Haggard Ends Restoration Process with Overseers

tgender »

Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:17 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

ifeelfine72—
“The Bible makes it very clear that slavery is ok, beating your slaves is ok, separating slave families is ok, enslaving children is ok and yet none of us thinks slavery is ok today. Why is that? Because we gained an understanding of the subject, we now understand what an evil institution it is.”

With this statement you say that the Bible is in error, correct? I presume you think this way because you say the Bible condones slavery, but now we’re more enlightened and know that slavery is wrong. I have two questions for you:

1) Why do you think Almighty God could not preserve His Word so that it would be inerrant?
2) If the Bible is right in some parts and wrong in others, how can you be so sure the Gospel is right?

inadvance41 »

Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:55 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 0

Ifeelfine72,
Ruth and Naomi had husbands and children, not wives. David and Johnathon? They too had wives and children, where did it portray them as homosexual? I have loving relationships with men too, my son, my father, my brothers-in-law, my friends, but I'm not homosexual. What does sex have to do with love? I do not follow your reasoning.

inadvance41 »

Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:44 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

feetxxxl,

<<for all those who say scripture says that homosexuality is a sin. please explain (no one........ i mean not one has been able to explain) romans 1:24-27 what lie was exchanged for what truth>>

The lie was idolatry - which is specified in "22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." which is basically disobeying the first two commandments. Remember we are talking about Rome but idolatry is another word for materialism, to contextualize this.

When the Bible I read says "given over to" where God sort of just withdraws his hands, it means destruction. I can't say that because God acted on the Romans like he did in these verses that every homosexual relationship is meant only for sexual satisfaction no more than I can say that every heterosexual relationship is based on love (one person's devinition may not even closely resemble another's). But I can say that the man-man and woman-woman relationships in the Bible did not have a very productive end, nor were they ever portrayed as glorifying God - which is what we should hope to do, gay or straight, drunk or sober, obese or healthy, rich or poor, weak or strong. He takes us as we are and makes us anew.

tgender »

Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:29 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

feetxxxl-
The truth of God is everything God has revealed—about Himself, about us, about the world. Since God is the ultimate reality and the source of all truth, truth is what corresponds to reality as perceived by God. However, we don’t seek that truth; rather we try to invent truth to suit our own itching ears. Beginning in the Garden, mankind has fallen for and believed all kinds of lies concerning God. Instead of worshiping the Creator as we were designed to do, we worship almost everything else (created things). For those that are hardened in their heart to the things of God, He has given them over to their shameful desires—whatever they may be.

God has spoken quite clearly about human sexual relationships—they are to occur exclusively within a marriage between one man and one woman. All other forms—polygamy, adultery, rape, homosexuality, lust, etc—are a perversion of God’s truth and are to be rejected. Just because someone loves someone else doesn’t mean a sexual relationship is justified. I love my children, my parents, my siblings, and my friends, but I shouldn’t engage in sexual relationships with them.

Chris333 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:14 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

ifeelfine,

I never said that all homosexual relationships are "disgusting" I said your putting words into the Bible was disgusting, and also into my posts as you do profusely. Again, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but that of course does not mean to take every single word, out of context and out of purpose as it literally stands. That means I believe in the truth of every word as it was intended and originally written. My stance on everything is based upon my faith, if yours isn't then ok, we know our differences. My bias is based on the Bible, yours is based on what you like, this is also clear.

Feet, that is not the only Bible passage that condemns homosexuality, it matters nothing at all what was the cause of them being "given" to unnatural lusts, it only matters that those lusts and relationships were wrong. I feel like I am speaking to a wall, perhaps it would be more useful if I did...

ifeelfine72 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Chris333 - I maintain, as I've always maintained, that you cannot take the Bible literally. No one does, not you not anyone. Its really not possible. We all have our own preconcieved notions about it (myself included). Obviously I am 100% against slavery - and I've said I'm against abortion too but it is not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Your biases are clear mine are as well (you mentioned how disgusting you think homosexuality is, I see the beauty in loving relationships - and I think God does too).

feetxxxl »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

for all those who say scripture says that homosexuality is a sin. please explain (no one........ i mean not one has been able to explain) romans 1:24-27 what lie was exchanged for what truth, and how was what entity of creation worshipped and served so that certain individuals were given over to homosexuality.

and to stand on 26 and 27 one has to also believe, that all homosexual relationships(320 million worldwwide) are about shame based lust and not mutual love, attraction, respect, and devotion.


and to this with no witness, no first hand knowledge, no eye witness, which even scripture demands..........can this be of the spirit of christ?

