Question about gays

[RightFromWrong]

Wow ! been gone since I started this topic didn't realize I'd get such a responce. Some very good answers, I liked what Pastor Larry said.

Not only do I believe we are born with certain bents torwards sin, and it is up to us not to give into those bents. Jesus can totally change someone once they accept him as their Lord and Savior. I am a living example of that. Anyway...

I like watching weird shows on TV especially medical mysteries. And after watching ones that dealt with Transexuals ( sex change ) and people born with both sex organs, not quit female or male. I have come to the conclusion that part of living in a fallen sinful world, there are going to be some pretty messed up people and just nature itself. But I do know that God can change
them and make them whole spiritually.

I would hope that as Christians that we would see people through Gods eyes and not be so judgmental. " FOR BY THE GRACE OF GOD THERE GO I "

Remember to LOVE the Sinner but HATE the sin.

 

[TexasSky]

Paul was a Pharisee, and he may have been part of the Sandedrin, or at least he was working towards it prior to coming to know Christ. Members of the Sandedrin had to be married.
Pharisee's were separatists who believed in separating themselves totally from anyone or anything impure. He couldn't have been homosexual and a Pharisee. The other Pharisees would have shunned him.

 

[RockRambler]

Texas Sky....sorry about my explanation for the theory. Just noticed I had a typo...it should read,
"...which he could well have been as long as his homosexuality was NOT open and known".

As a non-practicing, in the closet homosexual, the Pharisees wouldn't have shunned him, because they did not know of his sexuality.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[RightFromWrong]

I will say that when dealing with this subject or with a homosexual in person. I am quick to point out using scripture 5 verses total. That God called the act of homosuality wrong !
He called it a PERVERSION in Rom. 1:20-28 Homosuality is linked along with beastiality, and pedaphiles.

So I ask them if Child Molestors are wrong ? They are quick to say they are.I ask them why, what makes you okaying your perversion but they say they are in love with children and think they are doing nothing wrong. The main responce I get is they are pushing themselves on innocent children and what they do is consentual.

I am quick to point out that many homosexuals were abused as children and that is why they are now Homosexuals. I have known of homosexuals who have magizines of little boys. It wasn't too long ago that America treated homosexuality as a perversion, but now since there is so much exposure on TV, making them look " Normal and fun " and that they have certain " RIGHTS " like everyone else, people are taught to accept this liefestyle.

So what makes Americans think that in just a few years Child Molestors will not have the same rights as the age of consent is lowered. Already in other countries nothing is being done to those who violate children, in Africa babies are being raped by men affected with the aids virus and are told by witch doctors the only way to cure aids is to have sex with a virgin. So that mentality has caused them to rape very young infents thinking the younger a virgin the better. AND NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT !!!

It won't be long before America with be fighting for the rights of Molestors, already molesting fathers have more rights than the mothers.

Am I the only one concerned about this ?

 

[Scott J]

RR, Paul didn't have to call himself a pharisee of the pharisees... and that is not something any converted Jew would have respected him saying if he had been a homosexual.

 

[Petrel]

I believe RockRambler is saying that if he was celibate and never told anyone he had same-sex attractions, no one would have known and their opinion of him would be unchanged by this.

 

[RockRambler]

Thank you Petrel for grasping what I am stating!!!

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Jim1999:

On God, I believe the term "father" was used because the people who recorded the Bible were essentially paternalistic, and those are the only terms we would understand regarding our relationship to God.

On the converted person who also happens to be locked into homosexuality, I think there are greater evils that destroy the soul. For example, my brother is homosexual, but does not practice. Is it ok that he is homosexual? I would be more concerned if he took up drinking alcohol.

The doctor made a profession of faith and has a great testimony, but has a mate and lives quietly, not flaunting her homosexuality. Her parents, Baptist missionaries, disowned her. I cannot do that.

On the Old Testament stories such as Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah, I believe sodomy was only one of the sins. The most grievous sin was the rejection of the word of the Lord in His servant Abraham.


PS. I am not saying that homosexuality is ok in my mind.

Jim, thanks for your response. Here are my points to your response:
1. If the Bible is God's word and he makes it clear we should call him Father, then how can that be tied in to the culture? You make it sound like the writer were deciding that and that it has nothing to do with God. I think God says he wants us to call him Father, not the writers.

2. To me, the issue is practicing homosexuality; i.e., engaging in homosexual acts.

3. If someone professes to be christian but is practicing homosexuality, we are told not to even eat with them. We could also apply this to -- let's say, a man professing to be a Christian who is being unfaithful to his wife and not repenting. Or to a Christian constantly getting drunk. This is made very clear in 1 Cor. 5. The reason being, I think, that it looks like we are endorsing that sin and also we allow it to influence the body of Christ when we accept it in the church.

9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.

11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by RockRambler:

As a non-practicing, in the closet homosexual, the Pharisees wouldn't have shunned him, because they did not know of his sexuality.

So how do we know about it now, 2,000 years later?

 

[James_Newman]

Gaydar

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RockRambler:

As a non-practicing, in the closet homosexual, the Pharisees wouldn't have shunned him, because they did not know of his sexuality.

