Homosexuality
- Thread starter th1b.taylor
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
The last time I checked, Paul was neither God nor Jesus ...just a mere man. Who gave the order to deify Paul?SilenceInMotion said:
What you need to ask is why do I feel the need to use dramatic language / talk like I am talking to kids.aspen2 said:
If a Christian is falling into or supporting GLBT's, would you say they are on the right path of sancitifcation?
As I said before, your posts are just getting worse. Are you a Christian? How would you define a Christian? So by your own admission so far, you have rejected the whole OT, all of Paul's teaching....what part exactly do you accept? Revelations?KCKID said:
Do you accept this verse? Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
You don't think you throwing the baby out with the bath water? The Catholic church is the chief reason we are not being fed to the lions today.Axehead said:
My posts are getting worse because I asked the question, 'Who gave the order to deify Paul?' Instead of mocking me just answer the question.KingJ said:
Another question: do YOU accept the whole Old Testament, most of it, some of it or just personal selections of it, i.e. just the parts that agree with you? That's question #2.
As for your 'do you accept Revelation 22:19?' What is this? Have you designed your own Litmus Test to determine whether or not professed Christians pass muster? That's question #3.
Your question to me: How would I define a Christian? I would define a Christian as someone who is humble (devoid of the religious narcissism that pervades many of the posts on most Christian forums) and puts the needs of others before him/herself. He/she shows empathy, compassion and, if need be, practical assistance for the down-trodden, the unloved, the unlovely, within society, and does so with or without the promise of rewards such as eternal life. Jesus told us to help the needy, to feed the poor, to visit the sick and those who are in prison. "By doing so," Jesus said, "You do this unto me." I don't recall Jesus ever commanding us to flaunt our piousness on Christian forums by condemning those we don't like with texts from the Bible. Feel free to tell me yet again that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I'm confused, what other Jesus are you referring to? I was speaking about Jesus Christ when I said "What would Jesus do?"SilenceInMotion said:
Hi Jack,
Hi aspen,
I'm not aware of refusing to acknowledge anything about western society's categorisation of paedophilia. It is still an illness of sorts, also attended by spiritual powers which seek to destroy both the paedophile and his/her victims. The fact that there is a move to remove it from the category of 'illness', (as a step towards legalising such activities), is deeply saddening, since it will be fatal for not a few children and paedophiles - as it already is.
The Catholic Church should consider raising the age of consent for Vatican City, if it wants to begin to appear to have decency and integrity on its side. But while the majority of its staff are prohibited (technically) from God-ordained healthy conjugal relations through the fidelities of marriage, too much is being asked of the men to whom God has not given the gift of celibacy. God Himself states that it is not for everyone. Anyone there listening?
Hi KC,
before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple,
and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
I think your disdain for His word is problematic, especially in light of Matthew 7:24, John 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and Ephesians 1:1 - end.
Likewise, you have not taken up, or discussed my comments about the exiestence of spirits which affect the mind and body of the individual who then finds himself driven into the arms of a man rather than a woman, and that is no surprise either. By your own admission, you do not attempt to have your thinking and understanding either swayed by or anchored in the word which God has given us through scripture, and so you have no standard - let alone training, which would enable you to notice the counterfeit of truth when you're staring right at it.
In fact, for you to imply that it would only be unacceptable to God if it was public, shows you haven't read scripture with your brain in gear - that is, if you've read with the intention of understanding God's thinking, at all. Thinking your own opinion is better than God's, leaves you open to deception.
Your above thought is riddled with faulty logic - if the logic God invites us to embrace in scripture, is the real route to eternal life.
Hi aspen,
Perhaps I did misunderstand?
I'm not aware of refusing to acknowledge anything about western society's categorisation of paedophilia. It is still an illness of sorts, also attended by spiritual powers which seek to destroy both the paedophile and his/her victims. The fact that there is a move to remove it from the category of 'illness', (as a step towards legalising such activities), is deeply saddening, since it will be fatal for not a few children and paedophiles - as it already is.
In the UK, the laws now accommodate 'a pattern of behaviour', and 'historic abuse', which means disclosures by victims are looked at with a clearer understanding of what a paedophile does, who he is, how he thinks and his individual modus operandi towards the victims to whom he reveals himself.
