We engaged in a great discussion a couple weeks ago on the topic of homosexuality. The general consensus arrived at was that homosexual behavior is sinful (regardless of whether it is biological or chosen), at the same time, a separation was made between homosexual “inclinations” and homosexual behavior. One common anecdote to support this view is that a person may be predisposed to alcoholism, but as long as he refrains from drinking, he keeps his propensity to sin in check. Likewise, a person may have homosexual leanings, but as long as that person refuses to engage in such behavior and entertain such a lifestyle, they are keeping themselves from sin.
We now have an opportunity to test the principle behind this conclusion. Jack McClellan, self-described pedophile, has never engaged in sexual activity with a child. However, he declares that he is prone to sexual thoughts and he has strong feelings towards young girls. If it weren’t for the laws against it, he would engage in “consensual” relationships with young girls including sexual relationships. According to McClellen (warning: link may be offensive to some):
…I developed an attraction to prepubescent girls (which I believe was in my subconscious all my adult life), and have decided to act on it while I still look young enough to be perceived as father-age rather than grandfather-age to such girls. There is an element of sexual excitement to this attraction, but I’m determined not to cross the line into sexual touching because I don’t consider it worth the risk–and would be satisfied with hugs, cuddling, hair-stroking, etc. Indeed, I enjoy just hanging around young girls, and am getting my fix every weekend at local fairs and festivals. Watching these girls frolic while I’m high on psychedelic plants blows away all the idiocy, hypocrisy, and conformity of adult society for me–and I’m going to keep pushing that button for as long as it works.
McClellen has now chosen to move to my state of Oregon, where he believes that people are more tolerant and open to his views. He maintains that, while having a predisposition to being sexually attracted to young girls, he is not going to act on these desires. This has not stopped local media and concerned parents from doing their best to keep him away from their children.
While homosexuality has now become perfectly acceptable in society, pedophelia has not (despite efforts to legitimize it). It remains to be seen whether separating sin into “behavior” and “thoughts” will still hold true when being thrust onto a such an unsavory subject. The media has already taken it upon themselves to shame this man, will it - in a spectacular irony - be Christians who defend him?
Interesting Article. I’d point out that acting in ways that would strengthen such tendencies (as it seems from the quote he is doing) is wrong.
I think there is a distinction between having thoughts and entertaining them. Everyone is tempted to sin, but the temptation itself does not warrant sin. Christ was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. However, if one entertains thoughts with the purpose of pleasure, that is sin. Sin begins in the heart. Jesus said the man who lusts after a woman has already committed adultery in his heart.
Resisting sin involves casting down imaginations and every thought that exalts itself above the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). When one allows his mind to entertain perverse thoughts, he is on his way towards acting on them. In fact every act, whether good or bad, begins with a thought or meditation.
Here is an example of what good thoughts can produce:
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.”
-Joshua 1:8
I agree with Chris. He is not only entertaining the thought of doing things with these children, he is giving his fantasies more ammunition. It is one thing to have the urge and fight to supress it, it is another entirely to run around fueling it and acting it out in your imagination. He is also threatening the safety of these children and increasing the likelihood of other people acting on the desires by publicizing places where pedophiles should go to watch young children.
To add to my point above: Since he is putting himself around these children while he is intoxicated, it is quite likely that his ability to control his actions is further diminished.
Physical action in itself does not entail sin or lack of sin. Whether you actually “do” something is less important than the decision to do so if it were possible. While it is not sinful to have a temptation to lust after someone else, it is always sinful to lust after someone to whom you are not married. A “non-sinning” homosexual would avoid situations that would cause them to sin, such as locker rooms.
In the case of McClellen, he has chosen to “pursue” his interest in pre-pubescent girls. The reason why pedophiles have not been accepted by society is that they prey on those unable to determine their own best interests and less able to defend themselves physically or emotionally. His behavior in deliberately seeking them out for his own excitement is unethical.
This is not a religious question. It makes no difference from God’s point of view whether Jack just thinks about raping little girls or he rapes them–he’s still a sinner who needs God’s forgiveness and redemption.
However, the question how the community reacts to Jack is one for parents, or communities, or the ACLU, or maybe even the legal system to consider, but it isn’t a religious question until Jack makes it one, if he ever does, by acknowledging his sin (all his sin, not just this particular one) before God and asking for forgiveness.
If Jack is breaking actual laws he should be arrested. If he is breaking cultural laws, he can be shunned. But that discussion is a different kettle of fish from the one asking believers if temptation to sin is the same thing as sinning.
Thainamu -
I suppose that goes without saying, as we are all sinners in need of God’s forgiveness and redemption.
I don’t think the question is tempation to sin versus sinning. I think it is a question of actively seeking out temptation to sin versus trying to supress sinful urges.
Amy said, “I don’t think the question is tempation to sin versus sinning. I think it is a question of actively seeking out temptation to sin versus trying to supress sinful urges.”
I understood the previous discussion about homosexuality to be about sinning versus being tempted to sin.