Chris333 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ifeelfine,

They were not liberal or conservative Christians that were trying to get rid of slavery, they were Christians period. They used their knowledge of God and the Bible to oppose slavery, many in the south helped the slaves to go north.

For abortion, it doesn't matter either way, the problem is not one with the Bible, it is one with our perception of worldly events. The Bible is not debated here. Life does begin at conception, would you say the embryo is dead? Or would you say it is not human? If it is alive and human, then you are killing a living human who is completely innocent.

As for homosexuality you completely twisted those passages, nowhere does it ever say they were gay. All of them married people of the opposite sex. And even if they would have been engaged in homosexuality then they would have been guilty of sinning before God, and OT law called for their death. But it is disgusting that you would put something in scripture like that. Like I said, you cannot interpret it to say that, you have to change what it says. Ever heard of reading the Bible like it is? For that matter, sure loving same sex relationships exist in the Bible, but they are not sexual relationships, they are brotherly or sisterly. To even suggest otherwise simply goes against the culture, context, and actual words used in the Bible.

because you are applying your own standard to it (you feel life begins at conception). "

Reread what I said, and stop putting words in my mouth now. You seem to have a problem with this. And no I am not placing my standard on it, I am making a scientific assertation, and then backing my moral stance with the standard of the Bible, think about it for a little while, I am sure you will understand. But I do think you owe me an apology, for accusing me of something I did not do. Your words about slavery are worthless, you say the Bible is clear it is "ok" what do you mean by that? Does that mean good? Because the Bible never says that, it doesn't even say it is "ok" it just says what it is. Please read my comments below for my stance. Anyways, if you want to make the Bible look like it approves of slavery, then you are putting your own ideas into it, there is no reason we should take that stance.

ifeelfine72 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

As for understanding, you really need to take the plank out of your eye. You just stated that you feel abortion is wrong, not because the Bible says anything about abortion, but because you are applying your own standard to it (you feel life begins at conception). Of course we all apply our own understanding or our pastor's understanding or favorite author's understanding. The Bible makes it very clear that slavery is ok, beating your slaves is ok, separating slave families is ok, enslaving children is ok and yet none of us thinks slavery is ok today. Why is that? Because we gained an understanding of the subject, we now understand what an evil institution it is.

ifeelfine72 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

Chris333 - Actually it was the liberal Christians that were against slavery. The conservative Christians were the ones trying to keep it as it was (hence conserve it). The fundy's always try to claim what the religious left does and then claim if for their own later on just like you're doing.

As for abortion, I think we all agree they're human, what some can't agree on is when life begins - at conception or at some other point.

As for homosexuality, you're wrong again - ever heard of Ruth and Naomi? David and Jonathan? Loving same-sex relationships exist in the Bible whether you want to admit it or not.

notw06 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Not only does God address His words of truth to those who are able to receive them, He actually conceals their meaning from those who are not. The preacher uses stories to make truth clear; our Lord often used them to obscure it. The parables of Christ were the exact opposite of the modern "illustration," which is meant to give light; the parables were "dark sayings" and Christ asserted that He sometimes used them so that His disciples could understand and His enemies could not. (See Matthew 13:10-17.) As the pillar of fire gave light to Israel but was cloud and darkness to the Egyptians, so our Lord's words shine in the hearts of His people but leave the self-confident unbeliever in the obscurity of moral night.

In natural matters faith follows evidence and is impossible without it, but in the realm of the spirit faith precedes understanding; it does not follow it. The natural man must know in order to believe; the spiritual man must believe in order to know. The faith that saves is not a conclusion drawn from evidence; it is a moral thing, a thing of the spirit, a supernatural infusion of confidence in Jesus Christ, a very gift of God.

Why People Find the Bible Difficult
by A. W. Tozer

Chris333 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Also, you said, "its only when we seek true understanding that we see what God really wants us to do"

Well what is true understading? Is that secular understanding? Personal understanding? Can we just re-write the Bible on whichever points offend us? What standard do you use for "true understanding" is it ifeelfine's, or Chris333's, or Rick Warren's, or Buddha's? Is it democratically decided? Can we democratically decide that God is not real, Jesus did not die for us, and other such things?

