Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! !
 

In their February, 2007 edition, the Pentecostal Herald (the offical organ of the United Pentecostal Church International) published an article written by Dr. David Norris. In response to the article, a member of our ministry team sent a letter to the Pentecostal Herald responding to each point addressed in the article. To date, the letter has not been published and no response has be received from the U.P.C.I. or the Herald. This is the letter:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading Dr. Norris’s article “Is Homosexuality a Sign of the Times?” it does not appear that his intention was to degrade or disrespect homosexuals. In fact, I believe his intentions were quite the opposite. The article clearly suggests that it is erroneous for Christians to label homosexuality as the “unpardonable sin” as so many zealous preachers have over the years. The amount of spiritual, emotional, social, and psychological damage this sort of philosophy has created may never be known.

Dr. Norris briefly but accurately pointed out that Christians should approach homosexuals from a welcoming perspective as opposed to assuming that the homosexual’s conscience has been seared. We are in agreement on this point.

Where we differ is on the issue of affirmation. I believe strongly that there are Biblical grounds for not only affirming monogamous homosexual relationships but also for helping those who are homosexual understand that they can have a meaningful and reconciled relationship with God regardless of their sexual orientation. In this response I want to specifically address the key points made by Dr. Norris in his article.

Point One
The Bible clearly identifies the sins for which Sodom was destroyed and nowhere is homosexuality mentioned (Ezekial 16:49). Also, after reading the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah it is clear that the act which has been broadly interpreted as homosexual in nature took place after the angels were sent to destroy the city for its ungodliness and, therefore, could not possibly be the reason for the cities destruction.

If the Bible does not incite homosexuality as one of the sins of Sodom and if it was not the cause for its destruction, then we cannot rightfully infer that it (homosexuality) is a sign of the times based on Jesus’ reference to Sodom in the Gospel of Luke.

Point Two
I cannot imagine any Bible-based Christian organization embracing a philosophy or doctrine which claims the New Testament Church must embrace the Laws of the Old Covenant given to the Jews. Embracing such laws would demand that modern Christians adhere to clearly identified restrictions on diet, worship, and apparel. I think most modern Christians would agree that we are no longer under the Old Testament Law and, therefore, citing Leviticus 18:22 as biblical proof that homosexuality is an abomination is not only irresponsible but inaccurate.

If the Christian Church is going to cite Levitical Law as a mandate against homosexuality it must also prohibit the eating of pork, shrimp, and lobster (11:10-12); the planting of two kinds of seed in the field (19:19); wearing mixed fabrics (19:19); eating rare meat (19:26); and women leaving their homes during menstruation (20:18 ). The Christian Church would also be required to keep a traditional seventh day Sabbath (23:3).

Point Three
Romans chapter one is clearly dealing with God’s wrath being poured out on a group of unspecified Gentiles who were participating in idolatrous worship, were haters of God, knew God but did not glorify Him as God, and who were full of fornication, wickedness, envy, murder, and pride. Does this accurately describe our family and church members who are homosexual? Does this accurately describe the numerous anointed musicians, singers, and preachers that God has used in spite of their homosexuality?

To loosely place all homosexuals in the same category as the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1 is an insult to those homosexuals who love God, worship and acknowledge Him as God, and are either living a life of celibacy or are in a monogamous covenant relationship.

Point Four
I Corinthians 6:9 cites two Greek words, malakos and arsenokoites, to describe just some of the many sinful behaviors from which the early Christians had been delivered. These two words have been erroneously interpreted in recent Biblical translations to mean homosexuals. In fact, prior to the use of the word homosexual by the NASB translation in 1963, the word malakos had been translated as male sex slave (Vulgate), sexual perverts (RSV), and people with infamous habits (Jerusalem Bible).

The word malakos is literally translated as “soft ones” which Strong’s identifies as being of “uncertain affinity” and which would more accurately be defined as catamite or male temple cult prostitute. Arsenokoites may accurately be interpreted as Sodomite which, historically, refers to a person who indulges in violent, idolatrous, and pagan practices. It is also worth mentioning that St. Jermone (347-419A.D.) interpreted arsenokoites as “the purchased male sex slaves of men.” I think all Christians would agree (even those who are homosexual) that prostitution and violent sex acts, whether heterosexual or homosexual in nature, do not reflect Christ-like behavior.