What I’m trying to say here is I’m not sure this case tests any principles for the Christian, because I don’t think it is in the same category. When we’re talking about Christians we can us the term “sin” and “not sin.” When we’re talking about non-believers, like Jack, we can only talk about “crime” versus “not-crime.”
I think the real question here is whether the society can/should judge Jack based on his thought life (actually, it seems like there is more to judge him on than just his thoughts since he is writing websites, etc. to flaunt his version of pedophilia). Some folks here would likely say no, because of the strong desire for “freedom.” I personally think society can/should be concerned about Jack coming to their neighborhood because I don’t expect it is a very big jump from fantasizing about pedophilia to doing it–if an easy opportunity happens to present itself to Jack.
What I’m trying to say here is I’m not sure this case tests any principles for the Christian, because I don’t think it is in the same category. When we’re talking about Christians we can us the term “sin” and “not sin.” When we’re talking about non-believers, like Jack, we can only talk about “crime” versus “not-crime.”
Sin applies to all men - the bible is very clear on this. Whether McClellan believes it or not, he is going to hell unless he repents from all of his sin. However, does a person like McClellan (who admits he is sexually tempted by children) sin even if he will not engage in pedophelial behavior? I think there is no doubt that McClellan is not committing a crime. But is he in sin?
Colin,
He is most definitely in sin. He is entertaining evil thoughts, not just being tempted. If that were not sin, Jesus would not have said what he did about lust and adultery.
As for the alcoholism analogy, what was also said during that discussion was that one can’t really be an alcoholic (or a homosexual) without having done more than just being tempted. How would anyone actually be tempted to abuse alcohol unless they had done so before? And how would anyone be constantly tempted with homosexual thoughts unless he/she had entertained them previously (beyond temptation and into sin)?
“Sin applies to all men - the bible is very clear on this. Whether McClellan believes it or not, he is going to hell unless he repents from all of his sin. However, does a person like McClellan (who admits he is sexually tempted by children) sin even if he will not engage in pedophelial behavior? I think there is no doubt that McClellan is not committing a crime. But is he in sin?”
Like Darius, I say yes, he is in sin. Sins can occur in the mind and thoughts (but that still shouldn’t be confused with temptation).
But to me it feels pointless to talk about whether what an unregenerate person does is sin or not. They can hardly do anything but sin because they are an enemy of God, living in darkness, etc. Even the good things they do God sees as filthy rags.
Jesus defines sin as lack of love. What is unloving about a Gay love relationship? Who is the victim being sinned against?
He is most definitely in sin. He is entertaining evil thoughts, not just being tempted. If that were not sin, Jesus would not have said what he did about lust and adultery.
As for the alcoholism analogy, what was also said during that discussion was that one can’t really be an alcoholic (or a homosexual) without having done more than just being tempted. How would anyone actually be tempted to abuse alcohol unless they had done so before? And how would anyone be constantly tempted with homosexual thoughts unless he/she had entertained them previously (beyond temptation and into sin)?
So what you’re saying is that he’s in sin, but not a pedophile, since he has (according to him) never acted on those thoughts.
By the way it’s very possible to be tempted with all kinds of wrong thoughts without ever having acted on them.
Fred,
Give me chapter and verse for Jesus’ definition of sin as lack of love. It sounds like you are taking gross interpretive license to justify homosexuality.
Who’s the victim in a mutual homosexual relationship? Both parties. They are victimizing themselves, and sinning against their own flesh (1 Corinthians 6:18).
Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9,10:
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The phrase “Abusers of themselves against mankind” is translated “homosexuals” in many modern translations. Since it is classified among other “unrighteous” acts, it is clearly being mentioned here as a sin.
I agree Sharon. However, I haven’t found myself REPEATEDLY tempted to do something UNLESS I’ve partaken of that sin before (with a couple exceptions I suppose). For example, I’ve almost never had a strong alcoholic drink in my life (due to my dislike of the taste). So I can’t really be tempted to get drunk if I barely even know what beer tastes like. Obviously, this gets a little weak when discussing certain types of sin (such as homosexuality); however, even there, I can’t imagine have significant homosexual temptations or urges unless I had first entertain and enjoyed the urges previously. I’m not going to be easily tempted to have an affair unless I have previously entertained lustful thoughts.
what disturbs me the most about the stand of homosexuality being a sin is that half truths and aspersions that necessary for the belief to exist.
a belief that is untested by witness thru fellowship,scriptural thread, or as said in romans 1 thru what is created.
any sins committed in the comission of same sex acts no more condemns the orientation than the incestual rape of 2 samuel condemns heterosexuality.
how is it possible …………2 couples, one heterosexual, one homosexual. both bond out of mutual love, respect, trust, and attraction for the purpose of having a committed life with another.
yet one is appplauded and one condemned.
if you are standing on lev. then you are on shaky ground. not all prohibitions of themselves were sins . such as household chores on the sabbath.
num15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
“what disturbs me the most about the stand of homosexuality being a sin is that half truths and aspersions that necessary for the belief to exist.
a belief that is untested by witness thru fellowship,scriptural thread, or as said in romans 1 thru what is created.”
Do you care to elaborate?
