When the Bible does not promote or condone, then what?

[micatala]

This thread is prompted by the often-made statement.

I have asked you to provide any evidence "from the Bible" (since you have offered that you are a priest), where sodomy/perderasty-homosexuality-Gay, is celebrated, supported, condoned, promoted, or preached as acceptable, anywhere in the New Testament

The implication is that, since the Bible nowhere promotes, condones, or 'celebrates' homosexuality, this is further indication it should be condemned.

Question for debate:

Is this a valid conclusion?

Are there other examples of behaviors, views, etc. that are not promoted, condoned, or celebrated in the Bible, but that Christians typically do not condemn?

[McCulloch]

No, this IS NOT an exclusively "Christian debate" (as I believe you are imagining it to be).

Melikio,
This particular debate is in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

This subforum was established to enable discussion, by Christians and others, about what is the authentic Christian position.

[melikio]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

Ok. I will consider myself educated.

I don't object to the description of the subform; it makes sense.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

1John wrote:

micatala wrote:
It has even been suggested that following some of these precepts is only a good idea in certain circumstances. For example, 1John claimed the hair-cutting precept might have been in response to homosexual influences in the community which Paul was addressing in that particular letter (although he presented no evidence that this was Paul's intention).

I used Biblical texts as evidence. This is a Christian debate.

I have also used Biblical texts as evidence.

And they condone things and do not condone others.

What evidence is there in the Biblical text that Paul's hair-cutting admonition had anything to do with homosexuality, as you implied?

Samson.

Also, I am not going to the lengths that that homosexualizers are in what they attempt to do. Paul had to deal with effeminate homosexuals is a fact bourne out by the texts. Arsenokotai leaves no doubt about the disapproval of homosexual sex. Paul's inventing a word much like the word "butch." Carries a heavy definition.

1John wrote:
There has never been even a shred of evidence for the atagonistic crowd to prove that same-gender sex acts and same-gender unions "can" be equated to slavery and hair length.

I don't see anyone has 'equated' these. It has simply been noted that the Bible condones slavery and does not condone women wearing short hair and men wearing long hair.

A woman wearing short hair can be tested as to what fruit she bears. Though I doubt highly that men and women were not clearly defined in Roman times. Paul's writings must be discarded by the gay crowd to accomplish their mission. Altering and changing "the way."

It has been noted that modern Christians are fine with prohibiting slavery and fine with any length of hair for anyone.

Is kidnapping and owning Africans the same "kind" of slavery mentioned in the OT? Romans were grueling psychos when holding the worth of slaves. They used them sexually as well.

It is clear that some modern Christians are inconsistent in applying Biblical precepts and admonitions. The evidence is irrefutable.

And you want "that" to justify arriving at sodomy as a lifestyle for Christians? You will fail in that quest. "Holiness" is the mission of "Christianity." A quest not altered for political correctness. The gays in the Catholic Church prove that.

1John wrote:
There is no silence on the issue of homosexuality in the Gospel and the letters.

The gospels do not mention homosexuality, so they are silent on the issue.

In your opinion. I assert that your convoltion does not justify same-gender marriage OR sex acts are OK for Christians. On that there is no doubt. Especially marriage. That is exclusively man and woman. According to what Jesus claerly defined as the "way it is and always has been." There is no justification for Christians to be forced to submit to same-sex marriage. Again I'll repeat, the secular world can pursue that evil. It is their right.

It has been noted that Paul's letters are at best ambiguous on what is meant by homosexuality and whether it is a sin or not in all cases.

You're joking right? Pauline preaching has to be eliminated by Christian oposition precisely because he is graphic and precise in his condemnation of same-gender sex. C'mon man.

I and others have used Biblical evidence to support this position. It would be incorrect to say that the NT unambiguously supports your position.

To liberals that have crossed the line into the heresy of what we now call "progressive" thought. Loving your neighbor as yourself is not celebrating their rebellion and destestabe practices. In keeping with the whole council of God that is.

I will be fascinated in watching this rise of homosexual Christianity. I have seen the destruction of "no-fault divorce" and no accountabilty sex in the abortion supporters. No doubt that gay sex was the next domino to fall to the licentious crowd infecting beautiful Church bodies.

Quote:
Marriage is a man and a woman. There is also no reason to alter this.

In your opinion.

And Christ Jesus. You forgot Him. And I would proclaim the same God as well. Far be it from me to celebrate and support what God cannot join. Am I to fear that on judgment day? Not if the Bible is to be trusted. I trust that my sins are washed away by the blood of Christ. I do not wilfully demand anyone submit to my sin life as a new civil rights issue.

