sodom When I hear the Story of Sodom!

[8thdaypriest]

I went back to read your post at the beginning of your thread.  It does seem to me, that you are telling heterosexual "Christians" not to act as judges of homosexuals.   You say that the LORD destroyed Sodom (and the cities of the plain) NOT for consensual homosexual acts, but for homosexual rape. 

What about other unlawful sexual practices ?  Should those who do these things be refused membership in the congregation?  I remember a guy - many years ago - who came to a Revelation Seminar with the women he had been "living with" for 2 years.  She had already been baptized at some time in the past.  He wanted very much to be baptized.  He said that the pastor did not have to make him a member.  He just wanted to be baptized.  I think he saw this as a sort of guarantee of eternal life.

Well the pastor counseled with him several times, explaining that living with a woman (without a marriage covenant) was "unlawful" (this is what the word fornication means).  He explained that a person must "repent" of past sins, and agree to "forsake" present sins (to the best of their ability - with God's help).  The man WANTED the guarantee of eternal life, WITHOUT giving up his "freedom" from a legal marriage entanglement.  He had already been divorced twice.  The pastor - with a heavy heart - refused to baptize the man.

So - in your opinion gayatfootofcross, was the pastor WRONG to refuse the baptism?   SHOULD pastors baptize openly LGBTs ?   

[brotherly love]

Lets leave Mr. Gay out of this for the moment and really look at what Romans 1 is trying to communicate.

²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

Romans 1 is trying to communicate that homosexuality is the culmination of sin by those who have a form of righteousness. if homosexuality is the culmination of sin, what are the building blocks?

The text is clear on what this is. It mentions people who worship created things instead of God. Most will think this means worship of creation like pantheism, but the text is not trying to communicate a literal worship of creation-it is trying to communicate a desire for "created things" and on our own glory instead of the glory of God.

Because we are in the middle of this, we dont understand why homosexuality is a sin, and just end up looking like bigots and fools relying on our own understanding. It starts with us and culminates in homosexuality.

 

[GayatfootofCross]

​Let's go back to Romans 1:26 Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 

Notice that the sexual acts above are called "unnatural".  So it is very logical that "strange flesh" means same sex.

BTW, notice that the "males...received in their own persons...the penalty for their perversity."  Paul here is speaking of diseases associate with sodomy, namely AIDS.  This is the natural result when God gives those who "practice" these perverse sex acts, up. -Robert

.............................................................................

Robert, I respectfully must say that is an unscientific unproven backwoods ignorant statement . In Africa it is a Heterosexual plight causing most harm to women cause of the nature of how its spread (vaginal intercourse). It is not a homosexual disease. I am surprised this ignorance still flourishes in our Christian circles and is terribly erroneous. It is passed by blood as well. And it can be passed onto children. It is also saying God's aim is a little sloppy. A lot sloppy!

It has been shown it came thru a monkey. So that would be bestiality. Given its a massive heterosexual plight in Africa primarily may indicate most likely it may have been received by a Heterosexual in Africa. The homosexual community  was infected in America. Namely started in New York. Cause of sinful promiscuity . There was no AIDES started up in the nature of the sex acts in itself. And for 2,000 years of Gays did not receive that unto themselves.

"Paul here is speaking of diseases associate with sodomy, namely AIDS.  This is the natural result when God gives those who "practice" these perverse sex acts, up." Robert. 

It is not a gay disease ..It is a human disease. We all can pass it by blood not just man to man sodomy. Look it up if you care to.

BTW. I am very pleased to announce that we (both heterosexuals and homosexuals) now have medicine keeping the viral load count so low that people who have HIV are asymptomatic and living long fruitful lives for decades now. In America anyways. But sadly  In poorer  nations where it  hits most heterosexuals ,namely women. They are still dying!

Robert. You can join us and pray for them.

GBU! God is Good!

​actually not surprised it still flourishes in Christian circles "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."
 

