September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Sinners Unaware | Main | "Like" Ratio Christi »

January 26, 2012

Comments

Moral codes can't be absolute, because that's the nature of a code. (bennet)

Total rejection of the absolute HOLINESS CODE as given by God in His Word....as expected in the light of other things said.

Sorry that wasn't clear. I did mean in the morning. Thank you.

By all means, trim out my whole involvement. I'm frankly ashamed to have said word one.

You're a great contributor, Bennett.
I'm looking forward to your future comments.

Daron,

I deeply appreciate you saying that. As you've pointed out before, I can be pretty flip. In this case, I let that get away with me, and just utterly failed. I really do apologize to Amy, to William, and to you and anyone else who read that uncharitable exchange.

We who enjoy sarcasm run that risk.

God let's us fail so that we run to Him all the more.

Good man, Bennett. I appreciate the apology. Onward and upward!

I'm with Daron, I couldn't have enjoyed Luther/Arasmus any more than I do. The word that comes to mind is "diatribe" and Luther did an interesting thing by giving respect to Arasmus while attacking the position being held by him. Luther argued from scripture, not bare assertion, in other words, he let logic deliver the sting as only logic can.

Here is a help for understanding diatribe:

"A diatribe is bitter or abusive speech, but it also carries the connotation of an outpouring of such speech--a rant against something or someone. A diatribe is both an invective (criticism, insult) and a rant (loud speech)."

I like diatribe so long as it is not the opening disposition, but arrived at through discussion to learn if it's even properly used, and even then, it should be directed towards the argument, not the person only.

Sometimes I volunteer to judge speech and debate tournaments and they use the term "clash", it engages the debaters and onlookers to a higher level, it's for that reason I think it has a useful purpose...btw, at the end they always shake hands and congratulate each other, another good thing. [Even Mitt and Newt shake hands after ;~)]

As far as this discussion, the level of quality in thoughtful content and use of reference is high, giving we onlookers much to consider.

Daron,

I'd imagine that's one of his many reasons for permitting our free will. Certainly a consolation in times when I've been a bonehead.

------

Brad,

I agree that a diatribe can be useful, so long as it's in the service of thoughtful conviction, rather than as a gloss over a lack thereof. I wouldn't be so bold as to say that the former was the case of me tonight.

And for what it's worth, while I also enjoyed their exchange, I sided with Erasmus. ;)

To another great contributor, thanks, Brad.

For the record, though, and in case it is lost in the tone, I completely support Amy in her deleting those portions of this exchange.
It is probably better left unsaid, but I don't want my admiration and support of Bennett to come across as anything less than that for Amy and STR. I'm glad for the moderation.

While I'm at it, I would like to point out that the people at STR are just that, people, who put up with a lot of gratuitous denigration and disrespect for their ideas and Kingdom work.
My hat is constantly off to them for the grace with which they handle that and for their patience with me as a commenter.

I like how these exchanges are turning out. It got a little heated at times, but everyone seems to have cooled off a bit, and I can see the charity in many of your comments. Nicely done, all of you.

Since we all have our eyes here, has the Darwin's Heretic thread been disappeared? Can anyone else see it?

Daron, thanks for your comments. As for the Darwin's Heretic thread, it looks like Melinda set it to post again on Sunday because the author is going to be the guest on the radio show. So you can see the whole thing again after that. Sorry about the confusion!

