Homosexuality: Misconceptions in Ministry

jhilgeman »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

You as well!

believer »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, totally agree and I thank you for this very upbeat and positive discussion and even though I know we disagree on some issues I think our hearts are truly desiring to see and to be a part of the fulfillment of God's Great Commission. Have a blessed week as you serve Him, believer

jhilgeman »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

believer - Agreed. Hindsight's 20/20, but at least we can continue learning how to address the questions of non-believers and how to better defend our faith.

believer »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, great post first off since it brought back some struggles I had even before I came to Christ. But one thing you said reminded me of a problem that occurred during the Jesus Explosion of the early 70s. People would ask are you saying I can accept Christ today and a few years down the road if I killed somebody I'd still go to heaven? If one believes in eternal security the answer is yes, but what we also should have told them is that becoming a Christians doesn't give us a license to sin and if a person gets "saved" with that attitude it shows they have not truly repented but as I said earlier they are simply buying a fire insurance policy. But also repentance is about having a change of mind, a change of heart, which leads to a change of behavior in our thoughts, words, and deeds. And considering repentance was the subject of Christ's first message apparently repentance is important to God. Not only is one sorry for their sins but they want to turn from sin and sinning and turn to God through the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone.

jhilgeman »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer - "because there was no repentance or a desire to enter into a personal relationship with God" - I think you sum it up well and that reflects what I was trying to say in my last post. I don't believe "cheap grace theology" really works for that very reason. If there's no repentance or desire, then I don't think it's a true conversion experience.

I think it also goes to the importance of the heart. Repentance and desire for a personal relationship with God are both elements that come from the heart - they are not just actions.

At one point in my life, I had gone to a church that was very technical in their teachings. One sermon led me to believe that if I wasn't sorry for each one of my past sins, that one of them would result in my going to hell. I vividly remember sitting in the car, desperately trying to remember each of my sins so I could ask forgiveness for it specifically, and worried that I had forgotten about something. It wasn't about whole-hearted repentance - I was trying to check things off my list to ensure my salvation.

I am not implying that one doesn't have to be repentant for what they KNOW to be their sins. If someone knows that they have a sin and simply refuse to repent for it, then how passionate can their desire be to be saved and to have that relationship with God? I'm not sure that person could have a true conversion experience.

However, if someone has devoted their entire heart to God and is repentant about what they know to be their sins (they may not -believe- Y is a sin or -know- that X is a sin), then I think that's all that matters. It makes me think about the different Christian denominations. When I grew up in the mission field, I knew other kids from different missions/organizations (each organization tended to be separated by denomination - lutheran, baptist, etc...) that had a wide spread of beliefs. One mission stuck out in particular because they did not believe in the use of drums in worship services (a belief that it was a sin that originated from the Israelite's use of dancing and drums while they worshipped the golden calf).

Anyway, nobody really knew about their belief until someone came along that actually played the drums and wanted to be involved in the worship services by playing their drums for God. So you had one person that played their drums for God, while the other believed drums were of the devil. Both were Christians and had the same fundamental belief of salvation. Was playing drums a sin or not? Ultimately, they ended up not playing the drums in order not to be a stumbling block to a fellow Christian, but I do think that if the first person had played their drums for God, it would not have been a sin. If the second person believed it was a sin, and either played the drums or somehow "gave in" to it, that could very well have been sinful for them, because they would have been betraying their own relationship with God for selfish reasons.

jhilgeman »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

P.S. :)
I also think that if that same person had later changed their beliefs about drums by studying Scripture and realizing it was not about the actual dancing or drumming but about it being done for the sake of the false idol, then that person could honestly engage in the use of drums for the glory of God without being sinful about it. Same action, different heart.

I do want to point out again that taking this to the extreme is difficult to do. I can just imagine some people saying, "So you could murder for God and not have it be sinful?" My response to that thought would be to ask them, "Can you put yourselves in the shoes of someone who is in that situation and honestly, WHOLE-HEARTEDLY believe that the murder you're about to commit is somehow for the glory of God and NOT for selfish reasons at all?"

believer »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, I was speaking to cheap grace theology which says salvation is all about going to heaven and not going to hell. So all I have to do is say a prayer, go forward in church, maybe get baptized and maybe join a church and from that point on I'm free to live my life anyway I want, to include blatant sinning, because I've got my fire insurance policy. In other words they never had a genuine conversion experience in the first place because there was no repentance or a desire to enter into a personal relationship with God through the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone. Sorry for the confusion and hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

jhilgeman »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer - (my thoughts on your Wed. 5:47 post) - I think I agree with you, although I'm not sure if I understand 100% of your post. The part that I was not sure about was the "salvation is all about a relationship with God..." followed by "...I believe they will go to heaven..." and then mixed with the "...and pull that policy out it will be stamped null and void because I knew you not". Those statements seem to be at odds? On one hand you're saying that the "policy" won't be upheld on judgment day, although on the other you're saying that they'll be saved but will not lead effective lives.