 

Edited May 9, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[brotherly love]

I will quote my own words in response to the aids plague and a homosexual lifestyle

Because we are in the middle of this, we dont understand why homosexuality is a sin, and just end up looking like bigots and fools relying on our own understanding. It starts with us and culminates in homosexuality.

Because we dont understand why homosexuality is an abomination, we have to rely on this kind of response

* The present scourge of sexually transmitted diseases is a painful warning that our present world is heading in the same direction as the Roman world was in Paul’s day.

-While it is true the gay and intravenous drug users were plagued by this horrid disease, and in these populations it was noticed something was going on. Health is not the reason it is an abomination

[GayatfootofCross]

I went back to read your post at the beginning of your thread.  It does seem to me, that you are telling heterosexual "Christians" not to act as judges of homosexuals.   You say that the LORD destroyed Sodom (and the cities of the plain) NOT for consensual homosexual acts, but for homosexual rape. 

What about other unlawful sexual practices ?  Should those who do these things be refused membership in the congregation?  I remember a guy - many years ago - who came to a Revelation Seminar with the women he had been "living with" for 2 years.  She had already been baptized at some time in the past.  He wanted very much to be baptized.  He said that the pastor did not have to make him a member.  He just wanted to be baptized.  I think he saw this as a sort of guarantee of eternal life.

Well the pastor counseled with him several times, explaining that living with a woman (without a marriage covenant) was "unlawful" (this is what the word fornication means).  He explained that a person must "repent" of past sins, and agree to "forsake" present sins (to the best of their ability - with God's help).  The man WANTED the guarantee of eternal life, WITHOUT giving up his "freedom" from a legal marriage entanglement.  He had already been divorced twice.  The pastor - with a heavy heart - refused to baptize the man.

So - in your opinion gayatfootofcross, was the pastor WRONG to refuse the baptism?   SHOULD pastors baptize openly LGBTs ?   

​8thdaypriest GBU and Hello!

Well rape is rape regardless of gender and sexuality and all evil in the sight of God and most  men and women. It isn't crazy or outlandish to read that in the story.

 Cluster Rape of visitors was just the tip of the iceberg there. God had it in His heart to do it even before that incidence. It was so bad God had to step in. And Abraham interceded ,but of course Abraham does not see the bigger picture in all this. He just Loved sinners. praise GOD! We as sinners can always take a cue from His Saints.

That last question that you raise deserves it's own thread so everybody can weigh in on it. I may or may not contribute.

GBU 8thdaypreist ,love your name and love you in it!

[8thdaypriest]

Deuteronomy 7:26 "Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing. (NKJ).

Deuteronomy 7:26  Don't bring something abhorrent into your house, or you will share in the curse that is on it; instead, you are to detest it completely, loathe it utterly; for it is set apart for destruction. (CJB)

So an abomination WAS doomed to destruction.  NOTICE that connection.

An "abomination" could be an unclean meat, a pagan idol, or a person who sacrificed to another god, or a person who did something detestable (like calling up the spirit of the dead, or having unlawful sex with another man). 

The word translated as "Cursed" or "doomed to destruction" in Deut 7:26 was "cherem" - # 02764. 

If an Israelite brought into his house, an abomination - something that was "cursed" or "devoted to destruction", he would bring that curse upon himself and his house. 

Achen brought items which were "devoted to destruction" into his tent, thereby bringing the "curse" upon himself, and upon all of Israel.  Only when Israel destroyed Achen/ his family/ his livestock/ and the cursed "items" was Israel freed from the "curse".

In the same way King Saul brought King Agag the Amalekite into his house.  Agag was "devoted to destruction" or "cursed".  Saul let him eat at his table, and kept him as a trophy.  He brought the "curse" into his house.  THAT is why the LORD abandoned King Saul, and would not longer communicate with him.  That is why every descendant of King Saul finally perished (except for Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son who was only 5 when his father and King Saul died) . 

In the SAME way Solomon brought the "curse" upon his kingdom because he married many pagan women, and allowed them to bring their idols into Jerusalem. 