The very important point of Alans article:
We need to take a serious look as christians at how we handle the sin and the sinner of homosexuality.
What is it?
How should we act torward it?
...my church always always always makes the big point that the church needs to be first and foremost A HOSPITAL FOR SINNERS.
Is homosexuality a sin?
I think we as christians can all agree on that.
Is it now our job to label and/or compare it on levels of severity or is it our job to offer help to overcome?
How many churches do you know with recovery programs for our worldly hurts and habbits?
Is homosexuality different?
My first job as christian should not be to push that splinter deeper into your eye. My job should be to find you a pair of tweezers and help to remove it. A homosexual active person, walking into your church, should be somebody you should look at as a patient who needs you, your help, your encouragement ...your prayer. See him/her as a fellow human/neighbour you should be compassionate about. Sin is destruction. Homosexual sin is no exception. It kills thousands of people prematurely every year. And ofcourse we will find people who will cope much better with their sin than others and/or refuse to see any problem in their destructive behavior. The same goes for alcoholics or guys who are hooked on porn.
Homosexuality is a serious problem, that needs serious christians who offer first and foremost serious help (and telling an alcoholic "It's okay to drink and you are fine just like you are" DOES NOT HELP!)
....and yes ...there are churches out there that have a real grip on this...

"Homosexual sin ... kills thousands of people prematurely every year."

Is this a reference to the HIV epidemic? If so, you could easily shorten it to "sexual sin." For that matter, intravenous drug use, improper hygienic conditions in piercing/tattooing parlours, and a number of other causes.

As you point out, it's no different from other sins.

Elizabeth Prata - in regards to your post 1/26 at 3:47pm...I always thought homosexuality was the main culprit to Sodom's destruction, until I read Ezekiel 16:49-50. It seems there was much more going on than originally assumed. It looks to me like their homosexual lust tipped the scales, but there are other "lesser sins" that have to be acknowledged, most of them that prevail in the world today.

For those interested, two sides of the discussion can be found at http://www.jrdkirk.com/2012/01/24/homosexuality-silence-and-story/

The way someone is labeled a homosexual if they have some same sex attraction thoughts bugs me.

We wouldn't pin a life long label of rapist on someone who had thought about it but never actually done it.

If you aren't having sex with someone of the same gender you aren't a homosexual.

If you are doing these things and want to follow Christ you need to stop.

Luke 920:

Indisputably homosexuality was not the only sin for which they were destroyed, as you correctly pointed out from the verse in Ezekiel. Sodom was guilty of other crimes besides that for which she appears to have been especially punished, (pride, gluttony, oppression, and idleness) in addition to her unnatural crime.

It is reasonable to assume that when a city has descended to the state of immoral corruption that Sodom had, that the people will be exhibiting decay in every area of their lives. For example, Ezekiel mentioned arrogance, but we see that the arrogance is toward God. The men became enraged when told by the angels to stop, and they became arrogant toward them and said that they will deal worse with Lot because of it. “Who are you to judge us,” they said. People who have descended to that level of immorality hate being told their acts are corrupting, and the fact that these were angels didn’t deter them one bit. The men of the city had become arrogant toward God and His moral standards.

However Sodom was especially punished for the sin of homosexuality.

There were four cities destroyed that day, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim. (Deut 29:23). We don’t know why the other three were destroyed, their sins are not mentioned in detail as Sodom’s were. Which is another reason that the lens focuses more narrowly on Sodom, because their sin is described in a lengthy detailed scene in Genesis showing the depth to which they had fallen -even when faced by angels from God.

God said that He will judge Sodom and Gomorrah because the outcry has been great and "because their sin is very grave". He didn't say "their sins -plural- are grave". One can easily understand to which sin He was referring. (Gen 18:20). Further, Genesis 13:13 says "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD."Again Sodom is pointed out as the exemplar of THE sin.

In Revelation 11:8 Jesus uses Sodom’s name as the example of depravity and the low level to which Tribulation Jerusalem descends, Sodom being distinguished as the city of certain and specific wickedness.

Jesus mentions Sodom again in Matthew 10:15 and 11:24 as again noted for its notorious and detestable sin, the earthly judgment of which was well-known.

Given the lengthy scene depicting the craven-ness of homosexuality at Lot's house (note that even AFTER the men were blinded by angels they *still* attempted to rape the men and tried for so long they got exhausted Gen 19:11), given that though four cities were destroyed but it is Sodom pointed out to us by Jude and Peter that it was destroyed as an example to the ungodly, given that Jesus mentions Sodom in Matthew and Revelation as noted for the grievous sin (and it’s not haughtiness or gluttony) and given that to this day the very NAME of the city stands for the homosexual act, we can clearly see God's view of homosexuality.

