As a Christian what are your thoughts?

[mee]

That is precisely the style of thought that Jesus was trying to teach AGAINST.

with the advent of Christianity, God’s condemnation of homosexuality continued.—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.





While many people have changed their view and others are undecided, the Bible’s viewpoint is crystal clear: “You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing,” states the Bible. (Leviticus 18:22, The New Jerusalem Bible) No apologies, no concessions, no ambiguity—homosexuality is detestable in God’s sight. For ancient Israelites living under the Mosaic Law, the penalty was death. (Leviticus 20:13)


we do not put people to death now , because we are not under the old way of doing things , but as we can see in corinthians it is still a no no , but now as Jesus taught ,it is love of neighbour, but for believers the praticing of wrong things would be out if we want to be inline with the christian way

 

[madeinrussia89]

It is my heart you are condemning, not anything wrong that I have ever done to you or anyone.

Your heart is sin? Really? Well, what a newsflash that should be to the angels then.

Humans are very diverse, and differ in many aspects of their nature. Surely you are not claiming that every human is attracted to females by nature? For you yourself are not. I am male, by nature, as half of humans are and half are not; I am attracted to males by nature, as about half of humans are and half are not; I combine both those natures, as is true of only a few percent of humans, but that is still over a hundred million.
Some people are hot-tempered by nature, some are calm by nature, some are cheery by nature, some are gloomy by nature. Do you think God only wanted one type of people to exist?

I think God created one type of sexual orientation to exist.

Never ever ever did he tell us that we should follow whatever it says in the 10 commandments.
He told us not to kill, not to steal, etc. because these do harm to others, not because an authority said it; he told us to disregard the Sabbath commandment whenever it would conflict with real morality, which is not based on following "commandments".

Luke 23:56, “…And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.”

There was no " oh, I don't think we're going to keep the sabbath anymore" or " yeah, you don't have to follow the commandments because of me ".

You are the one who is obviously ignorant of the history. Patriarch Eusebius converted the church to Semi-Arianism, and Nestorius was himself the Patriarch of Constantinople. When the church councils condemned these positions, they were condemning the earlier errors of the church. The heirarchy of the church has often been in error on serious issues in the past, and so, it might be in error now.

You do also know that Nestorius was declared a heretic and thrown out? The Church doesn't error, even if some people might. And, the Patriarchs, though they are very holy, are not the heads of the Church, Jesus Christ is.

The church did so for centuries. Whoever lied to you about Nestorius never having been the head of your church is also lying to you about this subject.

Hate to break it to you, but we don't have a Pope that speaks for all of us like Rome. No Patriarch is the head of the Church. Whoever told you otherwise is wrong.

Homosexual unions were never blessed by the Church, and it's ridiculous to think that they have some place in our antiquity. They never were, and it's bs to think it ever was.

Do you worship Paul?

No, but I venerate him as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

No. It is YOU who thinks that my nature "goes against" humanity. I tell you, I am just a particular subtype of human, a minority subtype but not all that rare, and it would be no problem if people like you did not insist on making it one.

Minority subtype human? This is getting outlandish.

Suppose I told you that you don't really believe in Jesus, and when you say you really do, I tell you that you are mistaken: not "mistaken" about who Jesus was, mind you, but mistaken about whether you believe it; and I am not talking about subconscious doubts, but telling you that your conscious beliefs are not what you think they are. But... but... what you "think" IS what your consciousness is-- wouldn't this be pure insanity?
You are guilty of this same level of insanity here when you presume to tell ME that what is inside my head and heart "cannot" be there.

I'm not presuming to tell you what is inside your head, I'm presuming that what you say is your nature really is not. People can be wrong without being crazy, and I think that is the case.

It IS joy. And it is NOT sinning. You don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you refuse to listen to anyone who does know.

It is sinning, it says clearly in the New Testament that it is sin, and it hasn't changed. Somehow I think Paul has more authority on writing on the state of man than you do.

 

[madeinrussia89]

I've decided MadeInRussia must be right. After all, the Christian churches have never been wrong about anything before, have they?
But if I'm not who I think I am, who am I? I thought I was male, and attracted to males, but no such people exist-- and I do exist, don't I? So Made, tell me, which is it? Am I female by nature? Or am I attracted to females? I would have thought I would have noticed either of those things by now, but obviously I'm not thinking clearly. Can you tell me which it is, or do you have to ask somebody especially "blessed"?

