I'm having a problem following your train of thought. First of all, I never brought science into the discussion. What I did mention is a predisposition to sin. I'm not arguing from science but from scripture. Man is born in sin. Rom 5:12. What that means is that we are born disordered. That can manifest itself in many ways and is as individual as the persons themselves. Some people are predisposed to violent anger. Others to addictions. Others to sexual deviancy. Homosexuality is along the lines of sexual deviancy but that isn't the only sexual deviant behavior. Adultery, fornication, and other things fall into that category as well. Its not a biological problem but a sin problem. Man is disordered and will sin in many ways. The homosexual lifestyle falls under this disorder. That is what I was getting at.
(Rom.5:12; Psalm 51:5; Jer.13:23; Gen.6:5; Rom.3:10-12; Eph.2:1-3; Rom.1:18-32; Psalm 58:3; Jer.17:9)
--These are just some of the verses that speak of the depravity of man. They don't speak of disorders but of the depravity of man; man's sin nature. What man feeds his mind will manifest itself. That is clearly taught in Scripture. There are no random dispositions.
Homosexuality is a choice, a wicked choice born out of one's sin nature only because of what a person has fed his mind. Your right. It is not biological as the liberals would have us to believe, but it is not a disorder either. That is where you infer science. It is a chosen lifestyle; a direct result of sin or the sin nature. There is no disorder here.
Genuine disorders are: depression (mental disorder), epilepsy (neurological disorder), MS (neurological disorder), etc. These aren't caused by sin. These are actual disorders. Homosexuality is not a disorder but a sinful choice to live a sinful lifestyle born out of a sinful nature which everyone of us have. We don't have to make such immoral choices in our lives. No one is forcing anyone to be homosexual. It is not a disorder.
That wasn't Noah but rather Lot FYI. As I said its a sin problem. Not just for Lot but for his daughters as well. Lot and his daughters were born disordered and didn't follow the Lord's teaching.
I got two stories mixed up. Noah also got drunk and it brought a curse upon Ham:
Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Noah's daughters were not born disordered. And neither was Lot. If anything Lot was more wicked than they, having previously offered those same daughters to be abused all night by "the gay crowd," even if it meant their deliberate death. How wicked could a man be!!
And yet the Bible says about Lot:
2 Peter 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed
his righteous soul from day to day with
their unlawful deeds.
--Lot is called just and righteous in spite of his wicked actions.
He was "vexed with the filthy behavior of the wicked," surrounded with day by day.
He dwelt among the wicked who "vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds." (And the KJV translators word this very kindly and unoffensively).
Yes, I never believed you were Mormon. I also agree its an important qualification.
"The husband of one wife" has nothing to do with Mormonism or polygamy, as that was not the problem in Paul's day. Divorce was very common in Paul's day, and that was the problem that he was addressing.
The phrase could be literally rendered "a one wife husband."
What did Jesus say:
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
--Jesus did not permit divorce. So against divorce was he that when it came to divorce and remarriage he said that the person that remarried was living in a constant state of adultery. Any divorce was an invalid divorce in Christ's mind. You could be separated for reasons of abuse, etc., but not divorced. You would always remain married in God's eyes. The bond would always be there. God likens salvation, and his love for the church to the marriage union (Ephesians 5).
Therefore a divorced man, a man with a history of immorality, cannot be a pastor.
Well, DHK, I suspect that if you did a poll on this board you will find a few divorced pastors and other people who are divorced and remarried. So its not the general "Protestant world" that I'm speaking about. But a bit closer to home.
I don't live my life according to what the polls say, and what others say or do. I live my life according to what the Bible teaches. The requirements for a pastor are set forth quite clearly in 1Timothy 3. Those that choose not to follow them will give account of themselves before God.
Uh... That passage isn't saying the man must be married. Rather it is saying that if a man is married he should be the husband of one wife.
"The husband of one wife." Sounds clear to me.
"One that ruleth will his own household."
"Having his children in subjection with all gravity."
1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
--It appears about half the qualification have to do with family life, and yet you say he doesn't have to be married. The Bible says otherwise. I will go with the Bible, not your opinion.
Strange. The scripture would disagree with you. Consider the Lord himself was never married. Also consider that Jesus himself said:
Scripture doesn't disagree with me. Jesus prefaced his remark about Eunuchs with this statement:
Matthew 19:11 But he said unto them, All
men cannot receive this saying, save
they to whom it is given.
--Staying single was either forced upon one (eg. the Ethiopian Eunuch), or one chose not to marry, and did so because they were given a gift to remain celibate. It was not forced upon them. That religion that forces celibacy upon their clergy practices a doctrine of demons (1Timothy 4:1ff). The normal state for almost all (perhaps 99%) is marriage. Very few have this gift of remaining single. You are taking Scripture out of context.
What does the Bible say:
"It is good for a man not to be alone." God taught marriage from the days of creation.
Also consider what Paul said: It is clear in scripture that some people have the gift of celibacy and can remain so. For others it is a great struggle and its better for them to Marry. And if you do get Married you should be the husband of one wife like Timothy says. Paul goes on to say why he would prefer that men remain single or celibate
So there is nothing wrong with Single leaders of the Church. In fact according to Jesus and Paul it would be preferred.
Here you have used Scripture out of 1Cor.7, again scripture taken out of context. Paul was speaking to a specific situation. You would have him contradicting his previous teaching in Eph.5 and 6 and elsewhere. But he is not. He is speaking about when the church is "under this present distress," which is persecution. In modern times it is akin to a couple that is thinking about marriage but the young man is about to be deployed to the Gulf or Afghanistan. Is it wise for them to marry in that situation, or should they wait until he gets home safely, not wanting to leave a wife without a husband? That was the type of situation many of them were facing. "In this present distress" it was better for them (at this time) to remain single. It wasn't advice for every age. Context is important.
DHK. Catholics do not forbid people to marry. In fact they encourage it.
In the clergy? Lies!
And of all the 22 Catholic rites only 1 requires Celibate Clergy which I've shown isn't wrong according to scripture but to be clergy in that one rite they must be willing to lay down their lives so that they can focus on God.
Then those 21 rites must be very very minor. What? Do they each have a dozen members or so?
Let's review a few things:
I was a Catholic for twenty years.
I live in a predominantly Catholic nation.
My extended family is Catholic.
There are seven sacraments, one of which is Holy Orders, celibacy is a requirement of that sacrament.
Why are you feeding me Catholic propaganda that is not true? I have never, in all my life, met a married priest; never! I have met many priests, from many different nations, and not one has ever been married. I don't need the false propaganda.
And if sex is a problem for them then they should avoid the role of pastor in that rite. Its an important distinction. Also note that at the time of Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians, there were groups of people claiming to be Christian (gnostic types) who forbid marriage but encourage fornication just like the Cathars of a latter age. Paul was speaking against this.
Paul was not speaking against heretical groups within the church. That obviously was not the problem. Sexual impurity was.
Peter had a wife. Jesus went to heal Peter's wife's mother.
Paul was married. He was formerly a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin one had to be married. His wife probably died and he was left a widower. Thus he had much insight on marriage.
Marriage was a holy institution ordained of God.
It is required of God that a pastor be married. 1Timothy chapter 3 makes that clear. One cannot have a wife, a household, and children in subjection without being married.
The RCC is out of order here.
Had they adhered to biblical principles here, they would not have spawned all the sinful homosexual and pedophilia activity that they have throughout many years.
