|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 8, 2006 0:01:20 GMT -5
Re-read my post without trying to find an agenda,please-I am merelyexpressing my opinion,just as you and others are. Yes, I like others, have interpreted Gods Word,using the best translation available to me and the H.S.'s guidance. It is clear to me and makes sense to me and I am comfortable with what I know and understand about the topic we are discussing. Yes I have no agenda:) Too bad others are so easily ruffled to the point of self defense,isn't it? My original post wasn't a response to you, mrleo, but to the originator! A forum is an interesting beast,is it not? Bowhunter, what is it about 'agendas' (or is it agendi?) that you (and many others, apparently), don't like? Maybe I should ask what your definition of 'agenda' is. I've heard of people finding fault with "hidden" agendas, and I agree that's not good because I dislike deception and dishonesty of any kind. But just an agenda? What's wrong with that? I most definitely have an agenda, if that means that I am passionate about a particular topic; I try by my life, my words, my actions to effect change in regards to that topic; my interpretation of scripture, the constitution, laws, classical literature, are all informed by my passion for that topic -- yes, in that sense I certainly do have an agenda. And it certainly is not hidden! So pray tell, what is your beef with people who have agendi? My definition of agenda would be: A topic that a person or group feels so passionately about that change is sought thru coercive measures. Gene, I don't recall expressing more than an observation that people who challenge staus quo or the bible verbatim or the constitution verbatim have an agenda-Agendas can be productive and good. I support agendas such as 2nd ammendment rights,anti tax,anti eminent domain,etc. The issue I have with pro abortion, pro homosexual 'rights' and such is that for eons people have had a basic understanding of right from wrong on these issues. Obviously, over the years agendas have shifted to reflect the moral thermometer at a given time, but the basics haven't changed for the most part. In the last 50 years we have seen the rise of gay rights, abortion, anti military, pro U.N., etc that are being pushed to the fore front by a vocal minority, aided by liberal media that refuses to give other opinions(often the majority) a fair shake. Shame on the silent majority for not standing and defending themselves as well as the minority has! Any way-I don't have a beef with anyone expressing an opionion contrary to mine. I have a beef when things are forced upon me that go against morality and common sense. I suspect you would feel the same?
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 8, 2006 0:17:36 GMT -5
If homosexual behavior occurs in nature amongst the "lower" animals (and it does), and if God designed those animals only to procreate, then why do some of them engage in homosexual behavior, both sexual and social--behavior that can never result in procreation? Are these animals sinning? Since they do not have the ability to reason, I would say they are driven by estrous cycles-hence lesbian behavior and in males testosterone inducing the desire to breed. They don't have the intelligence to have a morality problem or a desire for same sex companionship. After nearly 30 years of livestock production I can say with some authority that the steer or bull who trys to mate a fellow steer or bull will try the same act on a female if one is available. They are usually grouped in same sex groups for practical reasons-one being that just one heifer in estous will incite several males( castrated or not!) to attempt to breed. Even in a group of heifers 'riding' is common to the animal that is cycling. These actions need to be limited as they create unnecessary stress which reduces weight gain and increases sickness possibilities. Bottom line is, they may show similar behaviours to people, but they are incapable of emotion driven actions and don't seek a same sex partner in lieu of one of the opposite sex. Its driven by hormones and enviroment.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 8, 2006 3:10:25 GMT -5
We are given two natures - the human (ie animal) and the spiritual. This is show often in the bible, ie Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau. The trend to identifying human with animals via our putative lineage via the australapithecan and homo genus', has the effect, intended or otherwise, or causing people to more connect with their human natures through a knowledge of animal behavior. Yes, the bible says we are kin to the animals, and that life came out of the sea, but the bible says we are subjected to this animal nature in "hope" that we may aspire to something higher. Bert
|
|
|
Post by your morality on Jul 8, 2006 8:17:20 GMT -5
I have a beef when things are forced upon me that go against morality and common sense. I suspect you would feel the same? That would be your morality. How are these things forced? No one is asking you to become a homosexual or engage in homosexual behavior.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 8, 2006 9:31:02 GMT -5
I have a beef when things are forced upon me that go against morality and common sense. I suspect you would feel the same? That would be your morality. How are these things forced? No one is asking you to become a homosexual or engage in homosexual behavior. I am not talking about being forced into a homo relationship- I'm talking about the militant activism practised by some in the gay and abortion camp that does force an opinion on society.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 8, 2006 10:10:52 GMT -5
Well, depending on the animal, they may have a limited ability to reason (if I push this button I get food) and they may have a rudimentary sense of morality (this is MY banana, not yours!). Many animals have been observed to form permanent same-sex pairings--even when there are opposite sex mates available. No one fully understands why.
