Son of Consolation
New Member
You took the word right out of my mouth Bro. Murph! I concur.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Homosexuality and Scripture
- Thread starter post-it
- Start date
Post-it said:
So what you are saying is that the Holy Spirit is telling you how to interpret these scriptures and what the mean exactly. . . .
The other way you could know what they really mean
Or maybe we could just take what the words say at face value.
Come on, man, stop filibustering and deal with my post on page 1.
[ September 13, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
So what you are saying is that the Holy Spirit is telling you how to interpret these scriptures and what the mean exactly. . . .
The other way you could know what they really mean
Or maybe we could just take what the words say at face value.
Come on, man, stop filibustering and deal with my post on page 1.
[ September 13, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
Maverick
Member
Let's look at it from the basis of God's design. The male parts were made for the female parts. Like any other tool if you use it for anything other than what the tool is designed for then you risk destruction both of the tool and the item you are using it on as well as personal injury.
The female parts were made to open and receive whereas the rectal area was made to open and expel and hence the physical problems brough about by misuse of the rectum.
I once heard a description of righteousness as being cooperating with God and/or God's created reality. Since homosexuality does not cooperate with Gods's created reality it is therefore unrighteousness and sin. Anytime you take an instrument of procreation and implant it in an organ of death/waste disposal you are just asking for trouble.
Homosexuality has been condemned by God since the beginning and "grace" did not change that since the creative purpose of genitalia has not changed.
The female parts were made to open and receive whereas the rectal area was made to open and expel and hence the physical problems brough about by misuse of the rectum.
I once heard a description of righteousness as being cooperating with God and/or God's created reality. Since homosexuality does not cooperate with Gods's created reality it is therefore unrighteousness and sin. Anytime you take an instrument of procreation and implant it in an organ of death/waste disposal you are just asking for trouble.
Homosexuality has been condemned by God since the beginning and "grace" did not change that since the creative purpose of genitalia has not changed.
C.S. Murphy
New Member
Post-it, how did you come to formulate these positions?
Did you come to these conclusions recently? Have you been thinking about this a long time? How long a time was there between the very first start of your thinking about the issue and your present positions?
Have your positions developed as a result of ministry or counsel to persons struggling with sexual issues?
Did you come to these conclusions recently? Have you been thinking about this a long time? How long a time was there between the very first start of your thinking about the issue and your present positions?
Have your positions developed as a result of ministry or counsel to persons struggling with sexual issues?
So I guess you think circumcision is a natural too.
It is amazing to me how most blind Christians can't put sin nature into perspective in this regard. I have no doubt that the original design for the man was one woman and one man. I don't think anyone has ever denied that.
Original sin brought imperfections to the both the human body and it's system. We have people born with all types of variations of perfection. The Church has made all people born with body imperfections a victim worthy of our kindness, understanding; and certainly we don't claim their illness is a sin they are guilty of. Yet those with imperfections due to chemistry affecting the brain and body from within, are labeled sinner and it is a choice they make.
There are homosexuals born with this imperfection which are we shouldn't label sin, as well as heterosexuals that really do "choose" to go in that direction which is a sin.
The sooner we can all understand the difference, the better we will treat others which are innocent and hold only the responsible accountable for their actions.
From scripture and prayer.
Less than 2 years.
They were developed from scripture and prayer on the subject.
The first person I knew who was gay in high school (1973) was rejected so badly by everyone when it came out, that he put a shotgun into his mouth and blew his head off at age 16. He was a fellow boyscout in my troop 158. The sick part for me was the attitude of his friends... even me.
By the time a kid reaches 5th or 6th grade, they know who some of the homosexual kids are in their school. That is not a choice, that is not a sin. That is the way things are, period. So lets deal with them as people; not sick perverts who should be rejected until they stop something they have no control over.
So,I suppose you also would like those with this new 'rage' gene to be allowed to go off the handle and murder or beat someone just because it is natural to them? Why not? They are genetically predisposed to it.
Addictive personalities and those with genetic predispositions to addictions should not be viewed as sinning when they take drugs, become alcoholics or become dependant on any chemical substance? Why not? They are genetically predisposed to it.
Men/women who claim 'need' for variety in their sex life...which has been shown in psychologic studies to be inherent in some people, should not be held to the same fidelity standard that God laid out in the bible because their brains work differently than what was supposed to be? Why not? They are genetically predisposed to it.
Men/women who claim attraction to children....ok...need I say more?