It appears that an ill-rooted prejudice against homosexuals has strongly influenced modern translations of the Bible which, in turn, has contributed to the all too common practice of assigning second-rate status to homosexual believers. This is most frequently evidenced by the slanderous from-the-pulpit-name-calling practiced by many preachers in many churches. This is unfortunate.

Point Five
We need to honestly acknowledge that though there are individuals in churches across the country who claim they are “ex-homosexual,” many of them will, in private conversation, admit to having homosexual thoughts and feelings. The general consensus from the ex-gay movement is that the homosexual lifestyle was “killing [them] physically and spiritually” and, therefore, they have changed. The reality is that they have not been changed as much as they have chosen to avoid behavior which they have been convinced will send them to hell. The avoidance behavior of many ex-gays eventually fails miserably which has been seen in many prominent cases in recent years.

Based on my experience growing up in the United Pentecostal Church, there are many “closeted” homosexual Pentecostals across the country who deny acting on their homosexual feelings for no other reason than to be welcomed and accepted by their family, friends, and local assembly and so that they may continue to exercise the good and perfect gifts they have been blessed with. I cannot understand how this sort of modification in behavior can accurately be labeled as “ex-homosexual.” I believe “non-practicing homosexual” would be a more acceptable term.

Also, there is no more a distinction to be made between homosexual attraction and relations than there is between heterosexual attraction and relations. A homosexual who chooses not to actively engage in homosexual relationships is no more ex-homosexual than a heterosexual who chooses not to engage in heterosexual relationships is an ex-heterosexual.

This blinded misconception about sexual attraction and relations has a strong bias against homosexuals and has, unfortunately, led many homosexual Christians to manipulate and deceive those closest to them out of fear of revilement. Many young and talented gay and lesbian Pentecostals have been indirectly forced into a lifestyle they would not have normally pursued if only the church would have embraced them, loved them, and compassionately guided them in their walk with God. The human needs of the gay Christian community have not only been abandoned by the Church but have been mocked and degraded. I fear for those who, on judgment day, will be required to give an account for those members of their congregation who have suffered homelessness, disease, and addiction simply because the church was unwilling to offer them the same support they offered the heterosexuals in their Church community.

Point Six
Citing the fact that there is “no evidence that someone is born with a gay gene” is not only a misguided thought process but a scientifically unsound one as well. The theory that the absence of a “gay gene” somehow disproves a genetic connection to homosexuality is as unfounded as the theory that the absence of a “straight gene” disproves a genetic connection to heterosexuality.

As Christians how do we reconcile the fact that there are individuals who are born with genital and sexual characteristics of both sexes (intersexed)? It is estimated that the number of births in which the external genitals of the child do not match the standard for their chromosomal sex is 1:100. In other words, there are approximately 60 million individuals across the globe whose external genitals do not correspond with their chromosomal sex and who fail to reflect God’s original creative plan. Who are these individuals allowed to marry? Who are these individuals allowed to have sexual relationships with?

I do not claim to have the answer to that question but only present it here to demonstrate that the scientific evidence presented in Dr. Norris’s article was too simplified and potentially misleading to the average lay reader.

We must be honest in acknowledging that there is a broad body of scientific research regarding the influence of both genetics and environment on sexual orientation. Because there is substantial research that appears to validate both sides we cannot simply isolate the body of work which supports only one viewpoint. The reality is that God’s intended plan, as revealed through the creation of Adam and Eve, has been mutated and altered since man’s fall.

Point Seven
As far as twin studies go, it is vital that we acknowledge the fact that there are epigenetic variations among identical twins. These variations, which have no specific etiology, are, nonetheless, “natural” in the sense that they are not influenced by cognitive choice or behavior. These epigenetic variations become more prevalent as identical twins develop because these variations occur as a function of the environment (chemical, nutritional, etc.) and genes. These environmental influences affect which genes are turned on and which genes are turned off. These epigenetic variations begin in the womb and continue throughout the entire lifespan of the individual. Other examples of such complex epigenetic traits are height, skin color, and eye color. All are “natural” but can vary depending on a genetic interaction with the environment.

