Someone help me, please...

[Michelle]

Who of us has not fallen into one of the categories listed below?

Revelation 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


Do they all not have the same fate?

Fear is not a sin. Fear is a human weakness. The sin is to give in to fear and deny Him before man...

[Michelle]

I think it's clear that Michelle is in a battle.  We should all remind ourselves of our own personal struggles with faith.  I doubt any of us would be here had there not been some sort of spiritual crisis in our lives.

I understand that she's in a battle, but it is difficult to provide help with the way this battle is being expressed.

I hear ya Lefein.  I think what Michelle might not understand is that many of us are truly in love with Christ.  When someone you love is insulted it hurts.  So, I do get it.  What I know is this...her battle is not a knowledge or an understanding battle.  Though she might believe it is.  It's a trust and faith battle.  But, I have faith that God is doing a work and that Michelle will be brought into the fullness of his rest.  But, she isn't going down without a fight.   :laughing7:

This post has been mod edited due to its inappropriate content.

[Michelle]

But, she isn't going down without a fight.   :laughing7:

[/quote]

You can bet your bottom dollar on that...

[Michelle]

Micah, finger-pointing at another person's sin only exemplifies the blindness to our own.

:laughing7: :laughing7:

[Michelle]

Seems judging can also be making the judgment that others are judging, and then the other making the judgment that the other person's judging others as judging, ad infinitim... It's a tricky binezz.  :laughing7:

Boils down to none of us have stones to throw, but we also can discuss the scrips and what we think they mean.  :dontknow:

:laughing7:

As for discussiing the scrips and their meaning, well, good luck. If you haven't been utterly shocked before, you will be now. If some people here can translate the Hebrew and Greek, then maybe try to make sense of it. I can't read it, nor speak it, much less translate it...

[Michelle]

Michelle, you aren't going to get a perfect translation.  They simply don't exist.

But if it helps you - for the Old Testament at least, take a look at The Septuagint, there are English translations of it though they use the words "for ever" and "everlasting" but that shouldn't be too difficult to deal with if your faith is in God, not a book.

What's the Septuagint? I hope that's not the Apocrypha you're talking about because it is huge li. Nothing but a bunch of traditions of men and doctrines of demons. I hope it's not Latin Vulgate either. Because Latin Vulgate is corrupt. What I don't get is why some people at TM say that the 1611 KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, when I've been told for six months straight that it was translated for the Textus Receptus. How the heck is He suppose to teach anything to anyone out of corrupt and mistranslated books?

[Michelle]

Molly said, "Slow down and trust God".

Amen.  That word isn't just for Michelle.  I needed a bit of that myself.

Please, do share... :2c:

[WhiteWings]

Michelle, you aren't going to get a perfect translation.  They simply don't exist.

But if it helps you - for the Old Testament at least, take a look at The Septuagint, there are English translations of it though they use the words "for ever" and "everlasting" but that shouldn't be too difficult to deal with if your faith is in God, not a book.

What's the Septuagint?

The O was translated to Greek 300-200BC http://www.septuagint.net/
There is an English translation of that Greek. http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

I hope that's not the Apocrypha you're talking about because it is huge li. Nothing but a bunch of traditions of men and doctrines of demons. I hope it's not Latin Vulgate either. Because Latin Vulgate is corrupt. What I don't get is why some people at TM say that the 1611 KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, when I've been told for six months straight that it was translated for the Textus Receptus.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/what-are-the-errors-in-king-james-version-bible.html
Parts of KJV are Vulgate.

Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek.

[WhiteWings]

The remarks are highly biased:

(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3843/bible.gif)


Larger:http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3843/bible.gif

[jabcat]

Michelle, I've placed a partial ban on your account until you let me know you've gotten some help and that things will be different regarding your posting on the boards.  I believe the ban will allow you to read the forum and still use PMs.  If it won't do those things please let me know and I'll try to fix it.  You are not being "cast out", but you are being limited until some things change.  Listen to and follow through on the help that's been offered.  Take care, James.

[Paul Hazelwood]

If you don't think homosexuality is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God, just look into the Bibles.

Yeah, that is exactly what the people who you are mad at will tell you too. And that is my point,  you are only railing against what is convenient for you to do so about.  You are only stirring up whats in the same religious box and hoping it comes out in a pattern that lets you feel good about it.