On a purely technical level, I would disagree with the first one and agree with the second. I think the most basic element of salvation IS a stay-out-of-hell-free card. I think someone CAN be saved and lead a life of sin, although I think it doesn't quite make sense for it to happen like that. I would imagine that if someone is truly saved, then they've understood the gravity of their sins and have become repentant about them before they truly request salvation from God. I cannot say for a certainty that there's a situation where those don't go hand-in-hand, but it seems to make sense for it to happen like that. Why would someone want salvation if they don't know why they need it? It's like getting a bandaid for a wound - if you don't realize that the wound needs treatment, then you're not going to use the bandaid. -shrug-

Likewise, if you willingly lead a sinful lifestyle, you might be covered in wounds and bandaids but you won't die (without taking the analogy to the extreme). However, people are going to pass by and stare at you and wonder if there's something wrong with you.

I think we disagree on whether or not homosexual acts are sinful, but I think the same situation applies to anyone who leads a sinful lifestyle. I brought up arrogance and greed before because I've been to a lot of churches, and I see a lot of that (that "love of money" is everywhere).

I also rely heavily on the idea that sin comes from the heart. If there is a homosexual couple that is sincere in their commitment to God and honestly believe that their lifestyle is not sinful, then I'm not sure they are sinning. If they're just out looking for loopholes to "get away with" their actions and believe it is a sin, then I think it is a sin. Same actions, but different hearts. God looks at the heart and He knows if we're trying to deceive Him or if we're being sincere. I think it also makes sense for mentally-handicapped people (or children, even) that may not be fully aware of their actions that may do sinful things and have all the right intentions in their heart. That's why I'm hesitant to say someone else is sinning or not - I don't know their heart. Sometimes it's easier to tell, sometimes not. (I do base this belief heavily off of those verses that I've mentioned in previous posts.)

believer »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, I appreciate you hanging around and I'd love to hear if you have any response to my post of Wed. at 5:47, thanks believer

jhilgeman »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I'm staying on this board to read, but I don't really have anything new to say. That's not to say that I'm conceding anything - there's just not anything I could say further that would help the situation, and there's nothing further I could say that would not be twisted by Delight and/or Jester.

As to the rest of you - I do respect you and your civil attitude in debate, even if we disagree (Forgiven/believer/others). If there's something in particular you want to discuss, just post a note - I'll be checking in occasionally. (If anyone knows of another forum like this that has some sort of private messaging, I would be happy to exchange e-mail addresses.) I'm always looking for more Christian contacts that I can talk to about different topics or ask for advice.

jester in the Kings court »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

yes, i admit that it is jiggyman's interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin. you dragged it out of me finally.

but you have again failed to point out where i said i was afraid. or is this another one of your "interpretations"...

Mike22685 »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I didn't have to twist words. Its very plaint to see. JH has studied the Bible, in detail, but because his scholarly views conflict with your not-so-studied views, you tell him he must be wrong. Is it just a gut feeling you have? Are you too proud to admit that indeed the Bible is interpreted and perhaps you don't understand it enough to make a correct interpretation? Certainly, JH and I have both admitted we could be wrong in the past. I don't see why each and every time you respond you feel it necessary to attempt a personal attack. If you really want a discussion, all that does is make your argument look weak and extremely non-Christian.

jester in the Kings court »

Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

mikey,
"Why are you so afraid of what JH has to say?"

where did you twist my words to get that idea?

jester in the Kings court »

Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

awwww....mikey has pity on me. how sweet. now my life is worth something. all this time i thought all i needed was Jesus, when in fact i just needed mike! thanks for saving my soul, mike.

Mike22685 »

Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jester, I have nothing but pity for you. You're so ignorant and rude on this posting, then you try to speak as an authority when it is very clear JH could run laps around you with scriptural knowledge. Why are you so afraid of what JH has to say?

DelightntheLord »

Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh-"God will pass His judgment on all of us at some point."

jh- "If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day.."

So, which is it jh?

It seems you are confused on most points of Scripture that we DO have, so I don't know what you are studying!