John,
I see you elaborated before I responded. How about addressing the scripture I referenced in First Corinthians, where homosexuality is mentioned in the context of unrighteous acts. This is a scripture given under the New Covenant, not the Law.
You mentioned Romans 1, which is also another clear example if read in context. Verse 27 is the verse which explicitly deals with homosexuality, but it is the context of verse 18, which says:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness
Could this be spelled out any clearer? Unrighteousness equals sin, right? Surely we can agree on that.
those that hold onto the belief have no fellowship with homosexuals who feel comfortable with their orientation. they are also brothers in christ, who share the same inheritance. they have not actively shared their relationship with christ with them.
fellowship is the mutuallly supporting of each others life experiences. “yes, he did have this experience. yes, he did feel this.
1john1 gives a good description of felloship.
how is it that homosexuals are not found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals.
how is it that that committed hoomosexual couples provide nurturing and loving homes for raising children equal to married heterosexual couples. and their sexual intimacy enhances that environment.
could you say that about couples who have fits of rage, indulge in drunkeness, or any of the other sins noted in gal5.
does not jesus say that you will recognize them by their fruit. a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and only produce good fruit.good fruit ……..fruit of the spirit. bad fruit ………..that of the sin nature.
procreation point has no merit. shown by the homosexual couples who are adopting, abandoned and unwanted children from heterosexual unions.
if as you say homosexuality is a sin, then what is the essence of the spirit of that sin that it would come against the fruit of the spirit, and loving your neighbor as your self?
in spite of the hundreds of times i have that question, as yet that question has never been answered
Fred - “Jesus defines sin as lack of love. What is unloving about a Gay love relationship? Who is the victim being sinned against?”
Fred, could you tell us where you find this definition? What I believe the Bible (and Jesus) teaches is that sin is defined as breaking God’s commandments and holy law. Some of these involve a lack of love, but many others are strictly personal between the individual and God. For example, lusting and coveting don’t really involve anyone but the individual and sinning against God.
John, your writing and your thought process are hard to follow, but what it appears you are saying is that because heterosexual couples aren’t always perfect and homosexual couples can be just as loving as the hetero ones, that homosexuality is justified. Since you don’t want to be convinced it is a sin and have hardened your heart, I’m not going to bother too hard to show you the error in your logic. But suffice it to say, using your reasoning one can sin, but as long as others are also sinning, it’s ok. This would be comparison-based morality. We don’t compare ourselves to other humans, we compare ourselves to Christ. And in that, we are found infinitely wanting.
icor and itim the a\original translation before an 1800’s term was transposed in a 2000 year text is “defiling oneself with mankind” defiling is against love against respect, against trust and it engenders self hatred and low sel esteem.
again that is what the sins listed in gal 5 do.
in order to support the transposition you have to say homosexuality = defiling oneself with mankind. that is where the half truths and aspersios come in. again they arE ALL WITHOUT ANY FELLOWSHIP IN CHRIST because the spirit in crist would not support them.
Sharon, here is a great verse to explain what I meant…
“When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
what part of my logic is hard to follow?
John, I guess it all comes back to Romans 1:26 (besides a few other perhaps slightly more ambiguous references to homosexuality). Furthermore, consider what the Genesis says… “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
Needless to say, you have chosen to call God a liar and reinvent His law to fit your feelings, desires or what not.
“if as you say homosexuality is a sin, then what is the essence of the spirit of that sin that it would come against the fruit of the spirit, and loving your neighbor as your self?”
John, this is where you misunderstand me. I, Chris Austere, have not said homosexuality is a sin. I merely pointed out what the Apostle Paul said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, granted I agree with the scripture. You seem to be avoiding this altogether.
On other threads I have argued foreign policy on the basis of reason. But I know enough not to do that where the Bible is concerned, because the natural mind is an enemy of God and will always seek to justify unrighteous behavior. I have simply let the Bible speak for itself. Concerning your own attempt to make homosexuality acceptable in Christianity, consider the following:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
Your argument sounds logical, but since it is made with utter disregard for scripture, it is clearly hollow and deceptive.
It’s more your writing style (or lack thereof) that is hard to follow. Your logic is flawed, but it is pretty easy to follow. In reality though, this isn’t about logic, writing styles, or human reasoning. As Christians, we are called to have the mind of Christ, and to willfully defy God’s law or claim that the Bible says something different than it does is to make God into your own personal god, which is idolatry. Someone who professes Christ yet denies His laws shows a spiritually-hardened heart and mind which can not understand things of God. I pray, as Paul did for the Ephesians, “that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints…”
Amen, Chris.
you both are without any logic, and have yet to confront one point.
romans 12: 1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to TEST and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
rereciting scripture is no test. testing requires reason as in the book of hebrews
“icor and itim the a\original translation before an 1800’s term was transposed in a 2000 year text is “defiling oneself with mankind” defiling is against love against respect, against trust and it engenders self hatred and low sel esteem.”
So then are you saying that your personal definition of the word “defiling” nullifies the multiple translations of the Bible that plainly interpret this as homosexuality? This is further evidence that you are trying to make the Bible fit your preferred way of thinking.
you both are without any logic, and have yet to confront one point.
