Defending Homosexuality

[Marymog]

Is that the closest you can get? What about (Rom. 1:26-27)?

Stranger

Ummmmm......What about it???? It's in my post.....

 

[Taken]

So how far can a person go to condemn another person for the sinful flesh, if they have sinful flesh also ?

I don't see asking questions, as One person Condemming another person.

If you believe you are born with a sin nature.

Yes, I do believe everyone is NATURALLY born in sin.

Then maybe that is how some can justify Homosexuality as equal to any other sin.

The point you make is JUSTIFICATION.

I don't believe the question is ABOUT the "equal-ness" of any sin.

I believe JUSTIFICATION is about "ONE" person "making" his "Confession of Faithfulness to ONLY Thee Lord God Almighty".

It is "thereafter", a true confession, Changes the person, BY the Power of God.

And "thereafter", is where the DEBATE and WONDERING among men begins.

Homosexuals are a Labeled group of individuals whose Preference identifies them with a desire to engage in Sexual encounters with the Same like gender.

However, every person within "ANY" "labeled group", are still Individuals. Which is to say,
NOT every person, Labeled within a particular group; has made an Vow and Confession of Allegiance to Thee Lord God Almighty.

Individuals may certainly be part of a group, having the same Flesh Desires; and some become Changed to not entertain their Flesh Desires, while others Remain the same and Continue their Flesh Desires.

Point being it is about Individuals, not group labels.

In summary, I believe some people who have Flesh Desires of Homosexual tendencies, DO still identify themselves with those Desires, but do not participate in such activities, while others DO continue to engage in fulfilling their Flesh Desires.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

I sincerely apologize. I am usually pretty good about answering questions and I now see I didn't answer yours. I assumed you knew which Church I choose and I should not have assumed that.

I am Catholic. The CC's doctrine does not allow active homosexuals HOWEVER sadly and to the disgrace of The Church the sinful men of the CC have ignored those doctrines.

Which Church do you belong to that has no homosexuals in it?

Mary

Lots of churches have no practicing homosexuals. As for homosexual inclinations--there may be some but how is anyone to know about that? Why do some people feel that their sexual choices are anything I would be interested in? I am not interested in the sexual inclinations of heterosexuals--why would I be interested in those of homosexuals? All manner of sins take place in the minds of individuals--and for that they must deal with God--not me. The job of Christians is to try to restrain sinful behavior. When we accept homosexual practice in the church, that opens the door to pedophilia as well (as we can see in the lives of not a small number of priests and even a few pastors)--and are we going to accept that? I would remind everyone that homosexual practice used to be against the law.

 

[FHII]

The abomination of homosexuality is spelled out in (Rom. 1:26-27). Is that a funny thing also? Do you still defend homosexuality?

Stranger

Homosexuality wasn't the problem in Rom. 1:26-27; it was a result of not honoring God and becoming vain. There were also a whole bunch of things after that as well.

I am not defending homosexuality; I am defending grace. Are you offending grace?

 

[Marymog]

Lots of churches have no practicing homosexuals. As for homosexual inclinations--there may be some but how is anyone to know about that? Why do some people feel that their sexual choices are anything I would be interested in? I am not interested in the sexual inclinations of heterosexuals--why would I be interested in those of homosexuals? All manner of sins take place in the minds of individuals--and for that they must deal with God--not me. The job of Christians is to try to restrain sinful behavior. When we accept homosexual practice in the church, that opens the door to pedophilia as well (as we can see in the lives of not a small number of priests and even a few pastors)--and are we going to accept that? I would remind everyone that homosexual practice used to be against the law.

Hi Lady Crosstalk.

First off: What does "Lady Crosstalk" mean? (just curious)

Second off: When you say lot's of churches have no practicing homosexuals do you mean on the staff? Or do you mean in their entire Church? Or both? Do you think there might be some practicing "closet" homosexuals in any of those "lots of churches" that have no practicing homosexuals? Also, can you give me the name of one or two of those churches so I can garner more information from the internet about them?

Also, I don't understand how you can on one hand say they must deal with God, not you, and then on the other hand say the job of Christians is to try to restrain sinful behavior. How are we as Christians supposed to restrain the sinful behavior of a practicing homosexual if we don't "deal" with them? Your statement seems contradictory.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

I sincerely apologize. I am usually pretty good about answering questions and I now see I didn't answer yours. I assumed you knew which Church I choose and I should not have assumed that.

I am Catholic. The CC's doctrine does not allow active homosexuals HOWEVER sadly and to the disgrace of The Church the sinful men of the CC have ignored those doctrines.