So how do we know about it now, 2,000 years later? </font>[/QUOTE]What do we know about him 2000 years later??? We know the truth about him---thats what we know!!!

Its purely ludicrous to say that the Apostle Paul was a closet homosexual----non-practicing---man, what a joke!!!

You guys need to get a "bulldog grip" on the truth found in the truth of God's word----

Philippians 3:1-7 gives us an inside look at the Apostle's public AND private life---no mention of being in the closet with another man but yet a follower of the law--

twice he mentions his relationship to the Jewish law

v. 5, "as touching the law, a Pharasee

v. 6, "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless"

What does the law say about men lying with men?

Better question

What does the Lawgiver say about just the entertainment of adultery in ones mind???

God help us!! I'm going to urge the readers of this forum to cast aside the foolishness of the idea "non-practicing, in the closet" mentality---well---"as long as we keep it in our minds---its not sin"----thats the biggest comp out since the fall of Adam!!

secret sin on earth--is open scandal in Heaven

But Marcia---no matter what we say, dear lady---there'll always be some to whom "the god of this age hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not"

 

[RockRambler]

As a non-practicing, in the closet homosexual, the Pharisees wouldn't have shunned him, because they did not know of his sexuality.

So how do we know about it now, 2,000 years later?

That is why it is label "theory" instead of fact, no one KNOWS either way. And since no one salvation depends on whether Paul was perfect or not, it really makes no difference.

 

[blackbird]

RockRambler---the Bible is Holy Scripture! It is Truth without any mixture of error---truth---not theory!! Sailing the Seven Seas on a "Theory" Ship---you'd be safer on the maiden voyage of the HMS Titanic!!!

Lets talk truth---not theory!!!

 

[RockRambler]

blackbird...where does it say Paul was heterosexual? I think some are getting upset over something that has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. Whether Paul was homosexual or not, heterosexual or not, celibate or not, has nothing to do with the Scripture being true or not...and certainly has nothing to do with salvation.

It would be a pretty boring world if we only talked in absolutes!!! It is a theory, nothing more or nothing less. It is discussed at seminaries and by biblical scholars. Just because we discuss it, doesn't mean we're taking away from the scriptures.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by blackbird:
God help us!! I'm going to urge the readers of this forum to cast aside the foolishness of the idea "non-practicing, in the closet" mentality---well---"as long as we keep it in our minds---its not sin"----thats the biggest comp out since the fall of Adam!!

Being tempted is not sin. Succumbing to temptation is sin. The proposition is that Paul was tempted, not that he sinned.

At any rate, are we really arguing that the man who stood by watching the cloaks of the mob lynching Stephan was too righteous to be tempted with same-sex attractions before his conversion?

The idea is that Paul may have been burdened with same-sex attractions, but that he relied upon God to resist them. Why is this idea so shocking?

 

[TexasSky]

I think labeling anyone who is celebate as gay is totally insulting, and, when it comes to saints, absolutely sinful. It is, at the very least, bearing false witness.

Paul was a Pharisee, and some think probably part of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin requires marriage.

Even if he was not part of the Sanhedrin - he was a devout, legalistic Jew, and Jewish law was against homosexuality. This is clear in the way the Jews spoke about Soddom and Gomorrah.

Though the real reason the cities were condemnded is much greater than homosexual sin, it is very clear that Jews of Paul's day considered homosexuality to play a major roll in the destruction of those cities.

I also think if you're going to read into scripture you should take a long look at Paul's attitude toward women which, according to some men who teach Timothy, seems to be along the lines of "women can't help themselves sexually, so men have to be strong." (Before anyone screams at me, I don't agree with those men, but I've heard too many men preach it that way to stand back and say it can't be read that way.)

 

[dianetavegia]

TexasSky, in response to your question to me regarding the verse in James, you said:

You cannot set the sins of the flesh/body above the greatest sins, as Christ listed them. So, even if you were correct in saying there are "levels" of sin, the greatest sin would be not loving God, and the second greatest would be not loving your neighbor.

I cannot, but GOD has! The Christian body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to join Christ to a harlot....

1 Corinthians 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him........... 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

James 2:10 says 'For whosoever shall keep the whole LAW, and yet offend in one point, he is quilty of all.'

None of us are perfected until that which is perfect shall come but scripture is quite clear about sexual sins defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

Sexual sins are not the only sins that verse refers to. At least a lot of preachers apply it to other sins (any and all sins which harm the body).

 

[TexasSky]

Diane,

Thank you.

 

[RockRambler]

Paul was a Pharisee, and some think probably part of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin requires marriage. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Some think he may have been part of Sanhedrin, some think he may have been homosexual. That is why it is called "theory".

Even if he was not part of the Sanhedrin - he was a devout, legalistic Jew, and Jewish law was against homosexuality. This is clear in the way the Jews spoke about Soddom and Gomorrah. </font>[/QUOTE]The Jewish Law was against many things, and no one kept the whole law. A non-practicing, in the closet gay, wouldn't have been shunned because they wouldn't have KNOWN he had homosexual thoughts. There are devout Jews and devout Christians who have homosexual attractions. No one has said they acted on it.

I don't consider it false witness to discuss theory.