What is our church doing about this?

[Parade Orange]

The Youth will learn that being an american citizen they have the choice(GOD given and America given) to pursue their course.

The youth will learn that gays are not sub-citizens and deserve to be treated like how they want to be treated.

The youth will learn that christians can love the sinner and hate the sin in action not just lip service.

The youth are not stupid when they see anger fear and hate in the church regarding human beings they dont understand or agree with.

The youth know what Romans and Leviticus says about homosexualty,

They also know what it says about Pride,Gossip, and Murder in the heart.

and if little Johnny turns out gay it aint cause of a gay wedding he heard a SDA attended.

Whoever brings up such stuff has secret sin and dont know to what depths He was rescued from

[Parade Orange]

God has given me the wonderful gift of going to a church where such sentiments are expressed over fellowship dinner thru the years and these men dont have JOY or PEACE or LOVE.

They do not look after the widows nor give their bread to the hungry.

They look sullen and if they ever get animated it will to defend the LAW but shamefully lack the SPIRIT!

[Parade Orange]

and do u know why???????????????????

the topic of conversation of homos come up?

It is then they get to share their disaproval and be non confrontational with the gay gay in the room.

yep following the Bible is their creed..NOT

[Woody]

Quote:

They look sullen and if they ever get animated it will to defend the LAW but shamefully lack the SPIRIT!

How SAD. How TRUE.Why not get animated about the Spirit. Those who judge WILL be Judged. The Law is there for us to judge ourselves and our walk. But it is not for others to look at ME to see if "I" am measuring up. So ... All of you gays are welcome at my church and my home.

Unfortunately as witnessed here on this thread ... you are not so welcome in my church world organization. Why? ... because we have to keep our church pure and we must maintain "credibility".

[carolaa]

Quote:

By offering his daughters to those men-- as horrible as it sounds--Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex, and not other males. The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is. See the Bible's characterization of these things in Romans 1: 24-28. So, it seems to me, Lot was showing that he would rather have his beloved daughters abused than see such a horrible, unnatural crime as homosexual rape committed against Yahweh in the person of His messengers.

Spoken by a a male, posted by a male...I have but one thing to say about such a posting....Utterly Vile!!

Well, I am a woman, somewhat liberal at that, and I appreciated hearing this point of view. I think it is some pretty short steps from saying *your post is vile* to *your opinion is vile* to *you are vile.* To me, it sounded like an attack, as in "how dare you post such a nasty opinion." I agree with those who felt it was inflammatory.

[Woody]

Quote:

"how dare you post such a nasty opinion."

I think this is accurate as to how the comment might have sounded. But, if we are not allowed to have passionate opinions or feelings then what do we have left.

But since it was not directed as at the person ... only at the person's "opinion" ... then I do not think it was a personal attack. Maybe an "inflammatory posting" like it was said. But then the poster was was feeling inflammed !!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

inflammatory personal attack:

inflammatory statement:

inflammatory statement regarding religion:

inflammatory statement that backfires:

aftermath of inflammatory statement:

[Bravus]

The Bible has about half a dozen or maybe 10 texts about homosexuality and over 3000 about our treatment of the poor. What is our church doing about that?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Spoken by a a male, posted by a male...I have but one thing to say about such a posting....Utterly Vile!!

This was in response to a post by John317. That is relevant because he is the subject of the sentence. It could well have been written like this:

"Spoken by a John317, posted by a John317...I have but one thing to say about such a posting....Utterly Vile!!"

When confronted with this inflammatory post, this is the response.

Quote:

my quote was of an inflammatory posting! I was outraged by such a statement, my right! ...If posters can't stand the 'heat', than get out of the 'kitchen'!

A simple apology would have done fine. But the poster goes on to say...

Quote:

Now we have a better understanding of how Islamic radicals and radicals of other 'religious' groups feel justified in their rhetoric.