That's how I see it...Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.

I've been following these posts on the subject of homosexuality and sinfulness, and simply want to make the point that my own concern comes from the standpoint of "believers" who deny that there is anything wrong with homosexuality--as though they have suddenly seen the light and everyone else is wrong in their assessment of it as sin! They happily buy into the new "altered Scriptures mentality" and erase thousands of years of proper moral understanding of the the sin involved. Sadder still, in my opinion, is the CELEBRATION of it in today's society--via parades, media, open expression, etc. It seems to me that, if a person professes a relationship with Christ, that person would take a sober, hard look at the homosexuality if another believer took the time to share the truth that it is sin. Who would even want to continue in something for another moment if there was evidence that a behavior was sinful and it heaped offense on our Savior? Maybe someone out there knows what I'm trying to say?

What if sodomy is a worse sin than many others? Are we allowed to believe that? Does it mean we are then disqualified from loving gays?

The bible does not say that all sins are equal.

Excellent point and question Henry.

I was recently asked in an interview I did for radio on the subject of homosexuality why the church made such a to-do about homosexuality. I responded by detailing how the homosexual lobby has made it the cause de jure of the day by trying to legislate its acceptance by all who disagree. We don't have lobby groups for adulterers or fornicators trying to strong arm society and the church into approving of the same when they disagree.
That said, it is true the church has not always responded as we should. There is a real balance that we must maintain in dealing with the issue and people trapped in the sin--the balance of truth and grace. The danger is veering to an extreme on either side. Both elements must be kept in check if we are reflect the image of Christ, who was the fullness of truth and grace!
It is a bit cavalier to say homosexuality is like gluttony (as some did above) when the Bible prescribed the death penalty in the OT for it and Paul clearly classed sexual sins in a special class in 1 Corinthians 6:12-18. Sexual sins violate the creation paradigm for marriage, monogamy, and gender outlined in Genesis 1 and 2.
In the end, it must be remembered when dealing with homosexuals that the homosexuality is but a manifestation of the inherent sin nature, and only the gospel has the power to break that stronghold!

It takes a large amount of societal conditioning for most people to overcome their visceral disgust with homosexual acts.

Hence the onslaught of positive homosexual characters in all of our forms of entertainment.

After they win their battle for complete acceptance, what sin will come next? Will it be pedophilia? Bestiality? All different forms of marriage?

"Hence the onslaught of positive homosexual characters in all of our forms of entertainment."

It is kinda funny how that works in the last 20 years or so, isn't it? Prior to Will and Grace, plus or minus a bit, most gay characters (if they existed at all) were jokes and stereotypes.

But lately, there's been such a backswing that I remember hearing one actor/comedian saying that he refused to play a gay character--not because he was anti-gay at all, but rather because he felt like all the gay roles portray gay men in particular as these magical, insightful, witty, hip creatures, and it was just a ridiculous picture.

Some people say it's because of the disproportionate number of gays in Hollywood and the arts generally, but I rather doubt that. It certainly hasn't worked that way for Jewish people, for instance.

No, I think there's something else at work; I'd just be at a loss to say exactly what.

Nowadays, it is going on conversations about homosexuality; some are against it and some on behalf of it. The right answer we can find from the word of God (the Bible).

The Lord Jesus is the Messiah, Redeemer from sins and the Saviour. Jesus' must fulfilled the whole law of God and believed all what the Old Testament taught, that He could be the Saviour. He did fulfill and believe all the law. In the Old Testament were commandments, which teach that homosexuality is a sin. Because the Lord Jesus had to believe all commandments of the Old Testament, so He also believed that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible teaches that homosexuality was a sin in the order of the Old Covenant and is valid in the order of the New Covenant. Like this way Jesus also believed that homosexuality is a sin, and He also condemned homosexuality by this way.