That may be the case with cattle, but it has been shown not to be the case in other animals, and in the more intelligent animals it is speculated to be driven by simple pleasure, a means of social/group bonding, or even social climbing (dominance).
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 8, 2006 13:03:30 GMT -5
Any way-I don't have a beef with anyone expressing an opionion contrary to mine. I have a beef when things are forced upon me that go against morality and common sense. I suspect you would feel the same? Yes, Bowhunter, I do feel the same. But as the post by guest 'your morality' points out, morality and common sense vary from person to person and from age to age -- look at slavery and miscegenation for example. To the topic at hand, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the US and even more worldwide that believe that homosexuality is not at odds with morality and common sense. What IS immoral and nonsensical (to me, not to you), is for our federal and state governments to tell me that in order for me to enjoy the legal rights* and be held to the legal responsibilities* of a legal marriage, I must choose a partner of the opposite sex. And you're right, I do have a beef against that being forced upon me and I will continue to fight against it and speak out against it at every opportunity. That is my agenda. * see here for a partial list of over 1000 rights and responsibilities as identified by the US Government Accountability Office. Among other things, you'll find a slew of taxpayer funded benefits that help married people in time of need. Gay taxpayers help fund these programs but do not benefit from them. Now talk to me about immoral. : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States .[/color]
|
|
|
Post by huh on Jul 8, 2006 13:21:40 GMT -5
interesting to:
What are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by to gene on Jul 8, 2006 14:29:24 GMT -5
Gene,
You are a nice guy. I understand you have a passionate stance for your lifestyle. Even moreso, God has a passionate stance about what he requires us to obey. I think you know in your heart that God does not promote, support, nor ever intended homosexual relationships. You have the right to choose your lifestyle, but I am going to pray for you that the spirit of Christ will allow the enemy to free you from the bondage of the lie you are caught in. I say this in love, not with hatred.
I have no dislike toward you or any other homosexual person, as I, instead have great compassion. It is a lifestyle that causes spritual seperation from God and that is the loneliest place for a soul to be. I have had my own mistakes where I did not want to listen to someone tell me what I knew, in my heart to be correct and scriptural. I was trapped in a sinful nature, but God allowed my heart to soften toward him and I leaned on His word and stayed in much sorrowful prayer. In time I came out of what I knew what not right.
This is where I actually lived the grace that Christ brings. I was forgiven and restored and I am ever, so ever thankful that I did not choose to continue living a bad choice. I chose, instead, to trust God's Word, ask for His HELP to obey Him and stayed in prayer.
Please do not allow yourself continued deception. The enemy has you right where he wants you.
Don't let him win.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 8, 2006 15:36:57 GMT -5
Specifically,which animals pair up with a same sex mate?
Is it a statistically small portion of that species?
What are your sources for this info?
