Agreed.

If I could have posted this quote to "flash", I would have! Excellent post Chan!

I challenge (in a respectable tone of course) anyone who feels they have the authority to claim my conscience has been seared to come visit me and attend a church service with me at NLCCH. Look into the eyes of the gays and lesbians that attend our church as they lift their hands in worship and respond to the Holy Spirit that dwells in their hearts and then tell me our conscience has been seared.

Anyone who is willing to make such a bold and judgmental statement as you have ought to be ashamed of themselves. You are in no position to tell anyone that their conscience has been seared or to infer that they are going to hell. You stand in judgment against someone you've never met - I would hate to be in your shoes when judgment arrives at your doorstep.

Well, I can't say whether your conscience is seared or not and I am not particularly inclined to go around making such a judgment without further evidence. However, based on your chosen behavior (the choice to embrace and act on your homosexual attraction that is contrary to God's created design for male and female), I can state unequivocally that as long as you continue to embrace and act on your homosexual attraction you will not inherit the kingdom of God. This is not only because of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 but also because of Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Looking closely at the passage, I'd say every unrepentant sinner on the planet falls somewhere on that list.

I'm sure you are aware that I don't entirely agree with your argument, however, I want to thank you for at least reading my point of view with a desire to understand what I am saying. Your ability to comprehend my argument is appreciated.

I would like to point out that I have already conceded to the fact that homosexual relationships to do not reflect God's original creation. There is no argument there. What I believe, however, is that homosexuality is an mutation of God's original creation of man and woman just as intersexed and hermaphrodite individuals are mutations of God's original creation. As I have stated before; where there is no choice there is no moral culpability.

If a heterosexual man starts looking at pornography and begins to have desires to step away from his natural attraction to women in order to fulfill some sexual desire to experiment with homosexual sex then I would say this person is guilty of turning away from his natural attraction and is behaving in a way that goes against nature. This is clearly an individual who is choosing to turn away from his natural orientation. However, a homosexual (who I believe with all my heart is born homosexual) is not choosing to turn away from his natural orientation. S/he is simply responding to what they naturally are.

What would you (by you I mean anyone reading this post) do if in 10 years it was discovered that there is in fact a sexual orientation gene? How would the church reconcile their belief that sexual orientation is not natural and somehow a choice?

Even more thought provoking is this question. Do you believe you were born with your sexual orientation or do you believe it was learned?

As I've stated before I personally am not acting on any homosexual attraction. I have not been in a physical relationship in many years. So, based on your theology am not at any greater risk of not inheriting the kingdom of God than you are.

According to Revelation 21:8, is anyone who is guilty of the abominations of the OT Law going to burn in the lake of fire?

You are saying, then, that since God has smote individuals with blindness, dumbness, and barrenness that those things are "not innocent" and are "sin?" Please clarify.

I've been on the other side of this issue.

It is exactly that "mutation" (homosexual attraction and not homosexual relationships) that I was referring to when I said it was contrary to God's created design. It is because homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design that the attraction is something that needs to be healed. Homosexual relationships, however, are entirely a choice because one chooses to enter into them. They are sin because the Bible tells us that homosexual behavior (which, by the way, includes what goes on in one's thoughts) is sin.

I would say that regardless of whether it's with another male or with a female it's still sin because it is sexual behavior occurring outside of opposite-sex marriage.

Whether there is a gene is not relevant, homosexual attraction is still contrary to God's created design for male and female and it is sin to embrace and act on that unnatural attraction.

Sexual "orientation" (attraction) develops during childhood. No one is born sexually/romantically attracted to another.

If you look with lust at another man, you are acting on your homosexual attraction.

That depends on the abominations. There are abominations that are "ceremonially unclean" and there are abominations that are "morally detestable." I would say that abominations that fall under the latter category fit in with Revelation 21:8. Of course, as I said before, I believe every unrepentant sinner on the planet falls into that passage somewhere.

I have read this discussion with interest. I would like to ask a question of you Brad.

My understanding is that you do not believe someone with homosexual desires (don't know a better way to put it) is not being sinful. It is when someone acts upon those desires, and engages in the sexual act with the same sex that they step over the line.

Is my understanding of your position correct?

If Christ died to save us FROM our sins, and if my being born a homosexual is a sin, then why hasn't Christ saved me FROM my sin?

