Defending Homosexuality

[bbyrd009]

Yes, we are to love the sinner but, we are not permitted to accept the sinner on his or her own terms. Sin must be repented of and put aside. That is called repentance. Without that, there is no association with Go

Well Paul and Jesus seemed to have no probs accepting sinners on their own terms, Paul even goes so far as to say he becomes like one of them to win them right, so see how easily our feelings can be made to abrogate Scripture?

As difficult as it might be I would suggest contemplating what a Homospiritual might be, and I suggest further that they actually manifest homosexuality. Homos manifest homos iow, as above, so below. A homophobic parent will manifest homosexual children.

 

[bbyrd009]

There is not much way anyone can hope to converse with you on a situation if you allude to it under one guise, and then, a few posts later, change the entire scope of that same situation.

(BTW, in many heterosexual adoption cases, there often is no access to the original family in order to gather all that "history" you mentioned.)

good points below, and my apologies in the above, I had the currently popular "lesbian couple with healthy baby" commercial in mind. In which btw imo there is no correct answer anyway, not in that frame at least.

The best possible perceived outcome there is "be allowed to take your perfectly healthy baby to a guy with a snake on his lapel" right. This is why I say that the baby is strictly being used to force a false frame for us to perceive hopefully emotionally, an emotional appeal is being made there see, and there is no one even in the scenario qualified to consider the actual welfare of the baby anyway imo, bc all we are presented with is homosexuals or homospirituals, which will you leave the baby with?

 

[bbyrd009]

I say again that it would be better to discuss prophets gone a'whoring first, so that the "sexual" element might be better understood here. Bc some believers prolly suppose that that is about prophets going in to literal whores for sex, too. Heck we even have accounts of prophets going in to whores for sex, wherein the condemnation of illicit sex so evident here is absent, right.

And I guess religious sexual prudes do not like to contemplate their heroes getting laid for money, and so will shy away from that discussion, so once again the truth is evident enough for anyone with ears I guess. Keep condemning perfectly delightful ppl who are not sinning against you to your kids and see what happens!

 

[Helen]

<snip>

I wrote a PM to you...but I found that you no longer allow personal messages.

I was asking where you posted that story of the drunken monk...
I've looked and looked. ( I thought it was on this thread!!! Maybe I am wrong)

If you don't use the INBOX on here, could you email it to me please.
Thanks :)

 

[Enoch111]

I was asking where you posted that story of the drunken monk...

If you read In Praise of Folly by Desiderius Erasmus, you will find plenty of drunken monks and priests in that.

 

[marks]

God is probably not going to ask if we figured-out the genesis or matrix of Homosexuality during our time on Earth, but rather, "How did you treat the other human beings with this disease that I put in your path?"

I think a good test of our love is how we feel and act towards those whom we esteem the least.

Much love!
mark

 

[oldhermit]

Well Paul and Jesus seemed to have no probs accepting sinners on their own terms, Paul even goes so far as to say he becomes like one of them to win them right, so see how easily our feelings can be made to abrogate Scripture?

As difficult as it might be I would suggest contemplating what a Homospiritual might be, and I suggest further that they actually manifest homosexuality. Homos manifest homos iow, as above, so below. A homophobic parent will manifest homosexual children.

No, Jesus never accepts anyone one their own terms. Jesus laid down absolute criteria by which he will accept sinners. One of those requirements is that the sinner must repent of his sins and change. One cannot claim to be a follower of Christ and continue to hold on to his sinful practices. If you think he can then you do not understand the gospel.

I also do not think you quite understand what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 9. When Paul said "I have become all things to all men," he is not endorsing embracing their sins. What he is talking about is being willing to set aside one's rights as a Christian for the sake of the weaker. Paul was not going to allow social and cultural differences to become a possible barrier to the gospel. He was willing to acquiesce to all men in matters of indifference. He was willing to conform himself to those things which were of no consequence for the sake of saving some. "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."