Which Church do you belong to that has no homosexuals in it?

Mary

Oh, your a Romanist. The Church I belong to, and will belong to will have no homosexuals in it. I have already told you.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

152 is not you either, this seemed to be the area you had in mind? Or if you have a "question" as if, pls restate it. But let's not kid each other ok, you don't have any questions


^

Again, pay attention. See post #210 also. I guess I have to draw you a picture. Can you connect the dots? See #152 and #210.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Homosexuality wasn't the problem in Rom. 1:26-27; it was a result of not honoring God and becoming vain. There were also a whole bunch of things after that as well.

I am not defending homosexuality; I am defending grace. Are you offending grace?

Sorry pal. You were clear that you are defending homosexuals. See again your post # (183).

You can lie to yourself all day long that you are defending grace but that's just bs. Does grace disagree with God concerning (Rom. 1:26-27)?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Ummmmm......What about it???? It's in my post.....

Yes, but it condemns homosexuality. See?

Stranger

 

[Waiting on him]

Sorry pal. You were clear that you are defending homosexuals. See again your post # (183).

You can lie to yourself all day long that you are defending grace but that's just bs. Does grace disagree with God concerning (Rom. 1:26-27)?

Stranger

It’s amazing you build a total doctrine around one verse in Gods word

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Homosexuality wasn't the problem in Rom. 1:26-27; it was a result of not honoring God and becoming vain. There were also a whole bunch of things after that as well.

I am not defending homosexuality; I am defending grace. Are you offending grace?

Wow, Scripture clearly rejects your above. The passage is crystal clear and is speaking of sodomy.

Here's the text (for others):

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

You're not defending grace, you're defending those under God's wrath, and a society that has spun out of control. In that sense you are in fact defending sodomy, but you cannot see it.

That you cannot see what is plainly in the text is unfathomable. It's right there, and you're denying God's word.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Sorry pal. You were clear that you are defending homosexuals. See again your post # (183).

You can lie to yourself all day long that you are defending grace but that's just bs. Does grace disagree with God concerning (Rom. 1:26-27)?

Stranger

Brother, you're arguing with a person who refuses and/or cannot see what God has plainly spoken. His is trollish behavior imho, it definitely does not reflect Christian behavior.

 

[Marymog]

Oh, your a Romanist. The Church I belong to, and will belong to will have no homosexuals in it. I have already told you.

Stranger

Wow.....Really??? No homosexuals in your church? Do you have a camera attached to all the members of your church and in their bedrooms to watch every move they make??? Or are you the only member of your church......

No, you didn't tell me but you do like to play games with words. ;)

I don't know what a Romanist is. I am Catholic. (see, I can play your word games also)

Mary

 

[FHII]

defending homosexuals. See again your post # (183).

Oh really?

"I am not defending Homosexuality... I am defending grace. But I guess I am one of the few who aren't condemning them based on grace.

So the ya go. A KJV guy defending "

I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't defending homosexuality. Now yes I did say I was at the end, but you have to look at the context. Bbyrd009 threw a shot at KJV folks saying they are condemning homosexuals or something to that effect. I was just pointing out that I wasn't. Furthermore, I have stated that homosexuality IS a sin. I happen to believe with good reason that it is also covered by grace.

Does grace disagree with God concerning (Rom. 1:26-27)

That question doesn't make sense. Grace is not an entity of its own where it can agree or disagree with God.

I have already briefly discussed Room 1:26-27. I will expound if you like. Homosexuality wasn't the problem.

 

[FHII]

It’s amazing you build a total doctrine around one verse in Gods word

Right, exactly! A fuller understanding of these two verses must start at verse 21 and go to the end of the chapter... Just as a start. Then you have to read the when epistle which explains grace and faith.

 

[Willie T]

I do want to make it plain that though I don't like nor condone homosexuality, I will completely defend homosexuals who do not flaunt it, and want to change... EVEN IF they cannot stop yet. I am (hopefully) not as self-righteous as some who feel that since THEY have told homosexuals how horrible they are, they MUST stop any such feelings (and giving into it) RIGHT NOW, or else.

If you cannot say the same thing to an over eater, or a BS'er, then you are being a hypocritic.

 

[FHII]

Wow, Scripture clearly rejects your above. The passage is crystal clear and is speaking of sodomy.

Do you want to go through the chapter verse by verse? Cause I will!

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.

What I put in bold should clue you in to the point that there is previous information to consider. "For what reason?" . You have to go back at least to verse 21 to find out the reason God gave them up to it.