The LORD kept telling Israel that they must RID their land of such things, lest their land be "cursed". 

But of course, that was back when Israel was a theocracy.  Maybe those rules no longer apply???

[GayatfootofCross]

Deuteronomy 7:26 "Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing. (NKJ).

Deuteronomy 7:26  Don't bring something abhorrent into your house, or you will share in the curse that is on it; instead, you are to detest it completely, loathe it utterly; for it is set apart for destruction. (CJB)

So an abomination WAS doomed to destruction.  NOTICE that connection.

An "abomination" could be an unclean meat, a pagan idol, or a person who sacrificed to another god, or a person who did something detestable (like calling up the spirit of the dead, or having unlawful sex with another man). 

The word translated as "Cursed" or "doomed to destruction" in Deut 7:26 was "cherem" - # 02764. 

If an Israelite brought into his house, an abomination - something that was "cursed" or "devoted to destruction", he would bring that curse upon himself and his house. 

Achen brought items which were "devoted to destruction" into his tent, thereby bringing the "curse" upon himself, and upon all of Israel.  Only when Israel destroyed Achen/ his family/ his livestock/ and the cursed "items" was Israel freed from the "curse".

In the same way King Saul brought King Agag the Amalekite into his house.  Agag was "devoted to destruction" or "cursed".  Saul let him eat at his table, and kept him as a trophy.  He brought the "curse" into his house.  THAT is why the LORD abandoned King Saul, and would not longer communicate with him.  That is why every descendant of King Saul finally perished (except for Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son who was only 5 when his father and King Saul died) . 

In the SAME way Solomon brought the "curse" upon his kingdom because he married many pagan women, and allowed them to bring their idols into Jerusalem. 

The LORD kept telling Israel that they must RID their land of such things, lest their land be "cursed". 

But of course, that was back when Israel was a theocracy.  Maybe those rules no longer apply???

​8thdaypriest

Well if you make  a new thread you do have plenty of theological  ammunition. And since it wont touch the heterosexual immoral  Churched membership sins.You will get a lot of hearty 'AMENS'.  I may start  a thread what these verses feed off in us as a whole to be unChristlike to our fellow man. But goodness gracious! I put up 4 already from different angles and it seems to make it worse. I already have 4 more to put up later. I can't add another! But never say never!

It all shows what a wonderful GOD we have! The point of the OP of this thread.

GBU! 8thdaypriest !

Edited May 9, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[GayatfootofCross]

​Note that Abraham accepted gifts from Pharaoh in Genesis 12, but refused gifts from the King of Sodom in Genesis 13. This implies he wanted to avoid being associated with the King of Sodom.

 

 

 

- joe

​Genesis7 ,Nice to meet you here.

I read Genesis 12 cause you said what u said pasted above.

You are comparing the circumstance of  Pharaoh giving gifts for Sarah being taken into his own household with Abraham not taking his share  bounty for a battle from the King of Sodom? oh boy!

 

Abraham for one took all the gifts from the Pharaoh under false pretenses. It is his wife not a single sister..

huh?

And Abraham got what he came for IN THE BATTLE...HIS FAMILY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was more than enough,wouldnt you say? Genesis7?

How on earth....

Nevermind

the highly religious was very troubled that JESUS associated with Sinners (tax collectors and prostitutes were the tip of the iceberg)

it happens still:(

I will be watching you

GBU!

 

Edited May 9, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[GayatfootofCross]

 

​

You are correct that Abraham accepted gifts from the Pharaoh under false pretenses, but even after the Pharaoh found out and sent him away, he still took them, and Sarah took Hagar as a servant. 

How about Genesis 20, where Abraham tried that same trick with Abimelech, and Abraham and Sarah took the gifts in 20:14-16?

 

 

But in Genesis 14, Abraham specifically says:

 

- joewell

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,w

genesis7,

Hello again! I think I see your reasoning now!

 

As I mentioned, Abraham was so happy with victory that no one was lost or killed of The Family ..so He already felt like he got his reward.