God absolutely does not change but the way in which He interacts with man certainly does change. God's requirements of man have changed in every recorded dispensation. God is a relational God and responds and changes according to His relationship with His creation. Look at Abraham and Isaac. First God required that Isaac be sacrificed but when Abraham showed that he trusted and feared God Isaac was no longer required as the sacrifice. What if Abraham had not feared God? Isaac would have been sacrificed. This shows that God does interact with his creation and may not change in His own character but certainly changes in regards to His relationship with his children.

As far as abominations are concerned, I think I've made it pretty clear in previous posts that nobody in this dispensation of Grace abstains from all of the OT abominations. It has been argued that only certain abominations from the OT Law are required of us today yet nowhere does the NT writings divide the Law into categories; some being eternal and some not. The modern 21st Century church is going to eventually have to confess that it is only following part of the Law and make a decision to embrace all of it or discard all of it.

So if 10 years from now they find that there is a specific gene that makes someone a murderer, or a pedophile, should we reconcile that since God made them that way, we should accept them as ok?

Very likely a honmosexual could have been born with these tendancies, as we are ALL born sinners, with a fallen nature. It does not excuse the actions just because we have the tendancy to lean that way. I was born a lier, and a thief. But when I came to the cross, the old man had to be cricified, put to death, and buried with him in baptism. As the scripture states:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


There is never an excuse to continue to live in the bondages of the old man.

They are states that God considers punishment because they are bad and wrong. Would God will that everyone be blind? No. It is something God does not want people to experience. That is the case with everything to which He gives people over. The whole category of what God gives people over to is simply a category of punishment, and punishment is not something that is innocent and nice and God's will for people. It is only his will if He wishes to HURT a person in punishment. If the punishment does not HURT, then it is not punishment.

I wish you would answer the overall thought I am making that God does not give one over to anything that is nice and innocent of itself, proving homosexuality is wrong.

Well, you weren't born homosexual since no one is born sexually/romantically attracted to another. Homosexual sin is when you choose to embrace and/or act on your unnatural attraction that developed during childhood. One is saved from one's sins (meaning that sin no longer has power over the person) when one repents of his sins and puts his trust in Christ (see Romans 6). This doesn't mean you become morally perfect but it does mean you are no longer a slave to sin.

Agreed.

I disagree. God's standard has always been moral perfection. However, God has also always accepted faith and accounted that faith as righteousness. In the Old Testament, He did this looking forward to the cross. In the New Testament, He does it looking back to the cross.

The only reason God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was to test his faith. Remember what Abraham said to Isaac when Isaac asked Abraham where the lamb was for the sacrifice. Abraham said that God would provide the sacrifice.

I don't think anyone here argued that God requires any abomination of us. In fact, I think everyone here would agree that God does not want us to engage in any abomination. But in the Old Testament there were two kinds of abominations: 1) things that were ceremonially unclean and; 2) things that were morally detestable. But let's leave the whole abomination thing aside for a moment. It doesn't change the Biblical truth that homosexual behavior (including the thoughts) is sin and that homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female. All of these various side issues about abominations and the like are really irrelevant. What matters is: 1) that you have an unnatural sexual/romantic attraction that needs to be healed and; 2) as long as you continue to embrace and/or act on the attraction, you are still committing homosexual sin and will not inherit the kingdom of God until you repent of your sin (meaning to agree with God about your sin, be genuinely sorry that your sin has offended and angered God, and to forsake that sin).

I think I may have misrepresented myself or possibly mis-spoke. I will clarify.

I believe that IF every scripture that people continue to quote from the OT and NT are to be understood the way in which everyone in this room seems to understand them that they still only speak against homosexual sex and NOT desires or emotions. That is to say, according to the arguments provided in this room, two homosexuals should be able to live together and have an intimate relationship, without performing sodomy, and still be living within the restrictions of the OT Law. I would go so far as to say that the OT Law was not even written to all of Israel but specifically to the Levitical Preists. I cannot in my own heart and mind come to the conclusion that we are under any of the Levitical Law.

In fact, I personally do not believe we are under any part of the Law except that which was identified in the book of Acts chapter 15. That is why I do not honor a seventh day sabbath. I personally am not involved with anyone physically but I do not feel that doing so in a committed and monogamous manner is sinful or abominable because of OT Levitical Law.