The Catholic Church should consider raising the age of consent for Vatican City, if it wants to begin to appear to have decency and integrity on its side. But while the majority of its staff are prohibited (technically) from God-ordained healthy conjugal relations through the fidelities of marriage, too much is being asked of the men to whom God has not given the gift of celibacy. God Himself states that it is not for everyone. Anyone there listening?
Hi KC,
Psalm 138:1 I will praise thee with my whole heart:
before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple,
and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
I think your disdain for His word is problematic, especially in light of Matthew 7:24, John 1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and Ephesians 1:1 - end.
With all due respect, it is no surprise that you cannot discern the presence of evil.
Likewise, you have not taken up, or discussed my comments about the exiestence of spirits which affect the mind and body of the individual who then finds himself driven into the arms of a man rather than a woman, and that is no surprise either. By your own admission, you do not attempt to have your thinking and understanding either swayed by or anchored in the word which God has given us through scripture, and so you have no standard - let alone training, which would enable you to notice the counterfeit of truth when you're staring right at it.
I gather you have not yet understood that what we worship is observed by others, from what they see of our lifestyle. No-one needs to see what happens in a bedroom. They just need to see a man taking someone other than his wife with him when he goes there, or a man taking another man, and they know instantly that he is not following the ordinances of God with regard to sexual relationships. And since God has devoted many verses to elaborating upon what is not acceptable to Him, it doesn't matter whether it occurs in private or in public. He had plenty of opportunity, historically, to draw a distinction between public performances of sexual behaviour, and private ones. He doesn't make a distinction.
In fact, for you to imply that it would only be unacceptable to God if it was public, shows you haven't read scripture with your brain in gear - that is, if you've read with the intention of understanding God's thinking, at all. Thinking your own opinion is better than God's, leaves you open to deception.
1. What you need to ask is, 'who gave the order to include Paul's gospel in the word of God?' Who ordained that his gospel dominate 3/4 of the NT?KCKID said:
2. I accept the WHOLE bible. I just grasp the different dispensations. Think of marriage. Watching porn will get your girlfriend to dump you. Watching porn is not a reason for a wife to divorce you. But it will still hurt her. Just because God has a new covenant with us does not mean we forget what He said in the old.
3. That scripture is to serve as a reminder that we need to digest the whole bible. A harsh warning for people quoting half truths like the devil to examine themselves in fear and trembling.
4. I actually agree with your definition, well said
. But as discussed before, we do not see eye to eye on how to go about helping our brothers and sisters overtaken in iniquity. I really do dislike Christians who just watch, sing and smile at their brothers and sisters drowning in sin. Silence in Motion gave a good explanation in post # 1465.The world is getting more and more evil everyday. Good is becoming evil and evil, good. We need to stop blurring the truth and make a proper stand for it. We WILL be hated by all! We don't even need to say anything!
What you, mjrhealth and of late aspen hint at, is that we must dim our lights to not cause offence. It is so sad and annoying to hear it!
Jesus did not dim His light. Sinners loved Him and changed. Sinners who never changed, killed Him.Not to the extend where a person makes it second to his ability to think for himself and not take 100% responsibility for his decisions\choices. If you do not accept someone's sexual orientation, you own that choice, and you can't point to the bible and say "Its not my decision, because in the bible it says...."dragonfly said:
There is nothing to suggest that individual sexual orientation is harmful.
Apart from the part about being resurrected to shame and God's wrath and the judgment of evil-doers, perhaps?
^^^This just goes to show how pointless debating with 'Christians' who support homosexuality is. Deny 2/3 of the entire New Testament because of a single fact.KCKID said:
The whole Bible was written by men. What you claim Jesus teaches is what the apostles told you he taught. Jesus did not write the epistles. So you don't get to pick and choose those that God ordained; you either accept them or you don't.
You can either be a Christian, or you can be one of those racist, syncretic Jewish fringe that do not like Paul who take 'ye are gods' a bit too far. They are the only people on Earth that subscribe to Jesus and not to Paul.