 

With one you see  Abraham take gifts under false pretenses twice  resulting from not Trusting GOD twice (shows how GOD still works with us sinners -including LGBTIQQAA sinners) and then Abraham refuses gifts from the King of Sodom.

I see two different circumstances that of course would seem two very different responses

.

Is it a stretch for  me to think that you see Abraham is so offended  by the King of Sodom sins that he says "thanks but no thanks" that he fought with.

but not offended with the sins of Pharaoh to say "Sure (albeit under false pretenses and lack of faith of God's protection after vision and moving and  everything) the more the merrier!

?

I don't know if you realize this. It is thru Pharaoh  and early Egypt that the use of magic thru Occultism was introduced (outside of Nimrod in the region).

So in effect, Abraham is showing his stand against homosexuality by saying yes to one King and saying no to another King

"hey you and your religion who helped bring sorcery and magic and worship of the devil to the region but at least your straight!"

HI FIVE!

.

that is one of the mindsets the church has that inevitably blocked the LGBTIQQAA. from seeing our Wonderful GOD..without meaning to

 

GOD says forgive them for not even know what they do...

...........

Maybe.. just maybe I am seeing what you said all wrong.

I hope.

GBU!!!!!

btw I love the Book of Genesis! I deeply studied for years! I see the CROSS!

.............

Abraham was pleading for the whole town of sodomites out love and respect for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! doh!

it is the OP not to rain fire and brimstone on gays as Christians

Edited May 10, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[B/W Photodude]

​

​Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless of the current gender rhetoric, the Bible clearly shows that men of Abrahams time valued women highly. Take Jacob for instance. He labored for seven years to have Rachel as his wife and when swindled out of her, he labored another seven years. Show me someone today who would labor for someone for fourteen years to have the hand of the one they care about in marriage. It is a mystery why Lot offered his daughters, but if someone would value a wife as much as some of the Bible characters did, I am reasonable certain that they valued their daughters.

You can also look at the record of Abraham's grief when he lost Sarah. 

It is unquestionable that the roles of men and women were very different and more rigid, but it is insulting of them to say they did not value the women. I am aware that I asked as a rhetorical question regarding Lot's daughters, but you can look at other situations and see the value of women to men. So, there really is something beyond a low opinion of his daughters as to why he offered them to the crowd. I half think of it as a delaying tactic as he knew them well enough to know they weren't going to accept his offer. They had a more violent and sadistic goal in mind.

Don't forget, Abraham at one time took his SON up on the mountain with the intent of offering him as a sacrifice.

 

[Robert]

Robert, I respectfully must say that is an unscientific unproven backwoods ignorant statement . In Africa it is a Heterosexual plight causing most harm to women cause of the nature of how its spread (vaginal intercourse). It is not a homosexual disease. I am surprised this ignorance still flourishes in our Christian circles and is terribly erroneous. It is passed by blood as well. And it can be passed onto children. It is also saying God's aim is a little sloppy. A lot sloppy!

It has been shown it came thru a monkey. 

"​Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/

Also read:  http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by Robert

[B/W Photodude]

 

It really shows how women are devalued since antiquity!

​Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless of the current gender rhetoric, the Bible clearly ....

***BUG report *****

Note the quoting problems above. My last post got pasted into this one! And after posting Roberts answer disappeared! I did click the quote in Robert's posting, and it was there when I submitted it.

Robert wrote:

"​Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States."

***********Now begin answer to Robert!:

Among the female population, HIV infections are heavily among those with a relationship with someone who is a intravenous drug user (IDU) or who is an IDU who shares needles.

Regarding the effort the circumcise the African continent to slow down HIV, faulty science. And may work to spread it as many will assume they are now safe. And it doesn't work any better than condoms.

Consider this, the most circumcised western country is the USA, and guess which country has the most HIV?

How is that circumcision thing working out?!

 

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[GayatfootofCross]

How do you feel about the phrase "Gay Pride"?