How does one become so prideful and pompous in the face of having all your half baked ideas of scripture debunked so thoroughly?
You come in here like gang busters accusing Christians falsly of turning others away from Christ. You think you're going to set us all straight and that God actually sent you here for that purpose.
If you remove the scales from your eyes, you might see that God sent you here to be educated rather than to lash out at all of us with your easy believism and cheap grace. Knowing very little of the nature of God, you bring in lofty arguments that are silly and somehow you think that honors God.
Like a hand stamp one receives at the circus gate, you believe all it takes to get in is a nod to God when in reality it takes one's very life to follow Jesus. If what you say is believable at all, the Bible itself would be a lot thinner, with fewer pages to say what you believe it does and we wouldn't need half of what's in it today. Oh, but you insist we are missing volumes of it and that God is powerless over mankind to preserve His word as He intended. I don't know your god, he cannot save let alone listen to your cliched prayers.

Forgivensinner »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jr wrote: "If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day. Some people disagree with me on this one, but I am one that believes you cannot "lose" your salvation, and I base that on the general sense of mercy and grace that Jesus showed throughout the Scriptures and his apparent distaste for mankind's love of technicalities."

I do not mean to but in, here, it is just that I want to caution. (Not that you didn't see it coming, most likely)

Paul warns those that have been saved to NOT Quench the Spirit. Also, Peter speaks to the sad state of the saved chosing to not be saved anymore, in 2 Peter 2 beginnng in v.20.

Forgivensinner »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh,
The NT really is the only book we need to look to for our current walk with Christ. I am by no means trying to avoid your OT references. The NT is the new covenant we need to make sure we are abiding in. That said, your mention of Jesus having opportunity to do away with the Levirate law may be looked at another way. First, the Sadduces were missing a point. They were asking about marriage in heaven or more actually the continuation of marriage for procreation (continuation of family lines) in heaven. Jesus was correcting the Sadduces that there will not longer be need for marriage for the purpose of procreation in heaven and did not necessitate a condoning or abolishment of the law. Second, Christ himself nailed the law to the cross.

I believe we agree the NT teaches monogomy. Although, we differ on who that monogomy is between.

believer »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jester, I think that's what most people mean plus in the case of the sexual practices of homosexuality that would include mentally as well as physically committing those acts in other words lusting.

jester in the Kings court »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer,
amen. to clarify, when i speak of homosexuality being a sin, i mean the act. temptation is not a sin. just like when i say the lying is a sin. that doesn't mean that the person who thinks about it, but does nothing is sinning. i hope that helps.

believer »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, as I said I don't think homosexuality is a sin but carrying out the sexual practices of homosexuality is a sin because they fall outside the parameters of God's original and only design for sexual intimacy, plus what I'm saying is there are some people who say they are saved but who are not willing to stop their sinning or sinful lifestyle, they have bought into cheap grace theology which says all a person has to do is walk an aisle and say a prayer and maybe get baptized and join a church and then you're free to live your life anyway you want to because you have a get out of hell free card or a fire insurance policy, the only problem is that when they get to the judgment seat and pull that policy out it will be stamped null and void because I knew you not. Their problem is they think salvation is about going to heaven and not hell when salvation is all about a relationship with God through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ and that's why they can freely sin or live a sinful lifestyle and experience no guilt or remorse because they are not God's, whereas if they were truly His, He would be disciplining them as He does all His children when we sin. Like you I believe in eternal security and for those homosexuals who are truly born-again but who are looking for loopholes to justify their sin I believe they will go to heaven but their lives and witness for Christ will be very ineffective because they are living with unconfessed sin in their life if they continue to participate in the sexual practices of homosexuality.

jester in the Kings court »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ok. but it's rather absurd of you to think that we cling to little fragments, when you do as well. we cling to the scriptures that say homosexuality is a sin. you hold to the scriptures that say love your neighbor. but in tell you that you're sinning and in danger of hell, you tell us that we don't love you. just like a little kid would do. i hope that if im driving along in the middle of a rainstorm and the bridge is washed out ahead from a raging river, that you're not ahead of me. you wont tell me that im in danger, because you love me too much to tell me im wrong.

and i'll be praying that God opens your heart to the truth as well. before its too late. because telling someone that homosexuality is ok, when in fact it will lead a person to hell is a dangerous game to play.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight and Jester - I will continue to study the Scripture as much as I can, in its entirety and not just the fragments to which you so tightly cling. At this point, I will still be spreading a message of love, understanding, and acceptance.

Meanwhile, I'll pray for you, as cliche as it sounds. I will pray that you not only come to open your hearts sometime, but also that you do not meanwhile become responsible for turning someone away from Christ or worse, for being the last opinion that leads to someone's death.

