|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 20:21:42 GMT -5
Several questions were asked of me. I wish I had more time to go into more detail, but that would make this post really, really long. So, here are my answers.
Q. Do you share the age old belief from the bible that homosexuality is a "sin?"
A. Yes. Do you know the Christian’s definition of sin? The apostle John wrote (1 John 3:4) that “sin is transgression of the law."
...There is a way to preach the truth in which we do nothing but alienate others, and to do this is a disservice to the gospel.
That isn't to say that we must "compromise" or water-down hard passages. But it does mean "speaking the truth in love" (Eph.4:15) and with gentleness.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 20:33:51 GMT -5
Several questions were asked of me. I wish I had more time to go into more detail, but that would make this post really, really long. So, here are my answers.
Q. Not too long ago in our own time, people including the American Psychiatric Association believed homosexuality was a "mental disorder." Now, the major mental health organizations declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. Do you think that people should take another look at such age old beliefs on homosexuality? Haven't most knowledgeable people realized by now that no one "chooses to be gay?"
A. I encourage you to read about it from the pens of those who were a part of it. The gay rights movement is a part of what has been called the “sexual revolution” of the late 50’s, 60’s, and mid 1970’s.
Being a registered nurse it has been of interest to me in many more ways than one.
Perhaps you should read more than negative fundamentalist religion views of the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 24, 2014 20:42:16 GMT -5
Several questions were asked of me. I wish I had more time to go into more detail, but that would make this post really, really long. So, here are my answers.
Q. Not too long ago in our own time, people including the American Psychiatric Association believed homosexuality was a "mental disorder." Now, the major mental health organizations declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. Do you think that people should take another look at such age old beliefs on homosexuality? Haven't most knowledgeable people realized by now that no one "chooses to be gay?"
A. I encourage you to read about it from the pens of those who were a part of it. The gay rights movement is a part of what has been called the “sexual revolution” of the late 50’s, 60’s, and mid 1970’s.
Being a registered nurse it has been of interest to me in many more ways than one.
Perhaps you should read more than negative fundamentalist religion views of the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 24, 2014 20:42:22 GMT -5
Several questions were asked of me. I wish I had more time to go into more detail, but that would make this post really, really long. So, here are my answers.
Q. Not too long ago in our own time, people including the American Psychiatric Association believed homosexuality was a "mental disorder." Now, the major mental health organizations declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality. Do you think that people should take another look at such age old beliefs on homosexuality? Haven't most knowledgeable people realized by now that no one "chooses to be gay?"
A. I encourage you to read about it from the pens of those who were a part of it. The gay rights movement is a part of what has been called the “sexual revolution” of the late 50’s, 60’s, and mid 1970’s.
Being a registered nurse it has been of interest to me in many more ways than one.
Perhaps you should read more than negative fundamentalist religion views of the subject.
I agree. After reading that post I've been afraid to comment on it because it made me so angry. Wrong on so many levels. I don't get angry very often, but that one did it. Best I don't say anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 20:57:31 GMT -5
Several questions were asked of me. I wish I had more time to go into more detail, but that would make this post really, really long. So, here are my answers.
..."society is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one's biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”
As a Christian, I am grateful for the patriarchs, and for the natural order (marriage, and the roles of men and women) that God created.
Do you believe that is the the "right way" for society to be?
According to that society only men once could own property, could vote, could beat their wives (as long as the stick was no larger than the width of his thumb- not for his wife's sakes but rather so she would yell so loud & keep the neighbors awake).
Also the woman wasn't allowed into the professions where they might make better wages than men; eg. physicians, attorneys, etc. Is that the patriarchial society that you prefer, I wonder? |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 21:03:07 GMT -5
I believe that I have read and followed the history of the American Psychiatric Association on the subject of homosexuality and the history of homosexuality for a longer period of time & in more detail than many people have.
Being a registered nurse it has been of interest to me in many more ways than one.
Perhaps you should read more than negative fundamentalist religion views of the subject.
I believe I've already proven that I have consulted primary sources (the words and writings of gay activists themselves) for my information, and I invite you to do the same.
Perhaps that is why when you have expressed your opinions on homosexuality, you are called "hurtful names?"
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 24, 2014 21:08:21 GMT -5
Quoted from this thread:
"That certainly is true that society has been built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. This society is a sexist society, in which one's biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.
Do you believe that is the the "right way" for society to be?