My only point in mentioning that I am not involved with anyone physically was to defend against someone accusing me of going to hell because of my homosexual behavior. Though I do not feel I will go to hell if I do engage in homosexual behavior I felt I should at least clarify that I am not currently engaging in such activity.

I don't know if that helps clarify or not : ) I keep telling myself I'm going to do a better job of paraphrasing my thoughts but I tend to ramble. Of course, I'm trying to study for finals while participating in this discussion so I am a little preoccupied...lol

I have answered. Homosexually cannot be defined as wrong because it was used as punisher by God. Following your argument, someone being blind is sinful. My point is that homosexuality is not a pleasant experience for anyone who goes through it. You are rejected by society, you are misunderstood, you are rejected by your church, often your family, you are likely never going to experience raising a child of your own, etc. but these unfortunate results of homosexuality cannot define homosexuality as sinful. A blind person experiences many unfortunate experiences that are not innocent or nice but that does not make blindness a sin. I don't know, maybe I'm completely misunderstanding your point.

Again, we are making an assumption that the NT Church is under some of the Law; that being the moral law as opposed to the ceremonial law. Again I present the fact that when Paul said we are no longer under the Law he made no distinction between different catagories of Law (Galatians 3). I don't know how else to state this fact. It is very clear to me.

That's not really a rebuttel of what the verse is saying. In fact it makes it seem as though you agree that at one time homosexual acts was sinful and punishable by stoning.....

Interesting rebuttal to the pro homosexual campaign.


http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...mosexualuc.htm

Actually the bible NEVER merely refers to homosexuals as being "unclean" or common (see Peters vision of food)...the bible never equates abomination with being unclean through which one can go through a cleansing ceremony.

It was one of those sins under the law for which you were stoned to death if discovered

When greek words are defined to us in the english language then yes you can use english definitions.

If they are tainted then those that write greek dictionaries need to choose better ENGLISH words into which to translate them and tell us what they mean.

BTW you did not respond to my posts that appeared just before Newmans

Brad my replies to you on this page were not responded to
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...t=2828&page=16

These kind of arguments are futile. As I've stated before (I am getting a bit exhausted with repeating myself) pedophilia, rape, adultery, etc. all take place within one's sexual orientation not because of one's sexual oreintation. There are homosexual pediphiles and heterosexual pediphiles. There are homosexual rapists and there are heterosexual rapists. Orientation is something we are born with. How else do we explain the strong genetic correlation that exists between chromosomal sex and orientation?

There is absolutely no genetic correlation to even remotely explain murder, pedophilia, rape, etc. But that's a scientific argument not worth implementing here.

However, companionship and human intimacy is a God-given desire. Murder, pedophilia, etc. are not. God allowed his creation to desire companionship which is why, as I've stated before, He created the animals for Adam. Adam, however, was not pleased with the animals so God created another living being out of the flesh and bone of Adam himself. Healthy companionship is something God allowed for His creation. Rape, adultery, pedophilia, murder are not healthy and invade the very human rights of those in which they are acted upon.

I would only concede that same-sex orientation does not line-up with God's original creation but, even then, neither do hermaphrodites and intersexed individuals. I believe homosexuality is just as much a genetic variation from God's orginal creation as hermaphroditism is.

Also, the book of Genesis reveals that God initially provided animals to be Adam's help-meat and not woman. Based on this fact, we cannot infer that woman was God's original and divine choice for man's help meet. The standard is not a divine one but one based on man's personal choice and desire. It was Adam who did not find a help meet within God's first creation for him. Again, God is relational. He then created another option for Adam which, consequently, he was pleased with.

Gen 2: [18] And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. [19] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. [20] And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

I apologize if I do not respond to some replies. Because there are so many I tend to miss some. I will take a quick look and then I have to get back to studying : )

If I do not respond to a comment you make do not assume I am avoiding it. I may have just got too involved in responding to someone else.

-Brad

does this mean you think God made a mistake? Or allowed such a deviation from his original plan that someone would be born in oppositon to his Word?

just asking...?

I'm really confused now. Let me clarify that ALL the Law is Jewish Law and I'm not Jewish either. Why then do you judge me according to Jewish Law?