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 8, 2006 15:40:15 GMT -5
Any way-I don't have a beef with anyone expressing an opionion contrary to mine. I have a beef when things are forced upon me that go against morality and common sense. I suspect you would feel the same? Yes, Bowhunter, I do feel the same. But as the post by guest 'your morality' points out, morality and common sense vary from person to person and from age to age -- look at slavery and miscegenation for example. To the topic at hand, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the US and even more worldwide that believe that homosexuality is not at odds with morality and common sense. What IS immoral and nonsensical (to me, not to you), is for our federal and state governments to tell me that in order for me to enjoy the legal rights* and be held to the legal responsibilities* of a legal marriage, I must choose a partner of the opposite sex. And you're right, I do have a beef against that being forced upon me and I will continue to fight against it and speak out against it at every opportunity. That is my agenda. * see here for a partial list of over 1000 rights and responsibilities as identified by the US Government Accountability Office. Among other things, you'll find a slew of taxpayer funded benefits that help married people in time of need. Gay taxpayers help fund these programs but do not benefit from them. Now talk to me about immoral. : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States . [/color][/quote] Sounds like you and I share a passion for individual freedoms!! (Even tho we may we dont always agree on what those should be)
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 8, 2006 16:16:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 8, 2006 17:16:21 GMT -5
Thanks,I will check it out sometime.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jul 8, 2006 18:29:46 GMT -5
I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on this topic. When it comes to ANY subject that's addressed in scripture it's important to make sure that we're talking about apples and apples. That's why I use the original languages in my Bible study. Sometimes the word used in our current language has a different meaning in today's culture than it actually meant when the scripture was written. And responsible Bible study also requires us to take into account what type of literature we're reading, why it was written, who it was written for, etc. in order to get the fullest understanding. The topic of homosexuality has always been a fuzzy one for me. It was a Levitical law, listed as an abomination right up there with eating shell fish. But Paul mentioned it in a couple of his letters. The thing is, when Paul was talking about homosexuality, was he talking about homosexuality the way we understand it in modern culture? I don't believe he was. In Paul's day, homosexuality went hand in hand with idol worship. It was part of pagan practice. I'm coming to believe that monogamous, loving relationships between two people of the same sex weren't addressed in scripture. Thoughts? Good question. Thankfully it is a question that is finally being allowed something more than a closed minded hearing these very days. Unfortunately, determining context and meaning of ancient text is as fraught with opinion as any interpretation/opinion of a casual reading today. But never the less, if there is ever a chance that standard Christian doctrine (and the poor 2x2's are often chided as not being in line with it, as though it were any more right) will ever have this grevious wrong righted, as a practical matter to that segment of the population it will have to be done with a "biblical" justification. I applaud the assault on the historic interpretation. Fortunately today, practicing homosexual Christians have the tools, connections, minds and open forums to lead a devastating assault on the historic travasty they've had to endure. I'm sure they are doing a great and careful job, with visible success lately. But to add to your comments, I would agree it is possible to interpret the condemnation of Paul to be against the uncommitted sex between men (maybe women too), - which was fairly open, acceptable, and common. As you implied, the O.T. condemnation can be as easily dismissed as Christians today dismiss most O.T. stuff like seashells, pork and circumcision, per the Holy Ghost directive in Acts 15:28 & 29 So, as they put it, Fare thee well.
|
|
|
Post by interesting to on Jul 8, 2006 20:48:31 GMT -5
to Huh...
I was relating to the former posts and one in particular that refered to w, x, y and z.... and z to be homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 8, 2006 21:32:55 GMT -5
One who is covered in the blood of Christ is not yet a finished work of God, but has put on the new man. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.
So if one has Christ, he will not continue in sin (Rom 6:1-4, II Tim 2:19) and if one has the LOVE OF CHRIST (Rom 13:8-10 pretty much says it all).
Also, since Christ's righteous life is imputed to us, all the more reason to depart from sin in obedience to the word of God. . . . For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:18-19).
I have come to understand homosexuality as a sin--like the lists of other sins mentioned right alongside it in Rom 1:26-32. I have committed most of them.
But I see God as having a high view of marriage--between a man and a woman. He uses marriage illustrations between man and woman from Genesis to Revelations. The Church is the Bride. The Bridegroom was Jesus. God made them man and woman. It was not good for man to be alone, so God made him a helper. Equal --with different roles, but Man and Woman.
The Bible SEEMS to paint men like Solomon with his 70 wives as OK, but I have found that if I follow what happens to a certain tribe or people or family name (Moab, for instance) that was disobedient to the Lord's clear instruction, sin is always punished. God would not be righteous if he did not punish sin. He just "gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity"(Rom 1:24).
For all the sins I have committed in these lists, I have been punished. Things that have happened in my life were consequences of God's love for me. When I repented, He relented. he does so still.
If Rom 1:21+ is a condemnation of pagan worship rituals and so on, wasn't it because they included all these things like making images and worshipping them and not God (which included sex rituals, and exchanging natural relations . . . that are an abomination to God? (Lev 18:22, 21:13)
I keep thinking about the "few obscure passages in the Bible" that refer to homosexuality, as some put it. I wonder if there is a set number of times something should be said in the Bible before it is considered true and reliable.