 

- joe

​well that is really off topic!

genesis7

We as  Citizens of Heaven can gather all the science and theology against a category of people to feel comfortable and secure and right.

But the flip side can be that our hearts toward another does not shine light from GOD to another.

It feeds in us the sin of pride and superiority and self righteousness if not at the Cross seeing Him in the  and everything after minutiae   .

 

.

genesis7, it may offend you that  the term is used so willingly among many who never caught a glimpse of a humble servant God.

It was out of self hatred and shame and being called all the names in the book for something they did not consciously choose.

A whole life like that eats and tears you up.

Hiding in the closets with such self abnegation for years- something had to give. They were not going to subject themselves to others thoughts and words any longer

They decided, as a community, to empower themselves. it became known as Gay Pride.

So they can walk and talk and be who they are. ..or think who they are?

And not apologize or quiver in shame  anymore

.

Closets are made for gowns and hats not people.

 

GBU again.

Thank you for asking something that has bee non your heart.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Robert]

Health is not the reason it is an abomination

​Okay...what else?  I know the clean and unclean meats as to do with health.  Not having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle is also a health issue.  Monogamy guards against the transmission of disease.  etc, etc...

  Disease comes from sin and ultimately Satan.  God wants us to be healthy.  

Edited May 10, 2015 by Robert

[GayatfootofCross]

​Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Regardless of the current gender rhetoric, the Bible clearly shows that men of Abrahams time valued women highly. Take Jacob for instance. He labored for seven years to have Rachel as his wife and when swindled out of her, he labored another seven years. Show me someone today who would labor for someone for fourteen years to have the hand of the one they care about in marriage. It is a mystery why Lot offered his daughters, but if someone would value a wife as much as some of the Bible characters did, I am reasonable certain that they valued their daughters.

You can also look at the record of Abraham's grief when he lost Sarah. 

It is unquestionable that the roles of men and women were very different and more rigid, but it is insulting of them to say they did not value the women. I am aware that I asked as a rhetorical question regarding Lot's daughters, but you can look at other situations and see the value of women to men. So, there really is something beyond a low opinion of his daughters as to why he offered them to the crowd. I half think of it as a delaying tactic as he knew them well enough to know they weren't going to accept his offer. They had a more violent and sadistic goal in mind.

Don't forget, Abraham at one time took his SON up on the mountain with the intent of offering him as a sacrifice.

 

​B/W Photodude. GBU

I am very happy to hear what you say!

I think we all have to figure what was going on with Lot offering his daughters.

He is even called Righteous in the NT. Which is also confusing!

and thank you for saying something to Robert.

interesting way you came at it

It is a human problem whatever sexual it comes about.

WhatEv!

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Robert]

I think we all have to figure what was going on with Lot offering his daughters.

He is even called Righteous in the NT. Which is also confusing!

​

​Lot was polluted by the surrounding perversions of the city he called home. He lacked sensibilities. And latter he got drunk and had sex with his daughters.  The difference between Lot and the men & women of Sodom and Gomorrah is they practiced sin as a legitimate lifestyle. Why?  They had rejected God until no longer could His Spirit awaken their hearts. Lot was righteous, not in reality, but by faith in Christ.  

 

Ellen White:  

Lot made his way to the mountains, and abode in a cave, stripped of all for which he had dared to subject his family to the influences of a wicked city. But the curse of Sodom followed him even here. The sinful conduct of his daughters was the result of the evil associations of that vile place. Its moral corruption had become so interwoven with their character that they could not distinguish between good and evil. 

Edited May 10, 2015 by Robert

[GayatfootofCross]

​Lot was polluted by the surrounding perversions of the city he called home. He lacked sensibilities. And latter he got drunk and had sex with his daughters.  The difference between Lot and the men & women of Sodom and Gomorrah is they practiced sin as a legitimate lifestyle. Why?  They had rejected God until no longer could His Spirit awaken their hearts. Lot was righteous, not in reality, but by faith in Christ.  