John, that’s just not true. Darius and Chris Austere have both responded to you. They have responded not only by examining your reasoning, but also by comparing it to specific passages from New Testament scripture.
I would be interested to know what your view of scripture is. Should the New Testament be taken as the inspired word of God? How much of the moral teaching can be regarded as purely cultural (and thus not applicable to us in the 20th century modern West) and how much is universal?
my understanding is of 1tim………”all scripture is god breathed.”
Obviously before we start accusing each other of being either without logic or without faith, we need to go back to premises here and make sure there isn’t a fundamental disagreement:
- is scripture inspired, accurate and god-breathed? Or is it merely a guide for tradition or a springboard for spirituality in general?
- is salvation by grace, or by works?
- Is sin the breaking of God’s commandments and does the law show us our sin and need for a savior? Or is sin much more general than that and salvation is for happiness and community?
I believe I know where Darius and Chris A. stand on these things. Where do Fred and John stand?
my understanding is of 1tim………”all scripture is god breathed.”
That’s what I figured. So I’m wondering what your interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is. The generally-accepted interpretation is that it is a condemnation of homosexuality. Is that a mistranslation? Or is that condemnation only applicable to the historical context?
Way to get to the basics, Colin. John appears to believe that the Bible is inspired, but just ignores that inspiration which contradicts his own beliefs.
“you both are without any logic, and have yet to confront one point.
romans 12: 1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to TEST and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
rereciting scripture is no test. testing requires reason as in the book of hebrews”
Your taking this completely out of context to prove your point. First of all, to get the full import of this passage you have to know what is said at the end of chapter 11. The word “therefore” in 12:1 is joining what was said in the previous chapter. To paraphrase, he was quoting Old Testament passages about the wonders of God’s wisdom. So he was saying because of the wonderful judgments of God present your bodies (flesh) to be used by God.
This alone would be sufficient to destroy your argument because you have ignored God’s judgments by attempting to assert that homosexuality is not sin. When we read 12:2 in context it is an instruction to pattern our thinking after God’s Word so that you will be able to test and prove what the will of God is. And God’s Word is quite explicit on the matter of homosexuality.
romans 24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
your homosexual brothers in christ love jesus and believe in him as their savior. how is it, that they can be accused of exchanging the truth of god for a lie and worshipping and serving the created. so much so that they were given over to homosexuality. 10s of thousands who were raised in the church, knew christ, way before they were ever aware of their orientation. would you also include children that show indications of having that orientation. does this mean that hindus, atheists and agnostics are prone to homosexuality. then dont forget the entire pagan world during the time of the old and new testament. would you say they were given to homosexuality. the problem with that is that most of these cultures, homosexuality was treated harshly. this is true particularly in hindu cultures.
romans26-27 requires an abandonment a relationship one once was given to, motivated by shame based lust(niv). with lust there is no commitment to another individual only to the lust……………..which in this case is obsession with sex and sexual pleasure. the relations described have no inference of committed relationship. there is no connection between this motivated behavior and human bonding motivated by mutual love, trust, respect, and attraction for a committed life with another
again …by their fruits(not your understanding of the law from which you receive no salvation) you will recognize them.
gotta go.
“then dont forget the entire pagan world during the time of the old and new testament.”
Umm, yes. Greeks, anyone?
So John, it sounds like you’re saying that Romans passage is a condemnation of promiscuous homosexual sex, and that it doesn’t apply to committed homosexual marriages. Would that be an accurate description of your belief?
John, you earlier said that your interpertation is that “all scripture is god breathed”. If that is the case, how do you dispute scripture regarding homosexuality?
Leviticus 22-24
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you
I am wondering if you are asking why homosexuality (or perhaps homosexual sex) seems to be more harshly judged than heterosexual fornication. I don’t understand that point myself, both are sins in the sight of the Lord. My only explanation for that is that as the Bible doesn’t speak of marriage as existing unless between a man and a woman, homosexual fornicators don’t have the option of marriage to end their fornication. Again, that doesn’t mean one should be more harshly judged than the other.
“your homosexual brothers in christ love jesus and believe in him as their savior. how is it, that they can be accused of exchanging the truth of god for a lie and worshipping and serving the created. so much so that they were given over to homosexuality.”
This passage of scripture is not talking about Christians being given over to homosexuality. Again, you can’t take something out of its setting and make it mean what you want it to mean. This is giving a general history of mankind as a whole, not Christians in particular. Romans seeks to explain how mankind is under sin and how faith in Jesus is the only way to attain right-standing with God.
Look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 IN CONTEXT:
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Notice that verse 11 says, “And such WERE some of you…” What were they? Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards, etc. This indicates a change from the former way of existence to walk in newness of life, free from these sins. The concept of a Christian brother who is a homosexual just doesn’t add up.
It should be needless to say, but just in case… The concept of a Christian brother who is living openly in an adulterous hetero affair also doesn’t add up. Same applies to someone who is openly extorting others. Same with someone who is ascribing things to God that are not of Him, or denying things that are of God. No one (besides Fred Phelps, may God judge him severely) says that homosexuality is the ONLY sin. But just because it isn’t the only sin doesn’t mean it isn’t A sin.