Chris333 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Ifeelfine,

Yes some people have misinterpreted the Bible, enslaving a person based upon their race, religion, or any other quality is a clear example. The Bible explains what to do if you are in the position of a slave or a "slave owner" not that slavery is good or bad. But we can see some clear points that would make slavery appear to be at best, less than ideal. Firstly, God did not create slaves for Adam and Eve, God's original plan was that all people would be free, only later did slavery come into play (just as earthly kings and such only came later), secondly, the NT is very clear that there is neither slave nor free in God's eyes, and that all are considered equal, finally slavery is never deemd right, which means that it is not right, it is at absolute best neutral, but due to the above we could assume it is negative. Indeed Christians were the first to decry slavery in America.

Homosexuality on the other hand has no such support from scriptures. God created Adam and Eve in the beginning, this was clearly the ideal, one man and one woman, not man and man or woman and woman. And the Bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. There is no debate among people who believe in the Bible, and there is no amount of interpretation that can get rid of this, only a rewriting of the Bible can do it.

Abortion is an issue of what defines a human life, it is always wrong to kill an innocent in the Bible, if an unborn child is an unborn child then it is always wrong. So-called "pro-choice" advocates are betting their entire argument on that an unborn child at a certain stage is not actually human. In any case this is not a debate about what the Bible says.

Finally, there is no huge debate, all Christians who fully believe in the Bible are debating about little things, like whether the sentence should be a certain way or which translation best fits the original manuscripts. The only major debate is between the "liberal christians" who try to "re-interprate" scriptures in a politically friendly, watered down, pluralistic, 20th century context, and the actual Church which believes in the Bible.

ifeelfine72 »

Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:55 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chris333 - Clearly there is lots of room for debate otherwise thse debates wouldn't be happening. As our understanding changes so too must our interpretation of the Bible. There wasn't any abortion to speak of 2000 years ago and yet today many of us use our knowledge of the Bible to point out the injustice of abortion. We did the same thing with slavery 100+ years ago - as a matter of fact, a literal reading of the Bible shows that slavery is ok - its only when we seek true understanding that we see what God really wants us to do. Most of the Christian's on this site have hardened hearts when it comes to same-sex relationship issues.

Chris333 »

Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

SheQuon,

Some passages are difficult to understand, some were misunderstood due to the Catholic Church's distortion, some scholars are just not willing to admit the truth and want to push their own agendas and that causes other scholars to have to defend the truth. The Bible has said virtually the same thing since it began, some parts were added, but it is clear what was and all scholars recognize this. The overall meaning of the Bible, and about 99% of it has stayed the exact same. A major part of the difficulty is seeing what the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic translates to. In any case this does not mean that the Bible is not trustworthy in any way, it just means that we still have more to discover about it. It is however clear on all major points of faith, and its stance on issues such as the sanctity of life and homosexuality, there is zero room for debate on these issues.

SheQuon »

Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Scholars would not be debating and analyzing it to this day if it were all so crystal clear. We have certainly changed our interpretation of several passages over the centuries, but never without great resistance from those intent on clinging to old interpretations that allowed others to be oppressed.

JonnyBlad »

Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Christians in Hell?
http://polemos.net/html/could_you_be_deceived_.html

andypro »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:13 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

Rand,

Your last post on the bible, which you say is filled with "contradictions and inconsistancies" shows where your heart is really at. Satan's first deception was "Did God really say", and now you are doing the same thing today.

You say, "I'm all for following God's Word", but what you really mean is that you're all for following God's Word unless it speaks against your lifestyle, which isn't following God's Word at all, but rather rejecting it wholesale.

Let me ask you this, you have spent this whole thread trying to get us to believe that God does not condemn homosexuality, but then in order to defend your belief system, you give us two whole paragraphs on why the bible can not be trusted.

Here's what you said:

If you actually read the bible, it's filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, vague ideas and statements. Compound that with the fact that there have been tons of documented errors in transcribing the bible during the last 2000 years, the fact that some chapters were removed in the early days, and you have a real mess with trying to figure things out.

If that's true, as you say, that there's no way that you can KNOW with any degree of certainty that God does not condemn homosexuality.

Can't you see the contradictions here. You claim that God does not condemn homosexuality, but when others point to God's word to show you your error, you reject God's word as the standard.

