made it, that's how it remains.

Does this, however, mean we treat gays with disrespect and revulsion? Pfft! No....they may have a type of sexual sin, but by golly we have sin of our own too!! No, we love them and with respect show them what God intends for His people. If a homosexual couple have no belief or love of God, who are we to hold them to our standards? Paul tells us we cannot hold non-Christians to Christian standards. So we love them, be friends with them even, but never give the impression that we think it's 'perfectly fine and normal'....because if we love God and follow and believe His Word, we know it isn't. It is, of course, a different matter all together when you have gay people within your Church. Of course they are welcome, but never in authority. To have a gay pastor would be the same as having a pastor who slept with all the single women in the Church....deliberately flaunting their sin under God's nose, so to speak. Gay people in church need to be seen as the rest of us 'sheep'....people struggling along the way to be free of our sin....whatever that sin may be. We all need encouragement and truth. My point is, if we start saying "homosexuality is ok with God" then these people will never realise they are still slaves to sin...they'll never know they need Jesus' help to break free of it. The next step will be saying that adultery is okay, or theft is okay or that abuse is a husbands right. Where do you stop? The fact is we shouldn't start. God's the boss, he makes the rules and we shouldn't change them.

think also how we will be judged by god if we say something is ok when ist not. hate the sin not the sinner.

 

[Buzzfruit]

Well, your wrong... Anyone can repent. Acceptance of the repentance is God's. The act of repenting should be discussed more on this board.... Repenting doesn't mean you give up sinning.

If that were the case these scriptures would not say what its saying.

John 6:44 (Darby)
[sup]44 [/sup]No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.


2 Timothy 2:25 (NASB77)
[sup]25 [/sup]with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
If one could repent apart from God granting them repentance then it would not be by grace and one could boast. Is this what you think about yourself.....that your own goodness is what is caused you to repent?

Ephesians 2:4-9 (KJV)
[sup]4 [/sup]But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
[sup]5 [/sup]Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
[sup]6 [/sup]And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
[sup]7 [/sup]That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
[sup]8 [/sup]For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[sup]9 [/sup]Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Was Elijah a healer? Yes he was. The fact that you brought up his name tells me that you know he was.

I was not the one that brought up his name......you did by the scripture you post. So obviously it was you who believe he is but is trying to make it seem as if that is what I believe. Very disingenuous in my opinion. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

If he wasn't a healer, why did Jesus even bring up his name? Why was Jesus even referring to this, if he wasn't? Jesus said he healed a woman, so yea... He was a healer. Elijah just didn't heal everyone. Yes, he was a prophet, but also a healer. He healed Naamem.

So if Elijah wasn't a healer, why did Jesus drop his name at this point? Why is he talking about physicians healing themselves and others and mentions his name? And why did Jesus say he did heal someone? Naamem the Syrian was healed, no? Is that not what the scripture says? So why do you say he wasn't a healer?

Jesus never said Elijah was a healer.......the subject was not about Elijah. Nowhere in the Bible is he called a healer.....but he was called a prophet in the Bible. Elijah was a prophet whom God instructed to tell Naaman the Syrian what to do to be healed.

 

[FHII]

If that were the case these scriptures would not say what its saying.

John 6:44 (Darby)
[sup]44 [/sup]No one can come to me except the Father who has sent me draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day.


2 Timothy 2:25 (NASB77)
[sup]25 [/sup]with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
If one could repent apart from God granting them repentance then it would not be by grace and one could boast. Is this what you think about yourself.....that your own goodness is what is caused you to repent?

Ephesians 2:4-9 (KJV)
[sup]4 [/sup]But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
[sup]5 [/sup]Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
[sup]6 [/sup]And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
[sup]7 [/sup]That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
[sup]8 [/sup]For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[sup]9 [/sup]Not of works, lest any man should boast.








I was not the one that brought up his name......you did by the scripture you post. So obviously it was you who believe he is but is trying to make it seem as if that is what I believe. Very disingenuous in my opinion. I say what I mean and mean what I say.




Jesus never said Elijah was a healer.......the subject was not about Elijah. Nowhere in the Bible is he called a healer.....but he was called a prophet in the Bible. Elijah was a prophet whom God instructed to tell Naaman the Syrian what to do to be healed.

I didn't bring up his name. I mentioned scripture, which I assume you read, and you discussed him. Jesus said Elijah healed Naamen. It's there...

 

[Buzzfruit]

I didn't bring up his name. I mentioned scripture, which I assume you read, and you discussed him. Jesus said Elijah healed Naamen. It's there...

If you did not intend to claim that Elijah was a healer then what was the reason for posting it?

 

[FHII]

If you did not intend to claim that Elijah was a healer then what was the reason for posting it?