Not "churches", the Church. God didn't set down hundreds of Churches, he set down one.

Even if you are male or female, the outcome of homosexuality is sin. And if you don't accept that, it is simply denying the Word. It states it clearly as a sin in First Corinthians, and you can't get anymore straightforward than that.

Asking simple questions about doctrine doesn't require a blessing.

 

[madeinrussia89]

Ok, madeinrussia, I see what you mean.

But then again, a lot of us have been greedy, a lot of us have lied, a lot of us have stolen things (ie. picking up lost property, or items we believed someone else lost or were just lying around). I'm sure quite a few of us have been drunk before. I haven't, but someone else has done it.

And the point is to stop these things after we have been washed clean, not to keep on doing it. The bad deeds were not being sanctified.

What I see in this verse is Paul talking about "the impure mind." He seems to be talking about hedonism, materialism and narcissism.

I don't detect narcissism in Bob. Narcissism is self-idolatry. I don't see self-idolatry in Bob's personality. What I see is someone wanting acceptance. He's expressed a number of times a reverence for God and my impression is it's important to him to know whether or not God has a purpose or place for him in this world.

I see Paul talking about wrong lifestyles and deeds and turning away from them by the grace of God.

I'm not much of a believer in moral absolutes, and I wonder if, even if homosexuality was "wrong" or "impure" or "inappropriate" if it could be seen as "absolutely wrong" or "absolutely impure."

Well, I do see this in absolutes. If something is a sin, it is entirely wrong, I see and have been taught no " ehhhh maybe it might be okay sometimes".

Let's explore the notion of absolutes . . .

Suppose that we were to delete, one by one, the words in the New Testament. When would the Gospel disappear? What if we were to delete, first of all, the man lying with man part? Obviously we see it as wrong because it says it's wrong. Christians would not be so adamant if it didn't say that. We wouldn't see it that way if it didn't say that. This all becomes a question of what is right and wrong with regards to things that don't need to be said. So we'd ask the fundamental question: what needs to be said? If something is wrong, do we need to be told? Why so if we can decide for ourselves, if it is in our nature to know right from wrong?

If it was in the Bible, it needed to be said. To say so would mean the Bible had a lot of unnecessaries, and I believe that to be false. I cannot criticize the Word set forth to man or postulate about the importance of it. It is what it is.

It seems to me that the words in Scripture are a lot like food. A bird that has lived for 100 days and needs a loaf of bread each day doesn't just die in the middle of the 100 days just because it only got 90 loafs of bread, missing 10 loafs of bread in the 100 days. So Scripture is much like food for thought. Life doesn't just fall apart because we miss a bit of Scripture.

No, the entire world isn't going to come crashing down because someone either didn't read or misread a piece of scripture, but life is made better by Scripture.

The point here is, it seems to make a lot of difference that Paul mentioned homosexuality. What if he hadn't? Would we still condemn homosexuality? I am sure a lot of people would argue that Paul was right for saying that. If he hadn't said it . . . what would happen? Someone would suggest that men would be shagging men and women shagging women. It would seem like we're going around without an essential component of our mind and conscience. It's like saying that if we didn't consume that extra word in our minds (ie. "homosexuality") we'd suddenly have a spiritual heart attack, diabetes or a spiritual HIV/disease. Now that is just crazy.

But it was said, that is the point.

What if, for example, Paul had just said, "don't be hedonistic, materialistic or narcissistic. Hedonists, materialists and narcissists don't go to heaven?" Would we then, still see homosexuality as impurity? Is homosexuality just impurity, hedonism, materialism and narcissism by definition? The letter of the Gospel says its impure but what says the Spirit?

First of all, Paul was not have said that, because he has no authority on who will make it absolutely in to heaven and who will not make it at all. The letter of the Gospel is the Word, the Spirit and the Word are one in God, they don't have conflicting opinions.

