Leaderboard

fccool Please see the above quote from the Bible as it summarizes my viewpoint in this matter. I am very polite and tactful with homosexuals I know. I do put it in the same category the Scriptures do with adulterers and alcoholics as above not to attack others but because Paul does as well. Also for that matter thieves and covetous people, but we can't read others minds just be careful ourselves. I do work to help those who are morbidly obese and have probably taught more classes for this, diabetes, and heart disease prevention than any on this forum. I teach people how to change. I don't tell them its fine to be this way but I gently lead them as the Holy Spirit gives me opportunity. Same as I do with my friends with other problems in general. Perhaps there are others who are very harsh with those with certain sins, but in general that is not how I am as a person. While you have been polite there are others who are starting to get a little excited and in the interest of not getting into something hyperbolic I plan to not post further on this thread for this reason. Take care

I think you are talking about homosexuality... and not the growing back of the leg, when you say that you've witnessed both. The issue really is about the reality of the mechanics between divine and this world. You are correct, we paint a picture of God that's rather arbitrarily "performs miracles" in some lives, and not in other. The issue is that these miracles tend to be "in the eye of the beholder". I really hope you see what I'm saying. It's not really an issue of what God can and can't, or will or won't do. Let's say I desperately needed a $5,000 for whatever reason... and I prayed and prayed, and I got it through some unexpected means. Think about what it implies. It implies that God would have to alter the will of some people for me to get this $5000... or that He would have to provide information for a person would would give willingly in some supernatural way, which usually tends to be the natural means of communication, and which usually turns out to be just that - we ascribe something to God, because it happen to coincide with some other events. So, there's really no way to tell, if that's the case. Maybe God didn't want me to have $5,000 and I still got it. That's the thing It's a bit off topic, so let's get back to homosexuality issue. Being different is not a sin. You can't make a sin claim from mere deviation of something from the norm. For example, being left-handed is extremely unnatural when it comes to human function in our society. In the past it was a sign of all sorts of things... and people had to hide it. People today hide that fact in some settings that still have superstitious ideas. Think about it. Our entire culture revolves around "right" concept, and "sinister" (latin for left)... virtually in every language, right is associated with positive qualities, and left with negative. Ontologically, it's merely a different biology function. Today, you wouldn't make a case that left-handed people should be "healed" of their left-handedness. Why not? Mainly because there's nothing in the Bible that would seem to condemn it, but people in the past still found ways to make a point that being left-handed is a bad thing. Really, homosexuality is not that far off. There are direct condemnation of the act in the Bible, but if you really understand history, such condemnation had more to do with rape, humiliation and theft, than it had to do with homosexual condition. Yet, there are demands to "heal" this condition on bases of few verses that are just plucked at face value without any proper evaluation of historical context. It's not as simple as simply reading and declaring. Words link to concepts, and when semantics lands on something entirely different... we have a problem. Here's the very basic run-down: 1) Yes, even from perspective of human biology men-woman relationship is preferred as ideal 2) Such relationship in context of our world is never ideal, especially when we read as a guidelines from Biblical narrative. Some people are a-sexual, some people are impotent, some people can't have children, and some people are homosexual. Either way, 99% of marriage relationship is not about sex. In fact, later in life it stops being about sex all-together. 3) Homosexuality is a condition, just like a-sexuality is a condition, or left-handedness is a physiological condition. Sure, some are more emotionally engaging, or disengaging, but it's simply a condition of difference, rather than a condition of inherent "wickedness". Wickedness has to be justified by certain standard of reality prior to running to the Bible to condemn something as wicked simply by placing a label on it. For example, when you tell me that murder is wrong, I may ask why it's wrong. If your answer "because God says so"... then it's a non-answer in context of the why question. It's circular redundancy that has no reference to our reality of consequences. Murder is wrong because it robs another person experience of life. Same goes for theft, and even complex ideas like Sabbath and having no other Gods. There is some moral justification behind certain ideas other than "God says so right here". When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, you have to ask yourself... why would the monogamous homosexual relationship be wrong? The common answer would run to all sorts of false-generalization about homosexuality that are simply not true in context of monogamous relationship. 1) It doesn't have to revolve around child rearing (there are childless heterosexual couples). It would be relationship in a context of best possible scenario of marriage-relationship in such context. 2) For the most part a relationship is not about sex. It's about sharing your life with a person who you trust and love. Attraction does play a part, but it's only means to an end. You simply can't make a good case for "harm" type of wrong when it comes to this type of relationship, thus it's not unreasonable to assume that the Bible speaks and condemns something entirely different. For example, in the OT men would rape other men as a sign of power (they still do so in prison). It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with humiliation and using sex as vehicle for violence. I think it would only reasonable that such behavior would be thrown in with rape and sleeping around, which are all misuse of sex. For example, it would be unreasonable to conclude that people in Sodom were homosexuals. They were not. Sex was used as means to humiliate people, be it male or female. When people are casting a doctrinal statements today, they simply lack that understanding. They read the Bible, and they automatically cast their own preferences and cultural presuppositions. Again, the point is .... you have to make a very good case that homosexuality is something that a person should be "healed" of, because there's a lot of things we can throw in the same category.... and then (just like with my God wants me to have extra $5000 example) claim that when that happens it was God doing the changing.