Going back in the thread, you had said "you can tell how good a doctor is by how many patients he has treated successfully." I simply don't believe that is true, and that's what these verses say. Eilijah and Elisha weren't known for their healings, but they did heal at least one. If you compare this bit of scripture with the other Gospels, you will find Jesus couldn't heal people in that town because of their unbelief. Could be that they ran him out of town too fast, could be that he didn't want to, or it could be they didn't have enough faith to be healed (as the scripture seems to say). Jesus was using an example of Elijah and Elisha and comparing what they did to what he was doing. The people were upset because Jesus said he was fulfilling the scriptures and what was written in the book of Isaiah was talking about him. he cast devils out of a person in the next town. So even a demon possessed person had more faith than the religious hypocrites.

Saying a doctor is only as good as how many patients he's successfully treated is like saying a minister is only as good as the size of his crowd.

 

[Buzzfruit]

Going back in the thread, you had said "you can tell how good a doctor is by how many patients he has treated successfully." I simply don't believe that is true, and that's what these verses say. Eilijah and Elisha weren't known for their healings, but they did heal at least one. If you compare this bit of scripture with the other Gospels, you will find Jesus couldn't heal people in that town because of their unbelief. Could be that they ran him out of town too fast, could be that he didn't want to, or it could be they didn't have enough faith to be healed (as the scripture seems to say). Jesus was using an example of Elijah and Elisha and comparing what they did to what he was doing. The people were upset because Jesus said he was fulfilling the scriptures and what was written in the book of Isaiah was talking about him. he cast devils out of a person in the next town. So even a demon possessed person had more faith than the religious hypocrites.

Saying a doctor is only as good as how many patients he's successfully treated is like saying a minister is only as good as the size of his crowd.

How many people did Elijah healed? The scriptures did not say that Jesus could not heal some because they did not believe. It says He did not heal some because they did not believe. That's a different thing entirely than what you say.


Notice that the verse says He did not and not He could not. And in one case Jesus took a blind man outside the city before He healed him. indicating that that city was not worthy of what He was about to do.


Matthew 13:58 (ASV) [sup]58 [/sup]And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

 

[carpe diem]

I see no difference. Homosexuals want guaranteed protection from the law when it comes to crimes against them based on their status. They want benefits like every other person receives for their family. They want their behavior decriminalized.

Heterosexuals can cheat on their spouses without fear of criminal prosecution. Heterosexuals enjoy fornication all the time and simply expect to be accepted. Heterosexuals enjoy strip clubs, internet porn, and all kinds of legal debauchery without fear of being beat up, murdered, or picketed at their funerals for their behavior. Practically all heterosexual sex is already accepted by society and not prosecuted by the law. If the law decided to start prosecuting fornication, adultery and common debauchery - heterosexuals would tell the government to get out of their lives and claim all kinds infringment.

So do you really believe that sexuality is just a whimsical desire? In fact sexuality is a deep drive that can move people to murder, theft, sexual crime, and suicide. It is hardly a simple desire....

Finally, if you refuse to allow or even acknowledge that homosexuals can be in a relationship with God, why should they be bound by His laws? If they are bound for Hell, why should they conform to the rules of a God that plans to damn them? Even God allows them freewil - who are we to second guess God?

nicely put. were not here to judge

 

[carpe diem]

I am homosexual; it's not a label that I put on myself or something that I think I am. My orientation is simply homosexual--and yes: I was BORN this way...the same as you were born heterosexual. You, being hetero, have no choice in your orientation. The only "choice" you do have is as to whether you want to experience your heterosexuality or not. But the attraction is still there, has been, and will always be. There isn't anything I can say to you to get you to understand me, because your brain is literally wired differently (search this out scientifically for yourself if you wish). And this is why there seems to be no point of reconing with this issue.

If you really have the Spirit of Truth, then this Spirit is the only thing that can enlighten you on the matter. The bible says that the anointing breaks the yoke. Unless what you're saying is breaking someone free from what you perceive to be bondage, then everything you are doing and saying is in vain. The bible also says (since we are using the word) thagt we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and other spiritual forces.

I can say that almost everytime I hear (or read) someone preach against homosexuality, I feel personally picked on, like I'm being attacked. I know you will say that it is "conviction," but I beg to differ. The only reason I feel this way is because of frustration! It's frustrating to me to be misunderstood. And to hear preachers from the pulpit telling me I'm "disgusting," "gross," "evil," "rebellious," a "sissy," a "punk," a "faggot" (yes, these words have come across many pulpits)... I'll tell you how it feels to me. It makes me not want G-d's presence, but rather makes me want to run from such a biased dictator. It makes me not trust G-d. It makes me think that G-d is a cold, heartless, narcicistic, egomaniacal, cruel, deranged, schizophrenic psychopath! Call it irreverent or disrespectful to think this about G-d, but this is precisely how He is appears to me. If these men and women are His mouthpieces, then they are the revelation of G-d. And while no one in their right mind would want to go to hell--I certainly don't!--no one in their right mind would want to submit themselves to such a tyrant either; that would make Heaven as bad as Hell, if not worse.