God will pass His judgment on all of us at some point. I only hope that He tells me, "You did what I asked of you."

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

**Correction on annotation: (feet would be so proud)

Matthew 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

This is found in chapter 12 of Matthew, not 19 as I have incorrectly stated in my post below.

jester in the Kings court »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jiggy,
"1. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all."

that's right. he gave the mold for what marriage is supposed to be, and he didn't mention anything about homosexuals. its between a man and a woman.

"3. God does not seem to have a problem making gay animals."

no, God designed animals in a perfect way (as well as humans), but sin (through Adam and Eve) corrupted and perverted nature. read my post from Tuesday, the 9th, at 4:47pm.

"5. Also, since you don't agree with me, although I am using original Scripture versus your translated Scripture, I am the false teacher."

and we use original scripture, and you call us liars.

"6. On the flip side, you are a correct teacher, although you are completely self-studied using your translated version that is missing hundreds of references to God, hundreds of verse portions, and many entire verses."

you know, thats the same thing that i hear christians on here say about you.

"8. You call me a false teacher, but you are the one who is constantly saying "God wouldn't" or "God says" and "Jesus would" as if you think your (or ANY human) mind could POSSIBLY grasp all the glory and possibility that is God."

you are correct. but i do know what the bible says. homosexuality is a sin.

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Must I spend time defeating all your arguments?

"Jesus told us to give up all of our possession to follow him"

More accurately he told ONE man that as Jesus perceived this as the young man's stumbling block to coming to Christ, this man's idol. Just because we have possessions doesn't mean we idolize them.

Here's another;"If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day.." From the Word of God seems to indicate otherwise:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Matt 19:36-37. (you might want to take a closer look at this one.)

And this: "...homosexual Christians are those who love God enough (the greatest commandment) to look past the judgment they've received of other Christians and accept the message of salvation."

Do they love God ENOUGH to crucify the flesh? The greatest commandment "love God with all your heart, soul and mind". Where in this Love for God do you see someone willing to live "less than holy lives"?

And lastly this, "Yet so many of us spend so much time and effort on technicalities"...who's looking for technicalities? YOU or others?

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

No Christians here on CP have condemned non-practicing homosexuals as unsaved because they have "crucified their passions" to walk holy before the Lord. jh- you've got to stop attacking you Cristians unjustly because you generalize we are all ready to condemn others. You've got to quit putting yourself upon the pedestal for your liberal ideas and comparing that with how you condemn Christians for their conservative bible believing ways.

In fact, there was a very moving testimonial here in CP recently from someone who struggled with homosexuality for years and now is celibate and lives within a community of non-practicing and celibate homosexuals. Everyone here on CP encouraged and loved her with not a hint of condemnation.
If homosexuals cannot change to heteorsexual affection, then they should be celibate if they indeed practice the Fruit of the Spirit and have crucified the flesh.

Why would they want to compromise and live "less than holy lives"?

"Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;
but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:13.

Is someone who has love for himself first and God second be considered part of the body of Christ? Can someone who has an Idol, have Christ, too?
I know God is full of mercy but does he lie; requiring some to live holy and others to continue in lust?

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer; God wants us to understand and He's provided not only His infallable Word but His Holy Spirit, nothing more is required but a submissive heart.

Did Solomon finally acknowledge polygamy as wrong?

jh-I have to question your assertion that God has 'opened' the door here for you to cast doubt upon His word and have such rancor against your brothers who disagree with your teaching.
In my humble opinion, isn't it satan that does that? "Did God really say?"

I worship Jesus Christ, the WORD; remember John 1:1? Not a book.

God is indeed knowable; he doesn't lie nor act outside of His Nature as revealed in the Word of God.

"its a mistake to limit our understanding of marriage..." Here again God disagrees with you.

It's not your large words I have a problem with, it's your anti-God ideas.

The more you say, the more it is clearly seen; you and God are not in agreement, as well as you are not in agreement with at least 3 brothers on this thread.

Please don't feel you must respond back with a large missive dismissing me as blasphemous, rather humble yourself before the Lord.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 1:
believer - I appreciate that you can empathize with the situation. I suppose I believe that only God and the individual can know the status of their salvation.

If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day. Some people disagree with me on this one, but I am one that believes you cannot "lose" your salvation, and I base that on the general sense of mercy and grace that Jesus showed throughout the Scriptures and his apparent distaste for mankind's love of technicalities.

