La Sierra 'professor' urges people to repent of heterosexuality...

[JoeMo]

Quote:

homosexuality is the sacrament of paganism.

Lust is the sacrament of paganism.

Hmmm... Is it both homoxexuality and lust? I guess to some people, they go hand in hand.

I know a lot of Christians who suffer from lust; and a few that suffer from homosexual tendencies (although some no longer practice). Are they pagans?

I also know a lot of heterosexual pagans and athiests. Does that make them (at leat partially) Christian?

And I thought faith was all about the deity (or lack thereof) in whom we put our trust; not about sexual orientation.

[joeb]

Quote:

So God made people at variance with His own word? Be careful there, you are making God the author of sin.

That is my point! Christians want to make God the author of some 'sins' but not others! Trials and tribulations are not in the 'sin condition' category? Yes, I have often heard disease and sickness put into the 'T & T' category!

But back to the topic........

Quote:

I never realized it was 'liberal' to repent of discrimination or prejudice.

I think you missed my point. What you're saying is that God created human beings as sinners. He didn't. We did that to ourselves.

The equivalent of what you're saying is that God created thieves, murderers, liars, etc... because many people are born with the predeliction toward those sins too.

We're all born with an inborn weakness toward some sin. Thus I see no reason why I should be any more accepting of one type of sin than another. Sin is sin. Period.

[Gibs]

JM, Here is some verses that gives our God's see of this lifestyle,

Ro 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Ro 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Ro 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Ro 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Ro 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[joeb]

So if we can find any definition of the word we are free to use it indiscriminately...

or the good judgment to know when it's not...

Toom,

You know as well as I do that to use discrimination legitimately when applied to homosexuality is to be accused of hate. That's why I pointed out the historical meaning of the word.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

What you're saying is that God created human beings as sinners. He didn't. We did that to ourselves.

The equivalent of what you're saying is that God created thieves, murderers, liars, etc... because many people are born with the predeliction toward those sins too.

Never said that or enferred that in any way!!The mind set when reading something quite often leads one down the wrong path!! You need to give me answers to my questions about common teaching with in Christianity, SDA church also, as to what God causes and doesn't cause.

[joeb]

Why can't we just agree that "if you are not gay or lesbian, never enter into a homosexual relationship." The Bible seems to indicate that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin. I've never read that attraction to the same gender is a sin. I know a few people in the church who are former practicing homosexuals; and are now in healthy heterosexual relationships. The are still afflicted with temptation, though. But I think we can all agree that temptation is not sin unless you give into the temptation. And when we do sin:

Quote:

we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.(1John 2:2-12)

I agree that temptation is not sin. Only giving into it is. But, this is not what the sermon is about. It's about accepting the behavior as being as legitimate as legitimate heterosexual behavior.

[M. T. Cross]

Quote:

homosexuality is the sacrament of paganism.

Lust is the sacrament of paganism.

Hmmm... Is it both homoxexuality and lust? I guess to some people, they go hand in hand.

I know a lot of Christians who suffer from lust; and a few that suffer from homosexual tendencies (although some no longer practice). Are they pagans?

I also know a lot of heterosexual pagans and athiests. Does that make them (at leat partially) Christian?

And I thought faith was all about the deity (or lack thereof) in whom we put our trust; not about sexual orientation.

Oh Joe, you know us pagans. Dancing around naked under moonlight, drinking wine and having sex with anything that moves. Particularly if it is of our same gender. Oh yeah that is our unholy sacrament. Not to leave out the conjuring up of Satan and the cursing of Yawheh. Oh and we all also worship the earth as well.

[joeb]

Quote:

So God made people at variance with His own word? Be careful there, you are making God the author of sin.

That is my point! Christians want to make God the author of some 'sins' but not others! Trials and tribulations are not in the 'sin condition' category? Yes, I have often heard disease and sickness put into the 'T & T' category!

But back to the topic........

Quote:

I never realized it was 'liberal' to repent of discrimination or prejudice.

The only reason you see homosexuality in the light of it being a "disease or sickness" is because you have rejected what the Bible says about it.

When science disagrees with the Bible, I'll take the Biblical explanation every time, when it comes to human nature and the sin problem.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

The equivalent of what you're saying is that God created thieves, murderers, liars, etc... because many people are born with the predeliction toward those sins too.

Quote:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

People have problems with this. Good and evil are opposite sides of the same coin - just as darkness and light are.

Just as "darkness" is simply the absence of "light" rather than a totally different thing, so "good" is the absence of "evil". We would not know the difference between "light" and "dark" unless they both existed. Similarly, we would not know the difference between "good" and "evil" unless both existed.