Quote:

In fact the way Jesus describes the joining of man and woman is immutable

Again, in your opinion. The fact that Jesus discusses heterosexual marriages does not imply, by His silence, that he would not condone any homosexual marriages. You are making a big assumption in asserting this.

Based on five-thousand years of consistent history. And of course, the word of God.

I would allow that you could make the case that heterosexual marriage is more 'natural.' However, as has been repeatedly shown, an act being unnatural does not make it immoral.

And it has been shown that marriage is only a man and a woman in the Bible. Start your own religion but please, stop supporting the subjugation of Christians to this new evil. That is also good Biblical advice.

Quote:

There is right and wrong.

Agreed.

Actually no, you don't. You present that things can change. Then there is no God. "He" is just a "fad" from age to age.

Quote:
The adversaries of Christians need to prove "with" supporting text that same-gender sex is valid for followers of God.

First off, it is not only the adversaries of Christians that believe same-gender sex might be valid for followers of God.

Though your admitting the yoking of believers and unbelievers is creepy yo behold.

Many Christians would hold that same-gender sex can be considered moral at least in some circumstances.

Mormons call themselves Christians.

Heterosexual sex is also moral in some circumstances, and immoral in others, according to most Christians.

You cannot have relativism and hold to your last sentence making any sense. There is no morality or immorality. They are just words subject to fads.

Secondly, why should those who believe homosexuals should be allowed the same sexual freedoms as heterosexual Christians have to prove anything to anyone?

The yeast of heresy. The targeting of children to be indoctrinated into Satanism. Plain and simple. We Christians have great seriousness about our childen.

If homosexuals weren't so virulent in their quest for educating youth to become homosexuals (questioning and/or confused kids) no one would care what they do. As long as parents have the natural feelings to protect their children from harm, there will always be dissenters of homosexualization. The Pauline preachings bear that out.

Can you find me Biblical support which proves it is OK for people to wear glasses, massage their spouses foot with their own, use a computer, fly an airplane, chew gum, do crossword puzzles, engage in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure without any intention or possibility of procreation?

Glasses correct a congenital defect. In your view selling glasses is a hate crime. Massaging feet helps elimiante pain. Chewing gum, crossword puzzles and deviant sex are comparable only in Absudia. A town a don't visit often.

Planes and computers have been shown to improve the condition of life for people. People try to cure bad birth conditions. Planes stop people from dying on long trips they would otherwise not survive. Computers are used to communicate words.

Sex for the sole purpose of plaesure is no one's business except the adults doing it. I said "adults." If these adults want to make a new culture and community about their sex acts, it is sound morality to drive these people back into their bedrooms and tell them to "keep it to themselves."

When you can provide such evidence, then it might be appropriate for us to consider whether proof is necessary for same gender-sex to be considered moral in some circumstances.

I don't think your list is in the "detestable practices" categories. Your attempt to homosexualize Christian Churches fails on logic, and of course the Biblical record.

The Bible clearly allows each believer to have their own relationship with God, and to weigh in their own conscience what is sinful and what is not sinful within this relationship.

Though Jesus says that marriage is a man and a woman. You forget that part? And the connection between gay/lesbian sex (described in R-Rated terms) and false religions is hard to ignore. Especially when seing where liberal theology has led us to this new "thing" called "progressive" thought. Where did we think godless evolution would take us?

This is why it is OK for Christians not to follow all the OT dietary laws, etc., why it is OK for women to wear buzz cuts and men to wear long hair, why it is OK for Christians to engage in a whole host of practices which are either not mentioned or even which are explicitly spoken against in the Bible, as long as they in faith and good conscience in communion with the Lord are assured by faith that they are acting properly. In such a circumstance, the Bible clearly says it is not up to other believers to judge.

All that to force Christians to submit to the Gay Agenda? It is a godless and counter-movement to what is presented in the New Testament. What would this "Queer" or, Gay Christianity look like? Think Gay Pride Parades and the filth that marches along the streets with children looking on?

Sorry, but the moderators here have eliminated my ability to provide factual evidence along with my words. There is no comparison to a Christian life and a life defined by your personal sex acts.

The burden is on those who claim that believers who are homosexual cannot ever engage in same-gender sex and be considered in right standing with God to provide proof.