The ironic thing here is that virtually everyone here except you can see what you're doing. It's very simple, you're trying to cast doubt upon God's word, or just plain rejecting it for one simple reason: You don't like what it says.

For nearly two thousand years there has been tons written testifying to the amazing accuracy of the bible; even today, you need only spend two minutes googling to prove that your whole previous post on the bible's 'tons of documented errors' is wildly innaccurate. So why don't you do that? I think we all know.

Oglefam »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:15 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

John, I agree with what you say if the one claiming to be a celibate homosexual has repented in which case they, in my opinion, should not still be claiming to be gay. My rationale is that homosexual activity or thoughts are against the will of God. Knowing that God commands us to be holy: I cannot fathom God allowing someone to enter eternal life claiming both salvation and homosexuality. There is either true repentance and a turning away from the old life or great delusion and blindness. Claiming to be a saved homosexual is contrary to the character of our holy God.

I know the word homosexual is used a few times in this post, but this same principle applies to all sin that is not truely turned away from. In Gods eyes, sin is sin.

Chris333 »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:42 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

For that matter Rand, it is okay to have a different view on a small matter in the Bible, say predestination, but you cannot both say that you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, and that He is not. The Bible is clear about some things and no amount of interpretation can change that. If you cannot be a Christian by the Bible's standard, then you will end up being a Christian by your own standard, and that will be against God.

Chris333 »

Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:39 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Rand, you are overexaggerating the discrepancies in the Bible, and the Bible is extremely trustworthy. For that matter the Bible does not actually say, thou shalt not kill, it says thou shalt not murder. A Jewish man pointed this out to me. The vast majority of so-called transcription errors, are insignificant spelling errors which usually do not affect the meaning in any way, and we can cross examine with other manuscripts, all and all I think we have over 95% accuracy in the NT. I don't think there are these so-called contradictions either, I hear a lot about them, but I rarely see a real example of one. The popular books attacking the Bible really ought to stop, but oh well, if the average person wants to put their trust in tabloids then that is their choice not mine.

Rand503 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Knight: I guess this is where you and I part company. I'm all for following God's word, but I don't see it as so clear. If you actually read the bible, it's filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, vague ideas and statements. Compound that with the fact that there have been tons of documented errors in transcribing the bible during the last 2000 years, the fact that some chapters were removed in the early days, and you have a real mess with trying to figure things out. Even something as clear as Thou Shalt Not Kill. Does that mean you can't ever kill, even in times of war? That you can't use capital punishment? Good people disagree on what this actually means.
So I have no problem challenging God's word, even if we could find out what it means. The jews have a long tradition of challenging god's word in the yeshivas, and there are three major branches of judaism, and several minor ones. If god's word is so clear, there should be only one. And how many Christian branches are there? Mormons consider themselves Christians, but others don't.

Rand503 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Slacker: So I guess Ted Haggard just couldn't follow and obey God, and didn't want to change? And such a weak person commanded the following of thousands? Very strange.

Rand503 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Yes, Andypro, I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer. As I said, we are not discussing pedophiles, and I really don't know why you would even bring it up. I'm talking about gays, which is something I do know something about.
Furthermore, I squarelyl answered your question -- pedophilia is a mental illness, and recognized as such. No person can have a normal healthy relationship with someone who is very young. But with gays, we can and do have normal healthy relationships.
You don't like that, you don't agree with it, but it is the truth. What more do you wamt me to say on the matter?

john14-6 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Oglefam--

I think you're going a bit too far in your interpretation of scripture. A homosexual who is celibate is not engaging in sinful activity - and as far as "lusting in their heart" there are heterosexuals who commit the same sin daily. We all must seek constant, daily repentance and cleansing of our sins by confessing them to God and asking forgiveness of him in Jesus name. There is nothing in scripture that would suggest that a non-practicing, celibate homosexual would go to hell - that goes too far, I think. It's something we can't know, either, as we have no idea what God's justice will be in such a situation. But I do not think scripture anywhere explicitly states that even a person with homosexual leanings will go to hell (all of my translations typically translate Paul's words as "practicing homosexual" as I think the underlying Greek indicates active homosexual behavior).

andypro »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Rand,

Thanks for skillfully avoiding my question. Here is what you wrote:

I agree. It's outrageous to think that God would condemn anyone for simply loving another person. Why he made me gay, I don't know, but as Ted has learned, you can't change it. If it's God's will, who are we to question?

