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

[Newman]

Originally Posted by brad2723

First I would have to remind you that I do not believe the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin. There were definitely sinful homosexual acts prohibited in the OT but there were also sinful heterosexual acts prohibited in the OT. This prohibitions do not make the sexual orientation wrong but the behavior found withing the orientation.

So then you agree that acts of homosexuality were wrong in the OT? What heterosexual act was an abomination in the OT that is now ok in the NT (outside of touching a woman on her period)?

Women on their periods were considered "unclean" and every month went through a purification process that included the priest offering up a sin offering and burnt offering to make atonement for them (See Lev 15:30).

However, Jesus Christ offered himself once and for all; so that there is no more need for sin offerings and burnt offerings. The CERIMONIAL law was fulfilled.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14; and surronding verses for more understanding).

Consequently, menustrating women are no longer "unclean." Therefore, there is no abomination in touching menustrating women today.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by brad2723

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28. How can I be judged for breaking a "moral law" if being found guilty requires God to identify me male or female? If God does not see male or female then I think we can accurately assume that any of the law requiring a divine distinction of the sexes has been done away with. This is, of course, an assumption but one that is based on more scripture than your assumption that there is a division between moral and ceremonial law and that the moral law is somehow eternal.

1. God is a Spirit and all that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. HOWEVER; male and female distinctions; just like bond or free distinctions were not done away with in regards to our lives on earth.

If Paul meant his statement in Galatians to be one of total obliteration of roles on earth; he wouldn't have written Philemon the way he did. Instead he would have said. Hey.... there is no bond or free in Christ Jesus. You must release this slave NOW. But that wasn't what he said...

Paul's words in Galatians were about level ground before the cross but not obliteration of distinction otherwise.

2. Even if this were not so; God doesn't need to know if one is a male or female when engaged in fornication. Fornication is a ticket to hell.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

There should be no approval required if you are able to post anything.

After a while a persons posts are no longer moderated

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by brad2723

I think most people would agree that to say something is "immoral" is to imply a greater degree of culpability. It would be just as accurate to define what we are here calling "moral law" as "non-ceremonial law" but we do not. We have assigned the term "moral" without any measuring stick for doing so. Is a man touching his wife during menstruation a moral law or ceremonial law?

Just to understand our foundations I will say that I do see there are different types of laws but do not see where the Bible in anyway divides them; stating some are to be applied to all people and others are not. When Paul said we are no longer under the burden of the Law, why didn't he specify which part of the Law he was referring to? I would suggest he did not do so because there was no distinction to be made.

I've never said "we are under the law" or "we are under certain parts of the law"...

But my points regarding what Paul said of the law in Romans are important and as well....being under the New Covenant God said He would write his laws on our hearts....right? What laws was he refering to? Again Paul said he had no knowledge of sin BUT BY THE LAW...interesting eh?

Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
Heb 10:17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,

Paul speaks of the hand writing of ordinances and explains a little of what he means
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
Col 2:14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Having stripped rulers and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths.
Col 2:17 For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

The Apostles even say circumcision was no longer necessary, yet never once do they say we can do whatever we want...we can lie, commit adultery, worship false gods...those were all forbidden under the law YET are re-interated in the New Testament...why is that?

Here is another of what was abolished under the law
Heb 9:9 For it was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him who did the service perfect as regards the conscience,
Heb 9:10 which stood only in meats and drinks, and different kinds of washings and fleshly ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But when Christ had become a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building
Heb 9:12 nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once for all into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh,

Yet again, Paul said this law leads us to Christ, and that we would not know what sin is except by the law.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by brad2723

I would suggest that the majority of our doctrines are based on the emotional appeals and personal testimonies of Jesus, His disciples and Apostles.

Perhaps you do not know what I mean by emotional appeal....You can tell us all you want that you God made you gay and make all sort of feel good arguments or arguments that attempt to make is emotionally feel pity for you or feel guilt...that does not make it God's Truth. God's truth is based on what the bible says. It is not based on what you say, unless you can quote the word. It is not based on stories or anecdotes from days gone by of your times in the UPC. It is not based on how many years you have been out. Im not trying to be crude here, I am setting a ground work for discussion. You mentioned earlier when someone said spirit of homosexuality and insisted all such discussions be biblically based. This is my point, stories and personal histories and appeals to our emotions on YOUR part are irrelevant in a discussion that seeks to determine what the bible says or does not say on a topic. Jesus taugt as an authority from God. The Apostles taught as they were authorized and taught by Jesus...you and I then quote them.

that is what I mean by emotional appeal. It's a logical fallacy

Emotion can never be removed from the human equation, though I was not using emotion to elicit any sort of sympathy from the readers here. I only wanted those writing and responding to understand who they were responding to. It's easy for humans to paint everyone we disagree with using the same paint brush. Not all homosexuals are like those presented in the media. I felt it was necessary for everyone to understand a little bit of my testimony in order to understand me. How can we become all things to all men if we claim knowing them is not important?

I understood that, but we need to set a foundation for discussion, which is also why we have been discussing the law and how relevant it can be

Also, we need to remember that pedophilia, adultery, rape, incest, etc. are directed within the sexual orientation of the one committing the act. Homosexual pedophiles molest children of their same sex while heterosexual pedophiles molest children of their opposite sex. Homosexual adulators commit adultery with individuals of their same sex while heterosexual adulators commit adultery with individuals of their opposite sex. Sexual orientation is most definitely a natural inclination and varies from person to person. Any abusive or illegal behavior which takes place within that person’s orientation is a completely different issue altogether.