Wrong. The burben of proof is on the new people entering in to the established Church. The homosexualization of Christians is never going to happen without complete subjugation of Christians by secular laws. No different than Musil/Islaimic Sharia law dominating Christians. Mormons had to seek their own land to develope their new religion. I suggest the gay and lesbians do the same thing, if they do not want to follow the New Testament. Mormons invented their own history and religion. Homosexualization and those that worship it, can do the same thing.

And McCulloch:

1John2_26 wrote:
I used Biblical texts as evidence. This is a Christian debate.

There has never been even a shred of evidence for the atagonistic crowd to prove that same-gender sex acts and same-gender unions "can" be equated to slavery and hair length.

The point, in case you missed it, is that the Bible seems to dictate both the appropriate gender for sex acts and correct hair length based on gender.

Samson was quite the guy with chicks. He was a long-haired hippy freak. Literally. He had to grow his back to get "right with God."

One is deemed critically important to Christians and the other is virtually ignored.

Wrong.

Things taken "in context" decide theological premise. There is nowhere, where the Bible condones same-sex sex. The only place where this could be "forced into" the text is David and Jonathan. And they both married women and had kids the "old fashioned way." And also, there is no reason to equate the love David had "for" Jonathan, with sex acts done between the two. If I were a pastor, I would warn my congregation of the blasphemey inherent in homosexualization of thre text there. I love many guys. Even my brother and father. Sans orgasm to show my unchangeable love for them all.

1John2_26 wrote:
You never hear a word about the condemnation of the promoiscuity and lascivious licentiousness that literally defines the gay and lesbian culture.
Do the Christians equally condemn the promiscuity and lascivious licentiousness of certain heterosexuals? Do Christians withhold their condemnation from monogamous and dignified gay people?

1John2_26 quoting Ron Wyatt wrote:
This is not to say that some are not Godly men, led by the Holy Spirit. But today, you CANNOT tell the "good from the bad" without examining every word that comes out of their mouths, as well as examining the example of their lives. 99% truth is NOT good enough. God's Truth includes EVERY WORD in the Bible, not just the portions various preachers are fondest of. The danger we are all facing is very real- without our OWN knowledge of the Truth as revealed in the Bible, we are in danger of believing lies and Satan's deceptions.

He has already gotten some of his insidious "interpretations" of what Scriptures "really" mean accepted by a large amount of people.
Emphasis added.

Ron Wyatt seems to get the point. Why are Christians rejecting homosexuals from their congregations when they accept women with short hair and gold jewelry?

Which Church does that? One in Kansas? I have attended many diferent churches. Even went to a Mormon "stake" when I was a kid. Everyone is welcomed into a Church until they want to alter that Church. Then they must be confronted. If they will not submit to the authority of that Church, then they must go. I told the Mormons they were wrong, they tried to show me I was wrong. I stood my ground. I was asked to leave.

Why do they reject a man who is married to another man but accept a man who is living as husband with a woman who is, according to Jesus, still married to another man?

Because the Bible has examples of men living with multiple wives and having children with women that are not their wives. Even prophets marrying promiscuous whores. The Bible no where even remotely presents homosexuality or homosexual relationships as anything acceptable.

Please show one place "other than" David and Jonathan where you have support for the theology of homosexualizing Christians?

Two wrongs still never make a right.

Where is the thread that makes sense? It should be called "What would homosexual Christianty look like?"

I'll bet it won't be bath houses, thousands of sex partners, "bi-sexuals" able to sleep with a one gender one night and another the next, and cross dressers of either gender. They will have to choose which?

Even if only mimicking Christians (which is is trying as we write), the Gay Agenda will have to submit to a higher form of morality than "anything goes." Just like the ungodly cannot claim membership in the Church of Christ just because they think Jesus had some cool ideas. "It" doesn't work that way.

Whatever the Lord has in store for the Church of Christ, it will not be the licensing, promoting and condoning of lascivious licentiousness and promiscuity and the subjugating of Christians to force them to tolerate that. History and the Bible are in complete compliance there.

[micatala]

1John has provided a long post with a lot to comment on. I do not have the time now to hit each point, so will just make a couple comments and hope to get back to the rest soon.

Can you find me Biblical support which proves it is OK for people to wear glasses, massage their spouses foot with their own, use a computer, fly an airplane, chew gum, do crossword puzzles, engage in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure without any intention or possibility of procreation?

Glasses correct a congenital defect. In your view selling glasses is a hate crime. Massaging feet helps elimiante pain. Chewing gum, crossword puzzles and deviant sex are comparable only in Absudia. A town a don't visit often.

Planes and computers have been shown to improve the condition of life for people. People try to cure bad birth conditions. Planes stop people from dying on long trips they would otherwise not survive. Computers are used to communicate words.