I would encourage those who wish to continue the volley about the OP to read this short commentary about homosexuality, I'll admit I didn't know Walter Winks from Adam until I got curious about aspens sign line in his profile. But after some investigation I found the foundational biblical teachings of the christian homosexuality biblical perspective. IMO Walter Wink systematically justifies homosexuality under two justifications "born that way" as was IMO just referred to by JackS in the above post. And love for one another "same gender love expressed sexually"
In all the points of contention between pro or con "befitting or justified before God",homosexual biblical justification can be found in this short commentary and maybe helpful in understanding the pro homosexual mind for the scriptures. I'm sure that after reading it you will better understand the foundation of the case they make.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1265
In all the points of contention between pro or con "befitting or justified before God",homosexual biblical justification can be found in this short commentary and maybe helpful in understanding the pro homosexual mind for the scriptures. I'm sure that after reading it you will better understand the foundation of the case they make.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1265
I'm of the opinion that KC has no biblical conviction and does not seek to use the scriptures to advocate homosexual behavior, on the other hand aspen and JackSafari do.SilenceInMotion said:
KCKID said:
The Character of God does not change and His character, particularly righteousness is reflected in the 10 commandments. The character of Jesus Christ (the express of image of God), is to be formed in us by willingly coming under His authority.
Under His authority, the character of Christ is formed in us. If we are unwilling to come under the authority of Christ, then we will be exhibiting the character of the Evil One. Who are you eating from? Whose fruit are you producing?
The Law was a revelation of God's righteousness and His Righteousness (Jesus Christ) is to be formed in us (who walk after the Spirit and not the flesh).
His covenant is only formed with those who come under His authority and obey His word; they walk in covenant with God. On the contrary, the lawless indulge their flesh and walk after their own pleasures. They walk the way of rebellion.
Review the righteous character of God as found in the 10 commandments, HERE.
The character of Jesus Christ, is not just love. He came with grace and TRUTH.
Axehead
Under His authority, the character of Christ is formed in us. If we are unwilling to come under the authority of Christ, then we will be exhibiting the character of the Evil One. Who are you eating from? Whose fruit are you producing?
The Law was a revelation of God's righteousness and His Righteousness (Jesus Christ) is to be formed in us (who walk after the Spirit and not the flesh).
His covenant is only formed with those who come under His authority and obey His word; they walk in covenant with God. On the contrary, the lawless indulge their flesh and walk after their own pleasures. They walk the way of rebellion.
Review the righteous character of God as found in the 10 commandments, HERE.
The character of Jesus Christ, is not just love. He came with grace and TRUTH.
Axehead
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
"Hi aspen, Perhaps I did misunderstand?"
My use of the word disavow in this context means that a person rejects all past association with the fallen leader - attempting to erase all history, destroy the record, rewrite history; pretending that Protestant fundamentalism did not proceed from Catholicism, it predates it; Ted haggard was never one of us, he was a sheep in wolf's clothing; Pilate washing his hands; Peter denying Christ. Creating a new denomination whenever differences in theology arise - valuing theological purity over unity.
"I'm not aware of refusing to acknowledge anything about western society's categorisation of paedophilia. It is still an illness of sorts, also attended by spiritual powers which seek to destroy both the paedophile and his/her victims. The fact that there is a move to remove it from the category of 'illness', (as a step towards legalising such activities), is deeply saddening, since it will be fatal for not a few children and paedophiles - as it already is."
You are correct that you have not explicitly denied that pedophilia used to be considered a mental illness rather than a crime; however judging the Catholic Church for not changing quickly enough in their viewpoint and reaction to the problem of pedophilia in the church, which happens to fall back into the disease model rather than the modern criminal model, suggests that you are not acknowledging that all institutions used to react in the same manner towards this problem. Instead of acknowledging that the Catholic Church is simply behind the times - you seem to be promoting the idea that handling the issue of pedophilia as an illness rather than a criminal behavior, which includes transferring offenders, attempts at rehabilitation, and protecting the privacy of the offender, as evil, rather than outdated.
"In the UK, the laws now accommodate 'a pattern of behaviour', and 'historic abuse', which means disclosures by victims are looked at with a clearer understanding of what a paedophile does, who he is, how he thinks and his individual modus operandi towards the victims to whom he reveals himself."
All of which are appropriate methods of dealing with criminal behavior rather than mental illness.
"The Catholic Church should consider raising the age of consent for Vatican City, if it wants to begin to appear to have decency and integrity on its side. But while the majority of its staff are prohibited (technically) from God-ordained healthy conjugal relations through the fidelities of marriage, too much is being asked of the men to whom God has not given the gift of celibacy. God Himself states that it is not for everyone. Anyone there listening?"