If I am wrong, then I have grossly misunderstood God to be a loving and understanding God, and there will be Christians that will be sent to hell for technicalities (maybe they lied or stole something just before death - after all, those are no worse than homosexual acts if it is truly a sin). So many Christians are unrepentantly arrogant and/or greedy - they lead Christian lives, and earnestly accepted salvation. But they will die with unrepented sin and maybe they don't even realize their sin (maybe they do and find it to be a "small", acceptable sin in their life). Will that arrogance and greed send them to hell?

Maybe your (you the reader - I am not naming anyone specifically) sin is not arrogance or greed. Maybe you have a sin that you have not thought of because you have grown so accustomed to it.

Jesus told us to give up all of our possession to follow him, yet we all have computers and an Internet connection, and I'm sure we spend money on ourselves occasionally - on luxury instead of feeding and sheltering the homeless. In fact, isn't the American dream - the pursuit of wealth - in direct violation of Scripture?

What is our purpose on earth? What is the Great Commission about?

I cannot fathom a situation where someone would say, "I am convicted of my sin and I would have become a Christian and accepted Christ as my savior, but Christians decided that homosexuality wasn't a sin. The deal is off."

On the other hand, I already know of people who have WANTED to be saved and instead of being told they can be saved, they are told that they cannot be saved because of whom they sexually attracted to (this includes people who have not even had homosexual sex yet). Instead of learning how to be saved, Christians reject them and they turn away from God altogether, and some commit suicide.

Those who do call themselves homosexual Christians are those who love God enough (the greatest commandment) to look past the judgment they've received of other Christians and accept the message of salvation.

Yet so many of us spend so much time and effort on technicalities and TRYING to come up with ways to name someone else's sin. Those who condemn homosexuality do not seem to look in the Scriptures for the truth. They think homosexuality is wrong FIRST, and THEN they look for verses to support that view and they look for places in the Bible where they can insert limitations to fit their own understanding.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 2:
I have brought up Jesus's quote about the law being made for man, not man for the law, that sin comes from the heart, and Paul's quote that everything is permissible (you know the rest). Nobody comments on this. Why not? How do you reconcile the condemnation of homosexuality with quotes from Jesus and Paul?

If homosexuality is truly sin, then does it negate their salvation or would it simply mean they are not living the holiest of lives?

believer »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

delight, it amazes me when others can't see simple things like that, but also the fact that every polygamous relationship mentioned in the Bible brought chaos and death in the family and even Solomon suppposedly next to Christ the wisest man who ever lived came to acknowledge polygamy as wrong.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - I will try to use small words. I never said God approved of polygamy. Like you, I said that it was condemned in Deuteronomy. Maybe you are too busy trying to prove me wrong that you can't even see when we agree.

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

One last thought:

If polygamy was a form of marriage approved by God, then why would Adam have just one wife and Noah who was charged with replenishing the earth have only one wife?

If God approved polygamy or any other form of marriage, I think we would find both Adam and Noah with many wives.
We don not see that.

believer »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, I am not one who believes that simply because a person is a homosexual does not mean they will not go to heaven or that they are not a Christian. I believe God condemns sin and not sinners and that sinners condemn themselves by refusing to repent of their sin and turn to God through the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone. Now where I have the problem is when someone tells me they are a Christian and then they continue to willfully sin or continue in a sinful lifestyle and show no desire to stop sinning and seem to experience no remorse or guilt for their sin. What I see going on among homosexuals who profess to be Christians is to convince themselves and others and perhaps even God that God is okay with both them being a homosexual and the sexual practices of homosexuality. It is those in this group that I tend to believe may have a genuine relationship with Christ, but I personally do not believe that those who willfully continue to sin or live in sin have ever had a genuine conversion experience and if they were to die in that condition will be eternally separated from God in hell.

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

As a note of interest regarding David's polygamy and God's best for marriage:
David repented of polygamy; II Samuel 20:3 "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood."

David felt obligated to care for his many wives but he never co-habited with them again.
More of David's repentance is found in Psalm 51.

It is man who choses polygamy and not God as God sees a man with many wives easily susceptable to deception. Even Paul in his requirements for elders and deacons to be husband of one wife.
1Timothy 3:2 and 3:12.

So, David will be heaven, I'm just not sre Solomon will be as he began well with God but his heart was turned away by his choice of 1000 wives and concubines.

God doesn't approve of many wives and says so in Deut 17:17 which says not to multiply wives.
We see clearly that man chose over God's commands to have many wives. In no way did God allow plural marriage nor any other, save one man and one woman.

DelightntheLord »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Forgiven,

I did not say YOU humor false teaching; only don't humor false teaching. I like your last post...think you'll get any straight answers?