Sex for the sole purpose of plaesure is no one's business except the adults doing it. I said "adults." If these adults want to make a new culture and community about their sex acts, it is sound morality to drive these people back into their bedrooms and tell them to "keep it to themselves."

All of these are reasonable comments.

None of them has anything to do with the Bible. You ask for Biblical support for allowing Christians to engage in homosexual sex, at least in certain situations, but are unable or unwilling to provide Biblical support for these practices.

I think we at least agree that homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes is OK. I am also saying that if these people are Christians, their behavior should not be condemned simply because it does not find approval in the Bible. As has been noted, there are many practices for which there is no Biblical justification which are not considered immoral, even by conservative CHristians. There are also practices which are explicitly disapproved of in the Bible which are not considered immoral.

I used Biblical texts as evidence. This is a Christian debate.

I have also used Biblical texts as evidence.

And they condone things and do not condone others.

and nearly every Christian on the face of the planet decides for themselves which of the practices that are not condoned they will practice anyway.

A Christian man who does not cut his hair, a woman who does, a Christian who lends money to a fellow believer, or who divorces and remarries, or who wears cloths of different fibres, all are engaging in practices that are not condoned in the Bible.

A woman wearing short hair can be tested as to what fruit she bears. Though I doubt highly that men and women were not clearly defined in Roman times. Paul's writings must be discarded by the gay crowd to accomplish their mission. Altering and changing "the way."

I would agree, the hair is irrelevant, the fruit is.

Let's judge homosexuals with the same yardstick.

Many homosexuals are monogamous, faithful believers producing wonderful fruit. Many are celibate. Many work hard to advance the good news, help the poor, strive for justice, minister to the sick. Why would a Christian criticize such a person, or seek to have them put of the church, or lump them together with other homosexuals who are not believers or not attempting to further God's kingdom?

It is not true that one must discard Paul's writings to allow that homosexuality is not inherently immoral. I would hold that one can embrace Paul's writing's and respect for homosexuals.

[1John2_26]

1John has provided a long post with a lot to comment on. I do not have the time now to hit each point, so will just make a couple comments and hope to get back to the rest soon.

I applaud you once again. Sound bites are so lame.

1John wrote:

micatala wrote:
Can you find me Biblical support which proves it is OK for people to wear glasses, massage their spouses foot with their own, use a computer, fly an airplane, chew gum, do crossword puzzles, engage in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure without any intention or possibility of procreation?

Glasses correct a congenital defect. In your view selling glasses is a hate crime. Massaging feet helps elimiante pain. Chewing gum, crossword puzzles and deviant sex are comparable only in Absudia. A town a don't visit often.

Planes and computers have been shown to improve the condition of life for people. People try to cure bad birth conditions. Planes stop people from dying on long trips they would otherwise not survive. Computers are used to communicate words.

Sex for the sole purpose of plaesure is no one's business except the adults doing it. I said "adults." If these adults want to make a new culture and community about their sex acts, it is sound morality to drive these people back into their bedrooms and tell them to "keep it to themselves."

All of these are reasonable comments.

None of them has anything to do with the Bible.

Oh contraire my opponent. Curing illness is by the act, loving ones neighbor as oneself.

You ask for Biblical support for allowing Christians to engage in homosexual sex, at least in certain situations, but are unable or unwilling to provide Biblical support for these practices.

The OT and the NT are well spoken for when it comes to same-gender sex acts. Both have no support for it. But curing the suffering of others? That has much support in the Biblical text. Preaching the Gospel as Paul did, helped get people out of same-gender sex.

I think we at least agree that homosexuals having sex in the privacy of their own homes is OK.

Not according to the OT. If it "comes to light" in the NT it must be "cured." So I doubt many would see us in agreement on celebrating and promoting same-gender sex acts as something that Christians should engage in. Paul lists the sex as something that was rid of. "Such WERE some of you . . ." At best a Christian should never cease trying to convince a person away from arsenokotai. And why anyone allows "lesbiansim" a label of a pederasty from a teacher from Lesbos Island is beyond me. If we are to use our powers of reasoning to decide issues "lesbianism" is a word that denotes a teacher seducing her students as acceptable. Hey, it's "their" history not mine.

I am also saying that if these people are Christians, their behavior should not be condemned simply because it does not find approval in the Bible.

Huh whuh?

As has been noted, there are many practices for which there is no Biblical justification which are not considered immoral, even by conservative CHristians.