I do not know what you are trying to say about the age of consent in Vatican City. I believe priests should marry, as well - but I am not naive enough to believe that marriage combats pedophilia. Yeah I wish churches moved faster too - I also wish I never had to be sick again.
My use of the word disavow in this context means that a person rejects all past association with the fallen leader - attempting to erase all history, destroy the record, rewrite history; pretending that Protestant fundamentalism did not proceed from Catholicism, it predates it; Ted haggard was never one of us, he was a sheep in wolf's clothing; Pilate washing his hands; Peter denying Christ. Creating a new denomination whenever differences in theology arise - valuing theological purity over unity.
"I'm not aware of refusing to acknowledge anything about western society's categorisation of paedophilia. It is still an illness of sorts, also attended by spiritual powers which seek to destroy both the paedophile and his/her victims. The fact that there is a move to remove it from the category of 'illness', (as a step towards legalising such activities), is deeply saddening, since it will be fatal for not a few children and paedophiles - as it already is."
You are correct that you have not explicitly denied that pedophilia used to be considered a mental illness rather than a crime; however judging the Catholic Church for not changing quickly enough in their viewpoint and reaction to the problem of pedophilia in the church, which happens to fall back into the disease model rather than the modern criminal model, suggests that you are not acknowledging that all institutions used to react in the same manner towards this problem. Instead of acknowledging that the Catholic Church is simply behind the times - you seem to be promoting the idea that handling the issue of pedophilia as an illness rather than a criminal behavior, which includes transferring offenders, attempts at rehabilitation, and protecting the privacy of the offender, as evil, rather than outdated.
"In the UK, the laws now accommodate 'a pattern of behaviour', and 'historic abuse', which means disclosures by victims are looked at with a clearer understanding of what a paedophile does, who he is, how he thinks and his individual modus operandi towards the victims to whom he reveals himself."
All of which are appropriate methods of dealing with criminal behavior rather than mental illness.
"The Catholic Church should consider raising the age of consent for Vatican City, if it wants to begin to appear to have decency and integrity on its side. But while the majority of its staff are prohibited (technically) from God-ordained healthy conjugal relations through the fidelities of marriage, too much is being asked of the men to whom God has not given the gift of celibacy. God Himself states that it is not for everyone. Anyone there listening?"
I do not know what you are trying to say about the age of consent in Vatican City. I believe priests should marry, as well - but I am not naive enough to believe that marriage combats pedophilia. Yeah I wish churches moved faster too - I also wish I never had to be sick again.
Hi aspen,
I am baffled about your references to the RCC, presumably connecting my comments about homosexual sex offenders to the scandal the RCC has been dealing with for some time. HONESTLY, I was not thinking of priests when I wrote that. HONESTLY, I was referring to my reading around the subject, in which the author was at pains to dispel myths about the identities of sex offenders, drawing on research to show the wide range of professions which they pursue; also showing a slightly surprising rule of 'a third'. A third of paedophiles have also raped an adult. A third of rapists have also offended against children. More sex offenders offend against children within the family than from outside (and so on). Priests attract attention to themselves because of the position of trust society gives them, but the betrayal of trust which they perpetrate is no worse than than that perpetrated by a doctor, a teacher, a parent, a grandparent. All these transgressors have a profound effect on the ability of their victims to trust adults in authority, and little wonder. I was not picking on priests. There are very many survivors of abuse by men in other professions.
I am baffled about your references to the RCC, presumably connecting my comments about homosexual sex offenders to the scandal the RCC has been dealing with for some time. HONESTLY, I was not thinking of priests when I wrote that. HONESTLY, I was referring to my reading around the subject, in which the author was at pains to dispel myths about the identities of sex offenders, drawing on research to show the wide range of professions which they pursue; also showing a slightly surprising rule of 'a third'. A third of paedophiles have also raped an adult. A third of rapists have also offended against children. More sex offenders offend against children within the family than from outside (and so on). Priests attract attention to themselves because of the position of trust society gives them, but the betrayal of trust which they perpetrate is no worse than than that perpetrated by a doctor, a teacher, a parent, a grandparent. All these transgressors have a profound effect on the ability of their victims to trust adults in authority, and little wonder. I was not picking on priests. There are very many survivors of abuse by men in other professions.
I'm trying to say twelve is too young, and regardless of other guidelines, a higher age could have been established by by law, by now.