According to that society only men once could own property, could vote, could beat their wives (as long as the stick was no larger than the width of his thumb- not for his wife's sakes but rather so she would yell so loud & keep the neighbors awake).
Also the woman wasn't allowed into the professions where they might make better wages than men; eg. physicians, attorneys, etc. Is that the patriarchial society that you prefer, I wonder?"
First of all, I do not see that statement from the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto (which I quoted earlier) as being TRUE, so I disagree with you that is even an accurate portrayal of our society. It is a radical and cynical view -- that "women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise." I've no doubt that unhealthy men have viewed women as "sexual objects." But again, this is NOT the fault of "the patriarchs of Christianity" -- but a warped and distorted example of domination by unhealthy and unspiritual men. Again, the problem is human sin.
So, one: I do not accept that portrayal as accurate for all of our society, but perhaps an unhealthy fringe of it. And two, of course I don't believe that is the "right way" for society to be.
I believe in civil rights for all people, so that also means that yes, women should receive equal wages to men for equal work.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 21:20:26 GMT -5
Several questions were asked of me. I wish I had more time to go into more detail, but that would make this post really, really long. So, here are my answers.
Feminism, too, has sought to diminish (even villainize) the traditional role of the father, and patriarchy in general. (If you want “proof” of this, please google these terms, which will open up archives by major feminist writers on “patriarchy”.)
I actually have several books of my own by feminist writers like Betty Friedan,(who comes from my area and is called the "Mother of Feminism" and whom I've met.)
Also Gloria Steinem, who I have already met and have an autograph book of hers which I'm willing to sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 24, 2014 21:20:46 GMT -5
I believe I've already proven that I have consulted primary sources (the words and writings of gay activists themselves) for my information, and I invite you to do the same.
Perhaps that is why when you have expressed your opinions on homosexuality, you are called "hurtful names?"
I'd like to recap.
I have cited scriptural backing for my viewpoint.
You have plagiarized blogs for some of your posts here about scripture (which are nevertheless inaccurate) as backing for your viewpoint.
I am a Bible-believer.
You have already stated on numerous occasions on this forum that you have no use for any God.
I have provided historical proof for the removal of Homosexuality as a "disorder" from the diagnostic manual in Psychiatry (a fact which is abundantly proveable and even enshrined in gay history as a coup). And you have responded that I am only listening to negative fundamentalist views, while ignoring all the primary sources I've read which prove my point.
Now you appear to be suggesting that I have deserved to be called hurtful names for my opinions. More recently you are bristling with indignation that I would even suggest you google feminist writers on patriarchy since you know some personally and have their books in your library.
I know you are passionate about what you hold to be true. But to be passionate is still not proof. I've read a lot, too, and I just happen to disagree with a lot (but not all) of Feminist assertions.
As many gay people have openly acknowledged, the Bible DOES forbid homosexual acts. Only recently have people tried to argue that it doesn't. I have read their arguments because many blogs I've been to recycle the same points, over and over.... These interpretations just do not hold up, by the Bible. (Many of those arguing these points do not even have confidence in Scripture in the first place.) Many see the Bible as the "source" of "homophobia", so they are trying to cut it out at its "roots" so to speak. They want to further the idea that Frank Kameny is famous for turning into a slogan: "Gay is Good." I wholeheartedly agree that Gays should never have been beaten up, kept from jobs they were qualified for, called hurtful names, or worse: killed. This treatment is definitely a terrible stain on American history, and not an example of Christian love.
But however well-meaning people may be who want to show their support for gays, I oppose their trying to use the Bible to say something that it doesn't. The solution is still Jesus, his merciful love and grace, repentance and forgiveness - and not rebellion toward God.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2014 21:52:51 GMT -5
Quoted from this thread: "That certainly is true that society has been built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. This society is a sexist society, in which one's biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise. Do you believe that is the the "right way" for society to be? According to that society only men once could own property, could vote, could beat their wives (as long as the stick was no larger than the width of his thumb- not for his wife's sakes but rather so she would yell so loud & keep the neighbors awake). Also the woman wasn't allowed into the professions where they might make better wages than men; eg. physicians, attorneys, etc. Is that the patriarchial society that you prefer, I wonder?" First of all, I do not see that statement from the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto (which I quoted earlier) as being TRUE, so I disagree with you that is even an accurate portrayal of our society. It is a radical and cynical view -- that "women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise." I've no doubt that unhealthy men have viewed women as "sexual objects." But again, this is NOT the fault of "the patriarchs of Christianity" -- but a warped and distorted example of domination by unhealthy and unspiritual men. Again, the problem is human sin.