You argument shows little thought. This type of reasoning is a cornerstone for lazy thinking, which the PC movement is based upon...it has also been shown to be inadequate for the subject matter in quite a few open journals and different venues. If you had given this any sort of study or though, you could have easily seen through the fluff and realized this 'reasoning' is absurd at best, idiotic and satanic at worst.
What difference? Sin is sin is it not? We all sin, no one is better than another. You need to realize that just because something is "natural" to someone, doesn't mean it is not a sin. There are many more examples. You seem eager to placate this sociological movement that would have us dismiss all evil/sin on a universal sense for that which is purely individualistic. This is common on college campuses, and from my personal experience with it, those involved: 1. have a personal, vested interest in seeing sin redefined this way (IE, they are doing a particular sin, which they wish to be labeled 'ok') 2. are intellectually simplistic and will follow, herd like, to any new idea which seems forward thinking. This is dangerous. I hope you are not like this...but you have not shown us otherwise yet.
In Christ,
jason
This is correct. My wife owned a daycare in which she saw a 4 year old try to kill his own sister twice. Once he gave the baby a whole bottle of asprin. Next he tried to throw the baby out of the car window as the drove home. The little boy hated his sister and was trying to kill her. He also fought with other children to the point they had to always watch him 100% of the time.
Is he responsible for this imperfection or is original sin? I don't think he can be held responsible for his disposition as a sin, but the law can hold him responsible for breaking the law at a later age. For these individuals it can't be a sin. If you or I without this imperfection tries to kill, it would be a sin.
[ September 15, 2002, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
This is a tragic situation. That is without doubt. But does that mean what he did was not a sin? No. I come from a family of alcholics. As a matter of fact, if you name a male member of my family, they either are one or died because of it. Does this mean I can drink and be drunk just because it is in my genetic makeup? Simply, no. It is something I must fight on a daily basis....if I simply give in to it, I am sinning...it is that simple.
Do you believe it is fair that we all be judged for Adam's and Eve's singular descision to eat the apple? The simple fact is that we inheritid the original sin from them. This being true, we are now responsible to seek resolution through Jesus Christ and repent, move on and try to sin no more.
Under your system, if you and are to go out and have a 6 pack each, you are sinning, I am simply a sad product of my genetic code. Though this seems a nice, easy definition of sin, it simply falls way short when you think about it more. Believe me, I have given this quite a bit of thought. You see, an aunt of mine is a lesbian. One of the hurdles I had when accepting Christianity was coming to the realization that it is a sin....it didn't matter that I loved her, that she was a good person. What she did was sinful. Same as when I swear or when you get drunk (or me for that matter....if I get drunk it is a sin as well...).
Please answer this question then: Is looking at porn a sin? How about making porn (not with your husband or wife...I'm talking movies mass consumption etc etc)?
What we have in these two situations is:
1. A situation where you really aren't hurting anyone...and if you don't have conviction of the holy spirit, you are not sinning (under your system). But looking at pornography is a sin. As a matter of fact, I would wager it is probably one of the most hidden sins in the male christian world. If I subscribe to your ideology, I could do it as I pleased and be confident in myself that I am not sinning.
2. Making it is even more gray. If no conviction exists on your heart...you could pose nude for playboy, make the next orgy movie for mass consumption throughout the world and still not sin.
Both of these last things could be argued to be inclinations as well. Some people are more exotic and have proclivities of the exhibitionist style. To deny their heart and self would be sin, but to indulge in them is only be true to themselves??? Is that what you would have us believe? How about looking to fulfill the need for "variety" and to relieve the basic need of sexual tension? Would that be ok? We all have those needs! Is that what you want? I, for one, do not. "Get behind thee Satan".
One thing you need to realize is that by taking one situation (boy above) and saying it is not a sin because of "this imperfection" in him, you must say that all things which stem from imperfections are not sin as well. Even I know you can't do that, hence, a dichotomy.
In Christ,
jason
Let's take 2 situations and examine each.
1. A person is born with bone cancer. An imperfection caused by original sin. Is he a sinner because he posess sin in his body?
2. A serial killer is born with this imperfection in the mind cause by original sin. Is he a sinner because he posesses sin in his brain and mind?
Of course both are sinners. But what if each believed on Christ. They are washed of thier sins but the cancer victim still has the sin of cancer and will continue suffering from it. While the serial killer is washed of his sins but still has the sin of mental sickness and continues to murder because of it.
