Homosexuality

[Xian Pugilist]

To answer for my vote.

Homosexuality isn't a sin.

Homosexual sex is.

Any verse you find on it will say exactly that.

What sin has a virgin homosexual committed?
What sin is a celibate homosexual committing?
Now if you found a sin show the scripture for it.

Most pedophiles are heterosexual by the way, so apparently that't an argument that will bite you in the bahooty.

Most zoophiliacs are heterosexual as well.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Dragonfly-

Hi martinlawrencescott,

No-one is born a homosexual. Many and varied influences put it into a child's head that he is not normal, but there is absolutely normality to be had in God, for those who genuinely commit to receiving the message of Romans 6.

Romans 6 has to do after the point of salvation and transformation from a life of sin. We are born with a sinful nature, that's the point of the term sinful nature. Meaning all the tendencies to perform all the types of sin we do are dominant within us from birth. That doesn't mean babies go to hell or wherever, because of the category of sin ignorance falls under. Does that mean people can be born homosexual? Yes. Everyone can be born any which way with both physical, emotional, and sexual infirmities. Am I missing something here?

M

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Martin,

Am I missing something here?

Well, I would say you are entirely missing both the context God gives to homosexual behaviour in scripture, which, apart from what is said about it in the OT, is most specifically attributed by Paul to external influences tempting a person to yield to them, and, that those who turn from homosexual pursuits can be entirely delivered spiritually, healed and restored to heterosexual inclinations.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Besides my missing the context, I think I agreed with everything you just said. Without temptation our sinful nature is fairly dormant. Though that could be tested during/in the millennium. We must be disagreeing on another point: Simply, the nature vs. nurture aspect of the state of homosexuality. Am I wrong- that this is where we disagree?

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Dragon, what influences made you heterosexual? And what would you have been if you grew up alone and didn't have them?

Aren't you glad you had just the right combination of influences to be heterosexual? Else you would go to hell because of things you have no control over. Now THAT'S a just and loving God.

I am quite sure you have no answers for my comments above.

I will just ask you to actually read the scripture. What is the sin.

It is the sex. Not being homosexual.

Martin, what does rom 7:5 say?

What did they do with that nature?

Dragon, what influences made you heterosexual? And what would you have been if you grew up alone and didn't have them?

Aren't you glad you had just the right combination of influences to be heterosexual? Else you would go to hell because of things you have no control over. Now THAT'S a just and loving God.

I am quite sure you have no answers for my comments above.

I will just ask you to actually read the scripture. What is the sin.

It is the sex. Not being homosexual.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi XP,

Dragon, what influences made you heterosexual? And what would you have been if you grew up alone and didn't have them?

Aren't you glad you had just the right combination of influences to be heterosexual? Else you would go to hell because of things you have no control over. Now THAT'S a just and loving God.

I am quite sure you have no answers for my comments above.

I nearly replied to your post at the top of this page, yesterday, but thought it would keep until today.

I do have answers, but are you going to believe me?

This sentence: 'Else you would go to hell because of things you have no control over', is a lie from the pit of hell. Don't receive it.


Blessings, brother.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

Martin, what does rom 7:5 say?

I got the point already, cause I already agree that it's the sex we were talking about. But I'm now specifically talking about the nature part, not the act of homosexuality (having to do with sex). People, though, were still held accountable for the nature they were born with. That's why sin sucks so bad. The sin of ignorance, however, was already covered when Christ died on the cross. However, It's the intentional sin that still gets us; Christ died for that too, but we have to accept his forgiveness if we are to turn from it by the working of the Holy Spirit in our sanctification which occurs after salvation. Agreed?

I hadn't read Dragonfly's next post, but this is to him as well. 'Else you would go to hell because of things you have no control over'. This is why you don't. No one goes to hell for a sin they have no control over, but someone still has to be accountable even for that type of sin, and that someone is Christ. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do." That's a blanket forgiveness for ignorance or the "sin you have no control over".

In case anyone was pondering the reason "Forgive them Father, for they don't know what that are doing." is a blanket statement of forgiveness for sins made in ignorance, is because there were both people who were ignorant and people with knowledge of what they were doing in the crowd He was speaking to. So it wasn't the crowd, specifically, He was talking to.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi mls and XP,

Please bear with my short posts, because I don't have time to write as much as I would like. You may find other aspects of my conclusions in posts in other threads, as well as earlier in this thread, soon after I joined CyB - p 27 ish I think.