I have no need to further debate jh...he believes you need more than just the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture. Somewhere he 'changed' his mind about the inerrancy of Scripture, to which I say:

"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things."1 John 2:18-20.

I think jh would disagree with that last bit; perhaps we can chnage it to better suit him...maybe a new translation will help;

" but you have many books in which to test the Scriptures and a good education in which to puff yourself up, so you know all things.

How about that for humor?
You guys can have at him...good luck with all the reading to find a clear point.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 1:
Forgiven - I agree with much of your answer. I think the nuclear marriage is here on earth as a symbolic model representing God and the church.

I disagree that all of the different marriage types were defined by man. The most popular "extreme" form is polygamy, but I will not use that one, since there's no clear Scriptural approval of polygamy, and Deuteronomy (everytime I type that, I always think of "Geronimo!") actually has a passage forbidding the multiplication of wives (I don't think it's talking about cloning). However, I -will- make reference to polygamy later.

However, there are several types defined in the rules given to the Israelites:
Levirate Marriage (defined in Deuteronomy and fatally enforced in the story of Onan)
Marriage of a Female POW (defined in Deuteronomy)
Forced Marriage Of Rape Victim (defined in Deuteronomy)
Marriage of Slaves by Slave Owner (defined in Exodus)

Also in Exodus we see the implication of selling one's daughter as a concubine. It's possible that it could also imply marriage, but neither is strictly defined. We do know that whichever it was, the woman had the potential of giving the purchaser a son (continued bloodline).

I think it's very interesting that God would kill Onan for not going through with his responsibilities for Levirate marriage.

This is why I don't think we have a full understanding of marriage. God handed down these rules through Moses, and he set forth punishments for those who did not keep those rules. This might be why so many Christians today do not follow the laws in the Old Testament. I would think that we'd hear something on the news if a parent killed his/her child and claimed Exodus 21:15 as his rationale. (Yet, the people who do not follow all of the O.T. law will sometimes cherry-pick the verses that fit their purposes - I'm surprised and glad that nobody on this forum has done that yet.)

However, I think all rules set forth by God seem to have practical purpose (again, I'll paraphrase Jesus in that law was made for man, man was not made for the law). He gives us a lot of free territory to do what we want to do as long as our hearts are clean about it, but in certain situations He limits us for what seem to be practical reasons.

For example, Israel was a small and wandering tribe. They were an agricultural society that depended on children for everything - military, economy, all of survival. It makes absolute sense that God would enforce rules that encourage procreation and would punish those like Onan who did not procreate for their own selfish purposes.

I said earlier that I would eat shellfish. I don't think eating shellfish is wrong, but I do think that God understood what would happen if you tried to take a bunch of crabs and haul them across the open desert for days without any refrigeration before eating them.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 2:
And forced marriage between rapist and rape victim? That seems hardly practical, but if we again look at the society, we see one that values bloodlines. Onan didn't want to bear a child that wasn't going to be his. Virginity was sacred and a non-virgin woman could be stoned to death for promiscuity. Again and again, God protects the bloodlines and tries to preserve them within Israel's borders. Israelites could not just marry a female from outside of Israel - she had to be a virgin and had to be assimilated into the tribe first. Women had practical use, and that was to keep the bloodlines pure. Sleeping around might result in a child that didn't have a clear father. So what of a rape victim? Well, if she was raped and went back to her father - she was now considered used goods, and would probably die unmarried. God protected the victim, even if they weren't ideal circumstances.

In the New Testament, we don't see the same strict law enforced because they hold no more practical purpose when applied to everybody in the world. Are some of those laws still good ideas? Maybe - there's still some good to be gained by following some of them in your own life. As mentioned, Jesus had the opportunity to do away with Levirate law when he was questioned specifically about it, but he chose to illustrate that marriage does not exist/happen in heaven. Does that mean that Levirate marriage still applies today?

We never see any passages in the New Testament that says that we have the responsibility of using whatever law we can find to judge others. However, we DO see several passages where Jesus and Paul both open up the floodgates of possibility. Sin comes from the heart, not from the act. Everything is permissible (but I will not be mastered by anything, nor is everything beneficial). Those who take the possibilities to the extreme are trying to find ways to limit those passages to what they already understand rather than trying to evaluate their understanding as compared to those passages.

Now polygamy. There are those who say that active homosexuals will not get into heaven, even if they claim to be Christian. You and I may disagree on intentions and whether or not they are sinning, but I would bring up polygamy because I think I will probably meet David in heaven. Not only was he a polygamist, which is forbidden in Deuteronomy, but he was a practicing one with concubines galore. Yet, he is described as a man after God's own heart.