So, one: I do not accept that portrayal as accurate for all of our society, but perhaps an unhealthy fringe of it. And two, of course I don't believe that is the "right way" for society to be.
I believe in civil rights for all people, so that also means that yes, women should receive equal wages to men for equal work.
This was your only response:
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs…” Romans 11:28 (St.Paul, speaking about the fulfilment of prophecy that Jesus would be rejected by his own people.)
As a Christian, I am grateful for the patriarchs, and for the natural order (marriage, and the roles of men and women) that God created. If people misuse their roles and don’t live up to them in a godly way, this is not the fault of the patriarchs, nor of the natural order, nor of God! It is because of human sin. This is another reason why we need Jesus! Husbands, wives, children – families – all need Jesus to be the heart of their home. Of course, to some people, this is considered “foolishness.” That is the state of our world.
It doesn't sound to me as if you were denouncing that sexist society stand, but actually defending it by saying "I am grateful for the patriarchs, and for the natural order (marriage, and the roles of men and women) that God created."
These two statements you made absolutely contradict one another!
"I am grateful for the patriarchs, and for the natural order (marriage, and the roles of men and women) that God created."
"I believe in civil rights for all people, so that also means that yes, women should receive equal wages to men for equal work."
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 24, 2014 22:04:17 GMT -5
I believe in civil rights for all people, so that also means that yes, women should receive equal wages to men for equal work.
Hangingout - just curious do those civil rights that you believe in for all people include the right for me to marry my partner of 17 years? |
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 24, 2014 22:11:58 GMT -5
I stand by all my words, but gee, you seem to just misunderstand them, dmmichgood.
The Biblical view of the role of men and women gives headship to the man in marriage only, and only IF he is able to have Christ as HIS head and to love his wife as his own flesh. Otherwise, his prayers will not even be heard. So any headship is conditional upon his being a godly, loving man. There is no possibility of abuse in such an arrangement if it is lived out according to scripture. On the contrary, it produces happiness in the home, and security for families. Despite how Paul's words have been twisted, this is a healthy arrangement which I agree with. There is nothing in scripture which supports denying women equal pay for their work.
I've really gotta eat now. Will try and "catch up" later.
(Please try and prove your points when you have the time. I understand if you're busy - we all seem to be these days.) I really have no hard feelings. I know passions can run high, which is why it's often a good idea to just chill out for awhile. I hope you won't have hard feelings toward me, either..
Thanks.
TTYL
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2014 0:39:59 GMT -5
I stand by all my words, but gee, you seem to just misunderstand them, dmmichgood.
(Please try and prove your points when you have the time. I really have no hard feelings. to just chill out for awhile. I hope you won't have hard feelings toward me, either..
Thanks.
TTYL
I've just been copying your own words.
Have you been listening to yourself? or me?
Maybe it is you who needs to "chill out."
I'm fine.
Hard feelings doesn't inter into the picture.
You express yourself, I express my self.
You believe in patriarchy.
I believe in equality for men and women.
You believe that homosexuality is a "sin".
I don't think sin has anything to do with it.
I believe there is Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, sometimes referred to as the “Kinsey Scale,” where research findings showed people did not fit into neat and exclusive heterosexual or homosexual categories.
Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2014 1:27:49 GMT -5
The only thing that you have proven is that you have read a lot of things that suited you own opinions.
Perhaps that is why when you have expressed your opinions on homosexuality, you are called "hurtful names?"
I'd like to recap.
I have cited scriptural backing for my viewpoint.
You have plagiarized blogs for some of your posts here about scripture (which are nevertheless inaccurate) as backing for your viewpoint.
I am a Bible-believer.
You have already stated on numerous occasions on this forum that you have no use for any God.
I have provided historical proof for the removal of Homosexuality as a "disorder" from the diagnostic manual in Psychiatry (a fact which is abundantly proveable and even enshrined in gay history as a coup). And you have responded that I am only listening to negative fundamentalist views, while ignoring all the primary sources I've read which prove my point.
Now you appear to be suggesting that I have deserved to be called hurtful names for my opinions. More recently you are bristling with indignation that I would even suggest you google feminist writers on patriarchy since you know some personally and have their books in your library.
I know you are passionate about what you hold to be true. But to be passionate is still not proof. I've read a lot, too, and I just happen to disagree with a lot (but not all) of Feminist assertions.