“It should be needless to say, but just in case… The concept of a Christian brother who is living openly in an adulterous hetero affair also doesn’t add up. Same applies to someone who is openly extorting others. Same with someone who is ascribing things to God that are not of Him, or denying things that are of God. No one (besides Fred Phelps, may God judge him severely) says that homosexuality is the ONLY sin. But just because it isn’t the only sin doesn’t mean it isn’t A sin.”
I agree 100%. The only reason I think homosexuality is being emphasized on this thread has to do with our response to john’s statements.
And since you mentioned Phelps, let me distance myself from anything of that sort. I don’t hate homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. I don’t even hate Phelps, and I don’t wish judgment on the man either. He deserves it, but so do we. Like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven, “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” We are justified freely by His grace.
I don’t hate Phelps, but the disrepute he has brought to Christianity (granted, most people can differentiate between him and real Christians) is disgusting. By “may God judge him severely,” I meant it as the writer of Psalms frequently called for the destruction of evildoers. Also, be careful that you don’t equate Phelps with Christians except on the most basic “all have sinned” platform. We have been redeemed by Christ’s love, he has not. He is a wicked man, that which is spoken of in Psalm 11:5: “The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.” As followers of Christ, we also should abhor violent and wicked men with an authentically righteous indignation, all the while acknowledging that without Christ, we would be in the same situation as Phelps. Fred Phelps is beyond redemption, he claims to speak for God. He has secured for himself a place in hell. Thus, I do hope that God will deal with Fred Phelps SOON.
Darius,
I agree that Phelps has some doctrinal issues, and the reputation of the Gospel has been marred by those who misrepresent God’s character. But I try to live by this:
1Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (Matthew 7:1-3)
God judges righteously. We do not. He is patient and long suffering; if we are exhibiting the fruit of the spirit we will respond the same way. I personally do not feel that we should want God to hasten judgment on someone unless we want to receive the same severity of judgment. Jesus didn’t come to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
As far as David goes, he was expressing his personal feelings in times of distress before the age of grace - before the full revelation of the mystery of the Gospel had been given.
Jesus said that we should love our enemies, bless them that curse us, and pray for those who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44). I would rather err on the side of mercy. Just as you prayed that john’s eyes be opened to the truth, perhaps we should pray the same for Phelps. Besides, if we call for the judgment of Phelps aren’t we really doing the same thing he is doing? He’s calling for the judgment of America and homosexuals.
John might yet have the ability to be redeemed from his errors. Phelps is beyond redemption… “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
Furthermore, while I agree that one should be very careful to judge others, what you have said contradicts Scripture AS IT APPLIES to Christians dealing with Christians (or those who claim to be Christians). The apostles repeatedly demanded that Christians JUDGE the actions and words from other “believers” and hold them to account. If they were unwilling to repent, they were to be thrown out of the church community until they did so. This was a judgment of their “fruit” and a requirement so that the church remained pure and untarnished by bad fruit and teaching.
Chris, Phelps is beyond merely “having some doctrinal issues.” He claims to be the only righteous person in the world, and that he and his congregation (read: family) are the only elect who will make it to heaven.
I agree Darius. While we are not called to perform judgment ourselves, it is biblical, even noble to seek the Lord’s judgment. I pray with boldness, much as David did, that God would bring swift and righteous judgment on those who are evil. God may find them right or wrong - but I cede my desire for vengence to him.
“John might yet have the ability to be redeemed from his errors. Phelps is beyond redemption… “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.””
Darius, you have taken this verse out of its context (I seem to be writing that a lot today.) This book was written to Hebrew believers, and was warning them not to return to the dead works of Judaism for justification. I don’t know a lot about Phelps, but saying that he is beyond help is a bit severe.
Scripture admonishes us to judge certain matters: heresy, false teachers, and gross sin, as in the case of the Corinthian church, etc. That’s not the same as wishing God’s judgment on someone. God would rather show mercy rather than judgment, and so would I.
romans 2:1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
im assuming ,that regarding what you judge concerning romans 1, in spite of what the verse is saying, you dont do the same things as those you judge.
romans 7:5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
what is the new way you SERVE of the spirit? what is the old way to written code that you have desisted SERVING? DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove…
Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text | Full Headers
“John, this is where you misunderstand me. I, Chris Austere, have not said homosexuality is a sin. I merely pointed out what the Apostle Paul said by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, granted I agree with the scripture. You seem to be avoiding this altogether.”
according to your premise, because of philemon slavery is not a sin.
“Fred, could you tell us where you find this definition? What I believe the Bible (and Jesus) teaches is that sin is defined as breaking God’s commandments and holy law. Some of these involve a lack of love, but many others are strictly personal between the individual and God. For example, lusting and coveting don’t really involve anyone but the individual and sinning against God.”
not only is fulfillment of the scriptures, love……… romans, anything without love is nothing………..1cor13. that would include following the law , piety, etc
“if as you say homosexuality is a sin, then what is the essence of the spirit of that sin that it would come against the fruit of the spirit, and loving your neighbor as your self?”
still unanswered.