Romans 1:21-23 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This is what Paul said was the problem. I have no doubt they had homosexual tendencies, but the bottom line is that they were exposed to the truth and rejected it.

Homosexuality is a sin. But it is not what got this group in trouble.

You're not defending grace

Oh really? I have stated I am defending God's grace and have stated homosexuality is a sin...

you're defending those under God's wrath, and a society that has spun out of control

Oh really? I think I am defending those under God's grace. I've already pointed out the real cause here of God's wrath: rejection of God. I have stated homosexuality is a sin and briefly mentioned that those who Paul was speaking of was a soceity that spun out of control.

Want to discuss that spinning out of control? There are 21 things listed after homosexuality that detail that society. Without a doubt in my mind, I can say a large part of the Christian community is guilty of.

So I don't understand why you say I am defending homosexuality (or any sin, for that matter) when I have clearly stated it is a sin. If you disagree with me that this or any sin of the flesh is NOT covered by grace, fine. State your case.

That you cannot see what is plainly in the text is unfathomable. It's right there, and you're denying God's word.

I don't draw a box around 2 verses. By the way... Did I mention that I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yeah, I have. Many times! But what I find unfathomable is that you are not only ignoring the whole chapter, but the rest of the epistle! I mean... How are you going to escape the first 4 verses of the second chapter?

It may shock you... But I actually do believe homosexuality is a sin. But I defending grace. Romans 1:26-27 is NOT clear on it's own. You have to read the whole chapter.

Now, I hope you understand that we both agree that homosexuality is a sin. Are we clear on that? Ok. Now does grace cover it?

Romans 5:20 says where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

Not barely abounded. No maybe it will. It MUCH MORE abounds! Now you tread on dangerous ground. I know you want to go to chapter 6:1 and half of verse 2. Fine. But first off, that would be hypocritical since you just want to stick in the box of Romans 1:26-27. Second, would you be willing to read all of chapter 6?

 

[Willie T]

Do you want to go through the chapter verse by verse? Cause I will!



What I put in bold should clue you in to the point that there is previous information to consider. "For what reason?" . You have to go back at least to verse 21 to find out the reason God gave them up to it.

Romans 1:21-23 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This is what Paul said was the problem. I have no doubt they had homosexual tendencies, but the bottom line is that they were exposed to the truth and rejected it.

Homosexuality is a sin. But it is not what got this group in trouble.




Oh really? I have stated I am defending God's grace and have stated homosexuality is a sin...



Oh really? I think I am defending those under God's grace. I've already pointed out the real cause here of God's wrath: rejection of God. I have stated homosexuality is a sin and briefly mentioned that those who Paul was speaking of was a soceity that spun out of control.

Want to discuss that spinning out of control? There are 21 things listed after homosexuality that detail that society. Without a doubt in my mind, I can say a large part of the Christian community is guilty of.

So I don't understand why you say I am defending homosexuality (or any sin, for that matter) when I have clearly stated it is a sin. If you disagree with me that this or any sin of the flesh is NOT covered by grace, fine. State your case.


I don't draw a box around 2 verses. By the way... Did I mention that I believe homosexuality is a sin? Yeah, I have. Many times! But what I find unfathomable is that you are not only ignoring the whole chapter, but the rest of the epistle! I mean... How are you going to escape the first 4 verses of the second chapter?

It may shock you... But I actually do believe homosexuality is a sin. But I defending grace. Romans 1:26-27 is NOT clear on it's own. You have to read the whole chapter.

Now, I hope you understand that we both agree that homosexuality is a sin. Are we clear on that? Ok. Now does grace cover it?

Romans 5:20 says where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

Not barely abounded. No maybe it will. It MUCH MORE abounds! Now you tread on dangerous ground. I know you want to go to chapter 6:1 and half of verse 2. Fine. But first off, that would be hypocritical since you just want to stick in the box of Romans 1:26-27. Second, would you be willing to read all of chapter 6?

Wow! Someone who understands we are required to read Scripture in context. Rare, indeed.

 

[Waiting on him]

Wow! Someone who understands we are required to read Scripture in context. Rare, indeed.

You guys are a lot smarter than me, I don’t study near as much as I should, but from what I’ve read I know that to reject someone because of sin totaly goes against the character of God

 

[Willie T]

You guys are a lot smarter than me

All he was saying is that when you see words like, "For that reason," or "thus," or "because of this," or "Therefore," you really should look deeper to see what that phrase is there for.