It is quite reasonable to assume that one twin’s sexual orientation could vary from that of the other just as one identical twin can be left handed while the other is right handed. Did the left handed twin choose not to be right handed? Did the right handed twin choose not to be left handed? I would answer, “of course not.” These differences are more likely to reflect an environmental impact on a gene which determines handedness just as the environment may likely impact a gene which determines sexual orientation.

The statistics surrounding homosexuality among identical twins reveals that there is more likelihood for sexual orientation likeness among identical twins than that of non-twin siblings just as there is more likelihood of same handedness among identical twins than non-twin siblings. As cited in Dr. Norris’s article, 52% of identical twins studied by Bailey & Pillard (1991) had an identical twin that was homosexual. What Dr. Norris failed to cite from that same study was that the percentage rate dropped dramatically to 9.2% among non-twin siblings. This may not prove that there exists a “gay gene” but it certainly proves a strong correlation between genetics and sexual orientation.

Again, I make this point to demonstrate the overly simplistic approach Dr. Norris took in citing statistics and scientific research regarding homosexuality.

Point Eight
Last, I would like to briefly address the reference to the DSM (a diagnostic manual endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association) in Dr. Norris’s article. It seems irresponsible to suggest that homosexuality can be altered or changed simply because the APA once listed it in the DSM as a psychological disorder. Mental retardation is currently listed in the DSM yet we would not suggest it is a choice or that it is subject to change. Why then is this a legitimate argument for changing homosexuality?

It is also worth pointing out that even when homosexuality was listed in the DSM, the APA did not claim changing the behavior as a recommended course of treatment. In fact, the DSM does not claim to identify the etiology (cause) of psychological disorders and certainly does not provide guidance for treatment. The DSM is simply a tool used to classify disorders, identify their symptoms, and offer “guidelines for making diagnoses.”

Dr. Norris appears to suggest in his article that we should give more credence to past views within psychiatry that defined homosexuality as a psychological disorder. Should we also then embrace past views within psychiatry regarding lobotomies?

I have worked on Psychiatric units where Christians were labeled “religiously preoccupied” and, in some cases, Schizophrenic because they claimed that God spoke to them. Certainly Dr. Norris would not validate this kind of psychiatric diagnosis.

My point is that Christian leaders should be careful in giving substantial credence to organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association due to the incompatibility that exists between many of their philosophies and those taught by the Church.

Conclusion
Oliver Thomas made a simple yet insightful observation regarding the state of the Church and its approach to homosexuality. “…whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones, the child’s brain structure, or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability…Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you’re powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it’s likely to be.”

How does the Church address the fact that as a child I prayed every night for God to make me “normal” like my brothers and other male friends? How does the Church reconcile the fact that my prayers were never answered? The truth is, if science never finds a link to genetics and sexual orientation, one thing is certain; I never chose to be gay. This is a fact Christianity and its leaders are going to eventually have to accept.

The facts are simple yet difficult for many to comprehend. Yet, if we are going to try and understand the facts it will require that those on both sides of the issue step outside of their respective veils of ignorance and discuss homosexuality with empathy, compassion, and integrity.

Written by Brad Boivin


Printer Friendly Favorites Make Home Page! Email this Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2007 New Life Community Church of Hope • La Porte, IN • 219-871-1033
Powered by Easy Address

Man oh man. Unbelievable. To take God's image and pervert it and then argue for it using scripture is beyond me.

and then to write the organization like he is going to change their view? lol


to whom it may concern,thanks for sending me the link to this

Thad,

Is the writer on y'alls ministry team?

NO WAY you know better than that why would you even ask


this is a copy and paste/letter

The letter is also on the church website.

http://www.nlcch.org/tp40/Default.asp?ID=84580

I didn't see that it was copied and pasted from somewhere other than your church. Sorry.

ummmmm

I also noticed that the guy who wrote the letter is not the pastor of the church.

The pastor of the church is an X-UPC minister.