So we just grease up the slippery slope? We have arrived at the satanic "Do what thou wilt!" Or: Anything goes? I'm thinking that is not a Christian message. How is anything defined if everything is OK?

There are also practices which are explicitly disapproved of in the Bible which are not considered immoral.

Same-gender sex is explicitly disapproved of.

1John wrote:
I used Biblical texts as evidence. This is a Christian debate.

micatala wrote:
I have also used Biblical texts as evidence.

1John wrote:
And they condone things and do not condone others.

Micatal wrote:

and nearly every Christian on the face of the planet decides for themselves which of the practices that are not condoned they will practice anyway.

Some are hertical and some are not. Some are anti-Christ even.

A Christian man who does not cut his hair, a woman who does, a Christian who lends money to a fellow believer, or who divorces and remarries, or who wears cloths of different fibres, all are engaging in practices that are not condoned in the Bible.

Long hair is codoned. Divorce and remarriage is condoned. "In the Bible."

Quote:
A woman wearing short hair can be tested as to what fruit she bears. Though I doubt highly that men and women were not clearly defined in Roman times. Paul's writings must be discarded by the gay crowd to accomplish their mission. Altering and changing "the way."

I would agree, the hair is irrelevant, the fruit is.

Let's judge homosexuals with the same yardstick.

Please rethink that. Raising children in a same-gender relationship is something that carries a heavy consequence according to the teaching about putting a stone before a child. Teaching and reaching out to youth to embrace same-gender sex acts is as close to satanic as it gets. IMO Biblical opinion. In the secular world you guys can embrace what you want. The Bible has limits.

Many homosexuals are monogamous, faithful believers producing wonderful fruit.

So are Hezbollah members. They feed and clothe many. Mormons are the nicest guys on bikes. Neither bring people into the body of Christ.

Many are celibate.

Only if they choose to be. Jesus told them what marriage is and what it is for. Paul too.

Many work hard to advance the good news, help the poor, strive for justice, minister to the sick.

So does the Saudi royal family. And they pay suicide bombers to slaughter innocent people on buses and in towns. Muslims think suicide bombers are wonderful people. WWJD?

Why would a Christian criticize such a person, or seek to have them put of the church, or lump them together with other homosexuals who are not believers or not attempting to further God's kingdom?

Because those gay people will not renounce same-gender sex as wrong. They even want to teach kids to embrace the life. They march alongside the sickest and most foul displays of sexual perversions in "their" Gay Pride parades. What decent Christian marches with Klan members?

One of my best friends is gay and a Christian. He cringes at what happens at these parades that gays are so proud of. Where is the holiness and purity message in Gay Christianity? "Do what thou wilt," is not it.

It is not true that one must discard Paul's writings to allow that homosexuality is not inherently immoral.

That is an incorrect statement proven by the lengths that liberal theologians go to to mangle plain Pauline sermons. And the support these kinds of people get from anti-Christians - virulent and vitrioloc anti-Christians at that - give reason to run up the warning flag for every Christian on this planet. What and who is yoked to this Gay Agenda?

I would hold that one can embrace Paul's writing's and respect for homosexuals.

In only one way.

[micatala]

Again, I find I can only make a partial response, but I think the discussion is a good one.

As has been noted, there are many practices for which there is no Biblical justification which are not considered immoral, even by conservative CHristians.

So we just grease up the slippery slope? We have arrived at the satanic "Do what thou wilt!" Or: Anything goes? I'm thinking that is not a Christian message. How is anything defined if everything is OK?

I see we are having somewhat parallel discussions with the divorce thread.

I am not saying 'anything goes' or 'do what thou wilt'. I am simply saying we apply the same theology of CHristian freedom, individual responsibility to the Lord, and following the higher law of love that CHrist allows to all believers to homosexuals.

Quote:
1John wrote:

micatala wrote:
Can you find me Biblical support which proves it is OK for people to wear glasses, massage their spouses foot with their own, use a computer, fly an airplane, chew gum, do crossword puzzles, engage in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure without any intention or possibility of procreation?

Glasses correct a congenital defect. In your view selling glasses is a hate crime. Massaging feet helps elimiante pain. Chewing gum, crossword puzzles and deviant sex are comparable only in Absudia. A town a don't visit often.

Planes and computers have been shown to improve the condition of life for people. People try to cure bad birth conditions. Planes stop people from dying on long trips they would otherwise not survive. Computers are used to communicate words.

Sex for the sole purpose of plaesure is no one's business except the adults doing it. I said "adults." If these adults want to make a new culture and community about their sex acts, it is sound morality to drive these people back into their bedrooms and tell them to "keep it to themselves."

