I was born with a mindset to sin at will. God made me that way, but I cannot sin freely and blame it on how God made me. I have a choice...to sin, or not to sin.

There are people who are born with a propensity to things like alcoholism, but they have a choice.....to drink, or not to drink.

You might have been born with an attraction to the same sex, but you have a choice.....to give in to that, or refrain from it.

Lev 18:19-20 - "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness."

Deut 21:18-21 - "18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Seems pretty plainly stated as well yet I don't think too many Christians would advocate the enforcement of these Scriptures.

1. I addressed the first issue in post #151.

2. The second issue with a rebellious child was not identified as an abomination to God. :cool:

If homosexuality is an abomination (unclean) then wouldn't the concept of being sanctified eternally as stated in Hebrews 10:14 be applicable to homosexuals as well as menstruating women?

I'm still not able to subscribe to this concept of "ceremonial law" being fulfilled. It seems abundantly clear that ALL the Law has been fulfilled in Christ’s unconditional LOVE (Romans 7:6; 2:29; 8:1-10; Matthew 5:17,18; Galatians 3:18-25; 4:4,5; 5:14; John 15:13)

Also, I would go so far as to say that enforcing any part of the Law in this dispensation of Grace is anti-Christ (Romans 3:19-28; Galatians 4:4-6; Galatians 5:18).

Whether it was identified as an abomination or not is not important. If one is going to suggest that we are still under the moral law of the OT then anything contained in that law should be followed. In other words, if one is going to advocate that homosexuality is an abomination because the OT law said it was then we must also advocate the OT law teachings on stoning of rebellious children. How can we reconcile only following part of the law in this dispensation of Grace? We can't.

First of all, the OT only refers to homosexual sex. So, if we are still under that part of the OT Law, then sexual acts are all that need to be refrained from. Following your line of thought that the homosexual can be born with with an attraction to the same sex but can refrain from sexually acting on it, one would have to allow for two men who are in love with each other to live together, sleep in the same bed, kiss, hold hands, and basically spend the rest of their lives together as life-long companions as long as they do not have sex.

Also, God created all his creatures with a desire for companionship. That is why he initially created the animals. However, man did not find a help meat in the animals so God created a help meat out of man's own flesh and blood. It is a God-given desire to have life-time companionship. It is not a God-given desire to be an alcoholic. You are comparing apples and oranges when comparing alcoholism to homosexuality. Understand, homosexuality is nothing more and nothing less than human companionship. It is not even about sex as much as it is about intimacy and relationship.

Paul declares that it His righteousness, we all have seasons that we are more in tune to the Spirit in us, so it is illogical to think that we could all be in perfect purity in and of ourselves. But thank God it is the blood of Jesus that imputes God's righteousness to us. Do we just continue in sin, of course not, we submit ourselves to God and confess our sins, and as He works in us His righteousness brings us closer and closer to the image of Christ. We focus too much on what we do, and not enough on what Jesus has and continues to do on our behalf.:2cents Great questions you raise.

brad- Why would God hate and detest something in the OT that would then be ok for the NT?

We don't stone people anymore because the NT ushered in the blood of Christ and redemption for men's sin. :cool:

You are right MOW, and that line of preaching has caused many to give up in frustration, because they felt hopeless in their efforts to be "spotless". When we talk about it being God's righteousness that we take on, then we are accused of being soft on sin. If we preach more about what Jesus has done and less about the terrible dangers of failing, more folks would believe and keep on repenting, getting up and keep walking in faith with the Lord.

1. I am unaware of any place in the OT, where homosexuality is listed as "unclean." It was in and of itself an abomination (something God hates).

2. Acts of abomination are not stoned today; but instead redemption is possible (1 Cor 6:9-11).

3. I am unaware of any Scripture that speaks of Christ's unconditional love. I do not find it in the Scriptures you cited. In fact, Romans 8:1 specifically says "There is therefore now is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus; who walk NOT after the flesh... " :cool:

Well, I am standing at the cross because it is at the cross where the blood of Christ is applied. I guess I'm standing in a pretty good place.

