For clarification!

[Norefund]

"I would rather be wrong and offer grace than be right and offer condemnation."

This kind of made me tear up a little. Thank you.

 

[Bruh]

To accept a lie as an absolute truth could lead to other misuse/defy of the teachings of Christ. For example, the Inquisition, burning of heretics, and even Muslims using atrocities, murder and genocide to promote their belief system. To leave as gray what Jesus did not support/reject and let God handle, I believe is what is expected of me. "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God." I need to worry about me and not about whether or not a couple of lesbians get a marriage licence in Michigan or some dude chooses to smoke weed in his house in Colorado.

Why are you making it about a "marriage license" now? You're being disingenuous.

There is a ligate argument to be made that Christian demands on social structures shouldn't extend beyond individual liberty. In other words, as a American Citizen, a person can pretty much do what they want, except when it directly hurts someone else. I can see that argument. I can sympathize with that argument. I'm not looking for a Christian form of theocracy.

However, to say that God doesn't care if a man has a sexual relationship with another man.... is entirely ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're hiding your head in the sand.

Or perhaps it is not my issue because I am not gay.

When one is called to court as a juror, he is instructed to vote the accused as "innocent" if there is reasonable doubt. Some jurors can be on the same jury, listen to the same testimony, read through the same transcripts and come to different conclusions as to what is "reasonable doubt" or not. I see enough "reasonable doubt" to see this issue whereas you or probably most everybody else on this forum would not. I'm fine with there being differences of opinion. I just choose to accept my "reasonable doubt" and not condemn someone to God's judgement based on my opinion, even if I were in the right. I would rather be wrong and offer grace than be right and offer condemnation. That is my choice. Now IF that which I perceive is wrong is hurting someone else, then I should step in and help the one being hurt. Where that particular line is drawn is also subjective.

Then why preach against any kind of sin? It's not our problem.  Why, ask the Holy Ghost to reveal someones sin to them? Since it is not our problem. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

true grace comes from God....and can only be offered from a position established in righteousness....... His righteousness........  mans idea of grace.. even when well intentioned.... is often nothing more than mental and emotional abuse masquerading as grace..... and offers nothing but condemnation through an abuse of grace that seems to deny the very existence of righteousness .... or of a righteous God........

without God.....and without Gods guidance .....man is just another crab in the bucket.... pulling all the others back down into it that he thinks might be trying to climb up and find their way out....then tumbles them around in confusion while they all wait for the water to boil.......... so there is no being wrong and offering grace...... what is wrong can only offer condemnation..... grace must come from God... and from that which is right....... 

Though you are partially right, grace is given in a position of being offended. There are times we are forgiven first then we are required to forgive others, else our own forgiveness is rescinded by God.

Luke 6:37-38

“Stop judging others, and you will not be judged. Stop criticizing others, or it will all come back on you. If you forgive others, you will be forgiven. If you give, you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full measure, pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, and running over. Whatever measure you use in giving--large or small--it will be used to measure what is given back to you."

Matthew 18:32-35

Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

There are also times in our extending forgiveness and grace that is needed before receiving it from God:

Matthew 6:12, 14-15

forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Loving enemies is a necessity for us, regardless of where it initiates:

But if you are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for the happiness of those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek.

...Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked. You must be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

To accept a lie as an absolute truth could lead to other misuse/defy of the teachings of Christ. For example, the Inquisition, burning of heretics, and even Muslims using atrocities, murder and genocide to promote their belief system. To leave as gray what Jesus did not support/reject and let God handle, I believe is what is expected of me. "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God." I need to worry about me and not about whether or not a couple of lesbians get a marriage licence in Michigan or some dude chooses to smoke weed in his house in Colorado.

Why are you making it about a "marriage license" now? You're being disingenuous.

There is a ligate argument to be made that Christian demands on social structures shouldn't extend beyond individual liberty. In other words, as a American Citizen, a person can pretty much do what they want, except when it directly hurts someone else. I can see that argument. I can sympathize with that argument. I'm not looking for a Christian form of theocracy.

However, to say that God doesn't care if a man has a sexual relationship with another man.... is entirely ridiculous. If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're hiding your head in the sand.

Or perhaps it is not my issue because I am not gay.