fc says "Jesus won't "cleans you" of homosexuality, unimore than Jesus won't grow your leg back." Granted that it is the extreme exception rather than the rule, I have witnessed both. I just don't understand why God grants this miracle to some and not others. I'm NOT saying God is arbitrary, inconsistent or whimsical; I'm just saying I dont understand why God grants miracles in these areas (and others like miraculously taking away an addict's craving) to some and not others. I'm not meant to understand. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your waysand my thoughts than your thoughts." (Is 55:8-9)

Quite true. The emotional abuse of harsh words most frequently leaves deeper scars than physical beating. And that part of the battle to break the cycle may be even harder to exercise than restraining oneself from lifting a hand against a child.

One may not use painful corporal punishment, but harsh words can be just as devastating. I came across these words this morning. "In seeking to correct or reform others we should be careful of our words. They will be a savor of life unto life or of death unto death. In giving reproof or counsel, many indulge in sharp, severe speech, words not adapted to heal the wounded soul. By these ill-advised expressions the spirit is chafed, and often the erring ones are stirred to rebellion. All who would advocate the principles of truth need to receive the heavenly oil of love. Under all circumstances reproof should be spoken in love. Then our words will reform but not exasperate. Christ by His Holy Spirit will supply the force and the power. This is His work." {COL 337.1} White, E. G. (1900). Christ’s Object Lessons (p. 337). Review and Herald Publishing Association.

except I'm hoping it's just this topic you're talking about. God is Love! Jesus saves!

tithing isn't *required*; rather, it is *encouraged* in order to support the church...

C.S. Lewis makes pretty good reading, doesn't it?

Sorry about the misspelling Gerry: Anyway, the Bible does make the distinctions, the picking proof texts out of context and the traditional translation of a word makes it harder to notice, and our reading our traditions into the text wanting the Bible to say what we wish God said instead of what he actually said that makes us like Isaiah and Jesus says, having ears but do not hear, having eyes but do not see. Now languages are my weak point and someone with a better understanding of the language may clarify this, but apparently Paul could have used other Greek words that could have meant homosexuality in all it's implications. Instead the word he uses, as word studies have been done and other ancient writings have been discovered and the use of that word has consistently had only one meaning. It is a very specific term for adult men having sex with little boys in the gym. However although Paul picked a word with a specific narrow meaning, before we discovered that he had a very technical meaning, translators had just translated it with the more general term "homosexuality." so instead of reading what would be a more accurate translation "Adult men having sex with little boys in the gym" we read in our translations "homosexuality." The question is do we really want to study the Bible to see what those words meant to the people who wrote and the original audience it was addressed to? Or do we want to read into it our traditions as to what we THINK it SHOULD say and have our opinions be the final authority. No you are NOT correct to say "Am I to understand what you said that heterosexuals practicing homosexual activity is condemned but not homosexual who were born with that orientation?" This is what our scholars have been debating for several decades. What they tell us is that it is clear that the texts are talking about heterosexuals engaged in homosexual behavior. What they cannot agree on is whether to limit the text to it's actual context or to widen the text to include people born with the homosexual orientation as well. I am allowing them to fight this out and see where the debate finally ends up. I am just sharing what our church leaders have been telling us in classes and in lectures so that we are at least aware of the issues in the current debate and have a foundation other than tradition to build our studies upon. Like I've said several times before. When Jesus comes I have the potential of two condemnations when I see Jesus. I could be sharing this information and limit the application of the texts to it's specific context and encourage people who are struggling with homosexuality to do their best, to not do the flaunting and the promiscuity that runs rampant in that lifestyle but encourage a private monogamist relationship and to trust in Jesus' love for them... And when Jesus comes, yes, he may look at me with a very angry look and say that I should have joined you in posting the messages that you posted. That I should have joined Jerry Farwell and James Dobson in their attacks on this lifestyle and that Jesus would be upset with me that I was giving these sinners a false hope. However if I was to join you, and Farwell and Dobson and the others, another condemnation that I risk facing when Jesus comes is seeing him with tears in his eyes, saying that the texts were for specific problems and that my message did not give them hope and that they just assumed that they could not be Christians because they have this lifestyle, thus they lived their whole lives secularly and never accepted Jesus and ended up lost, and that Jesus could have worked with these people but that instead they are lost. Honestly Gerry, I do not know which one of these two condemnations I will hear from Jesus' lips. However I would much rather hear the first condemnation than the second. If I am wrong I'd rather be wrong the first way instead of the second way.

It never fails to amaze me how homosexuality gets lumped in there with those........ The air up there on the high horse of the "non-sinners" must be pretty sweet. But the view looking down the nose at others is always a little obstructed.......