I certainly cannot answer for God and would never try to. However, it is important to understand that the Law was given to the Jews and had specific implications for those people at that time. There appears to be a lot of things in the OT Law that God did not want His people to do. Why He doesn't require those same things now I do not know. All I know is I'm glad we are no longer under the law.

uhhh

Ever wonder why God created just one man and one woman? Adam and Eve, not Annie and Eve or Adam and Steve?

It wasn't for procreational purposes. He could have created ten people and had plenty of that going on.

And if you think that two people, regardless of gender, can do the above and leave it at that, you live in a different world than I do. It doesn't justify it in any way.

The cross was also a place of judgment.

well.. somethings going on in their services.. :eek:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2..._2006_108_.jpg

Your problem is that homosexuality isn't just mentioned in the OT.

1 Cor. 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

effeminate

Definition

1. soft, soft to the touch
2. metaph. in a bad sense
1. effeminate
1. of a catamite
2. of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3. of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4. of a male prostitute

I think that settles that.

If Gods Love had conditions, then they would certainly not be met by our frail humanity. The same holds true with the law, it was never kept or met no matter how hard men tried, until Christ Fulfilled it by understanding that the written letter of the law was only ever supposed to point us back to spiritual things. When He cried, “It is finished,” He met any condition that may have been required…

(1 John 4:9,10,16):
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ...
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Eph. 1:6 -- To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein
He hath made us accepted in the Beloved.

While we may not see the words “Unconditional Love”. We can be assured that He met the conditions!

Strongs definition for effeminate (NT:3120)
malakos (mal-ak-os'); of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:

Vines Expository Dictionary defintion of effeminate (NT:3120)
malakos, "soft, soft to the touch" (Lat., mollis, Eng., "mollify," "emollient," etc.), is used (a) of raiment, Matt 11:8 (twice); Luke 7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1 Cor 6:9, "effeminate," not simply of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.

WHERE IS ESSAYS?? (SAVED THIS SOME TIME AGO)

Col 2 [8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; [14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

I'm not sure what judgment you are referring to but I do know that the ordinances of the OT which others try to force on NT believers were nailed to the cross and have been blotted out.

I attend a Seventh Day Adventist University and am continuouslly told that I must honor the 7th Day Sabbath and that I should not eat meat. I say to them the same thing I say to anyone who tries to judge me against a backdrop of OT Law, "because Christ's sacrifice at Calvary I am no longer under the Law."

I don't want to sound rude or unkind but this essay lacks any academic or intellectual integrity and is not worth responding to. I will, however, briefly respond with this:

You cannot not mix/match English defintions with Greek/Hebrew definitions in order to prove your point. If you want to prove what the Bible says then you must use Biblical definitions only. Modern English definitions are tainted with a myriad of cultural and religious influences.

God didn't create Adam and Eve, He created Adam. However, Adam desired a help meat so God created the animals but no help meat was found with them. So, God created another human being from the flesh and blood of man. It was then that Adam was satisifed. What if Adam hadn't been satisifed with Eve? The entire creation of woman was based on Adam's desires not God's divine will. If it was based on God's divine will then the animals should have been sufficient for Adam. God is a relational God and responds to each of us individuals.

I do not deny that homosexual relationships do not reflect the relationship between Adam and Eve. But then again, not much does line up with God's initial creation since the fall of man. God did not create inersexed individuals at Creation yet they exist today. According to the initial creation who are these intersexed individuals allow to marry and have intimate relationships with? Are they suppose to be defined by their chromosomal sex or their genitalia?

Also, may I point out that the term gender is a sociological term which is not sex-specific. I assume you were referring to biological sex.

I do live in the same world as you and would strongly argue that intimacy can be and often is experienced without having sexual intercourse.

brad- Do you recognize that fornication encompasses all sexual relations outside of marriage?

Are you standing unrepentant in front of the cross because you don't believe homosexual relationships are the works of the flesh or because you believe once saved always saved?

Does a pedophile or a mass murderer also stand unrepentant in front of the cross with no fear of judgment? :cool:

We were never told that God hated all the other things comanded in the OT. Consequently it would seem to me that intellectual integrity would demand that one be able to reconcile their belief about something God said he hated in the OT with God's alleged differing response in the NT.