The Church would not be as potent if marriage was allowed among priests. Deacons can marry, but priesthood is basically following in Jesus' footsteps; it is a cut above a normal lifestyle. The church fundamentally deems it 'a more perfect life'.
One can freely choose to serve the Church in a matter which allows marriage, or one can freely choose to be more then a part time worker of Christ.
Every priest finds this to be a blessing, and yet others try to demonize the concept, constantly being snarky torwards the notion of celibacy in that freely chosen lifestyle that they adore and take with all their spirit.
It's stupid- people shouldn't have a problem with it, it's just one in literally a thousand things anti-Catholics throw up in the air. They are more concerned about their own self righteous ideas to the point where even priests themselves are bemused, wondering why one would have a problem with their *freely chosen* lifestyle. *keywords*
Those same people are the one's that move up the ladder and maintain the discipline to others.
I don't disagree, but it become clear that "some" are not [ a cut above a normal lifestyle. The church fundamentally deems it 'a more perfect life'.]SilenceInMotion said:
In that they need to be stripped of there man appointed title and robes, something the leadership is sorely lacking in doing. They are not even a cut above the laity in your church structure, to presume they still possess and are preforming holy duties is mans opinion as well -->> the fruit is proof "rotten figs" not fit to be eaten
Jer 24:3 NKJV
3 Then the Lord said to me, “What do you see, Jeremiah?”
And I said, “Figs, the good figs, very good; and the bad, very bad, which cannot be eaten, they are so bad.”
4 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 “Thus says the Lord,
the God of Israel: ‘Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge those
who are carried away captive from Judah, whom I have sent out of this
place for their own good, into the land of the Chaldeans. 6 For I will set My eyes on them for good, and I will bring them back to this land; I will build them and not pull them down, and I will plant them and not pluck them up. 7 Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart.
8 ‘And as the bad figs which cannot be eaten, they are so bad’—surely thus says the Lord—‘so
will I give up Zedekiah the king of Judah, his princes, the residue of
Jerusalem who remain in this land, and those who dwell in the land of
Egypt. 9 I will deliver them to trouble into all the kingdoms of the earth, for their harm, to be a reproach and a byword, a taunt and a curse, in all places where I shall drive them. 10 And
I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence among them, till
they are consumed from the land that I gave to them and their fathers.’”
Well not everyone who gets baptized or attends church every week are good, God fearing people. Does that mean that baptism and church are not spiritual augments?Rex said:
The truth is that it takes two to tango. Nothing magically makes a person more perfect in the ways of the Lord if they do not co-sign and live in the light. God does not force anything in sacrament, He goes halfway and you go the other. Fusion with God is not like a magnet, it is the person and the Lord sticking together by their own grasp. All the ordainment and sacramental wine in the world will not do someone consumed by sin any justice.
Take the instance of Jesus walking on water for example. When Peter walked out to him, he fell in the water. The spirit was not strong enough in him to walk with Jesus. But Jesus reached his hand out, and Peter was pulled out. Peter would have stayed in the water if he had not held to Christ's hand, and his lack of spirit is what got him in the water in the first place.
It takes a Catholic to really see the importance of the discpline that priests take on. The media does what it does best and tries to make anything and eveything ugly, but the fact of the matter is that priests are wonderful people. The 'more perfect life is seen beautifully in them. They literally live with the Church, and quite frankly, don't even have time to raise a family. They are on call 24 hours a day, and work day in and day out. Their path is a hard one to follow, and rightfully so. When it comes down to it, any clergyman is subject to beng pope if they move up the ladder to cardinal.
Abraham realized that him being chosen by God was not just ablessing, but also a test. Again and again, God would temper his faith and chisel him to be what He willed. That is pretty much how the church works- God chooses the pope, and the clergy is a test of faith.
There are a lot of things tied to the disciplines and teachings of the Church. You can't really go after one without going after all of them, it's just that simple really.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Ha! Looks like I jumped to conclusions - sorry about that dragonfly. Guess I had a bit of a trigger finger. Yes, 12 is too young. In fact, in the ministry I work for, we consider 22 and young to be underage.dragonfly said:
Apparently so, and a catholic to leave them in office after people accuse them of molestations as well.SilenceInMotion said:
I said I don't disagree, about Catholics being single, that was my meaning though it wasn't clear.
So do you agree with leaving molesters or accused molesters in the office of your church?
Rex said:
- Status
Similar threads