As many gay people have openly acknowledged, the Bible DOES forbid homosexual acts. Only recently have people tried to argue that it doesn't. I have read their arguments because many blogs I've been to recycle the same points, over and over.... These interpretations just do not hold up, by the Bible. (Many of those arguing these points do not even have confidence in Scripture in the first place.) Many see the Bible as the "source" of "homophobia", so they are trying to cut it out at its "roots" so to speak. They want to further the idea that Frank Kameny is famous for turning into a slogan: "Gay is Good." I wholeheartedly agree that Gays should never have been beaten up, kept from jobs they were qualified for, called hurtful names, or worse: killed. This treatment is definitely a terrible stain on American history, and not an example of Christian love.
But however well-meaning people may be who want to show their support for gays, I oppose their trying to use the Bible to say something that it doesn't. The solution is still Jesus, his merciful love and grace, repentance and forgiveness - and not rebellion toward God.
Ah, yes, that statement, "you have already stated on numerous occasions on this forum that you have no use for any God," is most often a last resort used in as logical fallacy when trying to denounces someone's statement 
"I have provided historical proof for the removal of Homosexuality as a "disorder" from the diagnostic manual in Psychiatry (a fact which is abundantly proveable and even enshrined in gay history as a coup). And you have responded that I am only listening to negative fundamentalist views, while ignoring all the primary sources I've read which prove my point"
And I believe I TOLD I probably knew more about that than you did. As prestigious organization as The American Psychiatric Association is not going to just state a position on an important issue like sexuality without it's own data on the subject.
Perhaps it was you who plagiarized blogs to get the answer that you wanted.
"More recently you are bristling with indignation that I would even suggest you google feminist writers
I getting too old to bother "bristling with indignation" 
I was more guilty of "name dropping" I'll drop another name, I met her & have her autograph: Sarah Weddington,-the attorney that argued (and won) the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision on abortion rights.
I love name dropping, only I usually try to be more subtle than this!
You oppose people trying to use the Bible to say something that you beleive that it doesn't say, but I beleive that you need to learn more about what it does say about homosexuality in the Bible.
I challenge you to say where Jesus ever mentioned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 25, 2014 2:09:30 GMT -5
A (Slightly Awkward) Conversation........
How can I be misunderstanding your words, hangingout?
I'm not sure how. I have been trying to be very clear.
I've just been copying your own words.
One time, you appeared to think I had written something I was only quoting -- but I did use quotation marks, so... ? And on another point, you came to a different conclusion to what I actually meant, because when you repeated it back to me, I knew that wasn't what I meant. I don't think you're doing that on purpose though. Have you been listening to yourself?
I do try to be aware - so YES
Or me?
I have been listening to both of us.Maybe it is you who needs to "chill out."
 I think it could be both of us, in all honesty. But if you don't want to own that, so be it...
I'm fine.
Okay. Hard feelings doesn't enter into the picture.
Okay. Well, good, 'cause I really hope not!
You express yourself, I express my self.Yep!!You believe in patriarchy.
I believe in Biblical patriarchy - NOT patriarchy as defined by radical Feminists.I believe in equality for men and women.
So do I. But again, in the Biblical sense, not in the Feminist sense. Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
You believe that homosexuality is a "sin".Homosexual acts are, yes.I don't think sin has anything to do with it.I know - you don't believe in God at all, so naturally, you're not going to see it in terms of God's laws and such.I believe there is Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, sometimes referred to as the “Kinsey Scale,” where research findings showed people did not fit into neat and exclusive heterosexual or homosexual categories.No need to take that on faith, you can be certain that existed. (Only joking here)Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time.
Sexual behavior, thoughts, and feelings ~ not consistent, fluid? Changeable? I would think so.
There is also the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid, and the Multidimensional Scale of Sexuality.
Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.
I think the fluid aspect of sexuality which these scales show presents 'just a little hiccup' for those who claim that that sexual orientation "cannot change." It has. It does.
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 25, 2014 2:13:30 GMT -5
dmmichgood,
The "plagiarizing" came in when you copied text from a website without properly crediting them -- such as not using quotation marks, making the text appear as your own.
On page 9 of the Baptist Church A Dangerous Cult? thread, you cut, paste, and copied others' comments from the internet into your post without quotation or crediting the source, which source I found anyway and proved (where they came from) in my subsequent post.