"Forgive them father, for they know not what they do." That's a blanket forgiveness for ignorance or the "sin you have no control over".

Please think about the following points.

Even though forgiveness was available in the Old Testament (OT) because the Father knew the Son was going to die, Christ really did have to go to the cross, overcome Satan's power, shed His blood and die, for the spiritual impact of forgiveness to be opened out to all mankind in those who sought it. It is not given to those who don't come to Christ, or, who are unrepentant, or, who actively choose to worship Satan, or, who without knowledge of Satan, choose to serve evil.. (I'm aware of Romans 2, in which a good conscience plays a part for those who never hear of Christ.)

After a person is born from above - born again and baptised in the Holy Spirit - there is no sin which cannot be overcome in his or her life. Some may take time to unravel and to systematically destroy their source of strength, but no sin is safe with the Holy Spirit in the house.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

That's not an answer, it's a dodge... I really wanna hear your answer.

Just closing your eyes to the argument, pulling the covers over your head and repeating a mantra doesn't make it so. Please, discuss this.

What influences made you heterosexual? And what would you have been without those influences?

It's a valid question. You claim it's what makes a homosexual it must be true for the heterosexual.

Except, we can tell, often, that a child in elementary school will be most likely homosexual. I've witnessed it. There was no bad family influence. The child can't even begin to think about sexual things until their much older. Before that it's pure inclinations. Their inclinations with no trauma were still homosexual.

So, yes, I'm calling your claim out as insensitive and bull. (Not saying YOU deliberately are delivering bull...)

This is the same reasoning that went into the drive of the church to keep INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES illegal. The other race was inferior they can't help it, offspring from them would be inferior as well. If you say there are influences that define a person's sexuality, then you need to back it up or admit it's just an emotional hunch you hold onto. If the influences affect the person that soundly it's as sure as if they were born black. That would make them inferior and they should not be able to marry a white woman. It didn't matter if a white man raped a black woman that would give her a BETTER offspring than she would have had with a black father.... It's the same reasoning you are using. THOSE are the arguments that came from the Church IN MY LIFETIME. And they were just as vehement as folks are on this topic today.

People don't even know what the sin actually is. Being homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin. Read the bible people. And Romans 1 is the most abused piece of scripture in the Bible, I wish people would take a hermeneutics class before they comment on that chapter of the Bible.

Hi XP,



I nearly replied to your post at the top of this page, yesterday, but thought it would keep until today.

I do have answers, but are you going to believe me?

This sentence: 'Else you would go to hell because of things you have no control over', is a lie from the pit of hell. Don't receive it.


Blessings, brother.

I would love to see you expound on this so I knew how you meant the ambiguous "outside influences".....

Hi Martin,



Well, I would say you are entirely missing both the context God gives to homosexual behaviour in scripture, which, apart from what is said about it in the OT, is most specifically attributed by Paul to external influences tempting a person to yield to them, and, that those who turn from homosexual pursuits can be entirely delivered spiritually, healed and restored to heterosexual inclinations.

Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again.

I'm sorry dragonfly, I trust your heart, but your reasoning is riding on cliches. Until we get to expound on it and I can understand your position better, it just looks like so much psychobabble. I'm not picking at you. Just voicing strong disagreement and telling you why, as best I can, from the ambiguity.

Hi mls and XP,

Please bear with my short posts, because I don't have time to write as much as I would like. You may find other aspects of my conclusions in posts in other threads, as well as earlier in this thread, soon after I joined CyB - p 27 ish I think.



Please think about the following points.

Even though forgiveness was available in the Old Testament (OT) because the Father knew the Son was going to die, Christ really did have to go to the cross, overcome Satan's power, shed His blood and die, for the spiritual impact of forgiveness to be opened out to all mankind in those who sought it. It is not given to those who don't come to Christ, or, who are unrepentant, or, who actively choose to worship Satan, or, who without knowledge of Satan, choose to serve evil.. (I'm aware of Romans 2, in which a good conscience plays a part for those who never hear of Christ.)