Christ's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by to jessi on Jul 8, 2006 21:51:43 GMT -5
Jessi - you are right on!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 8, 2006 21:56:19 GMT -5
What if a Christian really, really likes ham or the benefits of compound interest, and deliberately indulges in eating and/or earning one or the other? Would they be considered of reprobate mind, given over to such sins?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 8, 2006 22:11:00 GMT -5
Hi MrLeo,
Just as on observation on reply #73.....I know where you're going with that thought. However, I don't see that as an automatically valid line of argumentation. Consider, what if a Christian really, really likes stealing or worshiping idols or adultery and deliberately indulges in theft/pagan worship/affairs?
See what I'm getting at? You would first need to establish that homosexual behaviour is in the same category as eating pork/shellfish and as such is no longer morally binding.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 8, 2006 22:30:52 GMT -5
I see what you mean...but from what I understand of Jessi's thinking, categories of sin are irrelevant. Sin is sin. Following that line of thought, anything God said was a sin in the OT is still morally binding today, categorically equal or not.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 8, 2006 22:49:50 GMT -5
I'm trying to wrap my brain around this question...and it leads me to another question: is it possible to "exchange natural relations" and NOT engage in pagan worship, even completely unwittingly? In other words, and this comes back to the original question posed...are we comparing apples to apples when we compare pagan sex rituals to two people of the same sex who are in a committed loving relationship and have no knowledge or interest in pagan worship?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 8, 2006 22:55:01 GMT -5
What if a Christian really, really likes ham or the benefits of compound interest, and deliberately indulges in eating and/or earning one or the other? Would they be considered of reprobate mind, given over to such sins? Hmm. Does the ham eater see eating ham as a sin (James 4:17)? Does the compound interest earner recognize that the love of money is the root of all evil? Does he recognize it as sin or believe that it is but does it anyway? For Christians, I don't see how God would "give one over to such sins" because he who began a good work in us will surely bring it to completion . . . (Phill 1:6). So, those who are truly His will not continue in sin. If he professes to be a Christian and yet continues in sin . . . maybe he really isn't a true Christian (I John 2:19+). I believe there are elect of God who think they are gay Christians. But I don't believe there is such a thing as a gay Christian. They just think they are. God just has not yet brought them to repentance. Everyone arrives at God's truth at different times. God changes our hearts and allows us to understand -- when HE chooses. I believe He will not allow anything to happen to one of His own until he grants this one full repentance. God will show him the truth--if he is elect. If not . . . He leaves him alone. Gives him over to a reprobate mind. He gets justice. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 9, 2006 19:42:42 GMT -5
I thought that Christ dieing on the cross ended the old test. laws. If you are living by any one of the O.T. laws then one needs to live by all of them. If your living after Christ, then one must live by the N.T. teachings. Which is it for people? The sins we are talking about here are covered in both Testaments,some former sins(foods,dress,etc) were done away with,thankfully! It's the New Testament for me!
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 10, 2006 5:46:25 GMT -5
I think since there are so many pictures of the redemption of the Lord Jesus Christ, all things in the Bible are relevant today. Christ is in the OT concealed and the NT revealed.
The reason why we need both is made plain in passages like Luke 24:13. We MUST HAVE the Law and the Prophets. Jesus said so. Without the OT, we do not have a complete picture of redemption. The OT gives the law and shows us our sin, why we NEED a Savior. The NT shows us Christ's power in saving us, His people from our sin.
Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by though on Jul 10, 2006 11:10:55 GMT -5
Jude, verse 4 gives us a good insight to how wrong much of the doctrine that is preached on this board is.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 10, 2006 15:45:28 GMT -5
Why would something that was once a sin or an abomination to God suddenly not be?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 10, 2006 16:08:05 GMT -5
Why would something that was once a sin or an abomination to God suddenly not be? Good question. Do you suppose there's a third 'testament' coming along that will clarify and correct -- or just out and out change -- some of the teaching in what we now know as the new testament?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 10, 2006 17:41:27 GMT -5
Jude, verse 4 gives us a good insight to how wrong much of the doctrine that is preached on this board is. I agree . . . but I would hope that these boards (or the internet, for that matter) would not be ANYONE'S source of teaching, preaching or doctrinal truth. This may be a place where arguments could be carried out so people could maybe see many sides of a problem, issue or scripture. But I hope and pray that anyone who is searching here for the truth turns immediately and prays to the LORD GOD for guidance and wisdom and then compare what is written here with the Word of God. I believe The Holy Word is the only measure of Truth. Spread it before the Lord and ask and He will answer (II Kings 19:14). Christ's Jessi
|
|