So not only is John317's opinion utterly vile but he (John317) is in the same class as Islamic terrorists! I think these quotes speak more about the person that posted them than they do about John317. We can't make people play nice with each other but we can point it out when they are being unkind.

I have an incredible respect for John317. I wish he were a member of my local church. I would love to be able to visit his home and know his family and he my family. And that sentiment has nothing to do with any specific types of temptations he has struggled with or may continue to struggle with. I have seen he has a vast knowledge of the Bible, theology, Greek, Hebrew and creation science. He has a wonderful way of responding to others which shows compassion worthy of admiration. He has a humble spirit about him that must make the world around those that know him a better place.

In my work with the gay community I noticed those that who found victory from their temptations were what many would consider "conservative" Christians. They would focus in total victory over all temptation - not just gay issues. That is my experience from working with Exodus International for three years. But it is a very hard struggle and many relapse back into it and continue to struggle for years. Much like any compulsive-obsessive behavior.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

True, Lot may have believed his actions were justified as there was a mixing of pagan ideas among the people of Abraham at that time. But to suggest that his actions were indeed approved by God, as one reading the post might easily assume, by anyone today, I find, that is a vile idea.

To me, the idea that God would have approved of Lot offering his daughters to a sex-crazed mob to be raped sounds atrocious too. BUT... this is where John317 offers us a perspective that those of us that have never lived in a destructive gay lifestyle may not immediately think of. Instead of saying such an opinion is vile or disgusting, knowing where John317 comes from, one might decide to take a look again and reconsider their previously embraced beliefs. I am not willing to say I agree with John317's suggestion, however it's certainly worthy of thought and I do not simply dismiss it as abhorant.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Bible has about half a dozen or maybe 10 texts about homosexuality and over 3000 about our treatment of the poor. What is our church doing about that?

Not sure where this is intended to go. Our church does a lot for the poor. Adventist community services and ADRA are all about helping the poor. The church, for the most part, buries its head in the sand when it comes to homosexuality.

BTW: I grew up in a poverty-stricken home. My first pair of new shoes were bought for me by Adventist community services. They didn't just hand me a new pair of shoes. They took me out to the shoe store and let me pick a pair of shoes. Dozens of times the Adventist community services brought food baskets to our home - and we devoured them. I start to cry when I recount the love the Adventist church pour over my poor and terribly dysfunctional family.

[Tom Wetmore]

I have to agree with your assessment. But the following absurdly disgusting rationalization left me speechless:

Quote:

The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is.

It seems quite like saying that at least killing someone with knife is not as brutal a murder as killing someone with a shotgun...

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

The Bible has about half a dozen or maybe 10 texts about homosexuality and over 3000 about our treatment of the poor. What is our church doing about that?

Not sure where this is intended to go...

It's about priorities. It's about which is the more significant problem about which we should be expressing our moral outrage. Why? Because by the great difference in the times God's Word brings the subject up it would seem that God views our neglect of the poor as of 300X greater magnitude of an evil than homosexuality.

And that seems to be the judgment of Jesus of what distinguishes his followers from the pretenders. (Matthew 25:31-46)

Tom

[Woody]

Some people believe that "sin is sin" others believe that there are degrees of sin.

Personally I think that any sin separates us from God and can be a terrible divisive factor in our life. Therefore one sin can be just as horribly used by Satan as any other.

[John317]

Would be nice if this subject would end, since it is periodically recycled with samo-samo results! Must be alot of phobia...

But, I think something very important was totally missed or ignored. I will post the comments that I am against again and then point out the issues that I see with it...seems like a 'picture' is needed!

Quote:

By offering his daughters to those men-- as horrible as it sounds--Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex, and not other males. The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is. See the Bible's characterization of these things in Romans 1: 24-28. So, it seems to me, Lot was showing that he would rather have his beloved daughters abused than see such a horrible, unnatural crime as homosexual rape committed against Yahweh in the person of His messengers.[/ This is doubtless a hard concept for us to fully grasp because we've grown accustomed to viewing these things through the eyes of a society which increasingly advocates the notion that marriage between two men or two women should be considered normal.