Don't the 10 Commandements attempt codify what is "evil" for Christians? Didn't God create the 10 Commandments? If God "defines" what is good and evil for Christians, didn't He, in a sense, "create" them both? By creating the Law, did He not create sin? (Sin is, after all just an absence of the Law, isn't it?) Would we even have universal "good" or "evil" if there wan't a law to define it?

[joeb]

Quote:

The equivalent of what you're saying is that God created thieves, murderers, liars, etc... because many people are born with the predeliction toward those sins too.

Quote:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

People have problems with this. Good and evil are opposite sides of the same coin - just as darkness and light are.

Just as "darkness" is simply the absence of "light" rather than a totally different thing, so "good" is the absence of "evil". We would not know the difference between "light" and "dark" unless they both existed. Similarly, we would not know the difference between "good" and "evil" unless both existed.

Don't the 10 Commandements attempt codify what is "evil" for Christians? Didn't God create the 10 Commandments? If God "defines" what is good and evil for Christians, didn't He, in a sense, "create" them both? By creating the Law, did He not create sin? (Sin is, after all just an absence of the Law, isn't it?) Would we even have universal "good" or "evil" if there wan't a law to define it?

Sin is not the absence of the Law, it is the breaking of(transgression of) the law. To get to your end point in your logic you must ignore what the Bible says sin is. That I cannot do for it is not Biblical.

Don't take that as a personal put down. It's not.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The only reason you see homosexuality in the light of it being a "disease or sickness" is because you have rejected what the Bible says about it.

Again..... you postulate things not said by me and don't answer the questions I do postulate! What we have here is a "failure to comprehend" that question is being asked. Maybe you do and don't have an answer!!

[JoeMo]

joeb,

I did not take you post as a put-down. Your post did not put me down; you raised a potentially legitimate point without finding it necessary to insult me. I appreciate that.

Quote:

Sin is not the absence of the Law, it is the breaking of(transgression of) the law.

Let's say that your assertion is true - that sin is the breaking of (transgression of) the law. If God had never made the Law and revealed it to us, we could not do evil by breaking the law, since it would not have existed.

For the record, I'm not arguing against the law; I am simply pointing out that defining the law as the bible defines it has little or no meaning to the people who aren't Christian. Would there still be a law if there were no Yaweh or other law - defining deity? Probably; but breaking it would be (in fact is) called a crime, not a sin.

There is a law followed by many religions (not just Chritianity) that says the equivalent of "Love Thy Neighbor" Isn't calling a homosexual the equivalent of a pagan (or calling a pagan the equivalent of a homosexual) breaking that law?

The above statement is not meant as an insult to gays, lesbians, pagans, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims animists, marisupials or any other ethnic or food group.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

......marisupials or any other ethnic or food group.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Oh Joe, you know us pagans. Dancing around naked under moonlight, drinking wine and having sex with anything that moves.

Can I visit your church next time I'm in Canada?

[M. T. Cross]

Quote:

Oh Joe, you know us pagans. Dancing around naked under moonlight, drinking wine and having sex with anything that moves.

Can I visit your church next time I'm in Canada?

Any time Joe. You know we are always seeking out good Christian folks to use as human sacrifices to our bloodthirsty demon pagan Gods........ that is if we can't convert them to homosexuality first.

[JoeMo]

YEOW!!

I guess I better fatten up a bit ... don't want to leave those bloodthirsty demons hungry!

[M. T. Cross]

YEOW!!

I guess I better fatten up a bit ... don't want to leave those bloodthirsty demons hungry!

So I guess that means the converting is out then?

[JoeMo]

We'll have to see about the conversion thing. If I fatten up, I'll be ready for all contingencies. After all - I am a risk manager...

[joeb]

joeb,

I did not take you post as a put-down. Your post did not put me down; you raised a potentially legitimate point without finding it necessary to insult me. I appreciate that.

Quote:

Sin is not the absence of the Law, it is the breaking of(transgression of) the law.

Let's say that your assertion is true - that sin is the breaking of (transgression of) the law. If God had never made the Law and revealed it to us, we could not do evil by breaking the law, since it would not have existed.

For the record, I'm not arguing against the law; I am simply pointing out that defining the law as the bible defines it has little or no meaning to the people who aren't Christian. Would there still be a law if there were no Yaweh or other law - defining deity? Probably; but breaking it would be (in fact is) called a crime, not a sin.

There is a law followed by many religions (not just Chritianity) that says the equivalent of "Love Thy Neighbor" Isn't calling a homosexual the equivalent of a pagan (or calling a pagan the equivalent of a homosexual) breaking that law?