I was not trying to make an argument about pedophiles or adultery etc etc...if you think that you must have missed my point then. Sin is sin because of what the bible says on it. You can speculate as to why God allows you to be that way, but as I stated already....we can all speculate as to why we are the way we are....what is important is what the bible says and what we will do to be inline with what it says in thinking and actions

I do not know how many homosexuals you actually know and have spoken with but I can tell you with absolute certainty that most homosexuals do not claim to be bisexual.

Well, what I mean was, most people practicing homosexual lifestyles that I have known have either admitted to me that do or have had attractions to the opposite sex and or have had relations with the opposite sex.

Besides the people that were out and out homosexuals and are not or no longer the church I am in I can also think of those that have had homosexual encounters and relationships and have admitted to having struggles while single with same sex attractions or temptations, but are in committed relationships with members of the opposite sex

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by brad2723

I don't know how else to put it. In order to be judged as "homosexual" God would have to see the biological sex (male/female) of those he is judging as homosexual. Having sexual relationships with a male is only homosexual in nature if it is being done by another male. Therefore, I suggest that if God does not see me as male or female how can he rightfully judge me as homosexual. An even greater question is, "how can he judge me as homosexual if I am not participating in a sexual relationship?"

But we know God DOES see us as male or female from MANY MANY verses in scripture and in relation to Christian living. That verse you are using is being taken out of context to support a topic it was never meant to support.

Your question is a good question, but I think we should finish some others first. Also I am not sure if you saw that I already touched on this issue or not

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by brad2723

First I would have to remind you that I do not believe the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin. There were definitely sinful homosexual acts prohibited in the OT but there were also sinful heterosexual acts prohibited in the OT. This prohibitions do not make the sexual orientation wrong but the behavior found withing the orientation.

Second, I would point out that menstruation is definitely a curse God placed on women. The OT Law said it was an abomination for a man to touch a woman during menstruation as well as for her to enter the city during menstruation.

Third, I was only responding to a comment made by someone earlier who was implying that the fact that God turning idolaters over to homosexuality proves that homosexuality is an abomination. My only point was that God has pronounced all sorts of judgements on people and the judgement he chooses cannot automatically be defined as abominable.

That a man was not to have sexual relations with a woman during her menstruation does not make it a curse....though she may feel that way and though her husband who has to deal with her PMS might feel that way too

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

So then you agree that acts of homosexuality were wrong in the OT? What heterosexual act was an abomination in the OT that is now ok in the NT (outside of touching a woman on her period)?

Women on their periods were considered "unclean" and every month went through a purification process that included the priest offering up a sin offering and burnt offering to make atonement for them (See Lev 15:30).

However, Jesus Christ offered himself once and for all; so that there is no more need for sin offerings and burnt offerings. The CERIMONIAL law was fulfilled.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14; and surronding verses for more understanding).

Consequently, menustrating women are no longer "unclean." Therefore, there is no abomination in touching menustrating women today.

Well see that is the problem here....even if they were we have not set a foundation as to whether or not that is even relevant to us in the NT since we are not under the law.

But it would be good to take one subject/verse at a time and discuss it rather than jumping all over the place.

We can start with Sodom, then the law and so on

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Newman

1. God is a Spirit and all that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. HOWEVER; male and female distinctions; just like bond or free distinctions were not done away with in regards to our lives on earth.

If Paul meant his statement in Galatians to be one of total obliteration of roles on earth; he wouldn't have written Philemon the way he did. Instead he would have said. Hey.... there is no bond or free in Christ Jesus. You must release this slave NOW. But that wasn't what he said...

Paul's words in Galatians were about level ground before the cross but not obliteration of distinction otherwise.

2. Even if this were not so; God doesn't need to know if one is a male or female when engaged in fornication. Fornication is a ticket to hell.

Exactly, as I pointed out the NT continues to make obvious distinctions between the sexes

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by brad2723

First I would have to remind you that I do not believe the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin. There were definitely sinful homosexual acts prohibited in the OT but there were also sinful heterosexual acts prohibited in the OT. This prohibitions do not make the sexual orientation wrong but the behavior found withing the orientation.

What are the homosexual acts that were sinful as opposed to homosexual acts that weren't? Can you name anyone in the Bible who had homosexual relations and wasn't punished?

Homosexuality is definitely listed as a sin, whether you believe it or not. And there are no heterosexual acts listed as sin between a married woman and her husband. Adultery is a sin, yes, but it's not the sex that's sinful, but the relationship between the two parties that is.

Second, I would point out that menstruation is definitely a curse God placed on women. The OT Law said it was an abomination for a man to touch a woman during menstruation as well as for her to enter the city during menstruation.

I fail to see what that has to do with the conversation, considering you are referring to Jewish law. I'm not Jewish.

Third, I was only responding to a comment made by someone earlier who was implying that the fact that God turning idolaters over to homosexuality proves that homosexuality is an abomination. My only point was that God has pronounced all sorts of judgements on people and the judgement he chooses cannot automatically be defined as abominable.

I can agree with you on this point.