I would appreciate, from someone whose signature is PROVE IT! any real attempt on your part to prove the assertions you copied.
professing.proboards.com/thread/20945/baptist-church-dangerous-cult?page=9
|
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 25, 2014 2:35:27 GMT -5
I believe in civil rights for all people, so that also means that yes, women should receive equal wages to men for equal work.
Hangingout - just curious do those civil rights that you believe in for all people include the right for me to marry my partner of 17 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 25, 2014 4:31:02 GMT -5
Wally ~ I read once that some women from abusive marriages tend to gravitate towards a woman because of the violence associated with marriage to these men. They felt safer and more attracted to women afterwards. Speaking from personal experience, I was raped for several years by someone I knew. This person also went to meeting, and I never once felt a need to turn to other women, so, I totally disagree with Wally's statement. Not all individuals who experience rape or incest turn it same sex relationships. I am not drawn sexually to a woman whatsoever and never have been. One of the things I admit I have little tolerance for, are men who are extremely critical of a woman's look. If you see a curvy woman on the street, and she doesn't float your boat, keep it to yourself and go find your own toothpick. I am amazed at the number of men who so freely tell me I would be beautiful if I Had plastic surgery, lost weight, had a Brazilian butt lift, etc., The person that raped me was constantly degrading me. I started doing things to make him not want to look at me anymore, and it finally worked. I am sad to say he threatened to kill my family, and I was protective, so I kept a secret for years, and years. Little did I know, he was molesting other children too. He went on to mess with dozens of children. he was eventually sent to prison for numerous offenses. After being sent to prison, he came out that he was homosexual. I am aware of a few boys that were molested by him that are also the same, but angry and hateful with life. there are others he raped that are happily married and are doing awesome. Thankfull. Thankful, I very much appreciate your ability and willingness to talk about your experience. No doubt your insight is valuable to those who are trying to expose these charlatans who hide behind religious groups. I'd like to see them all exposed, and the whole church working to protect all children and support all those who have suffered this great evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 25, 2014 5:37:39 GMT -5
Hangingout - just curious do those civil rights that you believe in for all people include the right for me to marry my partner of 17 years?
Agreed on all points. G |
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Mar 25, 2014 11:47:32 GMT -5
"I challenge you to say where Jesus ever mentioned it." - quoteAnd I accept the challenge...
I think this site has a good reply, so I'll include it here:thecripplegate.com/is-it-true-that-jesus-never-addressed-homosexuality/
Also, I would add to the above arguments, Jesus' words in Revelations 21:5-8:
"And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
These are recognized by Christians as the words of the one (Jesus) "who was seated on the throne."
One could ask, "But what does he mean by "the sexually immoral"?"
Sexual Immorality
All of a Christian's rules defining what is sexually immoral come from Leviticus (18).
This includes sex with all near relations (which are still generally-agreed upon and observed today in the world); homosexuality; bestiality.
The apostles (including Paul) met to talk about what parts of the law could or should be laid upon the gentiles (in Acts 15:19 through 21) at what's commonly called the First Jerusalem Council. This was necessary because of some confusion coming about because of Paul's preaching regarding the law. After some debate, they all agreed that gentiles have to avoid, among three other things, sexual immorality.
The apostles (with one exception) are Jewish men. They don't have any other "holy scriptures" but the Hebrew scrolls. They have the scrolls of the law, called the Torah, which are the first five books of the Bible, the words of the prophets, and other writings. What THEY mean by "sexual immorality" is not some "new and improved" definition - it is what is already defined from the Law.
Jesus, in Revelation 21:5-8, is also not making a new definition of sexual immorality. Remember what he said while incarnate about the law?
Matthew 7:21-23
"“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"
Yes, Jesus affirmed the law regarding what is sexually immoral, and so did the apostles of the New Covenant.
This is the original and long-held understanding. It's only in the last few years that some people have insisted that we've had "a wrong understanding all these years" and that homosexuality is not forbidden in the Bible. Their arguments lie on very shaky ground.
May God bless you.
& Where are your proofs?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2014 13:01:10 GMT -5
"I challenge you to say where Jesus ever mentioned it." - quoteAnd I accept the challenge...
I think this site has a good reply, so I'll include it here:thecripplegate.com/is-it-true-that-jesus-never-addressed-homosexuality/
Also, I would add to the above arguments, Jesus' words in Revelations 21:5-8:
"And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
These are recognized by Christians as the words of the one (Jesus) "who was seated on the throne."
One could ask, "But what does he mean by "the sexually immoral"?"