 

Ellen White:  

Lot made his way to the mountains, and abode in a cave, stripped of all for which he had dared to subject his family to the influences of a wicked city. But the curse of Sodom followed him even here. The sinful conduct of his daughters was the result of the evil associations of that vile place. Its moral corruption had become so interwoven with their character that they could not distinguish between good and evil. 

​amen

And we can update my OP with incest ,along with the   violence and rape and every thought is evil in the hearts with of men..and women ,already mentioned.

Let us add Lot's wife sins too!

A treasure trove of awful sins we have here!

 

And God stilled saved him!

 

amen amen amen! I see the CROSS!

Edited May 10, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Robert]

...And God stilled saved him!....

​Yes, because while Lot was a sinner and had besetting sins, Lot repented.  It's the heart, the attitude that God looks at with all struggling sinners. A sinner who condones, yea practices known sin as a lifestyle cannot have God in his/her life.

1 John 3:8 "...the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from he beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 

9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him....."

 

Again, John does not say the believer doesn't sin (whatever sin that may be).  It states he doesn't condone it as a legitimate lifestyle.  Gay men may fall back into sin, but then will not condone it if God's Spirit is present.  They will repent...they will struggle, but they will never say "God made me this way" or "gay sex is okay".  The same with heterosexuals. To excuse sin is to justify sin.  That's the issue.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Robert

[B/W Photodude]

​Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.

Unfortunately, another quote bug! What I was quoting regarding the devaluation of women dropped off when I responded to "Gay"! Perhaps someone could look into this. Don't want to keep mucking things up explaining what has gone wrong!

Now let's see if I can even post myself. At this moment all is well.

[GayatfootofCross]

​Yes, because while Lot was a sinner and had besetting sins, Lot repented.  It's the heart, the attitude that God looks at with all struggling sinners. A sinner who condones, yea practices known sin as a lifestyle cannot have God in his/her life.

1 John 3:8 "...the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from he beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy theworks of the devil. 

9 No *one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him....."

 

 

​AMEN

 The OP  does not justify sin.. so in this thread, that is not the issue.

The Standard is indeed high! To look upon another whatever sin it is as as God's beloved is my aim.

at the Foot of the CROSS all are equal.

 

We have a different picture of GOD in this and it is thru your statement "Again, John does not say the believer doesn't sin (whatever sin that may be).  It states he doesn't condone it as a legitimate lifestyle.  Gay men may fall back into sin, but then will not condone it if God's Spirit is present.  They will repent...they will struggle, but they will never say "God made me this way" or "gay sex is okay".  The same with heterosexuals. To excuse sin is to justify sin..."

That might be a jaunty discussion you can start. A most excellent topic!I may join in or not ... I have bigger fish to fry

One day I hope to extract from my mind ,what I have learned, to type- regarding your last statement.

I do agree with the bones of it ..all the way!

It may come or never come.

What I want to bring out, someday, is a look deeper in all ourselves regarding St John's letters.

GBU Robert!

 

Edited May 10, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[GayatfootofCross]

Unfortunately, another quote bug! What I was quoting regarding the devaluation of women dropped off when I responded to "Gay"! Perhaps someone could look into this. Don't want to keep mucking things up explaining what has gone wrong!

Now let's see if I can even post myself. At this moment all is well.

​..and I thought it was me all this time!

Somethings aren't coming out right!

Maybe everything I said is the total opposite of what im saying!

Is that why I feel misunderstood?

okay..

Let me look at all my posts!

.

.

umm..umm.. ooh..huh? eeks!

No it's all here!

 

[8thdaypriest]

Dear Gay,

Sodomy is NOT the unpardonable sin.  Resisting the Spirit until you are numb to God's pleading or leading.  THAT is the unpardonable sin. 