Shouldn't both these men go to heaven? Both are victims of a sickness, their sins have nothing to do with "choice". They were born that way, imperfect because of sin. Are you saying that some people must go to hell with no hope?
It is absurd to suggest that bone cancer is a sin. No more so than cutting my hair, sneezing or something like that. To try and connect bone cancer to sin is an insult to every intelligent member of this board. Please don't insult us with these ridiculous assertions.
No, he is a sinner once he acts upon that imperfection in his mind. Being born with the imperfection is not the sin. Do not setup a strawman.
Once again, cancer is not a sin. Where would you get that idea and how can you support this? Strawman or simple ignorance?
I never talked of salvation, only what is and what is not sin. I never said will and will not get to heaven.
And again, cancer is not a sin. How can you even begin to say that cancer is a sin? This, I have got to hear.
In Christ,
jason
Actually, what I said it was that bone cancer as all imperfections in humans are a result of original sin (sin nature). I wanted to see if you also considered it a sin or not. Since you don't, you must then assume all imperfections can't be classifed as sin that must be dealt with as a person who suffers from such.
That would mean that a person born as a serial killer isn't responsible nor could be held for the effects of his imperfections from a spiritual perspective. He can be from the State law as he is hurting others, but from scripture's perspective, he is a victim of sin nature and can't help/stop his behavior any more than a bone cancer patient can stop the progression of his disease.
In the same way, a homosexual is born with an imperfection and with the same lack of control as either of the above examples. A result of sin, but not counted as sin to the saved Christian homosexual. You, I, and everyone reading this also was born with imperfections that make us sin and when we are saved, those sins are no longer counted against us even though we can't stop our individual sinning actions due to our natural flaws. Scripture doesn't say we can eliminate sin from our lives once we are saved. We try to rid that sin which we can, certainly that which hurts others, and then live our lives knowing that Jesus has paid the price for our continuing weakness in sin.
No, you did not say this. You said bone cancer was a sin. I will quote you now:
The implication from the above statement is that bone cancer is a sin. See, you said bone cancer was a sin.
I never said I consider the imperfections sin (strawman). I said I consider acting on anything (physical or genetic imperfections included) that produces a sinful act sin. See the difference? Having the imperfection is not the sin, acting upon it is a sin. I will use myself again. If I get drunk, regardless of my genetic predisposition towards mass alcholic consumption, it would be a sin for me...just as it would for you.
Already addressed this. Sin is acting upon it...not having it (I've said this several times already).
I really don't know how else to say it: having a genetic imperfection is not a 'get out of hell free card'. One must tame these things. If this were not true, then we could do WHATEVER we want (as long as the holy spirit didn't convict us). I could sleep around because I have this need to spread my seed...you could rape because you have uncontrollable rage and desire in one. These are sins. I can't see how this is a problem for you.
You are correct that they are no longer counted against us, but we are told to flee from sin...strive for perfection (though unattainable)....try to be like Christ. If we get complacent and live in our sin, we are not doing this. I know...I have recently come to grips with a sin and am now dealing with it. Though, the holy spirit did not press it upon my heart, I knew it was sin and am dealing with it.
I will again address the issue of pain/hurt. Questions you have yet to answer: Who decides what 'hurt' is? Who decides how much 'hurt' is sin? Breaking up with someone when dating 'hurts' them. Is that a sin? Lets say the holy spirit doesn't convict someone one way or another...and she breaks up with her loving boyfriend of 2 years simply because she doesn't love him anymore. He loves her though. He is hurt. Is that a sin? Why or why not? If so, who decides what hurt is? Who decides how much hurt is ok and how much is too much? Where is that line drawn?
Or, again, look at porn. Who does that hurt? How do you know? Who are you to decide what is 'hurt'? Your system is internally flawed and easily exploitable. I have shown you how this is so. Unless you don't feel that looking at porn is a sin.
In Christ,
jason
If that is the case, then the continued progression of a disease such as bone cancer has to be considered a sin also.
The basis of this argument, is that the body of a cancer patient is "reacting" to the imperfection, just as "acting on the imperfection" of a homosexual is a "reaction" by the body's to the imperfection.
In either case, this can't be considered sin. Acting or any reaction to imperfections, can't be sin.