You want scriptures? I'll give you scriptures. And from many different Bibles:

Old Testament:

Leviticus 18:22:

NASB - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Funny how the old testament never details anything associated with lesbianism.  Yet here we go with the stupidity that says something detailing a male sexual act has something to do with homosexuality as a whole.   It's just dumb,  it only proves over and over that people already think it is wrong and then use the bible as support no matter how dumb and off base that association is.


New Testament:

1 Timothy 1:9-10:

NASB - realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

There is no ancient greek word that is EVER rightly translated to homnosexual.   The closest is male prostitute and you do not have to be a homosexual to be a male prostitute.

If you are simply going by the wording of an english translation then again you only show that youi have NOT gathered the idea that homosexuality is wrong based on proper biblical study.   

Even if you use a translation that infers it through such words or phrases as "adultery" "sexual immorality" "natural use"  you have only proven that you already think homosexuality is wrong before you ever start reading the bible about it.

The bottom line is, there is no explicit reason in the Bible for why its wrong. It just says- very clearly- that it is an "abomination".

The bottom line is that you and anyone else who says the bible clearly declares homosexuality wrong, has no idea what they are talking about in the biblical sense, all they do is parrot religious diarhea.

When we start throwing in our own rationalizations for WHY why we think God feels that way about this or any other sin, its just a pointless circular debate that never gets solved. Humans are flawed and can be wrong, God's Word is always true. So we are to take the Bible word on it. And really, we arent in the position to try and justify God's commands. He said not to do it. 

Actually the stupidity of all of this is that you are defying your own words by all your railing on and on and on about this thart and the other thing.


If you are so glorious and such a warrior for God then when you show that the bible clearly condones pedophilia, then who are you to question the almighty about it,.  you should just realize that it is ok and not use your ownb rationalizations about it.

You just like anyone else who starts talking about the old testament laws will show to be nothing but an idiotic hypocrite.

Now, go kill some children who have misbehaved.

[shawn]

Romans 1

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

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Romans 1

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

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Nothing in the greek is explicit to sexuality in those verses,  these are additions in translations and only shows the predisposed belief and not scriptural clarity on the matter of homosexuality.   Homosexualaity is an assumption that many people think is safe because they believe there is a rational unbiblical reason for homosexuality to be wrong.

You just can't prove homosexuality to be wrong with scripture, cannot be done without inference and assumption.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Actually most UR people who take the stance against homosexuality do not realize that how they go about it actually support the idea that all men are not saved,  the same technics of inference and assumption apply.

[shawn]

Actually most UR people who take the stance against homosexuality do not realize that how they go about it actually support the idea that all men are not saved,  the same technics of inference and assumption apply.

That is certainly possible.  The thought of homosexuality not being sin would be a very foreign concept to me.  It's not even something I have really pondered.  I have always accepted it as fact.  I will say though that the thought of some people being born with a sexual desire for the same sex always seemed unfair.  Are we condemning these people to a life of loneliness?  Or can Christ change their inner workings?  Of course, we see this concept throughout humanity.  Was it fair I was born with a genetic predisposition towards addictive behaviors?  Was that something placed within me that would need to be overcome by Christ to reveal himself to me?

I understand that this is an emotionally charged subject for you.  I ask though that we keep these discussions Christ-like.  I understand the visceral response to some posters...I feel it as well.  But, we are called to more.

But, for me to reconsider old assumptions and teachings I would need a case to be made from scripture.  I would invite you to educate us on what you have come to believe.

[jabcat]

Paul, you said;

"There is no ancient greek word that is EVER rightly translated to homnosexual.

The bottom line is that you and anyone else who says the bible clearly declares homosexuality wrong, has no idea what they are talking about in the biblical sense, all they do is parrot religious diarhea."


I hope you realize these are your opinions and understandings, and are not necessarily the truth any more than what you accuse others of.  As you know, I disagree with you on this, and I've given what I believe to be evidence - not just "parroting diarrhea" - IMO, that's a pretty assumptive statement.

I'm not trying to convince you, but am responding to the above statements. 

James.

[jabcat]

I agree it's a tough situation Shawn.  But aren't we all born with brokenness, predispositions?  Some have illicit attractions to children, some susceptible to alcoholism, gambling addiction, depression, schizophrenia, etc., etc.   God heals, soothes, leads us, directs our steps - and then ultimately restores all to perfection.  IMO, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with God not saving all.  I don't even see any connection.  We can look around and see all the sin and brokenness, and realize it's all temporal, that God has a plan, and will redeem all His creation.  This life is temporal, a learning and honing experience, and none of us come through it unscathed.  Obviously many have a more difficult lot than others, but when God is All in All, it means just that - All.