This is my honest perception, as a homosexual who did not ask for this orientation, but was given it by the same G-d who condemns me for it.

hello fire, as a new christian my self i can only give you this advice. ignore what people tell you about what god is like and what he wants from you and find out from him directly. in your room on your own ask him to reveal himself to you and youl be pleasantly surprised at what he has got to say to you. god bless you and i hope you dont let mans hatred put you off cos wen we genuinly repent he forgives, again and again and again.

 

[FHII]

How many people did Elijah healed? The scriptures did not say that Jesus could not heal some because they did not believe. It says He did not heal some because they did not believe. That's a different thing entirely than what you say.


Notice that the verse says He did not and not He could not. And in one case Jesus took a blind man outside the city before He healed him. indicating that that city was not worthy of what He was about to do.


Matthew 13:58 (ASV) [sup]58 [/sup]And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Marks says he could not except a few. You should also reread my post more carefully. I did indictate that it could've been he didn't want to.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
Mar 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

In any sense, this part of the thread is for nothing... I misread a post you made wondering why Robbie hangs out with Pervs. My comment was that a well man doesn't need a doctor. I misread your post to say why would anyone hang out with pervs. So I apologize for that...If Robbie is actually doing something for them, then it still applies, but is he?

Still, no. You can't tell how good a doctor is by how many people he's successfully treated any more than you can tell is someone is a real minister or preacher by the size of his congregation.

 

[Buzzfruit]

Marks says he could not except a few. You should also reread my post more carefully. I did indictate that it could've been he didn't want to.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
Mar 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

In any sense, this part of the thread is for nothing... I misread a post you made wondering why Robbie hangs out with Pervs. My comment was that a well man doesn't need a doctor. I misread your post to say why would anyone hang out with pervs. So I apologize for that...If Robbie is actually doing something for them, then it still applies, but is he?

Still, no. You can't tell how good a doctor is by how many people he's successfully treated any more than you can tell is someone is a real minister or preacher by the size of his congregation.

Then how do you? Are you saying that a unsuccessful healer has the same result as one that is successful? Would you knowingly let a doctor with poor record (botched surgeries) of failure oprerate on you if you needed heart surgery?

 

[Buzzfruit]

Marks says he could not except a few. You should also reread my post more carefully. I did indictate that it could've been he didn't want to.

Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
Mar 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

In the Greek that's not how it would be said. A better rendering would be NOT. Meaning, Jesus did not do many mighty works because of their unbelief.

 

[Foreigner]

In the Greek that's not how it would be said. A better rendering would be NOT. Meaning, Jesus did not do many mighty works because of their unbelief.

-- Alright, I'll bite. Just what word is used in the Greek to change the meaning from "could not" to "did not."

 

[Buzzfruit]

-- Alright, I'll bite. Just what word is used in the Greek to change the meaning from "could not" to "did not."

Greek Word: οὐκ – ouk and bassically means No,
Not ,Nay, Neither or Never.

 

[FHII]

In the Greek that's not how it would be said. A better rendering would be NOT. Meaning, Jesus did not do many mighty works because of their unbelief.

Yea.... Well I'll take the KJV scholars word on what was better over yours.

 

[Buzzfruit]

Yea.... Well I'll take the KJV scholars word on what was better over yours.

Being a scholar does not mean that they have the Holy Spirit. Scholars do make mistake in translation. For example; the KJV does not have the letter S in the word heaven, in Gen. 1:1. That is an error. God did not only created one heaven He created three heavens, the sky (1st heaven), the universe ( 2nd heaven) and the (third Heaven) Heaven where He rules from.



Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here are a few other translations where the letter S is included.

Genesis 1:1 (NASB77)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—

Genesis 1:1 (ASV)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The men who were inspired to write the scriptures were not scholars........they got their understanding from God not from institutions of men. You give more honor to what men can learn on their own over what comes to a person via the Holy Spirit. So I don't need to be accredited by men. Mine comes from God.

 

[FHII]

Being a scholar does not mean that they have the Holy Spirit. Scholars do make mistake in translation. For example; the KJV does not have the letter S in the word heaven, in Gen. 1:1. That is an error. God did not only created one heaven He created three heavens, the sky (1st heaven), the universe ( 2nd heaven) and the (third Heaven) Heaven where He rules from.



Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here are a few other translations where the letter S is included.