Ok, I may concede that it may have a "bad influence," but doing emotional damage is probably just as unhealthy. Even if it was "unhealthy," nobody said it was "absolutely impure" and that we had to go to extremes and say "this is an absolute no-no." I think there is room for healthy co-existence. We could set aside a special space or community where they can go to do their thing. We would be shielded from their private lives. In public, they're just like the rest of us.

Spiritually, I believe and have been taught that Homosexuality is absolutely impure, there is no justification for it.

Even if you aren't really "homosexual," or if you can change, you at least feel and believe you are one. You can't force yourself to not feel that way unless there's some kind of paradigm shift powerful enough to wipe out the homosexual mindset, or more importantly, the nature. What you feel is what makes it "natural" at this stage in your life. If you are to change to not be homosexual, you would have to make a "natural progression" out of this phase in your life. If you can't change, it would be "unnatural" to force yourself to change (ie. through indoctrination, convincing yourself through logical arguments).

One can turn away from sin, it isn't easy, but it can be done. If one cannot wipe away the attraction, they can at least pray to God to help them with that, and cease to do the action. But if you don't even try to stop the action, what can be said of that?

The way I would see it is that your mind is like a tree that grows a particular kind of fruit. Some people have minds that are strong enough to change the kind of fruit they grow. Some are too weak. Well . . . that is at least how I see my own life. I have been a tree that wanted to change its fruit lots of times. If you can't change then perhaps you have already reached your full potential, or at least one part of your life/personality has reached its limits.

I believe people can at least try to change, with all of their will.

 

[wil]

Not "churches", the Church. God didn't set down hundreds of Churches, he set down one.

Hmmm....and which Church might that be I wonder. Now it appears to me, you aren't even referring to hundreds of churches, but hundreds of denominations, and referring to one church, but referring to one denomination. Most likely the one that was built by the behest of some Roman emperor who brought a number of leaders from various 'churches' together to form one mega church under one doctrine, and then set out to eliminate all the other thought?

It did a pretty good job, it controlled thought for years, but documents and thought escaped and it is headed back the way it was the years after Jesus and prior to the 'church' deciding it was the only answer.

As far as I can see if G!d was behind the first councils, G!d is also behind the division and expansion of the churches. Conversely if man is behind all of the denominations, it was also man that combined them in the first place.

 

[madeinrussia89]

Hmmm....and which Church might that be I wonder. Now it appears to me, you aren't even referring to hundreds of churches, but hundreds of denominations, and referring to one church, but referring to one denomination. Most likely the one that was built by the behest of some Roman emperor who brought a number of leaders from various 'churches' together to form one mega church under one doctrine, and then set out to eliminate all the other thought?

Jesus with his Apostles set down one Church, one faith. And yes, the seven ecumenical councils are of great importance. It was a mission of the Early Church to dispell the heresy (but not to kill or force) that tried to challenge the Faith.

It did a pretty good job, it controlled thought for years, but documents and thought escaped and it is headed back the way it was the years after Jesus and prior to the 'church' deciding it was the only answer.

You don't think the Church feels the blow of losing those documents? We lost so much thanks to either; other faiths, human stupidity, or war.

As far as I can see if G!d was behind the first councils, G!d is also behind the division and expansion of the churches. Conversely if man is behind all of the denominations, it was also man that combined them in the first place.

And yet we should all seek to be one Church as in the beginning.

 

[wil]

You don't think the Church feels the blow of losing those documents? We lost so much thanks to either; other faiths, human stupidity, or war.

And yet we should all seek to be one Church as in the beginning.

It was other churches that burned books and destroyed everything they called heretical because it didn't fit within the confines of their views?

But in the beginning there were various churches, it hundreds of years later that the consolidation happened and the extrication of opposing thought began.

Of course the Christian Historicity depends largely on who is writing it, as no one/church/group appears to be able to look at an unbiased perspective.

 

[bob x]

I see if I really want to take a break from this board I am going to have to be more drama-queeny about it. I really am tired of talking to brick walls, yet people keep addressing me.

Your heart is sin? Really?

Not at all. My heart is a great blessing which God has chosen to give me. For me to call it "sin" would be a profound blasphemy against my Creator. For you to call it "sin" is just ignorance on your part.

I think God created one type of sexual orientation to exist.