For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.  Rm. 8:18

[Paul Hazelwood]

But, for me to reconsider old assumptions and teachings I would need a case to be made from scripture.  I would invite you to educate us on what you have come to believe.

Well, that is the inherant fallacy.   You would expect me to provide scripture that says homosexuality is ok therefore protecting your preconcieved notions in your own mind. 

I will in brief point out the problems and what I believe the scriptures are talking about.


In leviticus many of the laws were about cleanliness and hygene.  Homosexuals males do not like it whan I say that they shouldn't have anal sex.  Anal sex is dirty and nasty based upon human hygene, not morality.    Anal sex does not define who a homosexual is.   You can easily be a homosexual and never engage in anal sex.

There is no old testament reference detailing lesbianism in any form.

As far as the new testament verses used to say it is wrong.

Those verses are about spirtual health and behavior towards one another.   Lust is a word that has been associated primarily with sexuality, but lust can be about many things.    And as far as natural affections.

Many assume that if your heterozexual then you can burn with lust and that you cannot exchange natural affections, but that is a lie.   The orpahanges are full proving that heterosexuals have exchanged LOVE for self gratification.

Homosexuality has been painted as inheratly flawed,  religious teachings want you to believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving monogomous relationships  as if looking around the world heterosexuality has proven to be a better example of love or something.

It is up to you if you are going to "reconsider" what you have been told.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Paul, you said;

"There is no ancient greek word that is EVER rightly translated to homnosexual.

The bottom line is that you and anyone else who says the bible clearly declares homosexuality wrong, has no idea what they are talking about in the biblical sense, all they do is parrot religious diarhea."


I hope you realize these are your opinions and understandings, and are not necessarily the truth any more than what you accuse others of.  As you know, I disagree with you on this, and I've given what I believe to be evidence - not just "parroting diarrhea" - IMO, that's a pretty assumptive statement.

I'm not trying to convince you, but am responding to the above statements. 

James.

My initial comments were geared to point out that while someone complains that the old testament condones pedophilia they are happy to say that God is against homosexuality.

When I hear something from UR people in support of homosexuals being wrong that isn;t the same thing from an ET church who loves the homosexual  but thinks they are going to burn in hell / be punished / in need of help, then I will say something different James.

Everyone has their own idea about things, that is mine, you have yours, I'm not going to qualify everything I write as just an opinion any more than anyone else is going to say that they just think it is an opinion that all men are saved.

[shawn]

But, for me to reconsider old assumptions and teachings I would need a case to be made from scripture.  I would invite you to educate us on what you have come to believe.

Well, that is the inherant fallacy.   You would expect me to provide scripture that says homosexuality is ok therefore protecting your preconcieved notions in your own mind. 

I will in brief point out the problems and what I believe the scriptures are talking about.


In leviticus many of the laws were about cleanliness and hygene.  Homosexuals males do not like it whan I say that they shouldn't have anal sex.  Anal sex is dirty and nasty based upon human hygene, not morality.    Anal sex does not define who a homosexual is.   You can easily be a homosexual and never engage in anal sex.

There is no old testament reference detailing lesbianism in any form.

As far as the new testament verses used to say it is wrong.

Those verses are about spirtual health and behavior towards one another.   Lust is a word that has been associated primarily with sexuality, but lust can be about many things.    And as far as natural affections.

Many assume that if your heterozexual then you can burn with lust and that you cannot exchange natural affections, but that is a lie.   The orpahanges are full proving that heterosexuals have exchanged LOVE for self gratification.

Homosexuality has been painted as inheratly flawed,  religious teachings want you to believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving monogomous relationships  as if looking around the world heterosexuality has proven to be a better example of love or something.

It is up to you if you are going to "reconsider" what you have been told.

I was hoping we could discuss these things without condescension.  From my experience, those who take smug or otherwise volitile attitudes towards others are inherently insecure with their own belief system.

For me to ask for scriptural support of your views shouldn't be met with resistance.  It should be expected, anticipated and with a cheerful heart.  Why?  Because, a person who's beliefs are scripturally sound are eager to share what they have discovered, or what has been revealed to them.

That was an incomplete response only leaving me with more questions.  If your view is "I could care less what you believe" then why bring it up?  If you do indeed care about educating those of us who might be interested in what you have to say, then it's not too much to ask for you to expound...and to do so with love.  Many times if the messanger is wearing a chip on his shoulder, his message gets lost in delivery.   :2c:

[Lefein]

Even if homosexuality is not a sin, it is not necessarily healthy either - just throwing that out there, especially if homosexuality is more or less a symptom of a dysfunctional stimulus (like heterosexual lusts, porn addiction for example, are often a symptom of a complicated dysfunctional issue, of which sin becomes a central theme).