You can't use my argument to defend the Laws that apply to you and then turn around and judge me using the same Laws.

Am I the only who sees the contradiction here?

What you're missing here is that engaging in the intimate relationship itself is also homosexual sin because it is the choice to embrace and act on your underlying unnatural same-sex attraction. Further, attempting to mate (having a marriage-like relationship) with someone of one's own sex is a rejection of God's created design for male and female.

Look at the context of Acts 15, though. The issue there was whether the Gentiles had to keep what is often referred to today as the "ceremonial" Law of Moses, i.e. the various rituals and ordinances. It is not referring to God's moral law. Do you really think the Church is exempt from such laws of God as the laws against idolatry, taking the Lord's name in vain, making for ourselves a graven image, stealing, bearing false witness, murder, adultery, covetousness, etc.? Do you think the Church is exempt from such laws of God as the law against a man having sex with his daugther?

Jesus said that whoever even looks at someone lustfully has already committed adultery with that person in his heart. It doesn't matter that you're celibate in outward behavior, it matters that you are in rebellion against God's created design for you by your choice to embrace your homosexual attraction and "accept" that attraction as if it was normal, natural or otherwise acceptable to God.

God didn't make a mistake. Man made a mistake. Since man's fall there have been all sorts of "deviations" within his creation. As I've stated before; hermphroditism is one example as is intersexism. Both are genetic deviations from God's initial creation yet nobody has answered my question: Based on OT Law and even NT teachings, who are intersexed individuals allowed to be in an intimate relationship with? Should they be defined based on their genitalia or based on their chromosomal sex?

Just asking...?

Is all of God's law Jewish? Did God not have any law prior to His giving a set of laws to Moses on Mount Sinai? If God had no law prior to that which He gave to Moses, then on what basis did God banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden? On what basis did God punish Cain? On what basis did God destroy the world by flood? On what basis did God punish the people at Babel?

The Church is under the law of grace and, yet, the Church is also under God's moral law. Do you really think the Church is exempt from God's law against murder? Do you really think the Church is exempt from God's law against adultery? How about God's laws against stealing or lying? Is the Church exempt from those laws? Are we free to commit sin, which is transgressing God's laws (see 1 John 3:4)?

If I was in a relationship I would not be trying to mate with them. I would simply be responding to my God-given desire for companionship and would be responding based on the attraction I was born with. It's quite simple.

I'm sorry but I don't think I'm up to debating the ceremonial/moral law issue. I think I've made it pretty clear that this distinction is a man-made intellectual one and is not based on Scripture. Paul never distinguished between ceremonial/moral law in regards to us no longer being under the law.

If a heterosexual is "celibate in outward behavior" but is looking upon someone of the opposite sex lustfully, are they too rebelling against God? You aren't assuming the homosexual's are less capable of fleeing lustful thoughts than are heterosexuals, are you?

There are several Hebrew words for "abomination."

Ba'ash:

1. to have a bad smell, stink, smell bad
   1. (Qal) to stink, smell bad
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to become odious
      2. to make oneself odious
   3. (Hiphil)
      1. to stink, emit a stinking odour
      2. to cause to stink
      3. of wickedness (fig.)
   4. (Hithpael) to make oneself odious
2. to abhor

Pigguwl:

foul thing, refuse

1. unclean sacrificial flesh (only use)

Shiqquwts:

1. detestable thing or idol, abominable thing, abomination, idol, detested thing

Shaqats:

(Piel) to detest, make abominable, count filthy, make detestable

1. to detest
2. to make detestable

Sheqets:

1. detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation

Towebah:

a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

1. in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
2. in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

The homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13 is towebah in an ethical sense.

It is what it is. We are no longer under the Law [period]. However, there were certain aspects of the OT Law that were carried over into the NT. It's interesting to note that based on your man-made criteria of moral/ceremonial law the NT church should not have included what they did. Read Acts 15. The NT church carried over "ceremonial" law by requiring that the church abstain from blood and things strangled. How is that a moral law? If it is not, then doesn't that shoot down the theory that the ceremonial law was fulfilled but the moral law still stands?