Look at the first part of the post, now in red. Does that ring any bells?? The pagan practice of offering up females to their God, is that not a repugnant thought to anyone?

Now look at the second part of the post in red. Why is this being done, because he sees this as the better thing to do for his God. In other words, he believes God will be pleased with his actions. Again, shades of paganism!

True, Lot may have believed his actions were justified as there was a mixing of pagan ideas among the people of Abraham at that time. But to suggest that his actions were indeed approved by God, as one reading the post might easily assume, by anyone today, I find, that is a vile idea.

The throwing in of other texts to reinforce the idea, I also find to be similar to what radicals/extremist do with their teachings to support a personal vendetta, etc. I do not appreciate God being portrayed in such a manner!!

Adios( )

It's perfectly understandable that anyone would find what Lot did repugnant. My explanation of Lot's actions might also be repugnant, at least to the extent that it appears to be a justification or defense of Lot's aberrant behavior. After all, Lot offered to give up his daughters to a horrific gang rape that almost certainly would have proved fatal to both girls. Why would any father, especially a worshipper of the One true God, make such a cruel decision? Surely he loved his daughters. So, why wouldn't he defend his daughter's lives and honor with his own life?

I'd like to suggest that the only way we can hope to understand Lot is by studying the Bible references him.

Twice the Scriptures describe Lot as a "righteous man." (Of course that doesn't mean that everything Lot did was right.) Twice they also call the men of Sodom "lawless" (2 Peter 2: 7,8), in sharp contrast to Lot. They describe the actions of the men of Sodom as "depraved" (TNIV) or "filthy" (NKJC, NIV). It says that Lot's "righteous soul" was "distressed" and "tormented" by the "lawless deeds" he saw and heard day after day while living among them. Jude 7 adds that Sodom gave itself up to "sexual immorality and perversion" (TNIV), " "fornication" and "going over to strange flesh" (ASV). Romans 1: 26 calls such passions "vile" (NKJV). The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that it is "against nature."

We might well argue that Lot was wrong in what he did on the morning of Sodom's destruction. But before we judge him too harshly, let's try to understand what happened and why.

I believe the evidence shows that the "unnatural," "lawless" acts of the men of Sodom, in addition to the idea of violating the (to him) sacred custom of hospitality, distressed Lot's "righteous soul" more than the giving up of his two beloved daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom. I don't know how else to explain Lot's choice.

Our view today is just the opposite of Lot's. We would view giving our daughters to a mob as a far greater crime than not protecting guests or the lawless acts like those committed in Sodom.

Eventually even some of God's own people copied the sins of Sodom.

Consider a similar situation in Judges 19: 22-26, 29, where a Levite actually did turn his concubine over to a mob of Israelites who had preferred to have sex with the Levite man himself. They abused this poor woman all night. In the morning he found her dead on the doorstep. The Levite cut her up in pieces and sent those pieces of her body throughout all the territory of Israel. Awhile later, over 65,000 Israelites-- God's covenant people-- died as a result of battles fought over how that woman came to be murdered by those men of Israel. Their crime was condoned by virtually the entire tribe of Benjamin.

Now THAT is truly vile, I'm sure you'll agree.

John3:17

[John317]

You are right, my quote was of an inflammatory posting! I was outraged by such a statement, my right! When people post such statements, than others should be allowed to post their disgust! If posters can't stand the 'heat', than get out of the 'kitchen'!

Using Bible texts does little to persuade me. Now we have a better understanding of how Islamic radicals and radicals of other 'religious' groups feel justified in their rhetoric. The idea that God was being honored or protected, is to put it simply, repugnant!

Lets stop all this hiding behind the phrase 'your attacking me',

so people never have to 'face the music'!

I would be interested in learning what you believe is a reasonable explanation for Lot's choices, consistent with the information the Bible gives us.