I have nothing more to say to you, john.
in your zeal for the truth you forgot essence of the gospel, which is love.
love the lord your god with all your heart, soul, and mind. love your neighbor as yourself. love one another as i have loved you
love requires witness out of fellowship. if you had a child, a person you deeply loved and all of a sudden they did something you felt was a sin. you would run to them, to see why they were doing this thing. and out of fellowship in your love, you would listen to them explain their life experiences. “this is what i have been experiencing. at this moment of my life i felt this. from my life experiences this the understanding i have about myself.”
in this whole process, you would be touching them . looking in their eyes, listening to their words to measure whether this was from agape (loving yourself and your neighbor) or from some kind of shame based feelings that bring self hatred and self loathing. the antithesis of agape love.
1john11That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched
1john7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[b] sin.
because god gave the capacity to see his qualities in what he created
romans1: 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
then you have the decision to make. whether you will embrace the love you have witnessed, agape love, love of self and neighbor which is god.
1john1:16 God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God,
or whether you will serve your belief, your interpretation of the law.
romans6:6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
john, I am curious how you interpret 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul talks about expelling the immoral believers from the church. How do you reconcile that with a God of love? Clearly Paul believed that it was possible to interpret the law; not all behavior was acceptable for believers, and the church was not to tolerate certain things. Was Paul wrong to judge those believers?
“9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”[b]
im not sure i understand paul’s words……he appears to contradict what he has previously written. as far as the man having his father’s wife it speaks for itself. its adultery. it violates the vows that one made to another.
in galations 5 paul says that” 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:……..” to my understanding they are obvious because they come against the fruit of the spirit…….that is my plumbline. my understanding is that the fruit is not outward appearance but an inner spiritual essence. spirit creating spirit.
2tim 1:7For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.
Thanks john. I think I understand your beliefs more clearly now.
everything i have spoken to you comes from scripture. if i have in any way misused any scripture please feel free to point it out. like huus i ask “show me where my reason is flawed. but show it with scriptural annotations of your own to substantiate your own understanding. my intent is not to change your mind, merely to show you the scriptural thread that i stand on.
the word “spirit” is used 32 times in romans
in romans, paul says the law is holy and for conscious, but in christ we are led by the spirit.
romans 8:13-1513For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
so far i have heard a lot of beliefs, but have seen no scriptural thread.
now that i have answered your questions……………consider answering some of mine.
scripture says you cannot serve 2 masters, you will despise one and love the other.
could this be true in attempting to serve the law and the spirit at the same time?
john said, “scripture says you cannot serve 2 masters, you will despise one and love the other.
could this be true in attempting to serve the law and the spirit at the same time?”
john also said, “if i have in any way misused any scripture please feel free to point it out.”
john, I’m not trying to pick a fight with you (except maybe with your aversion to capital letters
but I do believe you are misusing scripture when you take a verse out of context as you did here. Yes, the verse starts out by saying “you cannot serve two masters, you will despise one and love the other.” But then it goes on in the very next sentence to say that the two masters being talked about are God and mammon (which is the old-fashioned word for ‘money’–not law and spirit as you suggest.
Matthew 6:24 says, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
If scripture is to be our guide, then we have to treat it honestly and when it says something clearly, not turn it into something else. (Granted, some things in scripture are not so clear or are ambiguous, but plenty of things are very clear indeed.)
john, I think some of your comments were trapped by our overly-zealous spam filter. I apologize for that. We’re not deliberately trying to silence you.
We’re looking for ways to improve Zeal for Truth’s spam filter, but I might just have to log in and check the spam box every couple of days. (Colin gave me admin powers, so I guess that means I have to do some work once in a while.) Hopefully we won’t block as many legitimate comments in the future.
terribly sorry if your comments got blocked john! I will do my best to ensure that doesn’t happen.
i brought it up for three reasons:
(1) god and manna is but one example. every scripture i read has had more than than one meaning.
(2)in my discussion with other who have used the term ” holy law”( yes paul said the law was holy and for conscious)there has always appeared to be a negative appreciation for all things of the spirit, particularly when talking about love.
(3)paul said we were to be led by the spirit and to serve it in a new way.
about the spam that is good to hear. the number of web sights are many, that will ONLY print opinions that support a particular way of looking at an issue.
john said, “(1) god and manna is but one example. every scripture i read has had more than than one meaning.”
john, I assume “manna” was a typo?
Some scripture passages do have more than one meaning in the sense that poetry and metaphor are both used. But no, it isn’t true that every scripture has more than one meaning. And yes, we expect the Holy Spirit to help us understand, but we never expect the Holy Spirit to say something different from what Scripture clearly states.
For example, if the gospel writer says Jesus cursed the fig tree, I have to accept the fact that Jesus said something mean to that tree. I might not think it was very nice of Jesus to curse the hapless fig tree who was just minding its own business of being a tree–acting in a completely natural way–but I’m not free to change the story and say Jesus spoke with love to the tree just because I think he should have. Nor am I free to say that Jesus shouldn’t have acted so hatefully to that poor tree–it isn’t up to me to make up the rules or rewrite the facts.