The above statement is not meant as an insult to gays, lesbians, pagans, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims animists, marisupials or any other ethnic or food group.

One problem with your theorizing is that God has always existed and His law has always existed too. You don't think so? Then what law did Lucifer break on his way to becoming the Devil? He broke God's law. His law existed long before the 10 commandments were written.

Your argument for defining sin in extra-Biblical terms has also been covered very well in the Bible by Paul and Jesus. Paul shows in Romans 1 that the law can be written in the heart of someone who has never even heard of the 10 commandments. Jesus covered this well too in His statements on the work of the Holy Spirit, how He convinces the world of both righteousness and sin. Between those two sources we know that everyone in the world has had God's law made known to them, what that law requires of them, and that some who have never heard of have it written in their hearts, in terms of principles, not specifics, for it is the principles of the law that we break when we sin.

No one on this earth who has ever lived, or will ever live, will be ignorant of God's law because of the work of the Holy Spirit.

[joeb]

Quote:

The only reason you see homosexuality in the light of it being a "disease or sickness" is because you have rejected what the Bible says about it.

Again..... you postulate things not said by me and don't answer the questions I do postulate! What we have here is a "failure to comprehend" that question is being asked. Maybe you do and don't have an answer!!

I guess you better explain your statement about trials and tribulations to me then, because what I took from it is exactly along the lines I by which I replied.

I simply couldn't see any other reasoning behind your statement.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

One problem with your theorizing is that God has always existed and His law has always existed too. You don't think so? Then what law did Lucifer break on his way to becoming the Devil? He broke God's law. His law existed long before the 10 commandments were written.

I agree that the "civil" portion of the 10 commandments (i.e., the last six) would have probably developed in one form or another with or without God. What about the first four commandments defining the relationship between God and man? Did God write the Sabbath on people's hearts, or was that revealed to man? Does man instinctually know that he isn't supposed to limit God by making an image of Him, or did he have to be told? I think it's the latter.

In the OT, when Bible authors talked about kings 'doing evil in the sight of the Lord", wasn't usually concerning idolatry or some other offense against God? Surely you don't think that murder, adultery, and theft were non-existent during the reigns of "good" kings.

Couldn't it be the same with Lucifer? Maybe he started having rebellious thoughts and conversations before God told Him to 'cool it" on the rebellion thing. When God said "cool it", it became law. Lucifer did not obey God's direct command; and therefore sinned. And --- here we are!

I think EGW even says somewhere that before satan's rebellion, there was no law - don't hold me to that though.

[joeb]

Quote:

One problem with your theorizing is that God has always existed and His law has always existed too. You don't think so? Then what law did Lucifer break on his way to becoming the Devil? He broke God's law. His law existed long before the 10 commandments were written.

I agree that the "civil" portion of the 10 commandments (i.e., the last six) would have probably developed in one form or another with or without God. What about the first four commandments defining the relationship between God and man? Did God write the Sabbath on people's hearts, or was that revealed to man? Does man instinctually know that he isn't supposed to limit God by making an image of Him, or did he have to be told? I think it's the latter.

In the OT, when Bible authors talked about kings 'doing evil in the sight of the Lord", wasn't usually concerning idolatry or some other offense against God? Surely you don't think that murder, adultery, and theft were non-existent during the reigns of "good" kings.

Couldn't it be the same with Lucifer? Maybe he started having rebellious thoughts and conversations before God told Him to 'cool it" on the rebellion thing. When God said "cool it", it became law. Lucifer did not obey God's direct command; and therefore sinned. And --- here we are!

I think EGW even says somewhere that before satan's rebellion, there was no law - don't hold me to that though.

[olger]

Oh Joe, you know us pagans. Dancing around naked under moonlight, drinking wine and having sex with anything that moves. Particularly if it is of our same gender. Oh yeah that is our unholy sacrament. Not to leave out the conjuring up of Satan and the cursing of Yawheh. Oh and we all also worship the earth as well.

confession is good for the soul

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: EmptyCross

Oh Joe, you know us pagans. Dancing around naked under moonlight, drinking wine and having sex with anything that moves. Particularly if it is of our same gender. Oh yeah that is our unholy sacrament. Not to leave out the conjuring up of Satan and the cursing of Yawheh. Oh and we all also worship the earth as well.

confession is good for the soul

So is resisting being a snotty, intolerant, misogynistic bigot that thinks they know things that they don't.

So obviously neither of us are doing what is good for the soul.

How about we both start.

[olger]

I still love you, EC !!! In spite of all my shortcomings !