When one is called to court as a juror, he is instructed to vote the accused as "innocent" if there is reasonable doubt. Some jurors can be on the same jury, listen to the same testimony, read through the same transcripts and come to different conclusions as to what is "reasonable doubt" or not. I see enough "reasonable doubt" to see this issue whereas you or probably most everybody else on this forum would not. I'm fine with there being differences of opinion. I just choose to accept my "reasonable doubt" and not condemn someone to God's judgement based on my opinion, even if I were in the right. I would rather be wrong and offer grace than be right and offer condemnation. That is my choice. Now IF that which I perceive is wrong is hurting someone else, then I should step in and help the one being hurt. Where that particular line is drawn is also subjective.

Then why preach against any kind of sin? It's not our problem.  Why, ask the Holy Ghost to reveal someones sin to them? Since it is not our problem.

You're asking the right questions, just don't assume they are rhetorical:

We are to rebuke our brother who is in sin:

Jesus says, “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”
"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him.”

Now the question is this: did Jesus command this to be done from a pulpit? Did He command this to be done in a public forum such as a church service?

Or could it be perhaps that Jesus never intended the church to have a pastor at all so the idea of preaching against sin is a moot point?

Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you ... "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.

 

[breslau]

Maybe Tarbaby should start a thread clarifying he is not a racist since blacks attend "HIS" church

 

[Smellin Coffee]

true grace comes from God....and can only be offered from a position established in righteousness....... His righteousness........  mans idea of grace.. even when well intentioned.... is often nothing more than mental and emotional abuse masquerading as grace..... and offers nothing but condemnation through an abuse of grace that seems to deny the very existence of righteousness .... or of a righteous God........

without God.....and without Gods guidance .....man is just another crab in the bucket.... pulling all the others back down into it that he thinks might be trying to climb up and find their way out....then tumbles them around in confusion while they all wait for the water to boil.......... so there is no being wrong and offering grace...... what is wrong can only offer condemnation..... grace must come from God... and from that which is right....... 

Though you are partially right, grace is given in a position of being offended. There are times we are forgiven first then we are required to forgive others, else our own forgiveness is rescinded by God.

i think you are either misunderstanding what i am saying...... or deliberately misapplying it......... what you have been offering on this issue of homosexuality and what you call being "gay"....is not grace........... it;s a broad brush offense against many different people.. some not even related to each other.... who you and the agnostic vein of psychology chooses to lump into one category along with those who choose to commit abomination against God..........

i can forgive you for that....... and i do........... but you are still acting like the crab in the bucket pulling all others back into it that would do what they can... and what God has enabled them to do..... to get out of it.......... why are you doing that?........ why are you parroting the most liberal fringe of a science that has never had a consensus and in which many christians are also trained and have opposing views?.......... what you say of forgiveness and Gods expectations of us concerning it is true........ but what does that have to do with the vein of psychology you are leaning to and the gay advocacy teaching children with confusing sex drives and attractions.. they don;t understand.. that they are all hopelessly gay and doomed to live as homosexuals?........ .... where is the forgiveness in that?...... where is the hope?........... and where is the gospel that i know you once believed in?............... when i first met you on the old forum 10 years ago you were a christian of much greater faith than this..........

forgiveness means refusing to seek redress for an offense......even from a person who is unrepentant.... and it can mean giving them chances to do right again... even multiple chances........but it does not always mean deliberately leaving yourself open to further offense or allowing yourself to be led into error by those who are unrepentant and who would harm you again or use you again for their own purposes......... otherwise i would have stayed with my mom in california when she got out of prison and become her whore for hire once again........ forgiveness does not mean staying in the bucket and being boiled with rest of the crabs......... you can forgive and yet also walk away separating yourself from those who chose to stay in their sin and await condemnation from God........

I agree that forgiving someone does not mean to remain in a situation of being abused. Where you and I disagree is that I believe people can be "born gay" and you don't. I have read of too many horror stories of people who "tried to reform" and couldn't, ended up in depression, broken marriages and suicides. Maybe the church should be there beside them, not to "un-gay" them but rather to encourage them in celibacy but accept who they are. Recovering addicts do this: they admit that even after being sober for 20 years, they are still addicts to whatever drug/alcohol enslaved them. They can never "lose that identity" because it is embedded in their DNA (IM very unprofessional HO). Getting people to admit they are who they are, flaws, pain and even sins and then point them to Jesus without condemning them, I don't feel is "pulling them back into the bucket". Jesus asked God to FORGIVE those that were in the process of murdering him despite their unrepentant or even understanding hearts. Have we as the church asked God to forgive someone else for their stubborn sins or do we as the church preach against them and discard them until they can get it right enough? Do we accept them as God accepts us, with open arms, hardness of hearts, struggling with our own insecurities, flaws and sins, trying to figure out conflicts within our own DNA and reconcile them to who/what God is? This is why I choose to offer grace.