After a person is born from above - born again and baptised in the Holy Spirit - there is no sin which cannot be overcome in his or her life. Some may take time to unravel and to systematically destroy their source of strength, but no sin is safe with the Holy Spirit in the house.

 

[Foreigner]

Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again.

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." - Romans 7: 14-22


-- Wow, who knew Paul wasn't born again.....

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Here, allow me to reflect your pompous condescending comment....

5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in [c]the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

-- Wow, who knew Paul wasn't born again.....

Probably no one, since Paul said before the verses you quote, that he and others were not in the flesh anymore. Since you have a mature/meat/perfect/teleioo believer speaking to the immature/milk/immature/ believer.... it would make sense he give them an understanding of what they would face.

It's really hard to say that Paul was in the flesh struggling with sin, when he said in 7:5 he wasn't in the flesh.

When he asks in 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death?

ANd shows the answer in Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.


The person in Romans 7 vss you posted below are the people who have atonement/salvation, but still are maturing. Paul showed them what they are battling, since in Romans 6 he showed them they WILL HAVE to battle. And in rom 8 shows them how the battle is won.

Who'd have thought that someone would say Paul was in the flesh when Paul said he wasn't. <_<

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." - Romans 7: 14-22


-- Wow, who knew Paul wasn't born again.....

 

[Foreigner]

You say: "Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again."


Paul said - present tense - that he still sinned.
He was talking about himself in that scripture.

Result: Either your statement is incorrect, or Paul was not Born Again.

Enjoyed your spin attempt, though.....

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Foreigner,

Do you know there were no chapter breaks in the original Greek NT, and, no-one who is not born again has any hope of ceasing from sin?

 

[Xian Pugilist]

You say: "Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again."

Paul said - present tense - that he still sinned.

NO, He did not.

He was talking about himself in that scripture.

Then he is a liar, a lunatic, a fanatic babbling, or worse. Because if that meant himself, then he is in contradiction. May I suggest you go back to those verses adn put the IF back into them? Saying IF I COULD FLY, doesn't mean I can fly. Right?

Result: Either your statement is incorrect, or Paul was not Born Again.

Thus, you need to reconcile the contradictions before we talk about me being wrong so we can both talk shop. Because your solution makes Paul necessary to remove from the Canon.

Enjoyed your spin attempt, though.....

Enjoyed your fundagelical, over simplified, ignore the unpleasatries, dance though.

 

[dragonfly]

Brother, there may be many voices telling you you'll sin for the rest of your days, but you should take that as a challenge to prove them wrong, and prove the word of God in your own life, more and more.

This little snippet from one of Charles Wesley's hymns seems appropriate here.

Blest, O Israel, art thou!
What people is like thee?
Saved from sin, by Jesus, now
Thou art, and still shalt be;
Jesus is thy seven-fold shield,
Jesus is thy flaming sword;
Earth, and hell, and sin, shall yield
To God's almighty Word.​

God's almighty Word shall stand;​

Thine enemies shall fall,​

Fade away at His command,​

And sink and perish all:​

Liars shall they all be found,​

All who cried, "It cannot be​

Sin should ever quit its ground​

And have no place in thee."​

Christ shall make thee free indeed​

When He appears within;​

Thou on self and pride shalt tread,​

On all the strength of sin;​

Thou shalt more than conquer it;​

Thou shalt see it all depart,​

See it dead beneath thy feet,​

No longer in they heart.​

God, the gracious God and true,​

Hath spoke the faithful word:​

He the mighty work shall do;​

Our trust is in the Lord;​

He the mountain shall remove,​

He the sinner shall restore,​

He shall perfect me in love,​

And I shall sin no more.​

http://www.christian...uty-of-holiness​

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Which brother was this too? Or was it to me?

And Either of the Wesley's will contest you must sin..... Thus Wesleyan Sanctification.

Brother, there may be many voices telling you you'll sin for the rest of your days, but you should take that as a challenge to prove them wrong, and prove the word of God in your own life, more and more.

This little snippet from one of Charles Wesley's hymns seems appropriate here.