John 3: 17

[Woody]

Quote:

Spoken by a a male, posted by a male...I have but one thing to say about such a posting....Utterly Vile!!

This was in response to a post by John317. That is relevant because he is the subject of the sentence. It could well have been written like this:

"Spoken by a John317, posted by a John317...I have but one thing to say about such a posting....Utterly Vile!!"

When confronted with this inflammatory post, this is the response.

Quote:

my quote was of an inflammatory posting! I was outraged by such a statement, my right! ...If posters can't stand the 'heat', than get out of the 'kitchen'!

A simple apology would have done fine. But the poster goes on to say...

Quote:

Now we have a better understanding of how Islamic radicals and radicals of other 'religious' groups feel justified in their rhetoric.

So not only is John317's opinion utterly vile but he (John317) is in the same class as Islamic terrorists! I think these quotes speak more about the person that posted them than they do about John317. We can't make people play nice with each other but we can point it out when they are being unkind.

I have an incredible respect for John317. I wish he were a member of my local church. I would love to be able to visit his home and know his family and he my family. And that sentiment has nothing to do with any specific types of temptations he has struggled with or may continue to struggle with. I have seen he has a vast knowledge of the Bible, theology, Greek, Hebrew and creation science. He has a wonderful way of responding to others which shows compassion worthy of admiration. He has a humble spirit about him that must make the world around those that know him a better place.

In my work with the gay community I noticed those that who found victory from their temptations were what many would consider "conservative" Christians. They would focus in total victory over all temptation - not just gay issues. That is my experience from working with Exodus International for three years. But it is a very hard struggle and many relapse back into it and continue to struggle for years. Much like any compulsive-obsessive behavior.

[John317]

John317!

its always nice to see you and your willingness to share- there is the only real fellowship a church can have.

being honest about yourself and lift JESUS up as our strenghth.

Thank you, Parade! I'm always glad to see you too.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Asking for apologizes ain't COOL.

We certainly can agree to disagree. A cyber community is a bit different because, like it or not, each of us is hiding (or hidden) behind our respective computers. As a result, many people do and say things in cyber space that they would never say face to face. In addition to that, often times the intent of something is not conveyed well in the text. So that leads to a lot of misunderstandings.

Over the years, there have been members banned from C/A. I think that is a tragedy. I am not saying it was wrong to ban them, just that is was a tragedy that it had to come to that. If we can learn to play well together, that will not be necessary and C/A will be a safe haven. We cannot force others to play nice, but we can point out when they are not. Some in this very thread have mentioned they don't think I have behaved well. They certainly have the right to express that opinion. Hopefully they will not do the same thing they are accusing me of doing.

[carolaa]

I have to agree with your assessment. But the following absurdly disgusting rationalization left me speechless:

Quote:

The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is.

It seems quite like saying that at least killing someone with knife is not as brutal a murder as killing someone with a shotgun...

Tom

He simply said it is not a perversion, and he is correct. He didn't say one was a bigger sin than the other or more/less brutal than the other. He didn't even hint at condoning the behavior.

[aldona]

Quote:

By offering his daughters to those men-- as horrible as it sounds--Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex,

I'm trying to follow this thread, but I get to this sentence and then I just can't go any further.

I used to think that feminists who accused Christianity of being anti-female were way off the mark.

Can I just say....

(1) Most of the atheists I know would not be capable of coming up with anything like the above quote. (maybe I mix in the wrong circles.)

(2) I am glad that my father is not the same kind of "righteous man" that the Bible says Lot was.

aldona

[Dr. Shane]

God made the male first. Then He created the female for the male. Not to be a slave, but a help mate. One of the reasons the female was made (not the only one) was for sex. Adam and Eve had sex before sin ever entered into the world. Sex between man and woman was part of God's perfect plan for humanity.