I'm asking you this, concerning pedophiles:

If, as you say, "God made them this way", and "they can't change it", then, who are we to question it, right?

You see, your whole premise seems to be that God makes people gay, and therefore we can't judge it as wrong. But what I'm saying is that (according to your logic), God makes people pedophiles as well, but you're more than willing to judge them as wrong (you even did so).

Do you think that it's outrageous that God would condemn a pedophile for simply loving another person? And as you tried to make so clear, if this guy was born that way, than no way can change him, it won't work, right.

But, to answer one of your questions, I DO believe there may be celibate homosexuals in heaven. (I'm not sure about it, nor would I make a theology about it), but here's what I think:

Pedophiles have sinful lusts, and they must repent of their lusts, ask God's forgiveness, and not have sex with any children.

Homosexuals have sinful lusts, and they must repent of their lusts, ask God's forgiveness, and not have sex with any men.

Heterosexual males have sinful lusts, and they must repent of their lusts, ask God's forgiveness, and not have sex with women outside of marriage, nor feed their lust through pornography, etc.

It would be wrong for a pedophile to try to claim that biblically it's Ok for him to be a pedophile.
It would be wrong for a lustful hetero male to claim that biblically it's Ok for him to lust.

And...
It would be wrong for a homosexual to claim that biblically it's Ok to him to have sex with men.

The same standard applies to all, and just like it's much harder for a heterosexual man to have victory over his lust if he constantly views pornography, it will be much harder for homosexuals to claim victory over their homosexuality if they are in homosexual relationships.

deadtosin »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Rand,

To say a homosexual's sin is more grievous than an adulterer's is just another form of idolatry. Much of what you will hear from professing Christians is a rant against homosexuality, yet the glancing eye of a heterosexual toward the opposite sex is often dismissed. Jesus made it very clear that if we lust in our heart that person has already commited the sin. It's a heart issue.

So, just as I would counsel the homosexual to repent and turn from sin, I would also counsel those unbelievers and professing Christians (who think they're OK with the Lord) to repent and examine their hearts for idolatry or unbelief. If our heart is not dead to sin, turning from all sin - even the appearance of sin - and desiring the Lord to the point of forsaking our old life (hetero- or homo-sexual immorality), we will not see the Kingdom of God. God is NOT a respecter of persons.

As to your comments about never being able to have sex with a man even if you marry him, you have MISSED the beauty and power of the Gospel. In Christ, we are bought with a price, and our life is not our own. He changes our desires of being slaves to sin to servants of righteousness. We have our fruit to holiness, because the surrendered Christian is abiding in Christ and we will have the mind of Christ and the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Our fruit, our works, our desires... change! You won't find it grievous to not live the homosexual lifestyle.

Read Romans 6: For he that is dead [In Christ] is freed from sin....Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord...For sin shall not have dominion over you...Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness...What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death... But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Homosexuality is a sin just as is lying and unbelief. Rand, forsake everything you have (in your heart, first - the fruit will come) to follow Jesus. He will lead and guide you. The Holy Spirit will teach you and change your desires. He is the same powerful, awesome, and might God as always has been. He defeated the power of death AND sin... believe, repent, forsake, and abide. Trust in Him and He will bring it to pass.

I pray the Lord blesses you with the grace He gave me to repent and overcome my abominable sins, through the blood of Jesus. I consider myself chief of sinners, but for the grace and cleansing blood of Christ to wash away my sin... thank you, Jesus!

1Ti 1:15 This is a faithful saying... that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Oglefam »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

I also do not hate gays, but the Word is clear concerning sin and its outcome.