All of these are reasonable comments.

None of them has anything to do with the Bible.

Oh contraire my opponent. Curing illness is by the act, loving ones neighbor as oneself.

True. Even though there are not specific passages condoning some of these, they could be interpreted as having a loving purpose. If one uses a computer or a plane or whatever in love and in an effort to help others and further God's will then I would absolutely agree that following the larger good trumps any lack of specific passages condoning said behavior, even if there [edited from their for M's benfit] are passages that seem to disapprove of the behavior.

For example, the Bible says in the OT that an Israelite should not lend money for interest to a fellow Israelite. However, person A could, in order to help B learn financial responsibility and gain confidence and discipline, lend B money at interest. He is violating a 'rule' but is following the larger law of love for the good of B.

Now, let's judge homosexuals by the same measure.

Certainly I would agree that homosexuals who live a promiscuous life, seek to attract others into promiscuity, lustfulness, and hedonism, etc., are not practicing the law of love and their practices find no support in the Bible. The same would be true for heterosexuals who follow such practices.

However, two homosexuals who enter a long term relationship for each others benefit, sincerely and selflessly loving each other, and doing good acts for others as a result of the stability and love they find in this relationship deserve no condemnation. They are following a higher law of love and producing good fruit.

Heterosexuals are allowed by Paul to marry simply to avoid the problem of 'burning in lust for one another.' WHy would we not use the same measure, and provide the same grace for homosexuals? Why would we place a burden upon them that we who are heterosexuals are not asked to carry, nor are most of us willing to carry? Would this not be Pharisaic?

At best a Christian should never cease trying to convince a person away from arsenokotai.

If I believed that homosexuality as we understand it today was in any way voluntary, I might agree. However, the personal witness of homosexuals themselves, never mind the scientific evidence that homosexuality is likely largely inborn in most cases, is too overwhelming for me to accept this. I cannot in good conscience expect homosexuals to go against inborn tendencies as strong as my own heterosexual tendencies. I am convinced that God would not either. As long as a homosexual individual acts responsibly, seeks to walk in love with God and his or her fellow humans, I do not see any Biblical justification to not accept him or her as a brother or sister in CHrist.

[1John2_26]

I believe it is sensible to see your position Micatala, as well as the non-Christians that support gays and lesbians, to see it as a wierd slippery slope. Literally not quite the end of Christianity but as close to it as I (and millions and millions of Christians including Pope Benedict) care to get.

Isn't it just as loving to allow Satan worshippers that claim they too love Christ to be members in your Church? Satan is a real being to Christians.

Where does this love thing stop? Human sacrifice? Abortion doctors as deacons and elders? Same logic. There are plenty of people that perform such things today. Like I wrote, that so many anti-Christians are driving this "let gays be Christians" thing as to be a booming call to action for the believers.

Again, I find I can only make a partial response, but I think the discussion is a good one.

Quote:
1John wrote:

micatala wrote:
Can you find me Biblical support which proves it is OK for people to wear glasses, massage their spouses foot with their own, use a computer, fly an airplane, chew gum, do crossword puzzles, engage in sex for the sole purpose of pleasure without any intention or possibility of procreation?

Glasses correct a congenital defect. In your view selling glasses is a hate crime. Massaging feet helps elimiante pain. Chewing gum, crossword puzzles and deviant sex are comparable only in Absudia. A town a don't visit often.

Planes and computers have been shown to improve the condition of life for people. People try to cure bad birth conditions. Planes stop people from dying on long trips they would otherwise not survive. Computers are used to communicate words.

Sex for the sole purpose of plaesure is no one's business except the adults doing it. I said "adults." If these adults want to make a new culture and community about their sex acts, it is sound morality to drive these people back into their bedrooms and tell them to "keep it to themselves."

All of these are reasonable comments.

None of them has anything to do with the Bible.

Quote:
Oh contraire my opponent. Curing illness is by the act, loving ones neighbor as oneself.


True. Even though there are not specific passages condoning some of these, they could be interpreted as having a loving purpose.

Love is conditional though. Where this "love everything" ideology comes from is not a valid concept. No good and decent parent holds to unconditional love. Otherwise most children wouldn't finish school and would be fat pigs.

If one uses a computer or a plane or whatever in love and in an effort to help others and further God's will then I would absolutely agree that following the larger good trumps any lack of specific passages condoning said behavior, even if there [edited from their for M's benfit] are passages that seem to disapprove of the behavior.