What changed from the OT to the NT that now made homosexuality OK in God's eyes even though other abominations such as lying, idolatry and witchcraft are still sin? :cool:

So Adolf Hitler is in heaven?:coffee2

I neither said nor alluded to that, for the bible teaches us that whom God loves He Chastens, Hebrews 12:6 (same Greek as chastise). What I was saying however is if we think that we are sufficient in and of ourselves to earn anything of Christ, love or otherwise, then we are blinded by our own self righteousness, and we would not have needed of a Savior, having the ability to meet the conditions ourselves!

Does God start loving me the moment that I hear His truth that he allows me to hear, and opens my spiritual ears to? Does He start loving me when I have been obedient to this truth that I have heard? What condition do I need to meet to merit His conditional love? I would like to know in case I am missing out on something! I have simply been foolish enough to believe that the bible is true when I read John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
:2cents

Ah, I see.

Very good points.

That is the point. If it is a punishment, then it is not innocent in and of itself, and is sin. God does not give people over to things that are innocent. He gives them over to things that ........ their souls and are deeper sins. Homosexuality was a damning activity and lifestyle. So, God saw idolaters and gave them over to the activity and lifestyle that others were already involved with that were damning their souls.

It is the same as follows:

Homosexuality is dishonouring their own bodies. That activity in and of itself is so. Whether a person says they love God or not, they are dishonouring their own bodies. That is sin. It is disgracing their own bodies between themselves. It is degradation of sexuality. Perversion, in other words. Sin! It is taking God's creation -- our very bodies -- and snuffing out all dignity in them.

Paul spoke of this as well in listing sexual sins when he mentioned fornication. He said it is SINNING AGAINST YOUR OWN BODY.

1Co 6:18 KJV Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Fornication is all sexual sins. If dishonouring your body and snuffing out all dignity in it is not sexual sin, then what is it? If something that God gave people over to was not damnable, then why did He give them over to it?

In 2 Thess 2, God saw that people chose not to honour Him by loving the truth, just as Romans 1 noted, and took that and gave them over to what was worse... not what was innocent. When God gives someone over to to something, it is something that in and of itself is damnable. Homosexuality was damnable in and of itself, aside from anything to do with idolatry. You are proving my point by admitting it is what God gave people over to as punishment. Like I said, he never gives people over to caring for puppy dogs as a punishment.

You said that idolatry mingled with homosexuality was not the case with homosexuals who "love" God. Paul never said that was the case. He said that idolatry was grounds for God to give people over to extreme sins that they might be damned. This means that homosexuality in and of itself is damnable. This makes your argument that says homosexuals who love God are hardly comparable to idolaters who are given over to homosexuality entirely moot.

Excellent Post.

Is God's love unconditional? Is his love conditioned on believing in Him? Does God let unrepentent mass murderers in heaven so long as they grew up in Sunday School? :cool:

Brad, New Testament grace is not a license to live any way that you would like to simply because of grace. Jesus died to save us FROM our sins, not IN our sins. You think that something that was once an abomination to God (who does not change) would no longer be an abomination to Him? You misunderstand the cross; and you grossly alter the application of grace. What was an abomination to Him remains an abomination to Him - He does not change His views regarding sin. When Jesus died, He TOOK OUR PUNISHMENT. In fact, He received the wrath of God reserved for us (whosoever will). Grace is not the result of God changing His views toward particular sins (homosexuality is regarded as sin in both Testaments), but rather-it is the result of Him taking the penalty for our sin upon the cross. He hated sin so much that He was willing to DIE to erradicate it!


From the English Standard Version:

Romans 1:22-32 ESV
(22) Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
(23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
(24) Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,(25) because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
(26) For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
(27) and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(28) And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
(29) They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
(30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
(31) foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
(32) Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Luke 13:3 ESV
(3) No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.


Romans 6:1-2 ESV
(1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
(2) By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Romans 6:11-15 ESV
(11) So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
(12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
(13) Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
(14) For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
(15) What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Rom 6:15 KJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Let's look at his list.

"Why did God inflict blindness? Why did God inflict dumbness? Why did God create the division of races? Why did God confound his original created language? Why did God inflict barrenness? God pronounced and inflicted all sorts of judgements on people for their disobedience but that does not mean are all of His judgements/curses are eternally and inherently sinful."