Oglefam »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

There will be no celibate homosexual "christians" in heaven. There will be no "in a loving relationship" homosexual "christians" in heaven. Those who choose to knowingly live in sin, "any sin" without repentancem a turning away from their sin, and turning to God through the narrow way he has provided will have only one destination and ice water is not availible there. Luke 16:23-26 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’"

john14-6 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Rand--

I'd like to say one other thing to you, so you are not cofused. I don't loathe or hate gays and I don't know any Christian who does. Sometimes speaking the truth hurts. But no one here is belittling you, or intentionally or in any way trying to hurt your feelings or reject you. There are a lot of concerned people here who know and believe God's word and think that you are endangering your immortal soul. That may be hard to see in all of this. But I wish you well, and I'll pray for you, and I hope the Spirit can lead you to see past your natural defensiveness and actually look into the heart of what we're all saying here. Hating the sin and loving the sinner isn't just a bumper sticker slogan. We're all sinful human beings, but we need to be repentant and listen to God's word if we say that we believe it, and believe him. Peace.

john14-6 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:29 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Rand--

The difference is that being "rich" or "wealth" is not listed anywhere as a sin, it is not condemned by God as an abomination, and it is not inherently a corruption of anything in the natural order. Homosexuality is listed repeatedly as a grave sin, Paul says no practicing homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God, and the very act of homosexuality is a corruption of God's creation - of the natural order of creation. That's the difference.

As to the "where your heart is", we never judge God's word by our *feelings*. You read the word and listen to it. Judging by what you feel or by emotion is not any way to deal with faith or the Bible. The devil can quite easily corrupt ones thinking or appeal to "itching ears" for false doctrine through emotional pulls. In the end, I can only speak God's word to you, but your relationship with Jesus, and with the Father, and your ultimate judgment - that is not my place to say. It's between you and God. But I know this: God's word doesn't change, and God's word is clear on the subject. And God doesn't lie.

Rand503 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

John: "One last point. God, and Jesus, and Paul, all *do* state that there are greater and lesser "rewards" in heaven - degrees. Maybe someone who has that scripture could quote some of it here."

Great. Then I would like one Christian to admit that a celebate homosexual might have greater rewards in heaven than any heterosexual Christian who ever has sex, even once. I would like to see that enshrined as church doctrine, even. But I'm not holding my breath.

Rand503 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Thanks John. That's exactly my point, however. If I am gay, and my heart is with Jesus, then who are you to judge whether I am a sinner or not? The point isn't whether rich people get to heaven, just as it isn't whether gay people get to heaven.

If you allow such intricacies and deeply evolved interpretations for rich people, why not for gays?

Slacker: I understand your predicament. But the difference is that once you do find a woman, you can get married and have sex. You always will have that hope. For me, what everyone here is saying, that I can never have that hope, because even IF I actually get married to a man in say, Massachusetts or Canada, I still can never have sex with him. Your religion gives you hope, but it eliminates it entirely for me.

Rand503 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Of course having sex with a minor is wrong. Why? Because presumptively, minors cannot give informed consent. Same thing with animals. Therefore, regardless of whether God made someone a pedophile doesn't remove the fact that at least one party cannot agree with a mature mind.
However, two adults having sex, or even -- get this -- having a long term romantic relationship is not immoral by any means.
But this is what really gets me -- whenever I ask about gay relationships, people who oppose gay relationships bring up every situation EXCEPT gay relationships, and then demand that I defend that. Inevitably, because I am for gays, they start piling on everything else -- polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and demand that I must be in favor of those.
First, it is extremely offensive to me to have gay relationships lumped in with those. If you can't understand why, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Do I ask you to defend all forms of Christianity because you are a Christian? like Mormonism, Zorastroiasm, the snake handlers, and the other thousands of forms of Christian groups that are out there?
No -- in fact, Christians will always answer, they are not Christians, so we don't have to even discuss them.
Same thing. Bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia -- all these have nothing to do with homosexuality. I do not argue for or against them -- let those who do do it. So let's keep the topic on point, which is whether my relationship with my boyfriend should be honored or dumped in the trash.

Knight4God »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The issue is not "did God make me that way" or "is it a choice". Sin is ultimately a corruption before it is an act. People who are homosexual are driven to it because the order that God made in creation has been corrupted due to sin. They then choose to follow their natural desire to do evil.

Of course everyone is corrupt, and everyone has some set of sins that they must fight, and let God work on them to change. It's not "unfair" because it is the same for anyone with a compulsive sin nature, we must all control ourselves.

Besides, God is just, which may or may not mean "fair" in the modern enlightenment sense of the word. God judges our standards, we don’t question his, (although Job tried and got rebuked for it, "who are you, oh man?") If he has declared that homosexuality is a corruption of nature, then who are we to argue? We wouldn’t know what "natural" was by his definition, as we only see the world in its corrupt form.