For the sake of sodomites' abomination acts, God destroyed Sodom as Ezekiel 16:49,50 shows for us. Ezekiel uses 16:50 Hebrew word towebah, which is the same Hebrew word in Lev 18:22 (and Lev 20:13) that describes homosexuality as abomination. It is very clear that in Ezekiel 16:50, abomination means homosexuality acts as the reason for destroying of Sodom. Sodomites pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness and hardened hearts towards poor and needy were sins, but destruction came for the sake of homosexuality, and the New Testament confirms this:

Jude1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Apostle Paul wrote very clearly that homosexuality (men having sex with other men; women having sex with other women) is a sin. Ro 1:27 is word error, which is in Greek plane, which means error, to deceive, deceit, one led astray from the right way, error which shows itself in action, a wrong mode of acting. In this place, the Bible in the New Testament shows very clearly that same-gender sex is a sin and aberration from the right way. Apostle Paul taught very clearly that homosexuality is unnatural sin.

Many scientists believe that homosexuality is congenital, a matter and orientation that can't be changed as heterosexual. Paradoxical is that many scientists don't believe in God of the Bible, and they proclaim that God of the Bible is not existed. Nevertheless, God of the Bible is capable of change homosexuals individuals to be as heterosexuals.

Arsenos means male and koiten means bed. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 teach that a man cannot lie (sexual act) with another man as he lies with a woman. The origin of the word arsenokoites means homosexual activity and homosexual. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prove very clearly that arsenos koitenmeans homosexuality sex, because the Jews scribes translated words' arsenos koiten to describe men who have sex with another men (homosexuality), which is a sin and against the will of God. Apostle Paul didn't make up the word arsenokoites, but it was already as the concept in the Old Testament, where it meant homosexuality.

It is very clear that the words' arsenos koiten meant homosexuality (man who had sex with another man) to Jews of the Old Covenant era. In the same way arsenokoites meant homosexuality (man who had sex with another man) to Jesus' disciples in the New Covenant era.

Jewish philosopher Philo lived in the same time as Jesus Christ and Philo has said that arsenokoites meant shrine prostitute (male temple prostitute), and not homosexual. Some people have made from this a conclusion that the word arsenokoites meant a male temple prostitute. Philo's interpretation was totally wrong, because the Bible proves this undisputedly and shows that Philo erred.

Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 doesn't use temple prostitute word, but words in which is denied that a man can't lie sexually with another man. Always when the Bible speaks for temple prostitutes, so the Bible uses words gedeshah and gadesh. If Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 told for temple prostitutes, so verses would mention them, but there isn't, because in those verses, the Bible forbids homosexuality. It is very clear and undisputable in the light of the testimony of the Bible, that arsenokoites means homosexuality.

According to words of the Lord Jesus, Jesus' disciples can judge righteous judgement. If somebody is stealing, living in adultery or is lying, so we have the right to say sin as a sin. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin and so Jesus' disciples have the right to say what the Bible teaches. Jesus' disciple has a right to say that living in sins lead people to eternal damnation. Jesus' disciple doesn't judge to damnation, but tells that God shall judge sin maker to hell.

God loves also gay-people, but not sinful act of homosexuality, and therefore, God calls gay-people repentance and receives salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. In other words, God loves sinners, but not sins. The gospel and its changing power is meant also for gay-people, because the Lord Jesus can set you free you from your sins.

I don't condemn homosexuals, but love them by the love of God. The love of God also holds on from the truth, and therefore, I must say that homosexuality is a sin, it is not condemning, but telling the truth. God has authority to judge, not a man. God judges in His word homosexuality as a sin. I can tell about judgements that what God does, and I don't condemn, but tell who judge.

I don't support discrimination of homosexuals, because they are valuable as my neighbors. However, homosexuality is a sin. It is possible to integrate from homosexuality and get rid of it. The Lord Jesus can save and give freedom to you. I recommend for you to read the Bible, because there God teaches for natural sexuality and salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus.

Reference: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/homosexual.html


The comments to this entry are closed.