If I’m going to call myself a Christian, I have to accept what Scripture says honestly, whether I like it or not.
exactly, thainamu… oops, sorry, this whole “no caps” thing is getting to me.
John, each text has only one meaning, except in the cases Thainamu mentioned. And even there, the meanings aren’t contradictory in any way. Furthermore, the Scriptures never contradict themselves, nor does the Holy Spirit contradict what the Bible says.
Another thing that seems to be lost by many Christians (or at least professing Christians) is the fact that Jesus never claimed to bring peace (at least in the worldly sense). He came to bring a figurative sword, and to show us the NARROW way to heaven. Thus, any theology that attempts to make the path to salvation easy or broad is inherently wrong.
“Furthermore, the Scriptures never contradict themselves, nor does the Holy Spirit contradict what the Bible says.”
Well said. Anytime you have someone using scripture as a basis for an unscriptural argument, watch out. We can’t use the Holy Bible as a means of justifying or condoning unholy sexual relations with children, animals, or people of the same gender. That’s a misrepresentation of our Creator, because if you misrepresent what he says, you misrepresent him. He cannot be separated from his Word, and He is not a man that He should lie. In fact, its impossible for Him to lie.
Some scripture does have more than one meaning, and not just metaphorical things. The classic case being Isaiah 7:14. It did not mean to Ahaz what it meant to Matthew.
Jasen, that is prophesy and usually had a linked meaning between the present and the future that was only understood by God and His omniscient vision. Isaiah probably didn’t even fully understand what it meant, just that God had inspired him to say it.
One meaning hermeneutics
One-meaning hermeneutics
consider: the origin of homosexuality is unimportant. is science suppose to determine our theology. the only thing that is important is if homosexuality has the same capacity to embrace love of oneself and loving ones neighbor as heterosexuality.(love that sums up all the laws)
do homosexuals embrace love of self and neighbor any less than heterosexuals?
any sins comittted during same sex acts no more condemns the orientation than incestal rape in 2samuel condemned heterosexuality
you have two couples one heterosexual, one homosexual. both bond thru mutual love, respect, attraction,and trust. if the esssence of the spirit of bonding is the same for both, how is it that one is condemned and one is applauded.
didnt jesus say by their fruit you will recognize them. fruit being fruit of the spirit.
so then,can we agree……….the teachings of christ affirm total equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals?
“so then,can we agree……….the teachings of christ affirm total equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals?”
I don’t think anyone on this thread has agreed with you about this. Homosexual acts are not condoned in scripture by Jesus or anyone else; therefore such acts could not be defined in terms of love in the biblical sense - period.
I mean let’s analyze these acts. I’m going to be graphic (so here’s your chance to turn away), but we may as well lay it all on the table. A man uses his anus to have bowel movements. So his rectum has excrement in it, right? If another man inserts his erect penis into the rectum of another man, not only will he cause tears from which blood will come, but he will also get excrement on his penis. So during the time of copulation, there is blood, semen, and excrement. You want people to agree that this is an act of love, like the natural sex between a man and a woman? Let’s be honest with ourselves. Is it any wonder the Bible uses the phrase, “abusers of themselves with mankind”? That is exactly what takes place.
This is a true story: At a place I was previously employed, a homosexual man called in and said he was going to be late. He literally said the reason he was going to be late was that he had “messed himself.” That’s what you call sphincter damage, my friend. Nothing lovely about that whatsoever.
That guy actually admitted that??? Talk about too much information.
are you saying that god messed up when he made the human body. the anus is an errogenous zone. anal orgasms are possible. why do you limit your comments to homosexuals when 20-30% of heterosexual couples regularly indulge in some form of anal stimulation or penetration.
your obsession about rectal damge, has never given you the courage to actually ask a homosexual. why dont you consider the possibility, and see if you get an honest answer or one, full of denial.
my own experimentation with my own anus has shown me that in periods of extreme arousal my rectal area is relaxed and dialated and extremely lubricated.
as far as tearing goes, yes the anus is more sensitive than the vagina. and therefore requires certain precautions when using it in the act of sex.
i would think that if you were a male prostitute, yes the likelihood is that they would tear the area.
back to romans 1.
if you dont know who exchanged the truth about god for a lie and what was that truth they exchanged, and how they worshipped and served the created, then how do know who was given over to homosexuality?
you never answered my question about romans2:1. do you give yourself the license to tell the holy spirit. no i dont do the same things as the ones i judge.
romans 2: 1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
however if romans was looked upon in another way……….the answer would definitely be yes.
an expose on what WE DO………..THE ESSENCE OF ALL SIN.
(1) we are aware of god’s invivible qualities thru what he created so we have no excuse to say we do not know of him.
(2) and allthough knowing him we do not give thanks in all things. nor glorify him. in fact the less that we do these, the more we credit ourselves with being our own savior.
(3)we are fools in our wisdom and exchange his glory in whom we arre created in his image, for images of our own mortality.
(4) because we are given over to these images we are also given over to all kinds of appetites of the desires of our hearts in our attempt to embrace the here and now.