I am not sure how "base" we will be allowed to post in offering dissenting views to one or more of the points listed in this letter found on Brad Boivin's New Hope Church website.

If God determined that a man would love a man in the same union of the marriage experience that he designed for a man and a woman, he provided NO HEALTHY design for that marriage to include sexual relationships.

Sodomy is inherently destructive to the wonderfully functional design of the relatively thin and delicate tissue of the colon. God NEVER designed the human body for such actions to be perpetrated. The witness of this truth is evident in the resultant damage and breeching of the cardiovascular system and the rampant exposure to bacteria.

So, unless this author is adovocating the life of a eunuch for every male homosexual, he needs to be forthright and plain in his acknowledgement that sodomy is fully contrary to God's wonderful design of the human body.

So Brian, do the right thing and take sexual activity out of the male homosexual lifestyle.

Since the Pentecostal Herald is the official organ of the UPCI, it seems that they (the UPCI) has officially taken up the "homosexual" debate.

That's all that perverted crowd wanted for right now. **groan**

I have a feeling this fancy letter is still not going to get Brad invited to speak at next year's AMC Conference or BOTT!!!!!

:grampa It's a slippery slope from here. Now that the UPCI has taken up the debate, pretty soon there'll be a resolution allowing for homosexual ministers and all kinds of filth . . .











:toofunny

Why should it be printed?

Homosexuality is an abomination but so is lying. The only unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit but if one does not repent of the pardonable sins, one faces the same eternity in the lake of fire regardless of whether one is a liar, a homosexual, an adulterer, a murderer, or whatever.Welcome to find that place of repentance from the homosexual sin and welcome to seek God's healing of the underlying unnatural attraction. Welcome to obey the gospel call and go on from there to conform to the image of Christ.
Yes, well, I used to preach that garbage too!
It is true that homosexuality is not the reason God destroyed the cities of the plain. The people of those cities did commit various abominations and one of those abominations may possibly have been homosexuality. Where I think so many Christians go wrong in the nonsensical interpretation (of Sodom being destroyed because of homosexuality) is that they paint Sodom and Gomorrah as being not nearly so bad as God said those cities were. The only correct interpretation of the Sodom story is God's interpretation in Ezekiel 16:48-50.
The Bible doesn't incite homosexuality at all! While homosexuality may not be a sign of the end times (since it is identified in Romans 1 as something that's been around for quite a long time), that doesn't change the Biblical fact that homosexual behavior is sin and that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
At least some of Paul's letter to the Galatians dealt with people who tried to bring the Church under bondage to the Law of Moses. However, that doesn't mean that God did not consider homosexual behavior an abomination. That Jesus brought the Law of Moses to completion when He was on the cross doesn't change the truth of Leviticus 18:22.
The interesting thing, though, is that Jesus used the Law of Moses in His teaching. Paul quoted from the Law of Moses. Peter may have quoted from it. The book of Hebrews puts the Law of Moses in the light of the new covenant. Acts 15 absolved Gentiles of the requirement to obey such laws.It lists several sins that appear to have come about as a result of humanity's first forays into idolatry. Notice that sexual sin, including homosexuality, is at the top of the list.
Then placing all fornicators in the same category as the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1 is an insult to those fornicators who love God, etc. Placing everyone who is disobedient to parents in the same category as the Gentiles mentioned in Romans 1 is an insult to those disobedient ones who love God. Insult or not, everyone who has ever committed any of the sins listed in Romans 1:18-32 falls in with those Gentiles in the first century who committed any of those sins. Otherwise, we must say that no scripture can ever be applied to us today!
Such words, of course, aren't interpreted, they're translated.
Yes, it can mean catamite or male temple cult prostitute. It can mean the boy in the pederast relationship. It can mean people who live opulent, luxurious lifestyles. It can mean men who are effeminate, who adopt feminine mannerisms and behaviors. It can mean transsexuals.No, arsenokoites most literally means males who sexually co-habit (with each other). It comes from arsen (male) and koite ("couch," a euphemism for sexual cohabitation). Of course, Jerome couldn't have "interpreted" arsenokoites as "the purchased male sex slaves of men" because English didn't exist as a language and Jerome wrote primarily in Latin.
Is it prejudice against homosexuals or is it that the Greek words translate differently into modern English than the homosexuals want? The fact of the matter is that homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female and homosexual behavior (everything that occurs after the point of attraction) is sin.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