 

[LongGone]

I think the point is that, on this thread, that mentality is not a part of the discussion.
In fact, eschewing that mentality was my purpose in posting the OP.

IMO, gonner posting those arguments were his version of a Hail Mary pass.
[/quote]


I haven't had time to post on this subject in a few days and thought I would let it go. The conversation had moved on. I was blasted a little bit because I treated this post as a continuation of the original post.  This post states that it is a clarification of the previous post in the HAC forum. I thought that was fine until I went back and found two posts by Tarheel.  Tarheel is claiming that this thread was started so that mentality would be eschewed.  That sounds great until you go back and look at some of his posts on the other thread.

I quote Tarheel from the other thread (reply 103)

Pedophilia is like homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

Homosexuality was once illegal like Pedophilia is now.

Many Pedophilia claim they were born that way...Genetics exactly what many homosexuals claim.

It is not the stretch you seem to want it to be...and pedophilia is closer to sodomy than lying!

I quote Tarheel from reply 112

Yes I am making the comparison, because it is there to be made.  What a pedophilia is now homosexuality once was...in every respect.

End Quote

I really don't see how you do not consider those comments gay bashing. After making those comments and then claiming you started this thread to rid the conversation of that mentality appears to be beyond disingenuous. You amaze me. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think the point is that, on this thread, that mentality is not a part of the discussion.
In fact, eschewing that mentality was my purpose in posting the OP.

IMO, gonner posting those arguments were his version of a Hail Mary pass.

I haven't had time to post on this subject in a few days and thought I would let it go. The conversation had moved on. I was blasted a little bit because I treated this post as a continuation of the original post.  This post states that it is a clarification of the previous post in the HAC forum. I thought that was fine until I went back and found two posts by Tarheel.  Tarheel is claiming that this thread was started so that mentality would be eschewed.  That sounds great until you go back and look at some of his posts on the other thread.

I quote Tarheel from the other thread (reply 103)

Pedophilia is like homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

Homosexuality was once illegal like Pedophilia is now.

Many Pedophilia claim they were born that way...Genetics exactly what many homosexuals claim.

It is not the stretch you seem to want it to be...and pedophilia is closer to sodomy than lying!

I quote Tarheel from reply 112

Yes I am making the comparison, because it is there to be made.  What a pedophilia is now homosexuality once was...in every respect.

End Quote

I really don't see how you do not consider those comments gay bashing. After making those comments and then claiming you started this thread to rid the conversation of that mentality appears to be beyond disingenuous. You amaze me.
[/quote]

Those quotes were made in the context of Smellin's claim that homosexuality was genetic. I proposed that the same claim could then be made concerning pedophiles.

And the lying comment was in the context of lying being called an abomination, I believe.
This thread states my position on homosexuality.
You wish to argue against positions not taken on this thread.

Is your position 'homosexuality is not sin'?

 

[LongGone]

I think the point is that, on this thread, that mentality is not a part of the discussion.
In fact, eschewing that mentality was my purpose in posting the OP.

IMO, gonner posting those arguments were his version of a Hail Mary pass.

I haven't had time to post on this subject in a few days and thought I would let it go. The conversation had moved on. I was blasted a little bit because I treated this post as a continuation of the original post.  This post states that it is a clarification of the previous post in the HAC forum. I thought that was fine until I went back and found two posts by Tarheel.  Tarheel is claiming that this thread was started so that mentality would be eschewed.  That sounds great until you go back and look at some of his posts on the other thread.

I quote Tarheel from the other thread (reply 103)

Pedophilia is like homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

Homosexuality was once illegal like Pedophilia is now.

Many Pedophilia claim they were born that way...Genetics exactly what many homosexuals claim.

It is not the stretch you seem to want it to be...and pedophilia is closer to sodomy than lying!