(5)we exchange the truth of god for a lie and serve ourselves and our earthly wisdom……….. even powers and principalities.
(6)we are given over from the natural love of self and brother, neighbor to the unnatural, lusts of every given thing. this provides for our unlimited sense of shame, our own self hatred and low self esteem.
(7)in this state of existence we no longer think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of god.and embrace the license to do every kind of wickedness and evil.
(8) and while doing this, knowing that to do this brings death, we continue to not only do them but also approve of those who do the very same things.
this is why you who judge do the very same things as those you judge.. this is why we all need a savior. THE MESSAGE OF ROMANS
are you saying that god messed up when he made the human body. the anus is an errogenous zone. anal orgasms are possible. why do you limit your comments to homosexuals when 20-30% of heterosexual couples regularly indulge in some form of anal stimulation or penetration.
your obsession about rectal damge, has never given you the courage to actually ask a homosexual. why dont you consider the possibility, and see if you get an honest answer or one, full of denial.
my own experimentation with my own anus has shown me that in periods of extreme arousal my rectal area is relaxed and dialated and extremely lubricated.
as far as tearing goes, yes the anus is more sensitive than the vagina. and therefore requires certain precautions when using it in the act of sex.
i would think that if you were a male prostitute, yes the likelihood is that they would tear the area.
back to romans 1.
if you dont know who exchanged the truth about god for a lie and what was that truth they exchanged, and how they worshipped and served the created, then how do know who was given over to homosexuality?
you never answered my question about romans2:1. do you give yourself the license to tell the holy spirit. no i dont do the same things as the ones i judge.
romans 2: 1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
however if romans was looked upon in another way……….the answer would definitely be yes.
an expose on what WE DO………..THE ESSENCE OF ALL SIN.
(1) we are aware of god’s invivible qualities thru what he created so we have no excuse to say we do not know of him.
(2) and allthough knowing him we do not give thanks in all things. nor glorify him. in fact the less that we do these, the more we credit ourselves with being our own savior.
(3)we are fools in our wisdom and exchange his glory in whom we arre created in his image, for images of our own mortality.
(4) because we are given over to these images we are also given over to all kinds of appetites of the desires of our hearts in our attempt to embrace the here and now.
(5)we exchange the truth of god for a lie and serve ourselves and our earthly wisdom……….. even powers and principalities.
(6)we are given over from the natural love of self and brother, neighbor to the unnatural, lusts of every given thing. this provides for our unlimited sense of shame, our own self hatred and low self esteem.
(7)in this state of existence we no longer think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of god.and embrace the license to do every kind of wickedness and evil.
(8) and while doing this, knowing that to do this brings death, we continue to not only do them but also approve of those who do the very same things.
this is why you who judge do the very same things as those you judge.. this is why we all need a savior. THE MESSAGE OF ROMANS
“my own experimentation with my own anus has shown me that in periods of extreme arousal my rectal area is relaxed and dialated and extremely lubricated.”
Now that’s what I call too much information.
you started it.
actually this has become the decade of the anus. 40 years ago it socially unacceptable to discuss that orfice, and even better the substance that went thru it.
but with advent of colon cancer and every other type of cancer in that area, the legalization of homosexuality, and social acceptability of anal sex, finallly that area has become just another part of the body. and poop is just part of the cycle of all the nutritious things we put in our mouths. the intestine is now looked upon as as this marvelous tube that brings nutrition to the body.
i can enumerate in my mind all the things that had to happen…………….sexual revolution, religious reformation of the 70’s, the culteral revolution of the sixties, the advent of the age of indidivalism and individual opinon. etc…. for homosexuality to even have a possibility of equality with heterosexuality.
the turn of the century(1900) man could never have comprehended ethnic and religious equality. how could there have been anything else but the racism that existed. billy graham in the late 20th century admitted to his antisemitism. jerry falwell his racism. all good men, and reflective of the limitations of whole populations of that era.
were you aware that it was a christian country that conducted the holocaust, and an entire christian world that indirectly supported it.
germany in the 1500’s, was thanks to martin luther the first country to receive a bible in its own language. martin luther was and remained its national hero. but it was this hero who was responsible the antisemitic writings(late in his life) that hitler publically used to validate and get support for his attitude toward the jews. it was the antisemitism of the whole christian world that indirectly supported it. the refusal to bomb the railroads. the refusal by those that knew to publically chastize hitler. the refusal of the pope to use his powers of excommunication.(hitler has never been excommunicated.)
and lastly myself, having been raised in the antisemitism of the forties and fifties at the age of ten(a cradle episcopalian), when i first heard about the death camps my mental knee jerk response was, “isnt that, how you are suppose to treat them?”
For a real quality read, check out Theodore Dalrymple’s new book, In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Pre-Conceived Ideas. Short read, but fantastic. Dalrymple is one of the best writers of our times, and when I read him I find it hard to believe that he isn’t a 19th century author.
“actually this has become the decade of the anus.”
-feetxxxl
That’s sick, dude.
the decade of the anus, huh? Is that like the Chinese year of the sheep?