Did God inflict blindness or dumbness or barrenness on humanity or are they simply further consequences of Adam's sin in the sense that all of Creation was corrupted by Adam's sin? The so-called "division of the races" (there's really only one "race," the human race) is a natural consequence of the confounding of the languages, which God did because of sin - specifically the sin of a people who refused to obey God's command to scatter abroad, and who wanted to make God take notice of them. The judgments that God inflicted were for their disobedience and, of course, disobeying God is sin.

There is nothing sinful about God's judgements/curses but I think I know where Brad is going with this line of questioning. He seemingly wants to say that homosexual attraction or "orientation" is not something he chose (and it's true that he did not choose to have that unnatural attraction but, instead, that it developed during childhood) and, therefore, it is not sinful (since sin is the choice to disobey God). Fine, let's give him that argument and respond this way: God created male and female and designed them so that mating would occur between male and female and not between males or between females. Homosexual attraction is an attraction that is contrary to God's created design for male and female. By embracing that attraction and trying to say the attraction is natural, normal, etc., one is rejecting God's created design, rejecting God's purpose for male and female (at least as that purpose applies to this particular individual). Such rejection of God's created design constitutes sin because it is, in effect, saying to God that "In this particular instance, what You created is not good and my homosexual attraction is good even though it isn't what you originally created."

Of course, we must separate the unnatural homosexual attraction (which is unnatural because it is contrary to God's created design) from homosexual sin (defined as embracing and/or acting on the unnatural homosexual attraction). The attraction is something for God to heal. The sin is something to be repented of and forsaken.

Want to be Fair.
 

Homosexuality was something I never heard about as a child. When I did hear about it, an instant repulsion occurred in my heart about it. I think this betrays the unnatural and ungodly nature of the act. What we are repulsed by at the start of learning about a thing indicates what is right or wrong. I really believe this.[/QUOTE]


To respond to MfBlume quote above.
I am from the same side of the fence that you are. I am a Heterosexual looking into the pastures of homosexuality. I can't help but see that the statement you made was not thought out and tried and rather one sided. It leaves too many questions unanswered.
First you said that you had never heard of it at that time.
We are always wary of what we have never heard of. But I do know that you had heard of a man and woman being married and having children and this was just all you knew. This was natural and known.
Secondly you said that when you heard about the act of homosexuality, that it repulsed you. I have spoken to homosexuals and you know what the thought of having intercourse with the opposite sex does to them, it repulses them. It goes against there nature. What is natural to them.
I just think that we can't stand and call it fact if there are too many questions unanswered.
so your hypothesis that Homosexuality, because it is not natural to you and repulses you, is unproven and incorrect. Or else the fact that when a homosexual thinks of Heterosexual intercourse repulses them would mean that heterosexual intercourse is Wrong, unnatural and ungodly.

Brad,

You already know this but your mind and conscience has been seared...for us to post here to try to convince you otherwise is useless.

Only the truly repentant can be changed and saved. It doesn't matter what any of us think or feel...the word of God is the final say.

Living in sin will send one to hell. End of story.

Rhoni

I would suggest that our doctrines are not based on mere "emotional appeals" but on objective truth.

Humans are emotional creatures but we are not to be controlled by our emotions. The heart (seat of emotions) is, according to Jeremiah, deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.

What we're disagreeing with here is with a specific set of beliefs that one might call "gay theology," the claim that God does not consider homosexuality an abomination (keep in mind that lying is also an abomination, I didn't want it to appear that I was somehow making homosexuality out to be worse than other abominations) and that God blesses homosexual relationships (despite the Biblical truth that God created male and female and established opposite-sex marriage as the biological norm for male and female). It doesn't really matter whether individual homosexuals are like the ones so often presented in the media or whether they're Mother Theresa, the issue here is twofold: 1) a sexual/romantic attraction ("orientation") that is contrary to God's created design and; 2) the sin of embracing and/or acting on that attraction in thoughts and behaviors.

All sexual activity outside of opposite-sex marriage is sin. It really doesn't matter how you further classify it.

I would argue that pedophilia is a separate unnatural "sexual orientation." But, again, it isn't really relevant because acting on it is still sexual activity that is outside of opposite-sex marriage and, thus, it is sin. Sexual "orientation" is not "natural" when it is contrary to God's created design, as is the case with homosexuality and all other non-heterosexual orientations.