Though I am seen as a fundamentalist, the glowing contradictions in the Bible, is God saying one thing and then letting the israelites off the hook. Though the consistent message is also glowingly evident.

For example, the Bible says in the OT that an Israelite should not lend money for interest to a fellow Israelite. However, person A could, in order to help B learn financial responsibility and gain confidence and discipline, lend B money at interest. He is violating a 'rule' but is following the larger law of love for the good of B.

Love would entail no interest. Love would entail paying back the money.

Now, let's judge homosexuals by the same measure.

Homosexuality is a sex act. Or well, maybe a few. For the record.

Certainly I would agree that homosexuals who live a promiscuous life, seek to attract others into promiscuity, lustfulness, and hedonism, etc., are not practicing the law of love and their practices find no support in the Bible.

And their marriages. You left that part out.

The same would be true for heterosexuals who follow such practices.

And who march it down main street. And that want it to be a civl right to be promiscuous. Bi-sexuals are exactly that, by open declaration. They need to decide one way, and Biblical that is literally one way.

However, two homosexuals who enter a long term relationship for each others benefit, sincerely and selflessly loving each other, and doing good acts for others as a result of the stability and love they find in this relationship deserve no condemnation.

In what religious community? Baal or Molech? The Israelites had no support for this behavior. The NT does not have one supporting statement for licensing this "thing" into the Church body. Two guys can indeed live together and do whatever, but once they make it known what they're up to, the die is cast.

They are following a higher law of love and producing good fruit.

What justification "from the Bible" can support that assertion? Since, none exists? Can't these people invent their own religion? Or at least stop attacking decent Christians as homophobes and hate crimes perpatrators, and just form some kind of new denomination? I have been to many different kinds of denominations, and not one would support gay people influencing anyone in the Church body. Divorced people are to remain silent about their views, if, they want to encourage others to commit adultery, seek an easy-out divorce, or choose the lifestyle they chose. There is no compatibility in celebrating sinners and a Church remanining healthy.

Heterosexuals are allowed by Paul to marry simply to avoid the problem of 'burning in lust for one another.' WHy would we not use the same measure, and provide the same grace for homosexuals?

Paul made it clear that same-gender sex acts is something that believers used to do. He listed all sorts of people that repented and changed their ways. he lists same-gender sex as something rid of.

Why would we place a burden upon them that we who are heterosexuals are not asked to carry, nor are most of us willing to carry?

Adulterers are warned to stop commiting adultery. Even the re-married ones. Homosexuals "of today" are demanding that Christians accept them and that the Christians remain silent in their disapproval of same-gender sex acts.

That is never going to find a solid footing in Christianity. This gay Christian fad will soon tire of having to walk the narrow path for a lifetime.

Would this not be Pharisaic?

Liberal theolgy is just as Pharisaical as anything done by Caiaphas and his ilk. They just use the word "love" as a means to force submission of beautiful Christians. The whole Christian deal on sex, is to work on leaving a life defined by sexual debauchery. Not inviting it as leadership in the Church. Like divorced people, "IF" gays and lesbians want to dwell in sound healthy Churches, it would not be in positions of influence. Read Paul's advice on Church leadership written to Timothy and Titus. "Wife" means woman. "Husband" means man. "One" means one.

Quote:
At best a Christian should never cease trying to convince a person away from arsenokotai.

If I believed that homosexuality as we understand it today was in any way voluntary, I might agree.

If I didn't believe that the modern world is far more satanic and sophiscticated, I would not care about heretics masquerading as Christians. There are too many warnings by Christ Jesus and the writers of the New Testament warning us of false teachers, who's goal is to deceive the elect.

However, the personal witness of homosexuals themselves, never mind the scientific evidence that homosexuality is likely largely inborn in most cases, is too overwhelming for me to accept this.

Unfortuantely Christians do not have the same freedom to examine the validity of the evidence. If we look at just the behavior, it "HAS" to be a mental disorder. But, one that can easily be overcome by thinking rational human beings. No differently than an adulterer stopping that behavior. No differently than a man or woman choosing a life partner that may indeed not be their first choice. How many men married to dark haired women "love" blonds?

I cannot in good conscience expect homosexuals to go against inborn tendencies as strong as my own heterosexual tendencies.