Also, some of the OT Laws are carried over into the NT (mainly those from the 10 commandments). Just off the top of my head, I belive Sabbath is the only one of the 10 that is not carried over in the NT. Don't quote me, though, I am not a walking Bible. : ) I certainly do not see where Leviticus 18:22 was carried over except for the reference in Romans 1 which, I still believe, is a citation of God turning people gay as a form of divine punishment for their idolatry. I do not see it as a condemnation towards those who are born gay. By the way, I should probably clarify to everyone that though I am open to biblical debate I will never be convinced that I was not born gay. I am the one who has l ived my life and I am the one who knows how I feel, what I feel, and how long I have felt the way I feel. Nobody has any more right to tell me I was not born gay than I have to say they were not born straight [just a little extra piece of information].

The relationship is the mating; we're not talking about procreation here. Homosexual desire is not God-given, it is contrary to God's created design for male and female.



Does this mean we're free to lie, cheat, murder, steal, covet, take the Lord's name in vain, or other such things?



[quote]If a heterosexual is "celibate in outward behavior" but is looking upon someone of the opposite sex lustfully, are they too rebelling against God?[quote]Yes, because looking lustfully is adultery of the heart and, therefore, sin. All sin is rebellion against God.

No, I'm not assuming any such thing. No one is capable of fleeing lustful thoughts if they do not have God's Spirit dwelling in them and if they are not walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.

Ok, I am officially having to sign off here for a little while. I am not going to do well on my finals if I don't do some more studying. I will likely be back on here later tonight and will do my very best to respond to those of you who have reminded me that I have not yet responded to your comments. I'm not ignoring you...promise : )

Your reasoning is again faulty, because God does not punish us by causing us to do something that He thinks is fine, but is what the world will persecute one for. If that were the case, then he would give people over to Christianity since the world persecutes Christianity. None of the other things listed as to what God gives people over are innocent in and of themselves, like you claim uncomfortable persecution is. Why should homosexuality stand out?

No, you got my point, but it's just that your reasoning is flawed. Homsexuality is something to which God gives one over because it is damnable, just as in 2 Thess 2 where we read God gives people over to believe a lie and be damned.

He punished based on His spoken Word. That doesn't change the fact that we are no longer under the Law but under Grace. The only Laws that I can rightfully follow are those spoken in His Word in the NT. I do not see where I am condemned under any spoken law carried over into the NT.

So, there is more to God's law than just the Law of Moses? I refer you back to Acts 15. As I said in another post, the issue being addressed was whether the Gentile believers were required to keep the so-called "ceremonial law" (sacrifices, circumcision, not eating "unclean" foods, etc.). However, in what was finally decreed notice that the Gentiles were also to abstain from fornication (sexual sin, all sexual activity outside of opposite-sex marriage, including in one's thoughts).

Fornication is sin even in the New Testament and fornication is any sexual activity that occurs outside of opposite-sex marriage. As for the Law of Moses, if the 10 commandments carried over then so do all the other moral prohibitions. Also, no one is born sexually and romantically attracted to anyone; sexual/romantic attraction (straight, gay or otherwise) develops during childhood. Even if you could prove that you were born with homosexual attraction, that attraction is still contrary to God's created design for male and female. I make it a point to separate attraction (which I very narrowly define as the autonomic physiological and emotional response that we call finding someone attractive) from the sin (embracing and acting on attractions that are contrary to God's created design).

What it comes down to is this: homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design (regardless of how it developed) and, consequently, is something that needs to be healed; homosexual sin (embracing and acting on the attraction) must be repented of and forsaken.

Then, once again, if God punishes using such things as blindness does that mean blindness is not fine? Does that make blindness a sin? Following your argument you would have to agree that being blind is sinful simply because God has used as a form of punishment in the past. I would argue that your reasoning is beyond faulty.



2 Thess says God sent a strong dillussion not that they were give over to one. Again, I have to say that just because God gives someone over to something that is bad (homosexuality, blindness, etc.) does not make that specific thing sinful.

Strongs defintion of fornication NT:4202
porneia (por-ni'-ah); from NT:4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:

I do not see where this lines up with your definition above.

So if orientation is not genetic then what makes heterosexuality "natural" and homosexuality "unnatural?"

Are you willing to say that the 1:100 children born intersexed need to be healed and must repent because they are contrary, by nature, to God's created design?