Being "ex-gay" simply means that one chooses to no longer live a homosexual lifestyle and is in a process wherein God is healing the underlying unnatural attraction. To follow the "avoidance behavior fails miserably" argument, one might as well just go ahead and indulge one's sinful nature and go out and commit any sin one chooses. Of course, the New Testament teaches us to put our sinful nature to death and to stop walking after the things of the flesh.
Maybe they should choose not to act on their unnatural homosexual feelings because they know those feelings are contrary to God's created design for male and female. Maybe they should acknowledge that they have these unnatural feelings and seek God for healing of that unnatural attraction. Maybe they should walk in the Spirit so that they will not fulfill the desires of the flesh.
Well, in the sense that such a person is no longer identifying himself by that unnatural attraction and is no longer engaging in the sin, he is an ex-homosexual.
The "strong bias" exists because homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female and acting on that unnatural attraction is sin. However, no one has ever been forced into a homosexual lifestyle and the need of homosexuals who want to be Christians is to repent of their sin and seek God for the healing of their unnatural attraction.

I am sure the Pentecostal Herald will be jumping right on this and issueing a retraction and apology for calling homosexuality a sin!:lol :lol :ursofunny :ursofunny

Chan, why don't you email them your rebuttal ?
homosexulaity is a worse sin then telling a lie. God never destroyed a city for telling a lie but he destroyed sodom for their perversion. i know you disagree but most of us believe that

[QUOTE]Chan,

What the homosexuals do to each other in their (same-sex) bedrooms is hardly on the same level as lying.

The thought is so sickening as to make one deathly sick. It is not on the par with lying.

God never desroyed two cities for their lying to each other.

Amen to that Chan I like it.Go on and preach it!

A couple of articles worth reading: http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html and http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

What do birth defects have to do with being homosexual?

It was an article, not a book! Homosexuals are just as "sloppy" in their representations when they go around essentially claiming that in every school, workplace, family, etc. 10 percent of the people are homosexual. They're just as "sloppy" when they try to claim that they're born gay, born sexually and romantically attracted to others of their own sex.

Most of that research is flawed and, even where it isn't flawed, it doesn't prove that anyone is born homosexual. God's intended plan has NEVER been mutated or altered but God's created design of male and female did become mutated and altered in some humans subsequent to the fall. These mutations and alterations are still contrary to God's created design and still need to be healed. The presence of such mutations and alterations doesn't give us a right to embrace and act on them!

Point Seven
As far as twin studies go, it is vital that we acknowledge the fact that there are epigenetic variations among identical twins.[/quote]The twin studies are flawed! http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/resear...s/2001_04.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

It is quite reasonable to assume that one twin’s sexual orientation could vary from that of the other just as one identical twin can be left handed while the other is right handed.[/quote]Well, no, it is not reasonable! http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

The statistics surrounding homosexuality among identical twins reveals that there is more likelihood for sexual orientation likeness among identical twins than that of non-twin siblings just as there is more likelihood of same handedness among identical twins than non-twin siblings...[/quote]Again, this is not true. Quoting from http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html: "Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too."

And how often does the leftist media demonstrate an overly simplistic approach in reporting the so-called findings of the various "studies" that supposedly prove some people are born gay?

Behavior can be changed. The argument this character is making against Norris is essentially that no so-called "mental disorder" can ever be altered or changed and no one should try.

So what?

So, more recent views are necessarily the correct views? Does this mean that modern views about right and wrong, etc. should be accepted over those of the Bible?

More evidence that psychology and psychiatry are nothing more than quackery! This character makes it seem as if psychology and psychiatry are absolute truth.

No credence should be given to such organizations!

Yes, if we get people to believe they're born gay then they get to deny their culpability for choosing to act on their unnatural attraction. This is, in fact, what that wicked worldly philosophy called "psychology" tries to do - remove culpability. A child isn't being rebellious against his parents, he has "oppositional-defiant disorder." A man isn't committing the sin of wrath, he has "intermittent explosive disorder."