But hypothetically, if God were to come down from Heaven (again) and declare the homosexual community to be wrong. Would they repent? If "yes", then good, the issue is admitted to be not over equality, or fairness, or individual freedom, but over interpreting what God's ethical standards are. If "no", then is there really anything to discuss? If someone says they will stick to their rights and freedoms even if God says it is wrong, then there is really nothing to say to them, they have followed rebellion to its logical conclusion. Which is ultimately the same ideas of freedom from the rule of God the king that drove Satan to rebel.

john14-6 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Seeking Zoe--

All sin is sin (except to Catholics, who differentiate between mortal and venial sins) and all equally bad in the eyes of God. We're not arguing about degrees of sin (and to say, "seen it, heard it, seen it, heard it again", is a remarkably flippant attitude). We are talking about homosexuality in the context of homosexuals who think that God's word should be challenged, and that the church should have to accept open homosexuality (whether relationships, weddings, clergy, etc) as being acceptable, right and good - equal to heterosexuality in God's view.

john14-6 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:43 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Rand--

One last point. God, and Jesus, and Paul, all *do* state that there are greater and lesser "rewards" in heaven - degrees. Maybe someone who has that scripture could quote some of it here.

john14-6 »

Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:22 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

Rand--

You have a startlingly naive and shallow understanding of scripture. When Jesus was talking about the "rich man" and the "camel to pass through the eye of a needle" it was in the context (the scripturally challenged invariably quote out of context - the biggest offense being the "judge not lest ye be judged" verse) of the rich youth asking Jesus what thing he must do to get eternal life? When Jesus responded "sell everything and give it to the poor, then come follow me" he was presenting a challenge to the rich man to see where his heart was. Wealth or possessions are not "bad" nor is it inherently wrong to have possessions, nice things, etc.

It is about *where our heart is*. In the case of the rich man, he went away because when tested by Jesus, he showed his heart wasn't really in following Jesus but in his possessions and wealth - he could not give it up when challenged by Jesus. It is when our identity is in what we possess, and when our heart is on things of the world, that we are a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. If your heart is not on Christ and following him, then you are like the rich man. Having possessions or wealth is not inherently wrong or against Christ. It's how you use them, and how you feel about them, that makes the difference. There are millions of well to do and wealthy Christians who put their money and possessions to excellent use for Christ and his church. You are simply wrong in your understanding.

Slacker »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:54 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

To Ran

Homosexuality is a sin, to say that you were created that way is false because God doesn't create sin so therefore God doesn't create homosexuality.

I have to agree with you when you say that programs like Exodus don't always work (they work some because I know several people who have successfully completed them, after they gave their life to christ) because most of those people that it "doesn't work" on cannot change it because they do not want to change it, God has to change your heart before you can truely turn from Sin, when and if you become a true believer and follower of christ, you don't have to come to him perfect, he will change your heart in time but you have to be willing to follow and obey....

andypro »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:40 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

Oh, and Rand, commenting on your last post, you said this:

I see. So gays are acceptable as long as they remain lifelong celebates. That's a pretty heavy burden to put on us. We didn't ask to be gay, so why should we have to shoulder a burden greater than yours? That simply isn't fair.

I am a 43 year old male, I've never been married and, because of my belief in God's word, I am still a virgin. And because I believe in God's word, I not only know that fornication would be a sin for me, but also lusting in my heart after women.

So, my response to you questioning God's 'fairness' is this: wouldn't you say it's probably much harder for a heterosexual male like me, who's constantly bombarded with images of females, to stay pure; than it is for a homosexual, where the bombardment of male images is much less instense?

You see, to me, and most other males, the idea of not lusting after women seems almost impossible. (Can I get an Amen!) So, if I struggle with that and sin, I will go to God and repent and ask His forgiveness, but I WILL NOT pretend that parts of the bible no longer apply to me just because they seem hard to obey, and I WILL NOT spend hours on message boards trying to rationalize my sin so that I can both defy God by my actions and yet claim Him as my God.

But that's just me.

andypro »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Rand503 -

You've asked people here to answer questions, so now I'll ask you to answer one:

I recently saw a news item about a 50+ year old man who admitted to being sexually attracted to young (8-10 yr. old) girls. Also, I'm sure that this is not an isolated incident, that many older man are attracted to young (very young) girls and even boys.