Sexual Immorality
All of a Christian's rules defining what is sexually immoral come from Leviticus (18).
This includes sex with all near relations (which are still generally-agreed upon and observed today in the world); homosexuality; bestiality.
The apostles (including Paul) met to talk about what parts of the law could or should be laid upon the gentiles (in Acts 15:19 through 21) at what's commonly called the First Jerusalem Council. This was necessary because of some confusion coming about because of Paul's preaching regarding the law. After some debate, they all agreed that gentiles have to avoid, among three other things, sexual immorality.
The apostles (with one exception) are Jewish men. They don't have any other "holy scriptures" but the Hebrew scrolls. They have the scrolls of the law, called the Torah, which are the first five books of the Bible, the words of the prophets, and other writings. What THEY mean by "sexual immorality" is not some "new and improved" definition - it is what is already defined from the Law.
Jesus, in Revelation 21:5-8, is also not making a new definition of sexual immorality. Remember what he said while incarnate about the law?
Matthew 7:21-23
"“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"
Yes, Jesus affirmed the law regarding what is sexually immoral, and so did the apostles of the New Covenant.
This is the original and long-held understanding. It's only in the last few years that some people have insisted that we've had "a wrong understanding all these years" and that homosexuality is not forbidden in the Bible. Their arguments lie on very shaky ground.
May God bless you.
& Where are your proofs?
MY challenge to you was:
"I challenge you to say where Jesus ever mentioned it." (homosexuality)
All the places that you referred me to was NOT the words of Jesus!
Even the places where Jesus makes a statement about Sodom -*(Math. 10: 15-Math. 11:23- Luke 10: 12)*- Jesus does NOT say that that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality!
Beside the statement about Sodom, he also made the same statements about several cities, Tyre, Sidon, Capernaum and others.
Christians today try to use his words to condemn homosexuality!
However, Jesus never said that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality!
Christians have put their own interpretation of Jesus words in the mouth of Jesus because that is what they want to believe.
Why don't people go straight to the bible & quote Jesus rather than go to sites like you gave?
If I were to do that I'd be accused of plagiarism
(PS: I don't don't care much for phrases like "May God bless you" in an attempt "sweeten" up a post.
I really can't see such phrases as sincere, but more of an attempt to show themselves to be "holier than thou")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 13:28:35 GMT -5
(PS: I don't don't care much for phrases like "May God bless you" in an attempt "sweeten" up a post.
I really can't see such phrases as sincere, but more of an attempt to show themselves to be "holier than thou")
thats really very cynical...
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2014 14:36:07 GMT -5
(PS: I don't don't care much for phrases like "May God bless you" in an attempt "sweeten" up a post. I really can't see such phrases as sincere, but more of an attempt to show themselves to be "holier than thou") thats really very cynical...
After a long post where someone states a person is wrong, but then adding "God Bless You" is merely doing what they think will remedy their accusations and make them appear "Christian".
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2014 14:38:33 GMT -5
(PS: I don't don't care much for phrases like "May God bless you" in an attempt "sweeten" up a post. I really can't see such phrases as sincere, but more of an attempt to show themselves to be "holier than thou") thats really very cynical...
How about responding to the scripture I quoted? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 15:46:30 GMT -5
God couldn't find even 10 righteous in the city of sodom and gomorah so i think that goes to show that whatever they were doing was wrong and he killed them for it just becuase he didn't list every single sin they were doing doesn't mean it wasn't a sin i'm sure that there were liers and thiefs and murders and those weren't mentioned also...the real verses that speak out against homosexuality are in leviticus 18 and 20 romans 1 and 1 corinthians 6 i think thats
pretty clear in and of itself...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 25, 2014 18:29:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2014 19:27:19 GMT -5
God couldn't find even 10 righteous in the city of sodom and gomorah so i think that goes to show that whatever they were doing was wrong and he killed them for it just becuase he didn't list every single sin they were doing doesn't mean it wasn't a sin i'm sure that there were liers and thiefs and murders and those weren't mentioned also...the real verses that speak out against homosexuality are in leviticus 18 and 20 romans 1 and 1 corinthians 6 i think thats pretty clear in and of itself...
"I challenge you to say where Jesus ever mentioned it." (homosexuality)
All the places that you referred me to was NOT the words of Jesus!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 20:27:10 GMT -5
i take it then you don't think Paul was inspired of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to write romans 1 and 1 corinthians 6?
|
|
I think it could be both of us, in all honesty. But if you don't want to own that, so be it... 