Lust in general, for man or for woman, same-sex or otherwise is sinful because it is harmful.  "Homosexuality = Sin" is a complicated issue because it involves a great many factors, of which "Sin" is a part (though not the whole thing). 

I do want to express that I do not appreciate homosexuality any more than I appreciate mishandled heterosexuality at any rate, but I am not about to judge a person to Hell based on their orientation, I would only express that there "must surely be a better means".  I struggle with Lust (of the heterosexual sort, and terribly so) and surely it is my greatest foe.  But I understand that sins of lust are not something that the religious-caste so easily write of as "an easy peasy superficial issue" the roots that cause lust are deep, complicated, and involve much more than just a wandering eye and a want for pleasure...In my experience my own lusts have brought nothing but horrid pain.  And so the things tainted with lust, find themselves tainted with pain - which renders it (loosely speaking) unhealthy.

Hard to explain I suppose, I just wanted to express the idea that even if Homosexuality is not a "Damnable Sin" as the religious-caste express it being, that does not necessarily mean it is healthy, in much the same way that pre-marital sex might not be a damnable sin (though it is said to be one by that same religious-caste) that does not necessarily mean that pre-marital sex is healthy either.  :2c:   

[Paul Hazelwood]

But, for me to reconsider old assumptions and teachings I would need a case to be made from scripture.  I would invite you to educate us on what you have come to believe.

Well, that is the inherant fallacy.   You would expect me to provide scripture that says homosexuality is ok therefore protecting your preconcieved notions in your own mind. 

I will in brief point out the problems and what I believe the scriptures are talking about.


In leviticus many of the laws were about cleanliness and hygene.  Homosexuals males do not like it whan I say that they shouldn't have anal sex.  Anal sex is dirty and nasty based upon human hygene, not morality.    Anal sex does not define who a homosexual is.   You can easily be a homosexual and never engage in anal sex.

There is no old testament reference detailing lesbianism in any form.

As far as the new testament verses used to say it is wrong.

Those verses are about spirtual health and behavior towards one another.   Lust is a word that has been associated primarily with sexuality, but lust can be about many things.    And as far as natural affections.

Many assume that if your heterozexual then you can burn with lust and that you cannot exchange natural affections, but that is a lie.   The orpahanges are full proving that heterosexuals have exchanged LOVE for self gratification.

Homosexuality has been painted as inheratly flawed,  religious teachings want you to believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving monogomous relationships  as if looking around the world heterosexuality has proven to be a better example of love or something.

It is up to you if you are going to "reconsider" what you have been told.

I was hoping we could discuss these things without condescension.  From my experience, those who take smug or otherwise volitile attitudes towards others are inherently insecure with their own belief system.

For me to ask for scriptural support of your views shouldn't be met with resistance.  It should be expected, anticipated and with a cheerful heart.  Why?  Because, a person who's beliefs are scripturally sound are eager to share what they have discovered, or what has been revealed to them.

That was an incomplete response only leaving me with more questions.  If your view is "I could care less what you believe" then why bring it up?  If you do indeed care about educating those of us who might be interested in what you have to say, then it's not too much to ask for you to expound...and to do so with love.  Many times if the messanger is wearing a chip on his shoulder, his message gets lost in delivery.   :2c:

Your hope is nothing of the kind,  if that was your hope you would not try to make is sound like I am insecure, instead you only engage in the same kinds of things you complain about.

You really only support what I have said, you wish to protect your precioncieved notions.

When I say I don't care what you believe,  I say that from the stand point that I am not taking upon myself the responsibility of engaging in debate or discussion with the mindset that I must convince you.

It is up to you to reconsider what you have been told,  finding reason not to is no suprise to me.

[Nathan]

Homosexuality condoned by God?  Am I reading this right?

Hows about we take a look at God's order in his principles . . .there is always the argument that if homosexuality were acceptable then there would have been no need of an Eve, God would have just settled with two Adams.  But the command that put lilfe in motion was that man should REPRODUCE and fill the earth.  Two men can not reprodce . . .two women can not reproduce . .thus . . the union of two men or two women is UN-NATURAL.  Forget your "thinking" on word definitions . . .look at the bigger picture.  You can not fulfill God's original order of reproduction if you choose to be a part of the gay lifestyle.  This isn't about condemnation . . . .the truth is, the relationship of a gay person is more about personal appetite and less about godly order.