That is certainly ignorant. Are you really unaware that there are females who find males attractive, and also males who find females attractive? Those two are quite different. There are also, I can tell you from experience, males who find males attractive, and also, I have heard, females who find females attractive.

There was no " oh, I don't think we're going to keep the sabbath anymore" or " yeah, you don't have to follow the commandments because of me ".

Jesus specifically instructed his disciples to GATHER FOOD ON THE SABBATH. The very first commandment given about the Sabbath, even before Mt. Sinai, was DON'T GATHER FOOD ON THAT DAY.

The Church doesn't error, even if some people might. And, the Patriarchs, though they are very holy, are not the heads of the Church, Jesus Christ is.

If your patriarchs and all your priests were wrong before, how do you know that they are not wrong now?

Homosexual unions were never blessed by the Church

You are mistaken. You may say, if you like, that the churchmen who blessed those marriages were wrong to do so (though again I would ask how you know that it is not the present-day churchmen who are wrong), but to deny that it happened at all is just perpetuating a lie.

Minority subtype human? This is getting outlandish.

Are you saying it is outlandish for me to call myself human, or outlandish to note that the majority of humans are different from me? Both of those would seem to be quite simple facts.

I'm not presuming to tell you what is inside your head, I'm presuming that what you say is your nature really is not.

If you are not talking about what is in my head and heart, then WHOSE nature are you talking about??? I am telling you about the nature of *myself*, this person sitting here, thinking, feeling, attempting to communicate; you appear to be talking about some entirely different person who does not resemble me in any way, and does not exist except in your imagination.

Somehow I think Paul has more authority on writing on the state of man than you do.

He would be an authority on the nature of PAUL, but I am the supreme authority on MY nature, just as you are the supreme authority on YOUR nature. If God is omniscient, He knows exactly as much about your consciousness as you do, but could not know more, because what you know IS, by definition, your consciousness. If someone claiming to speak for God told you that your consciousness was something different from what you are conscious of, then that person would be by definition wrong, and either lying or mistaken about speaking for God.

If one cannot wipe away the attraction, they can at least pray to God to help them with that, and cease to do the action

But WHY should I do so? That would be despising the Creator for how He made me.

It was a mission of the Early Church to dispell the heresy (but not to kill or force)

The early church killed, and forced. It turned from persecuted to persecutor quite readily, because it had turned away from the morality of Jesus and adopted the morality of his crucifiers, as do you.

 

[bob x]

Asking simple questions about doctrine doesn't require a blessing.

Then, how come you cannot answer the question I posed to you?
To repeat, I do not fell bad, and cannot pretend to feel bad, about having been the source of joy to others: WHY SHOULD I? And you think I ought to "make up for it" somehow: WHAT IN THE WORLD WOULD "MAKE UP" FOR HAVING GIVEN ANOTHER PERSON JOY?
You told me that only a "blessed" priest could answer. If so, why don't you ask a priest and tell me what he says? Surely you can find one of your denomination easier than I can. I have no need for the secrecy of the confessional here: I am completely open about who and what I am, and have nothing to hide.

 

[Quahom1]

Then, how come you cannot answer the question I posed to you?
To repeat, I do not fell bad, and cannot pretend to feel bad, about having been the source of joy to others: WHY SHOULD I? And you think I ought to "make up for it" somehow: WHAT IN THE WORLD WOULD "MAKE UP" FOR HAVING GIVEN ANOTHER PERSON JOY?
You told me that only a "blessed" priest could answer. If so, why don't you ask a priest and tell me what he says? Surely you can find one of your denomination easier than I can. I have no need for the secrecy of the confessional here: I am completely open about who and what I am, and have nothing to hide.

Any Priest worth his salt will tell you that the best we can hope to be is...human. It seems that all of us here (present company included) fall short of that goal from time to time...

There are those who will never accept particular behaviors of others, and there are those who will never accept those that refuse to accept particular behaviors of others. Instead of agreeing to disagree, it becomes a vicious cycle of point counter point, with no answer in sight.

This goes beyond socially accepted "norms" Bob. It is for a great many, an ingrained revulsion (no other kind way to put it), to certain behaviors people exhibit. No amount of arguing or attempted indoctrination, will change that.