My question to you is this:
Would you consider this wrong behavior in any way? I mean, by your logic, God has created many, many men who view very young children with sexual attraction - So, if you are to be consistant, you'd have to agree that there's nothing wrong with their attraction, right? And also, since God made them this way, how can you, or I, or anyone insist that they be celibate? And mean, it's very easy for you and me to sit in judgment of these guys and just tell them to "Go and have a loving relationship with someone their own age", but as you have shown in your posts here that it would be quite narrowminded for us to think that way. (As a matter of fact, it seems that you would say that it's impossible to change them).

So, would you consider it WRONG for a older mature man to be attracted to a 9 year old girl? Yes or no.

Rand503 »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

I see. So gays are acceptable as long as they remain lifelong celebates. That's a pretty heavy burden to put on us. We didn't ask to be gay, so why should we have to shoulder a burden greater than yours? That simply isn't fair.
Now, I guess you can say that no one said that life isn't fair. I would agree. But I was taught that God is fair and just. Now, suppose you say that if I'm gay, I remain celebate, then I should have a special place in heaven, because I sacrificed in a way that no other heterooo has to. But God never says that. I get nothing extra! So fairness has nothing to do with this. Why worship a god who isn't fair and just? At the least, you have to admit that God is anything BUT fair and just.

Rand503 »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Well, then, John, few churches can call themselves Christian. God is very clear that a rich man has as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel through a needle. Yet few churches I know of, even fundamentalist ones, say that riches are a sin, or that wealthy people have little chance of getting into heaven. Therefore, any church that does not preach this is certainly no Christian church. Where does your's fall on this scale?
Seems that this is a much bigger issue that gays, but then, it's always been easier to pick on a small despised minority than to take on people who are pillars of the church, right?

Seeking Zoe »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

My two cents: Seen it, heard it, seen it and heard it again. There are worse sins than being gay. Why not put someone else in the hot seat for a change....

Philosopher J »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Is Ted Haggard saved? I hope so. Still, he didn't confess until he was caught. That's not a good sign. He should listen to the ministers.

Philosopher J »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ted Haggard should listen to those ministers. It may take years. Really my question is: Is he saved? He only confessed when he was caught. Thus, the prognosis (to coin a term) for repentance is, I think, bleak.

john14-6 »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

zooch--

No. There is no sin for which God won't forgive (except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which some attribute to mean not believing in God by rejecting the influence of the Holy Spirit, therefore you're not a Christian in the first place, and others intepret as meaning calling the works of Jesus of the devil - as the Pharisees did - so yeah, there is one sin Jesus mentioned). However, God doesn't forgive without repentance, a repentant heart. To live in an openly homosexual relationship, or engage in homosexual activity and be unrepentant about it - or worse, tell the church that you believe it's right, good and acceptable and the church has to accept it - no, that is not something God forgives, and the Bible says so. People like to talk about all the forgiveness Jesus gave during his ministry, they always seem to fail to remember the last part that Jesus almost always tacks on..."go and sin no more"..."repent".

wilderness »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hopefully, Mr. Haggard will accept all that is offered through Christ for deliverance from future acts of abomination, and liberty from the deception and demonic powers that circulate in such an unseemly lifestyle.

zooch »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Here is a report from the Australian Museum on the Adelie Penguins..... Obviously there can be no adaptive value associated with same-sex mountings, so why did these Adelies do it? Davis and colleagues note that, during the relatively short (four-week) breeding season, a male penguin's testosterone levels can shoot up to 40 times that of normal levels. It may be that surging hormones create an overwhelming urge to mate, whether or not there are females present. Alternatively, for birds that don't have a great track record when it comes to mating (two-thirds of all couplings fail to deposit sperm in the female's reproductive tract), the authors suggest, tongue in cheek, that male penguins are simply following the principle that practice makes perfect. so there you are as simple as that, we do the same thing as humans when we are young men trying out these objects we have found, a handy little extention that seems to have no pupose other that it is very handy at a picnic, girls hav to go behind a bush. Oh by the way so now there is a sin that God cannot forgive, Christians are very strange!!!!! poor Ted

john14-6 »

Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:11 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

If Ted can't "change" to heterosexuality he can become *celibate*. Celibacy is supported by Paul and others. I can appreciate that there may be those who truly believe themselves to be homosexual and that they cannot change their orientation. That may be true. But by God's word the only solution is for them to remain celibate. Perhaps that is the challenge God is setting before them in their walk?