Interesting thing about your claims that Old Testament doesn't discredit the gay lifestyle . . .ask any general Chrstian on what they thought Sodom was all about, what kind of city was it . . .what were those guys looking to tear Lot's house apart planning on doing with his visitors . . .we read them to be angels . . .  but regardless, I'm sure you've come up with some defense against that as well.  But the interesting part to this is IF God DID approve of people who lived that kind of lifestyle . . .why are there NO examples in Scripture where God raises them up to be used by him, blessed by him or even honored by him???  The fact that there are NO accounts of a gay person having a relationship with God should speak volumes in and of itself . . .if one is willing to be led by Scriptures rather than one's personal tastes.  I'm not after your perspective on what the Bible says . . . you can make it say whatever your pespective sees it to say.

For me, the outward relationship of  man with another man, or a woman with another woman, is merely a reflection of a spiritual perversion of intimacy they have with the Father.  I don't think it's going to change their final destination anymore than an axe-murderer, man's personal gratifcations are still not more powerful than the cross . . .but there are some things that affect our emotional psyche more than other things . . .sexual contact is one of those things . . .it greatly affects our life in this realm more than if . . .say we struggle with swearing or something . . .telling people it's a normal part of a person's nature may be true, in that a married guy still may be tempted to commit adultery . . .but temptation isn't the sin . . .acting on the temptation is where the trouble starts.  Just because a man believes he's attracted to men doesn't mean it's okay to act on those attractions.

If you think being gay is okay, rather than challenge people to come up with Scriptures to disprove your pov . . .how about you put some Scriptures out there to help people see that it's acceptable?  And no cherry picking.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Homosexuality condoned by God?  Am I reading this right?

And there is that preconcieved notion right there.  I mean   "God saving all mankind"?   Am I reading this right.   Just read Matthew 25:46.

Hows about we take a look at God's order in his principles . . .there is always the argument that if homosexuality were acceptable then there would have been no need of an Eve, God would have just settled with two Adams.  But the command that put lilfe in motion was that man should REPRODUCE and fill the earth.  Two men can not reprodce . . .two women can not reproduce . .thus . . the union of two men or two women is UN-NATURAL.  Forget your "thinking" on word definitions . . .look at the bigger picture.  You can not fulfill God's original order of reproduction if you choose to be a part of the gay lifestyle.  This isn't about condemnation . . . .the truth is, the relationship of a gay person is more about personal appetite and less about godly order.

Interesting thing about your claims that Old Testament doesn't discredit the gay lifestyle . . .ask any general Chrstian on what they thought Sodom was all about, what kind of city was it . . .what were those guys looking to tear Lot's house apart planning on doing with his visitors . . .we read them to be angels . . .  but regardless, I'm sure you've come up with some defense against that as well.  But the interesting part to this is IF God DID approve of people who lived that kind of lifestyle . . .why are there NO examples in Scripture where God raises them up to be used by him, blessed by him or even honored by him???  The fact that there are NO accounts of a gay person having a relationship with God should speak volumes in and of itself . . .if one is willing to be led by Scriptures rather than one's personal tastes.  I'm not after your perspective on what the Bible says . . . you can make it say whatever your pespective sees it to say.

For me, the outward relationship of  man with another man, or a woman with another woman, is merely a reflection of a spiritual perversion of intimacy they have with the Father.  I don't think it's going to change their final destination anymore than an axe-murderer, man's personal gratifcations are still not more powerful than the cross . . .but there are some things that affect our emotional psyche more than other things . . .sexual contact is one of those things . . .it greatly affects our life in this realm more than if . . .say we struggle with swearing or something . . .telling people it's a normal part of a person's nature may be true, in that a married guy still may be tempted to commit adultery . . .but temptation isn't the sin . . .acting on the temptation is where the trouble starts.  Just because a man believes he's attracted to men doesn't mean it's okay to act on those attractions.

If you think being gay is okay, rather than challenge people to come up with Scriptures to disprove your pov . . .how about you put some Scriptures out there to help people see that it's acceptable?  And no cherry picking.

I have already explained what I think about the scriptures that are going to apply.


Swearing is a good one,  you can use words to hurt someone and never swear,  I had someone use the F word on me today and I know it was a compliment.

Rather than trying to uphold religious tradition why not deal with what I said about scripture rather than engaging in the same useless arguments of expecting someone to coime up with scripture that satisfies you.

[Beloved Servant]

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.