I quote Tarheel from reply 112

Yes I am making the comparison, because it is there to be made.  What a pedophilia is now homosexuality once was...in every respect.

End Quote

I really don't see how you do not consider those comments gay bashing. After making those comments and then claiming you started this thread to rid the conversation of that mentality appears to be beyond disingenuous. You amaze me.

Those quotes were made in the context of Smellin's claim that homosexuality was genetic. I proposed that the same claim could then be made concerning pedophiles.

And the lying comment was in the context of lying being called an abomination, I believe.
This thread states my position on homosexuality.
You wish to argue against positions not taken on this thread.

Is your position 'homosexuality is not sin'?
[/quote]


I have already stated that I can not make a case for homosexuality from scripture. I have also stated that the sin of Sodom was much greater than homosexuality and no where does scripture teach that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to homosexuality.  Christ does not condemn homosexuality in scripture.

None of this has anything to do with your comments in the other thread. You can't blame Smellin for your comments. You said it and and you should own it.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Again, being homosexual is not simply desiring homosexual sex. It is about desiring via an emotional need for an intimate connection with a member of the same sex as a heterosexual couple does. This is whether or not the physical activity takes place.

I disagree, Dan. In my experience there is the attraction to people of the same gender and there is the acting on that attraction.

The first could be called the "orientation" and the second the "activity."

If a person comes to Christ who is oriented toward same-gender attraction and determines in his/her heart that they will not succumb to that attraction but vows to live a life pleasing to God, that person is not homosexual but simply a sinner saved by grace who accepts that grace to live according to God's good pleasure.

It is the activity, in my opinion, which the bible addresses and not the orientation.

In my experience there are three ways to deal with same-gender attraction.

1. Give in to it and live the "gay lifestyle."
2. Determine to live a celibate life that honors God.
3. Marry a person of the opposite sex, explaining the abnormal attraction and asking that person to prayerfully help the person to avoid such behavior. 1 Corinthians 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

 

[rsc2a]

1. Apparently sinless perfectionism is the norm based on but point 1 and the earlier statements.
2. Would be proper.
3. Is a really dumb idea and setting a marriage up for a world of problems.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

no offense mr coffee...... but a little over 2 decades ago you were absolutely certain the hyperfundamentalist teachings of jack hyles were correct.....

You are correct.

when i met you 10 years ago you had abandoned those ideas and were then absolutely certain the teachings of john calvin were correct.......

You are correct. Sometimes people change over time as they grow in life through their own observations and experiences and learning. Sometimes people remain the same because of their own comfort level and logic. Both are a part of the human experience and are relative to the individual.

now.... 10 years later........ you have read some publications you decided to agree with.. from the most liberal side of an already liberal science... which contradicts both the teachings of hyles and calvin and you are absolutely certain you are right about that too.........now you take up an argument over an issue you readily admit you have no personal experience with, and no professional training in, against someone who has both the training and the experience and you are absolutely certain you are 100% correct again............ ... go figure........

And this is where you err. I am getting blasted because I have been discussing being in gray matters and now you are insinuating I am somehow convinced to take all sides liberal. Points from the liberal side I bring up show there is logic (sometimes) on the other side of the spectrum, hence I see things in a gray area. Where have I claimed absolute certainty? I am taking up the argument that I choose to extend grace, nothing more. I take up the argument that I believe gay people when they say they were born that way. Do I understand it? No, but I am not going to accuse individuals of lying about their personal lives when there is no reason to suspect they are lying. Do I understand the science behind it? Nope. But there are others who have both "training and experience", perhaps more so than "experts" you depend on that agree with the liberal science of it. So it is "expert vs. expert" which again points to ambiguity.

I have never told you or anyone they are wrong because they believe differently concerning this matter than I do. I might point out flaws in their thinking/logic but I won't insist that I have the truth and someone else doesn't simply because we differ in a belief. So I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I am claiming to be right about this topic or anything. If someone else chooses to see things in black and white the things that I see are gray, so be it. I will make my case as I see it but not demand that anyone else follow my line of thinking nor will I be dogmatic that I am always in the right.

Not sure why this bothers you but I have not intended to offend you or anyone else on this forum. I can and will apologize when my behaviors are offensive but I cannot apologize when my line of thinking changes because I look at something later in life and come to a different conclusion than what I believed when I was young.