Some might say I'm trying to make an exception. I simply say that the law was made for man, man was not made for the law. I think there was symbolic value in the nuclear marriage, and it has and continues to serve its purpose. I think that its a mistake to limit our understanding of marriage to that specific kind, and to willfully ignore that there are other marriage types that may still be "valid" today - marriage types that existed for practical purposes.

believer »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

feet, show me where God offers another option to either marriage or sexual intimacy?

Forgivensinner »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight wrote: "I enjoy your humor...just, please don't humor false teaching; expose it."

When I offer scripture as I have understood it, I do not see that as humoring and in essence is exposing "we" have a difference in our knowledge. Other readers then have a choice to make, I would say.

I'm thinking we need to separate you and jh for awhile. LOL! (There's that humor you like about me.)

Forgivensinner »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jh, I haven't read all the posts below, but I would like to comment on this one...

you wrote: "1. There are multiple types of marriage in the Bible, not just one "divine" one. I know people like to quote the verse about leaving the father and mother and cleaving to the wife (even I do), but I've never fully understood why God would design one "ideal" way and then open up 7 other types of marriages."

God did not open up different kinds of marriages, men opened them up for their own purposes and pursuits.

you wrote: "2. As mentioned in a previous post, Jesus had an opportunity to denounce one of those types of marriage, but he did not and instead said that marriage basically has no meaning in heaven, which leads me to question number...
3. If marriage has no meaning in heaven, then what purpose does it serve on earth? (Please do not take this to mean that I think marriage shouldn't exist - after all, I -am- married and happily so.)"

One big necessity is the relationship of Christ and His church. Marriage is as discribed in Eph. as a "earthly understanding" of the relationship of Christ and His church. The marriage has all sorts of benefits on earth to live "in the attitude of Christ" ~ sacrificial and obedient.

you wrote: "4. Paul essentially tells us that marriage is for those who just HAVE to have sex. I see his point about devotion to the Lord being easier if you are single, but he seems to intentionally take it further than that (like a -deep sigh- "If you really have to..."). If marriage is a divine covenant, then why does he treat it like that?"

Well, like you I must resort to opinion on this ~ Paul does not necessarily sigh here or take light the marriage divine covent (which is to be a reflection of the covenant between Jesus and His bride, the church). Paul undertood that a person's first love (1st command) needed to be God and hoped many more would choose not to be distracted (attention split) and further the work and Word of God.

You wrote: "5. Why did Jesus never get married?"

Jesus had a divine mission to accomplish, which was completely and totally focused. He had an awesome task at hand ~ to fulfill all of scripture. A pretty huge task that I certainly would want not to be distracted from. Also, His bride is to be the church and in an essence His was preparing her way to come to Him.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I know I'm skipping past a lot of messages, but it's getting late and I need to head off to bed.

"feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy."

I have to side with believer on this one, feet. Just because we CAN do something (physically or mentally) does not necessarily mean it's Scripturally correct.

That said, I don't know if we have a complete understanding of "God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy". That might seem like a cheap trick (I'm sure I will earn a few "false teacher" references from Delight for this), and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but here are my reasons/questions:

1. There are multiple types of marriage in the Bible, not just one "divine" one. I know people like to quote the verse about leaving the father and mother and cleaving to the wife (even I do), but I've never fully understood why God would design one "ideal" way and then open up 7 other types of marriages.

2. As mentioned in a previous post, Jesus had an opportunity to denounce one of those types of marriage, but he did not and instead said that marriage basically has no meaning in heaven, which leads me to question number...

3. If marriage has no meaning in heaven, then what purpose does it serve on earth? (Please do not take this to mean that I think marriage shouldn't exist - after all, I -am- married and happily so.)

4. Paul essentially tells us that marriage is for those who just HAVE to have sex. I see his point about devotion to the Lord being easier if you are single, but he seems to intentionally take it further than that (like a -deep sigh- "If you really have to..."). If marriage is a divine covenant, then why does he treat it like that?

5. Why did Jesus never get married?

I ask these questions in the most sincere way possible. I am not being sarcastic or trying to be divisive.

I've done a little bit of research on some of these pieces, but I do not feel like I have the complete answer, and I do not feel like I've gotten a complete answer from other Christians that I've talked to before.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jester - think whatever you want of me, but I do not quote Scripture lightly. I don't care which side you are on in this discussion - all your careless, mocking, and provoking words will never be of use to anyone. One of the best pieces of advice my father ever said to me was: Think before speaking. I'm passing that same advice along to you now.