[ September 15, 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Unfortunately for you, this is not even close to a sound argument. Does the paitent will the continued spread of the disease? Does the patient not try to stop it through treatments? Does the patient actually 'feed' the bone cancer willfully? BTW, I could argue that certain aspects of bone cancer could be sin. For instance, though bone cancer is not a sin, ones reaction to it could be. If one lashes out at those around him/her, gets angry with God etc etc.
More to the point though....
If we take this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion (again), it could be argued that there is no such thing as sin. That all sin is really just the manifestation of imperfections brought about by the fall. Therefore, no one is really responsible for their actions. If you believe this (and you must because you are arguing for it), then we have finished and I will not discuss this with you anymore. If not, you must backpedal and start to setup standards by which to judge what is ok imperfection and what is not ok imperfection. How do you do this? Again (as I have asked many times at this point), who decides what is hurt, what is imperfection and what is sin?
Once you look at your system with all of these faults, you will realize how shacky it is. There is now sound theological position, no good logical argument and no reasonable sociological backup for it. Simply, it is a way for sinners to be content in their sin. This is not Christian, nor is it what we are to do as Christians. If you feel this is true, you don't have to answer to me...you must answer to God. I have proven your system does not work, I have shown you why. If your hardened heart will not hear it or heed the warnings, that is not my fault, nor God's. It is your own fault and you will have to suffer the consequences. Leading other's to sin is also a sin...just remember that.
Once again, and quite simply. No. You failed to address the issues (situations) I have brought up. This shows either you wish not to deal with them or that you can't. Either way, it speaks volumes.
No, neither does the homosexual, most say they would rather have been made hetero, but they can't help feeling the way they do. Same with any imperfection.
No, we can't, that would be an unsound argument. The conclusion of my argument comes to the fact that we ALL SUFFER from a nature of sin. Because we are the class of life that bears this punishment, we must deal with it and we are all guilty of it. I'm not sure how you think we would not be responsible for our sin nature. It is only through Jesus that we can be free of it. I will explain my argument further below.
No, we must deal with out sin by seeking Jesus, again, this is faulty reasoning by you to think my argument supports such ignorance. I made it very clear that we all suffer sin nature. What my argument is about, is that natural sin causes imperfections in each of us which does not bring in "choice" as the determining factor as to classification of what sin is or is not. To sin, one must have a choice as to agreeing to the act or not.
Your failing to see this shows your lack of understanding my argument. Thus, it is not likely you will be able to address it with any real understanding or wisdom. You seem to be arguing for argument sake and not the issue. I wish someone else would jump in and speak to the issues I'm raising. You seem to be coming up empty.
Lets just see how 'faulty' my logic is:
you wrote:
then I wrote:
Hmm...seems to me you said that these two (implied all imperfections in humans) cases exhibit how imperfections cannot be considered sin. I then brought that all the way out to the idea that there really is no sin because EVERYTHING can be considered imperfections because someone will always say something is a result of their imperfection. Hmm...yup....no faulty logic on my part. A completely valid argument and you just ignore it.
I completely understand your argument, I am just showing you how it doesn't work. Like I said before, you failing to grasp the totality of your own argument is not my fault, it is your own.
I have already addressed your 'argument'. Though, not in way you like. Instead of playing games, I just got to the point and illustrated several examples where it doesn't work, the logical conclusion of the argument leading to a world of no sin and several ways the whole system is internally contradictory.
I am not arguing for arguments sake, rather, I am arguing to hopefully get you to reject your anti-Christian attitudes and stances. Stances, which I am sure, anger our Lord and Savior. Though, you seem very hesitant and reluctanct to even acknowledge the validity of a postion contrary to yours, even when presented with all the evidence and arguments debunking yoru system. Makes one wonder why.
In Christ,
jason
Rev. Joshua
<img src=/cjv.jpg>
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I was actually in Raleigh to perform a wedding (at Fletcher Park).
In answer to your first question, that's one of the challenges of biblical interpretation. The Bible is not the I-Ching - we don't just flip it open to a verse and then do what it says.
As for questions 2 & 3, God didn't write the Bible. Surely God values the Church as much as the Bible, and it has experienced all sorts of heresies and changes through the years. (Even baptists - gasp! - have believed different things at different times.)
Joshua
Well, post-it has challenged my beliefs and been invited - twice, by my reckoning - to interact with my first post to this thread, back on page 1.
Since then he has not done so, although he has found plenty of time to post to other users.
I claim victory by default. Post-it, you had your chance.
Since then he has not done so, although he has found plenty of time to post to other users.
I claim victory by default. Post-it, you had your chance.