Genesis 1:1 (NASB77)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—

Genesis 1:1 (ASV)
[sup]1 [/sup]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The men who were inspired to write the scriptures were not scholars........they got their understanding from God not from institutions of men. You give more honor to what men can learn on their own over what comes to a person via the Holy Spirit. So I don't need to be accredited by men. Mine comes from God.

Well, I'll go with the KJV scholars on that point too.... Look, Being a scholar doesn't mean they DON'T have the Holy Spirit either! Which is your favorite version? I'm pretty sure it was written by a scholar. Furthermore, they didn't write the scriptures. They translated them. Think Joe the bum off the street could do that? Even Furthermore, don't discount the education of some of the writers of the Bible. Yes, God used educated men as well as uneducated men. But as for translating the original words from one language to another, I would think that a scholar would be better suited.

 

[Buzzfruit]

Well, I'll go with the KJV scholars on that point too.... Look, Being a scholar doesn't mean they DON'T have the Holy Spirit either! Which is your favorite version? I'm pretty sure it was written by a scholar. Furthermore, they didn't write the scriptures. They translated them. Think Joe the bum off the street could do that? Even Furthermore, don't discount the education of some of the writers of the Bible. Yes, God used educated men as well as uneducated men. But as for translating the original words from one language to another, I would think that a scholar would be better suited.

So you are saying God only made one heaven? I have no favorite version.....they all have some form of error (mistranslation in some way or the other). What one version may have the others might correct. So I use them all in order to get a better understanding.

Well, I'll go with the KJV scholars on that point too....

Here's another mistranslation
.
Luke 23:43 (ESV)
[sup]43 [/sup]And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."


The comma is in the wrong place. Because Jesus was dead at the end of that day....just before sunset. And in case you think Jesus was referring to Heaven.....He was not. Remember, Jesus told to Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father. So it should read like this. Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise. Jesus was saying the thief would be in the second resurrection.

 

[us2are1]

Christ meets us where we are at. If homosexuals love God and obey His commandments - who knows what God will do?

If you repent You will do well. If you do not repent the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah are still burning and awaiting all who follow their example. Therefore be followers of God as dear children and live. Those who follow the flesh will perish forever.

 

[FHII]

So you are saying God only made one heaven? I have no favorite version.....they all have some form of error (mistranslation in some way or the other). What one version may have the others might correct. So I use them all in order to get a better understanding.




Here's another mistranslation
.
Luke 23:43 (ESV)
[sup]43 [/sup]And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."


The comma is in the wrong place. Because Jesus was dead at the end of that day....just before sunset. And in case you think Jesus was referring to Heaven because He was not. Remember, Jesus told to Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father. So it should read like this. Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise. Jesus was saying the thief would be in the second resurrection.

It doesn't matter what answers I give to your questions (though I could). I politely bow out of further conversation. I can't deal with a person who claims the Bible has error, and especially those who pick and choose which versions they will use for certain verses (thinking that the person who picks and chooses from different Bibles has a greater understanding). The Bible is my authority. Pick one (just one, any one) and I'll discuss things. Personally, I go by the KJV. If you do not, fine... As long as you go to one. So, Buzzfruit... Why not write your own version.

God created the heaven (or heavens for you) the earth, and everything, yet he isn't powerful enough to bring his exact Word to this generation? I don't buy it. Our conversing is through....

If you repent You will do well. If you do not repent the fires of Sodom and Gomorrah are still burning and awaiting all who follow their example. Therefore be followers of God as dear children and live. Those who follow the flesh will perish forever.

So you too don't believe grace covers all sins of the flesh?

 

[Buzzfruit]

It doesn't matter what answers I give to your questions (though I could). I politely bow out of further conversation. I can't deal with a person who claims the Bible has error, and especially those who pick and choose which versions they will use for certain verses (thinking that the person who picks and chooses from different Bibles has a greater understanding). The Bible is my authority. Pick one (just one, any one) and I'll discuss things. Personally, I go by the KJV. If you do not, fine... As long as you go to one. So, Buzzfruit... Why not write your own version.

God created the heaven (or heavens for you) the earth, and everything, yet he isn't powerful enough to bring his exact Word to this generation? I don't buy it. Our conversing is through....



So you too don't believe grace covers all sins of the flesh?

The translations have minor errors I did not say the original version did. I am the last person who would pick and chose which version of the Bible I am going to use because I use them all. It is you that has picked and chose what version to go by....so you are bias because you assume that the KJV is more true than the others. In the Greek for example there are no comma (,) or period (.). The person who is doing the translating has to decide where to put a (,) or a (.). Most of the time they get it right but not all the time.....including the KJV. But since you don't care to continue this discussion I won't go any farther.

Take care.