Blest, O Israel, art thou!
What people is like thee?
Saved from sin, by Jesus, now
Thou art, and still shalt be;
Jesus is thy seven-fold shield,
Jesus is thy flaming sword;
Earth, and hell, and sin, shall yield
To God's almighty Word.​

God's almighty Word shall stand;​

Thine enemies shall fall,​

Fade away at His command,​

And sink and perish all:​

Liars shall they all be found,​

All who cried, "It cannot be​

Sin should ever quit its ground​

And have no place in thee."​

Christ shall make thee free indeed​

When He appears within;​

Thou on self and pride shalt tread,​

On all the strength of sin;​

Thou shalt more than conquer it;​

Thou shalt see it all depart,​

See it dead beneath thy feet,​

No longer in they heart.​

God, the gracious God and true,​

Hath spoke the faithful word:​

He the mighty work shall do;​

Our trust is in the Lord;​

He the mountain shall remove,​

He the sinner shall restore,​

He shall perfect me in love,​

And I shall sin no more.​

http://www.christian...uty-of-holiness​

 

[martinlawrencescott]

"Please think about the following points.

Even though forgiveness was available in the Old Testament (OT) because the Father knew the Son was going to die, Christ really did have to go to the cross, overcome Satan's power, shed His blood and die, for the spiritual impact of forgiveness to be opened out to all mankind in those who sought it. It is not given to those who don't come to Christ, or, who are unrepentant, or, who actively choose to worship Satan, or, who without knowledge of Satan, choose to serve evil.. (I'm aware of Romans 2, in which a good conscience plays a part for those who never hear of Christ.)

After a person is born from above - born again and baptised in the Holy Spirit - there is no sin which cannot be overcome in his or her life. Some may take time to unravel and to systematically destroy their source of strength, but no sin is safe with the Holy Spirit in the house."

I agree with this, I think completely.

I think of Christian, though, like the Israelites whom conquered the Promised Land: Even though they had taken the land, they still needed to clear out the rest of the land for Christ. To me this is a picture of sanctification. Sanctification meaning we have the promise living inside us (Or Holy Spirit), but it's inner working is not complete until our earthly ministry is over.

 

[Foreigner]

Hi Foreigner,

Do you know there were no chapter breaks in the original Greek NT, and, no-one who is not born again has any hope of ceasing from sin?

-- Yes, of course I know that. You missed the point of my post completely.

Pug said: "Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again."

I was pointing out to him he was wrong. Paul was obviously born again, but he himself confessed to sinning - present tense.
If you read the scripture - in context with the rest of the scripture - Paul is speaking about himself in the present tense.
Pug's spin - while entertaining - was wrong. He said, "No, he didn't" but provided nothing to prove that.

Besides Paul, In James 5 it tells the already-born-again Christians to confess their sins to one another and pray for each other.
That also refutes what Pug is saying. Why would already born again Christians need to confess their sins to each other?
They had already sought God's forgiveness when they first got saved. Answer? These young Christians still sinned.

When Jesus taught us to pray He said to say, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," meaning forgive our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.

Even the Catholic Church requires Confession for sins. According to Pug's standard, that means none of them are born again.

The Holy Spirit dwells in us and will assist us in avoiding sin and living a Godly life.
But He will not prevent us from sinning if we choose to. Our intimacy with the Holy Spirit directly impacts how we allow sin to touch our lives.
That maturity is gained over time and during that process Christians are still prone to sin.

Just because the Holy Spirit lives inside us, that doesn't mean we will never sin.
Otherwise, why would Paul need to warn the born again Ephesians against all sorts of sinful behavior and the need to avoid "grieving the Holy Spirit?"
The Holy Spirit lives inside those that are saved. If He can be grieved, that means that born again Christians do sin.

 

[epostle1]

Hi mls and XP,

Please bear with my short posts, because I don't have time to write as much as I would like. You may find other aspects of my conclusions in posts in other threads, as well as earlier in this thread, soon after I joined CyB - p 27 ish I think.

Please think about the following points.

Even though forgiveness was available in the Old Testament (OT) because the Father knew the Son was going to die, Christ really did have to go to the cross, overcome Satan's power, shed His blood and die, for the spiritual impact of forgiveness to be opened out to all mankind in those who sought it. It is not given to those who don't come to Christ, or, who are unrepentant, or, who actively choose to worship Satan, or, who without knowledge of Satan, choose to serve evil.. (I'm aware of Romans 2, in which a good conscience plays a part for those who never hear of Christ.)