If I have offended you, please let me know.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

LongGone:
I have already stated that I can not make a case for homosexuality from scripture. I have also stated that the sin of Sodom was much greater than homosexuality and no where does scripture teach that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to homosexuality.  Christ does not condemn homosexuality in scripture.

None of this has anything to do with your comments in the other thread. You can't blame Smellin for your comments. You said it and and you should own it.

How is saying my comments were in response to Smellin, blaming him?
Those comments were correct, if homosexuality can be said to be genetic, so can pedophilelia, based on the same line of reasoning.

Your willful disregard for the plain meaning of scripture is so laughable, you must resort to Hail Marys...dodge and deflection. I have stated exactly what I believe. As have you.
The difference, to believe what you believe requires a willful disregard for Scripture...Stevie Wonder can see that.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip> ... if homosexuality can be said to be genetic, so can pedophilelia, based on the same line of reasoning.

I agree. The same use of reason and logic that says banning same sex marriage is at odds with the 14th amendment (which the courts have said it is) then banning polygamy must also be at odds with the equal protection clause. If the government has no compelling interest to mandate a traditional model of marriage then they have no reason to regulate any model.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

3. Is a really dumb idea and setting a marriage up for a world of problems.

Yeah, God is such an idiot for having such a dumb idea. Too bad He isn't as smart as you. :

 

[rsc2a]

Really? I must have missed the passages where God told people to attach themselves to people with whom they have no interest simply so they didn't have to control their passions.

 

[prophet]

I think the point is that, on this thread, that mentality is not a part of the discussion.
In fact, eschewing that mentality was my purpose in posting the OP.

IMO, gonner posting those arguments were his version of a Hail Mary pass.

I haven't had time to post on this subject in a few days and thought I would let it go. The conversation had moved on. I was blasted a little bit because I treated this post as a continuation of the original post.  This post states that it is a clarification of the previous post in the HAC forum. I thought that was fine until I went back and found two posts by Tarheel.  Tarheel is claiming that this thread was started so that mentality would be eschewed.  That sounds great until you go back and look at some of his posts on the other thread.

I quote Tarheel from the other thread (reply 103)

Pedophilia is like homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

Homosexuality was once illegal like Pedophilia is now.

Many Pedophilia claim they were born that way...Genetics exactly what many homosexuals claim.

It is not the stretch you seem to want it to be...and pedophilia is closer to sodomy than lying!

I quote Tarheel from reply 112

Yes I am making the comparison, because it is there to be made.  What a pedophilia is now homosexuality once was...in every respect.

End Quote

I really don't see how you do not consider those comments gay bashing. After making those comments and then claiming you started this thread to rid the conversation of that mentality appears to be beyond disingenuous. You amaze me.

Those quotes were made in the context of Smellin's claim that homosexuality was genetic. I proposed that the same claim could then be made concerning pedophiles.

And the lying comment was in the context of lying being called an abomination, I believe.
This thread states my position on homosexuality.
You wish to argue against positions not taken on this thread.

Is your position 'homosexuality is not sin'?

I have already stated that I can not make a case for homosexuality from scripture. I have also stated that the sin of Sodom was much greater than homosexuality and no where does scripture teach that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to homosexuality.  Christ does not condemn homosexuality in scripture.

None of this has anything to do with your comments in the other thread. You can't blame Smellin for your comments. You said it and and you should own it.
[/quote]


Jud 1:7
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Seems clear to me.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Jud 1:7
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Seems clear to me.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to them. I thought of the same verses but its rather obvious they don't really care what the Scriptures have to say.

On a side note. The word "sodomy" has a rather extensive history. It can easily be traced across multiple languages..... All have the same general meaning. I suppose this doesn't mean anything to them as well.

 

[rsc2a]

I'd like to see someone show that "strange flesh" couldn't rightly be understood to actually mean "foreigners; strangers" to say nothing of of it should be understood that way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'd like to see someone show that "strange flesh" couldn't rightly be understood to actually mean "foreigners; strangers" to say nothing of of it should be understood that way.

It would be rather redundant to mention fornication and "sex with a foreigners/stranger" in the same sentence. Its rather obvious that the writer use of the term "strange flesh" is meant to speak of something else. I have seen some make the case for this referring to sexual relations between angels and humanity. It certainly isn't a case of being "redundant".

What do you think the word "Sodomy" has meant throughout history?