If you feel a certain way about this topic, whichever way that is, at least be polite and constructive about it.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 1:
Hi all.

Delight - I suppose I expect nothing less of you than accusations and slippery slopes. Let me see if I'm understanding your basic argument:

1. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all.

2. Paul doesn't mention homosexuality except in Romans 1 where he's condemning the acts BECAUSE (the first words of Romans 1:26) they are in the context of sick idol worship. (I know there's still some ongoing discussion about this - this is just my opinion).

3. God does not seem to have a problem making gay animals.

4. However, homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't create babies (nature).

5. Also, since you don't agree with me, although I am using original Scripture versus your translated Scripture, I am the false teacher.

6. On the flip side, you are a correct teacher, although you are completely self-studied using your translated version that is missing hundreds of references to God, hundreds of verse portions, and many entire verses.

7. You claim I am relying on the wisdom of men while you rely on studying a version of the Bible that was translated using the same techniques that I use.

8. You call me a false teacher, but you are the one who is constantly saying "God wouldn't" or "God says" and "Jesus would" as if you think your (or ANY human) mind could POSSIBLY grasp all the glory and possibility that is God.

Now, since you apparently have a love for simple-mindedness and a hatred of academia, I will give you my simple-minded opinion: (Others, please bear with me as I release some steam)

As a Christian involved in a trusting and loving relationship with Christ, my last point (#8) is extremely offensive to me for you to act like you have a relationship that somehow supercedes all others and that you are God's one and only spokesperson. I am careful to always try to say that I do not know for sure what God would do.

God will do whatever He pleases, whether it makes sense to you or I or not. To say otherwise is to pretend to know God better than He knows Himself. That is utter blasphemy. I am not done speaking to you.

jhilgeman »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 2:
Enough is enough! Where is your fear and respect for God?!! I KNOW my place and I know I do not DARE speak for God like that!

I do not care if you speak for me, even if you twist my words. God opened this door for me to be here, so I will say whatever He has me say. He will close the door at some point, I'm sure. While He still allows me time, I will say this:

I -DO- care when you speak for our Lord. You tread on extremely dangerous waters with your self-righteousness and accusations. I don't care if you disagree with me about anything, but do NOT use God's name in vain in doing so. If you want to pass on your own interpretations, that is absolutely fine - just make sure you are aware that you are interpreting the Bible using your own wisdom.

Regardless of how strongly you feel, you CANNOT be sure of what God would do for any situation, because HE is timeless, omniscient and all-powerful. You and I are not.

He gave us this world, including all the ingredients that make up that book you are worshipping. (That is what the Bible is without God - a bunch of pages, and when you worship the book instead of God, you are worshipping a book - you are not following Scripture.)

Do not take that to the extreme and think I am calling the Bible worthless - I am doing nothing of the sort, and to say that (as I know you would in order to try to discredit me) is blatantly evil. You have read my previous posts and you know that I have said many times over that Scripture is of great use to us. It gives us the message of salvation and tells us how to lead fruitful lives as Christians.

That is why I care about this. I am trying to preserve the original meanings of certain passages for the sake of clinging to what we have of God's Word.

YOU are trusting and advocating meanings in those passages that were not there before. Meanings that were added by the wisdom of men you so love to condemn. Not only that, but you care SO much about being right (more than what the Scripture really says) that YOU are starting to reach OUTSIDE of Scripture by condemning homosexuality. You said it's sinful because it does not lead to procreation - that is NOT Scriptural! Even if you referenced what I've studied on Romans 1, then you would know that IDOLATRY is sinful and ALL actions inside it (homosexual AND heterosexual) are evil BECAUSE they were done in the name and honor of false gods.

However, when faced with logical interpretation of the Scripture, you run away and come back with wild theories of my evil intentions, JUST like the Pharisees would do to Jesus (I am sad to have to point out that I know I am not Jesus, since I can only assume you would try to twist my words and say that I was claiming to be Him).

I do not hate you, but I will not stand by and listen to a fellow Christian engage in blasphemy. I have said what I have to say - I hope God will convict your heart at some point in your life. You have nobody to apologize to but Him.

jester in the Kings court »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

if Jesus had meant to include homosexuals he would have said so.

feetxxxl »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer

feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.

believer

you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.

jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.

feetxxxl »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer

feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.

believer

you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.

jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.

feetxxxl »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer

feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.

believer

you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.

jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.

feetxxxl »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer

feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.

believer

you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.

jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.