If homosexuality is natural, then so is multiple sex partners (heterosexuals) for our species. I for one literally know the overwhelming feelings of desiring multiple sex partners. But I left choosing to indulge those actions sooner rather than later. Relatively speaking. The Bible does not condone equaling same-gender partnerships with how men and women were created "since the beginning." It cannot be so light a thing to discard the word of God for political and social correctness. If anything, Christianity is not supposed to be politically correct. Ekklesia literally "the called out ones," are what we are "literally" supposed to be. The incessant secular demands on Christians to accept homosexuality is corrupt and criminal. It is happening, but, decdent Christians must follow God and not political power-mongers.

I am convinced that God would not either.

And that is where you start your own religion or, denomination. Good luck to you. The Mormons will out nice you, I'll bet, ten out of ten times.

As long as a homosexual individual acts responsibly, seeks to walk in love with God and his or her fellow humans, I do not see any Biblical justification to not accept him or her as a brother or sister in CHrist.

And that is a civil right granted to you by secular laws.

Too bad Christians that see the Bible in its original teachings without corrupting it for politics, are not given the same respect.

Instead, we must face this neologism called "homphobia" and hate crime legislation to force submission of this homosexualization of Christians.

Whatever happened to that "live and let live" mantra so ubiqutous in the "do what thou wilt" crowd? Why must Christians be put under the heel of secular power?

If Christians are allowed to be seperate from Muslims, without a charge of discrimination, then homosexuals and anti-Christians should at least stop with all of the charges of hate and intolerance directed at Christians that hold to the authentic word of God "in the Bible."

We are told to shake the dust off our feet as the response to those that do not want to follow the Gospel. Not exactly a tough thing for secularists to deal with. But they seem to be incensed by Christians. Grab a latte guys, and have a laugh at our expense. Just like Noah's neighbors did to him. Just like Jesus described it as happening. How many secularists don't believe in Noah's little story?

The Bible does not promote, condone nor support Christians to become like the world. And it is always going to be the call of Christians to love one another like Christ loved the Church. That is how we are to know one another. Read the Gospel.

[melikio]

Love is conditional though.

With Jesus, it's "agape".

Of all the things I'd like to see you prove "biblically", this is the one.

Prove that you are correct (biblically); if you really can.

I'm virtually certain you cannot justify what you are implying; but I'd be interested to see you try.

-Mel-

[melikio]

The Christian usage of the term agape comes directly from the canonical Gospel's account of the teachings of Jesus. When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, "'Love (agape) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Gospel of Matthew 22:37-41)

At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

You have heard that it was said, 'Love (agape) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?
Christian writers have generally described agape, as expounded on by Jesus, as a form of love which is both unconditional and volitional, that is, it is non-discriminating with no pre-conditions and is something that one decides to do. Saint Paul described love as follows: "Love (agape) is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a). Tertullian, in his 2nd century defense of Christians remarks how Christian love attracted pagan notice: "What marks us in the eyes of our enemies is our loving kindness. 'Only look' they say, 'look how they love one another.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

I find it near-absolutely disturbing, that someone claiming to be "Christian" could not relate to or understand the kind of love Jesus showed the world as being "unconditional". But, I suppose I've endured enough people wearing the "Christian" label, who really aren't about love as Jesus expressed it to the world. It makes me sad, but I always have hope that more people will know and value that which God or a miracle may reveal to them. It's not my place, to force anyone to see things MY way.

I'm not going to spend too much energy trying to convince them though; things at that level are God's to handle (IMV). The best I can do is set the example God lays on my heart (as a human being, one who still believes in Him).

-Mel-

[melikio]

No good and decent parent holds to unconditional love. Otherwise most children wouldn't finish school and would be fat pigs.

1John, what do you think "love" really is?

The characteristics I gave most attention to (and live by, as best I can) are well known:

Jesus explained in Matthew 7

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
So then, you will know them by their fruits.
Twice in that passage, in verses 16 and 20, Jesus said, You will know them by their fruits.

So, what are the fruits by which we can recognize those who are not the true children of God? The Bible specifically lists what should be exibited in every believer. Galatians 5:22-23 itemizes them for us:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

The Apostle Paul expanded upon the characteristics of love as God sees it in the classic passage of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails

Jesus told His followers in John 13:35,

By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

http://www.girs.com/library/sermons/char/char_00.html

We all have some unique ideas about most things, so I always expect some variance in the minds of others besides myself; not that they are particularly "wrong" because I see things differently, but that despite "difficulty", real LOVE seeks to make a connection where there would otherwise likely be nothing to connect to. (What/why would God have anything to do with us? As relatively insiginificant and faulty as we might seem to Him, I think we wouldn't have any hope of being cared for.)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=31;

How does the Bible promote or condone a concept of redemption apart from unconditional love? (I just can't see it.)

-Mel-