The "rich young ruler" went away sorrowing, because he really WANTED to be "saved".  But he was unwilling to part with his "riches".  He loved them more, than he wanted God.    It's the same with all of our pet sins.  That's the battle.  We WANT salvation, a relationship with Jesus, a home in the Kingdom, but we also WANT to keep our pet sins.  So we rationalize in our minds, that our own pet sin, is not as "bad" as other sins.  (It's consensual.  We're not hurting anyone.  The rich guy didn't need that money I stole.  Just a little bit won't hurt me. etc. etc. etc.)  We rationalize that Jesus loves us, and died for us, so He won't reject us for His kingdom, even if we intentionally KEEP (stop trying to overcome) our own pet sin.  

The whole Bible is full of stories about people who KEPT their own pet sin.  And in every story - the consequence of that sin finally came back to hurt them terribly.  

  Revelation 2:7 "To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God."' (NKJ)

Revelation 2:11 "He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death."'

Revelation 2:17 "To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it."'

Revelation 2:26 "And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations-- "

Revelation 3:5 "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Revelation 3:12 "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name."

Revelation 3:21 "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."

Revelation 21:7 "He who overcomes shall inherit all things¹, and I will be his God and he shall be My son."

NO - I'm not teaching perfection here.  I'm not saying that every person must overcome every shred of self or sin.  I'm saying that we must be striving always against those things, in our own lives, that God has named "sin" and instructed us to abandon.  HE comes to each individual with conviction concerning our own pet sins.  I asked HIM once, what my "greatest sin" was.  A word flooded my mind immediately. Impatience!  THAT hit hard - I can tell you.  A man might even be struggling because he knows that God has "called" him to a special work, and he does not want to  leave the life he presently enjoys.  (I'm thinking Jonah, and the "rich young ruler".)     We "overcome" day by day, little by little, but we keep striving.  To overcome, is to not give up the fight.   

By the way Robert, infants and children cannot "overcome" anything. 

[brotherly love]

​Okay...what else?  I know the clean and unclean meats as to do with health.  Not having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle is also a health issue.  Monogamy guards against the transmission of disease.  etc, etc...

  Disease comes from sin and ultimately Satan.  God wants us to be healthy.  

​The clean and unclean meats has nothing to do with health, you will be able to find problems with unclean animals listed in the Tanakh, but you will also find problems with eating clean food. What about bovine diseases, what about bird epidemics? The bible regards water as clean, but in the world, most disease and illness is caused by water borne problems. Water has attributes of cleansing, and that is the message. Same with the unclean food, there are attributes that are being accosiated with being undesirable. The faithful are not to asscociate with bad attributes. That is why Jesus stated that it is not what one puts in his moth makes him unclean.

If having sex with a woman who is in her monthly cycle is for health, then having sex at any time would also be unhealthy. When a woman has sex with her husband when she was not in her cycle, she was made unholy with him in the same manner. i did a short write up on this a few post ago.

If you can understand this, then we can get into why homosexuality is a sin.

 

[JoeMo]

If you can understand this, then we can get into why homosexuality is a sin.

 

​How many times to people have to say that being attracted to the same gender is NOT a sin - temptation is not a sin.  Giving in to that temptation and having sexual activity with someone of the same gender is a sin.  Just like me being attracted to 30 year-old blonde women (my wife is a brunette) is a temptation rather than a sin; it becomes a sin were I to "get together" with one of them (I don't do that).

[brotherly love]

​How many times to people have to say that being attracted to the same gender is NOT a sin - temptation is not a sin.  Giving in to that temptation and having sexual activity with someone of the same gender is a sin.  Just like me being attracted to 30 year-old blonde women (my wife is a brunette) is a temptation rather than a sin; it becomes a sin were I to "get together" with one of them (I don't do that).

​Context is the key to your response. I responded to a post that posited the question that homosexuality is a sin because of health. This would apply to a person who practices these acts, not a person who thinks about them.

I made an analogy a few posts ago in relation to music speakers, we have the speaker of acceptance set up way too high, and the speaker of discernment set way to low

Could your speaker of acceptance be set too high affecting discernment?

Edited May 11, 2015 by brotherly love