Who the devil does this guy think he is that he thinks God is even required to answer any of his prayers? It's true he never chose to have the unnatural homosexual attraction that developed during his childhood but he did choose to embrace it and act on it in rebellion against God.

And step into the truth of God's word where homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design and where homosexual behavior is sin!

You and I agree that homosexuality is an abomination. Well, the BIBLE also calls lying an abomination! So, for you to make your claim is to go against the word of God and, thus, to make yourself an enemy of God!

The thought of making some sins seem less serious than other sins (excluding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit since that is the only unpardonable sin) is so sickening as to make one deathly sick. Not to mention the fact that both the homosexual and the liar will burn for eternity in the lake of fire!

He never destroyed two cities for homosexuality either. If you want the entire list of why God destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah and the OTHER cities of the plain (you really SHOULD have known that more than two cities were destroyed), read Ezekiel 16:48-50...

"As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."

Consider 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." Would you not agree that homosexuals are included among the "abominable"?

Notice that Paul, after talking about homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, listed a whole bunch of other sins that also stemmed from humanity's first forays into idolatry. Look at the list: "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. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 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." Here God's word lumped the liar in with muderers, haters of God, children who disobey their parents, and a whole bunch of other sinners!

Let's see who else God's word lumped together. Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Chancellor, For once we are on the same page! You're still on my ignore list, but you have added many good/scriptual points to your posts. Thank-you, Rhoni

Most of you are wrong because the BIBLE calls lying an abomination and not once does the Bible EVER say there are degrees of abomination. Except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, all sin is equally sinful and brings the same eternity in the lake of fire for those who don't repent and the same forgiveness for those who do repent.

Chan, I have to admit, that there are some things you post that really cause me to scratch my head. However, on this topic, your breadth of knowledge, and I say that with the utmost respect, is very valuable. I appreciate you weighing in and calling it as it is.

Your posts here are well taken and should be well noted by others. Personally, I get weary of the "victim" card being played over and over and over........ "I was born this way; I didn't ask to be gay; It's not my fault, etc, etc. Thank you for calling these arguments to task and shining the light in the midst of this perverted darkness.

This is where your authority really shines!!! Keep shining the light!!! :D

Good words Chan. I also think you should e-mail your rebuttal to this church.


Just leave Va. Tech alone. :tiphat

Should this thread be merged with Prax's thread "Make your own twinkie"?

in all seriousness, I agree.

In agreement with what is posted above. :girlnails

Chan...

I understand your sympathies. Whether I agree with them or not in not material to my sickening aversion to sodomy. However, to place lying on the same par with the disgusting things that the sodomites do to each other in their same-sex bedroom is indefensible.

The passion of your defense is noted.

I am left to wonder.

No worries...
 

From one of the many articles Chan had rebutting Rebuttal....