From what I am reading in this thread, John317 and Coaspen alike both agree that Lot was influenced by his culture. This might be a shocker but... so are we. While some may be glad their father wasn't a "righteous" man like Lot, if they are ever in trouble in a strange city they are likely to pray they will find a "righteous" man like Lot. We need to be careful in judging people of other cultures based upon our own.

[melvin mccarty]

Right on Co-aspen!

There's some very queer thinking posted here.

mel

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I have to agree with your assessment. But the following absurdly disgusting rationalization left me speechless:

Quote:

The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is.

It seems quite like saying that at least killing someone with knife is not as brutal a murder as killing someone with a shotgun...

Tom

He simply said it is not a perversion, and he is correct. He didn't say one was a bigger sin than the other or more/less brutal than the other. He didn't even hint at condoning the behavior.

You are exactly right, Carolaa. I'm certainly not defending or condoning any of those behaviors. The Bible calls both heterosexual rape and homosexual rape "abominations" to God. God hates both sins. People who do those things will not be in God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Tim. 1: 10; Rev. 21: 8; 22: 15.) 1 Tim. specifically names "fornicators" and "sodomites." 1 Cor. 6: 9 specifically names "adulterers," "homosexuals," and "sodomites" (NKJV).

I would like to point out that the word translated "homosexuals" refers to "catamites," that is, the passive partner in a homosexual act. "Sodomites" refers to the active. So both kinds will not be in heaven if they continue to practice those things and don't repent of them and forsake them. The Bible could not be clearer.

But the man who rapes a female (or the woman who "rapes" a male) is also included among those who won't be God's kingdom (unless, of course, he/she repents and is forgiven by God).

Where the difference lies between these sexual sins is in the "unnaturalness" of the homosexual acts. Romans 1 describes them as "against nature" because they are using human bodies in a way that God did not intend. God intended the male to use the female body for sexual pleasure. God never intended for females and males to use the bodies of their same gender for sexual pleasure. That is why the Bible never calls heterosexual rape or sex a "perversion," "against nature," or "unnatural," as it plainly does of homosexual acts. For instance, Romans 1 refers to them as "shameful lusts" (v. 26), "the degrading of their bodies" (v. 24), "unnatural" (v. 26), "indecent" and "perversion" (v. 27).

Jude 7 uses two Greek words that literal mean "different flesh," i.e., different from that which God intended when he created humans. Those words are translated as "perversion" (NIV), "strange flesh"(NKJV; ASV; NASV), "unnatural lust" (NRSV; REB; NJB), and "other kind of flesh" (Rotherham's Emphasized).

By the way, this even includes those who are "born that way," which I believe I was. God is able to help us overcome even those inherited tendencies with which we may be born. So the argument about whether we are or are not born gay is a moot point as far as salvation is concerned. Through the power of the Holy Spirit God is able to save to the uttermost. We were all born sinful, so the fact that some of us were born with a particular sinful predisposition is no excuse to live in it all of our lives.

As a "gay" man who had some knowledge of the Bible, I gave a lot of thought to these things when deciding whether I wanted to stay in that lifestyle. I lived in it happily and willingly for about 5 years and then tried unsuccessfully to stop for about 30 years. During the time I was "trying" to stop it, I know now that I was trying to stop it on my own, "in the flesh," without giving my whole self to Christ. I actually loved those things and didn't want to give them up completely. I wanted to visit once in a while, as it were. I wanted Christ and those things at the same time. I was like the man described in Romans 7: 14-24. Christ only began to give me victory over those desires and needs AFTER I surrendered ALL of me-- including that part of me-- to Him.

[John317]

God made the male first. Then He created the female for the male. Not to be a slave, but a help mate. One of the reasons the female was made (not the only one) was for sex. Adam and Eve had sex before sin ever entered into the world. Sex between man and woman was part of God's perfect plan for humanity.

Romans 1: 27 literally reads, "... the males, leaving the natural using of the females, burned in their lusts for one another, males with males..."

V. 26: "... their females exchanged the natural using for what is against nature."