After a person is born from above - born again and baptised in the Holy Spirit - there is no sin which cannot be overcome in his or her life. Some may take time to unravel and to systematically destroy their source of strength, but no sin is safe with the Holy Spirit in the house.

It is true that Baptism of the Holy Spirit grants individuals with varying degrees of grace, but it puzzles me why you would balk at the biblical reference to one who is both entitled with and described as FULL OF GRACE to the point where the fulness goes in both directions of time. I have met many a Pentecostal who know all the behaviors and all the catch phrases, but some of them are so holy they stink. I don't mean to bash Pentecostals, most of them are on fire for God, but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a spiritual panacea to avoid sin, (it helps) nor is it a badge of spiritual superiority.

"Please think about the following points.

Even though forgiveness was available in the Old Testament (OT) because the Father knew the Son was going to die, Christ really did have to go to the cross, overcome Satan's power, shed His blood and die, for the spiritual impact of forgiveness to be opened out to all mankind in those who sought it. It is not given to those who don't come to Christ, or, who are unrepentant, or, who actively choose to worship Satan, or, who without knowledge of Satan, choose to serve evil.. (I'm aware of Romans 2, in which a good conscience plays a part for those who never hear of Christ.)

After a person is born from above - born again and baptised in the Holy Spirit - there is no sin which cannot be overcome in his or her life. Some may take time to unravel and to systematically destroy their source of strength, but no sin is safe with the Holy Spirit in the house."

I agree with this, I think completely.

I think of Christian, though, like the Israelites whom conquered the Promised Land: Even though they had taken the land, they still needed to clear out the rest of the land for Christ. To me this is a picture of sanctification. Sanctification meaning we have the promise living inside us (Or Holy Spirit), but it's inner working is not complete until our earthly ministry is over.

Agreed, and we are talking about deep seated tendencies here, which is why we need to be compassionate and sensitive.

That's not an answer, it's a dodge... I really wanna hear your answer.

Just closing your eyes to the argument, pulling the covers over your head and repeating a mantra doesn't make it so. Please, discuss this.

What influences made you heterosexual? And what would you have been without those influences?

It's a valid question. You claim it's what makes a homosexual it must be true for the heterosexual.

Except, we can tell, often, that a child in elementary school will be most likely homosexual. I've witnessed it. There was no bad family influence. The child can't even begin to think about sexual things until their much older. Before that it's pure inclinations. Their inclinations with no trauma were still homosexual.

The latest scientific studies reveal that less than 1% of homosexuals have the opposite gender of brain cells. That means that say, a homosexual male child would have female brain cells. This would explain Xian's observations. Unfortunately, homosexual activists blow this all out of proportion with the "I was born this way" excuse.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.
Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.
For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

People don't even know what the sin actually is. Being homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin. Read the bible people. And Romans 1 is the most abused piece of scripture in the Bible, I wish people would take a hermeneutics class before they comment on that chapter of the Bible.

I have to agree with Xian on this point. Being homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

Errrrr. :| If you still sin, you aren't yet born again.

I'm sorry dragonfly, I trust your heart, but your reasoning is riding on cliches. Until we get to expound on it and I can understand your position better, it just looks like so much psychobabble. I'm not picking at you. Just voicing strong disagreement and telling you why, as best I can, from the ambiguity.

We should both stop picking on dragonfly. this is, I think, what she is trying to say:

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).​

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).​

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.
Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001
(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net

source

 

[Foreigner]

It is true that Baptism of the Holy Spirit grants individuals with varying degrees of grace, but it puzzles me why you would balk at the biblical reference to one who is both entitled with and described as FULL OF GRACE to the point where the fulness goes in both directions of time. I have met many a Pentecostal who know all the behaviors and all the catch phrases, but some of them are so holy they stink. I don't mean to bash Pentecostals, most of them are on fire for God, but the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a spiritual panacea to avoid sin, (it helps) nor is it a badge of spiritual superiority.

-- I have never met a single Pentecostal who things that Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a "panacea to avoid sin."
It is an important first step in a person's relationship with the Holy Spirit and in obtaining the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I have never seen anyone use it as "a badge of spiritual superiority."
I have however seen them attacked because others make that unfounded accusation.
Usually those people are the ones who have determined that theirs is the one true denomination, and only those within their denomination will see heaven.

I have to agree with Xian on this point. Being homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

-- I would agree, as well.