Future Biological Research
Will continuing research eventually find some overwhelming biological influences to produce homosexuality, or find that added together, all the biological influences are overwhelming? No. The twin studies prove that future research will never discover any overwhelming biological factors which compel homosexuality.

``````````````````````````````````````````````
My shorthand...

If homosexuality was one's biological destiny; there would NEVER be a set of identical twins that weren't the same sexual orientation. But alas twin studies already demonstrate that genes alone can't acount for people's choices.:coffee2

Those that would change God's truth into a lie and serve their own desires above that of the Creator's, will not make it into the Kingdom, unless they repent. Being a homosexual is living a lie.

I must say, you have a unique way of expressing yourself.

Sorry guys, either I don't have the attention span or I just don't care a whole lot about this topic enough to read the volumes of posts found in just four pages.

In fact, this post is too long.

Newman, Ferd, MOW, S I-90.

While you all have rushed to congratulate Chan on his excellent words as though they were words sent down from heaven by an ark-angel, do you all also agree that what homosexuals do to each other in their same sex bedrooms on the same par with lying, as Chan has stated?

The wife and I were talking a few days ago about the extreme change in the thinking in todays world from the days when we were very young. It is as though it is a weird world that we are unaquainted with.

Example: Today I heard of a school kid placing his ham sandwich on the lunch room. The school went into a panic. It is unknown what will happen to the poor confused kid. It seems that the Muslim kids were greatly offended. The kid is in big trouble and will undergo sensitivity training and possibly disciplined and sent to another school.

The warped mentality of this today's world is leaving me as a total stranger here.

Newman, Rhoni, MOW and all. I love you all very much. But, I am totally shocked at this new attitude toward homosexuality. I've said it before. Seeing the rapid change of public mentality that has crept into the church, I fully expect that the UPC will debate ordaining homosexual preachers, if the Lord tarries long enough.

Lying is NOT on the same par with what homos do to each other. God never destroyed two cities because the people told lies. NEVER. There are degrees of abomonations. When someone lies, he can be redeemed. When someone falls into the homosexual lifestyle, the spirit of it is so powerful that the mind becomes totally reprobated. Few, precious few are ever redeemed from it.

Anyway, I am surprised. But, I am told that I should not be.

Brother Strange- From an eternal point of view; both lying and homosexuality will get you to hell.

However, I do believe and agree with you that sexual sin carries much greater consequences in this life and in fact too often has far reaching effects on others as well. Most lies are not so hard to live with and not so destructive to the soul of others and can be repented of without years of anquish.

Furthermore; I am not going to get to bothered by Chan's position on this because he clearly sees in black and white only. One can clearly see this given his response to the shootings last week.

I will say one more thing... As much as I dislike much of what Chan posts and his hateful and condescending writing style; I have never walked in his shoes and had to overcome what he has. I have to repect that about him. :cool:

I think sin is sin. Sin cannot enter There. But there are sins that are stronger and harder to repent of, to turn away from, then others. Suppose someone stole a loaf of bread because they were hungry and someone else robbed a resturaut becuase of a bad drug habit. Which would be easy to break free of and turn around from? Both will get you roasted if you do not repent.

Newman, I agree with you. All sin will land one in hell...but, as you said, and others have inferred...sexual sins are sins against one's self and the other party involved and have far reaching effects on families, friends, and communities which cannot be denied.

We, as people, have our own ideas of which sin is greater, but the fact remains....ALL sin gets one a one-way ticket to the pit. I for one, see molestation of children as the greatest sin...at least , for most part...the homeosexual sin is between two consenting adults. The two consenting adults sin against themselves, each other, as well as God. I feel more threatened by pedophiles than I do about homosexuals although all are sins.

Sincerely, Rhoni

Just to clarify...I see the practice of homosexual behaviors as a Biblical sin, but I do not hate homosexuals...I am a counselor that is a Christian and will help any of those who are caught in the spirit of homosexuality to break free from satan's hold on their life. I too respect Chan, and others who have turned their backs on the practice of homosexual behavior even if they live the rest of their lives celibate...just like the rest of us singles!

Blessings, Rhoni

Sis...

I agree. Sin is sin and all sin will be cast into hell right along with the unrepentant that clings to it. That is a given. My point was to the degree of abominations involved.

While I am not sure what you are speaking of concerning the things that he has had to to overcome, if he only thinks in black and white with no degrees of variation in view, he is a very fragile vessel indeed. I must have compassion for him.

Concerning sexual sins, it appears that the sin of homosexuality is placed on the same level of all sexual sins. Here, I would disagree also. Homosexual sins are so abominal to a sane mind as to be almost unthinkable. Adultery is a horrible sin but there is none so black and perverted as a homosexual sin.

I am reminded of how Napoleon felt about it. He had the homosexuals shot during a battle by his own men. The sin was such an unspeakable abomination that I was almost an adult before I ever heard of it. When I first learned about it and what they do to each other in their same-sex bedrooms, I was shocked beyond belief.

Time are different now. Today, they are legally getting married to each other. They are in-your-face with it, flaunting it as something glorious. Then when I heard about homosexual Apostolic Churches, I wondered what am I doing here on this planet. It has become a weird and grotesque planet with a gorgoyle population, much of which is in the church.