Just because laws are being passed in states to force acceptence/tolerance, what actually happens is isolation and segregation of people from people.

"The management of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime."

That is not going to change anytime soon.

 

[bob x]

I hate to be the one to tell you, but "The management of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime" stopped being legal a long time ago. "That is not going to change anytime soon"? It changed decades ago. If you don't want to feed niggers, sinners, faggots, whatever, then don't open a restaurant; if you don't want to transport sinners, don't drive taxicabs; if you don't want to house sinners, don't be a landlord. Once you are open to the public, you don't get to pick and choose which part of the public you will deal with.

 

[Quahom1]

I hate to be the one to tell you, but "The management of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime" stopped being legal a long time ago. "That is not going to change anytime soon"? It changed decades ago. If you don't want to feed niggers, sinners, faggots, whatever, then don't open a restaurant; if you don't want to transport sinners, don't drive taxicabs; if you don't want to house sinners, don't be a landlord. Once you are open to the public, you don't get to pick and choose which part of the public you will deal with.

No Bob, just because it is illegal, doesn't mean squat as far as people's thoughts and feelings. And it isn't illegal at all...look it up.

 

[bob x]

In the America of my childhood, signs reading "The management of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime" with the well-understood meaning "No Coloreds Allowed" were common, and were legally enforceable. Nowadays, you would not get in legal trouble just for posting such a sign, if that's all you mean, but you would indeed get in trouble if you actually thought you could get away with refusing service.

 

[Quahom1]

In the America of my childhood, signs reading "The management of this establishment reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, at anytime" with the well-understood meaning "No Coloreds Allowed" were common, and were legally enforceable. Nowadays, you would not get in legal trouble just for posting such a sign, if that's all you mean, but you would indeed get in trouble if you actually thought you could get away with refusing service.

Same sign, sans the colored part. Still quite legal for an establishment to refuse service to anyone at anytime...

 

[bob x]

If a black person walks in the door it is not at all legal for an establishment to refuse service. If you want the right to refuse service to "anyone", then you need to shut your door to the public, and only let in those you invite. If you want to establish some rules, for example refusing service to those with "No Shirt / No Shoes", that is different. But if you think it is legal to be open to the public, and yet refuse service for no reason to someone, you are mistaken, and would be well advised not to go into any business that serves the public.

 

[Quahom1]

If a black person walks in the door it is not at all legal for an establishment to refuse service. If you want the right to refuse service to "anyone", then you need to shut your door to the public, and only let in those you invite. If you want to establish some rules, for example refusing service to those with "No Shirt / No Shoes", that is different. But if you think it is legal to be open to the public, and yet refuse service for no reason to someone, you are mistaken, and would be well advised not to go into any business that serves the public.

A business can refuse service Bob, at any time, to anyone...courts decide if it was legal in the long run...not YOU.

 

[bob x]

I did not claim to be able to decide: else the laws of this country would be quite different, no? I am telling you that you are badly mistaken. Of course, you won't hear it from me. Well, that is not my problem. I am done with you.

 

[Quahom1]

I did not claim to be able to decide: else the laws of this country would be quite different, no? I am telling you that you are badly mistaken. Of course, you won't hear it from me. Well, that is not my problem. I am done with you.

LOL, ok, take care, be safe, and God speed.

 

[Xavier Breath]

As a Christian, here are my thoughts:

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, sharing in the inheritance, and our sins have been washed away if only we will believe and confess that Jesus lived, died for us as an unqualified gift, and rose again.

Shall we then fight amongst ourselves, and be consumed in our zeal to disinherit our brother, making a gruesome spectacle of ourselves in the sight of the lost and the vulnerable, and deprive them of the gift of salvation for which Christ suffered on the cross?

Judge not, lest ye be judged. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye measure, so shall it be meted unto you.

Cast not your pearls before swine, as they will trample them under foot, and turn and rend you...

I know only Christ, and Him crucified.

I am only fit to question the sincerity of my own faith.

We are all sinners, and there is no sin "greater" than another.

The saved fall back to sin daily.

Salvation is assured, but we are to die daily to Him.

There but for the Grace of God go I....