There are limitations beyond which he would not go. He does not say, "to the wicked I became wicked" or "to the evil I became evil. or to the sinful, I will become sinful." The general principle that Paul is setting forth is that if it does not violate a revealed principle then it is of no consequence. Observe the custom in order to open the door for the gospel. We see examples of this in Acts 21 when Paul consented to purify himself according to the custom of the Law of Moses along with some of the men of Jerusalem who had bound themselves under a vow. We see it again in Acts 16 when he circumcised Timothy so that his uncircumcision would not become a hindrance to their work among the Jews. This also applied to the eating of meats. In becoming a Jew to the Jews, he continued to observe the distinction of meats and of unclean things as well as the keeping of holy days according to the Law while among the Jews. While he may have enjoyed bacon and eggs while among the Gentiles he would not have done so while among the Jews because this would have been offensive to them and would have hindered his preaching of the gospel among them.

You will NEVER convert the homosexual to Christ by telling them their sin is okay and that Jesus accepts them as they are.​

 

[bbyrd009]

Now, all we need do is replace "homosexual" with "prophet who is illustrated going in to a literal whore" to see what "converted" really means, I guess. The diff might be that I am not trying to convert anyone, maybe? Dunno. But I can't find any instances of Jesus demanding that the sinners He ate with repent first, like our fundies seem so fond of?

So for now at least I'll stick with "that is not about sex at all, except for those who will not see" wadr
If one is a Phobe, they will need easy targets like "homos" iow, so your scribes have complied imo. And when you cannot even discuss the implications I have all the proof that I personally need

But just so you know I would prefer to discuss the issue here ok

 

[bbyrd009]

You will NEVER convert the homosexual to Christ by telling them their sin is okay and that Jesus accepts them as they are

I don't know why not, your unconfessed (and copious) sins are forgiven too right, and you are accepted as you are, aren't you?

Maybe the sin is being focused on a bit too much, and the good qualities are being ignored maybe? I mean let's not forget
the publicans and prostitutes are beating you into the kingdom
not that I mean to define "you" in there

 

[Willie T]

I wrote a PM to you...but I found that you no longer allow personal messages.

I was asking where you posted that story of the drunken monk...
I've looked and looked. ( I thought it was on this thread!!! Maybe I am wrong)

If you don't use the INBOX on here, could you email it to me please.
Thanks :)

Here is the link:
Defending Homosexuality

 

[bbyrd009]

1 Corinthians 9:20 Lexicon: To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
1 Corinthians 9:21 Lexicon: to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
1 Corinthians 9:22 Lexicon: To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.


Great reveal of the diff in "under the law" and "keeping the law" though I guess, ty

 

[Helen]

Here is the link:
Defending Homosexuality

Lovely ..thank you.

 

[Waiting on him]

God has already demonstrated the love for us while we were, are yet in our sins. Homosexuals have rejected God and that demonstrated love.

Stranger

I must be confused. Are you saying they became homosexual because they rejected the gospel?

 

[Waiting on him]

I think a good test of our love is how we feel and act towards those whom we esteem the least.

Much love!
mark

God chooses the despised.

 

[Waiting on him]

God chooses the despised.

This way when they stand before him they won’t be glorying in their flesh.

 

[marks]

God chooses the despised.

Indeed He does! Can we?

 

[Waiting on him]

Indeed He does! Can we?

Brother we are despised!

 

[Stranger]

I must be confused. Are you saying they became homosexual because they rejected the gospel?

Yes, you are. No, not me. God has said that. But, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. (Rom. 1:19-20) (Rom. 1:26-27)

Stranger

 

[Waiting on him]

Yes, you are. No, not me. God has said that. But, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. (Rom. 1:19-20) (Rom. 1:26-27)

Stranger

I know many people who reject the Gospel, that aren’t homosexuals?

 

[Willie T]

Yes, you are. No, not me. God has said that. But, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. (Rom. 1:19-20) (Rom. 1:26-27)

Stranger

I'm pretty sure "The Gospel" was never mentioned in those verses you listed.