Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question?

Forum Quick Jump

264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 2/23/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6)

A_Theist

Sorry Shell, but given the above articles I posted … and my strong belief that homosexuality is sin, I don't believe these people are truly giving their burdens up to God and allowing him to transform them.
Sorry, but according to Paul in Romans 1, your friend is not obeying God.
Iconoclast

Your logic is that IF a homosexual gives their burdens up to God THEN their passions will change. I do not see how Romans 1 supports this logic unless you are presupposing that the ONLY reason a person has homosexual fantasies is BECAUSE they have strayed from God and therefore turning back to God will automatically fix the problem.

I do not believe the facts support this presupposition. Let’s look at the passage in question:

quote:

Rom 1:22-31

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

From this we CAN conclude that people who deny God MAY exchange heterosexual desires for homosexual desires. I don’t think anyone would argue that denying God ALWAYS leads to homosexual desires or even OFTEN leads to homosexual desires.

We CANNOT conclude that ALL people who have homosexual desire do so because they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.” The text simply does not state this and furthermore we have irrefutable evidence that sexual orientation is determined by about the age of 5 years old. Once we know that the Earth goes around the Sun then we know that our first interpretation of the “Sun stood still for 24 hours” is incorrect. I don’t think that any of us would argue that children the age of 5 have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.”

Therefore, it is simply incorrect logic to use this passage to support the notion that IF a homosexual gives their life to Christ THEN they will no longer have homosexual desires.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 2/23/2003 7:16 PM (GMT -6)

John said:

In 1 Cor. 7, right after telling the Corinthians that those who continue to practice sexual sin (any sex outside of heterosexual marriage) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10), Paul gives instructions for those who find their sexual passions uncontrollable:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life. 2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.

Semeia:

Two things:

1)Do you agree with Paul that one should be celibate unless they have uncontrollable lust?

John replies: Paul himself said this was not an absolute rule; the context he is speaking to is the rampant sexual immorality in Corinth, not just in the church, but the city in general as well as the church. Also, Paul finally concludes that whatever gift one has (celibacy or marriage), they should live that way, and not all had the gift of celibacy as Paul did. (see 1 Cor. 7:1-15)

Semeia says: Is marriage simply a protective measure to stave off "sexual immorality" as Paul says it is?

John replies: Once again, you are assuming that Paul's only reason justifying marriage is to regulate sexual practices. Given his use of marriage as analagous to Christ's relationship to the Church (Ephesians), it does not seem to me that Paul here is saying marriage is simply a protective measure to stave off sexual immorality. If one chooses to focus only on this particular passage to find Paul's attitude towards marriage, one might well come away with the idea that Paul simply viewed it as you say he does. But that does not appear to be Paul's (nor the Bible's) overall view of marriage and sexuality (Song of Solomon, for example)

Semeia said:

and

2)If Paul says that those who practice sexual sin will not inherit the kingdom of God, and Jesus says that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery (which means practicing sexual sin), then would you say that divorced and remarried people will not inherit the kingdom of God?

John replies: Again, the old bait and switch. But I will go ahead and discuss this, as I don't see it really is as huge a hurdle as some may think.

As I find Paul and Jesus both made some exceptions to the general rule of one wife and one man for life (namely, marital unfaithfulness or desertion (1 Cor 7:15)), and the Old Testament also made exceptions to the general rule, then it does not follow that all divorced and remarried persons are living in perpetual adultery (though some may in fact be). That is, if they were divorced for scripturally sanctioned reasons then they are free from their former marriage.

But this has absolutely zero to do with homosexual sex acts, which are nowhere condoned in Scripture.

God himself is divorced because of marital infidelity:

Jer. 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 02/24/2003 12:32:54 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 2/23/2003 8:10 PM (GMT -6)

So, John, if Paul says that those who practice sexual sin will not inherit the kingdom of God, and Jesus says that those who divorce (except for unchastity) and remarry are committing adultery (which means practicing sexual sin), then would you say that divorced and remarried people (who were not divorced for unchastity) will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Jesus only mentioned unchastity as an exception. Not wife-beating or child abusing or thieving or compulsive gambling or alcoholism or any of dozens of serious crimes that can break up a marriage. So if someone divorced their spouse not because they were unfaithful, but because they were being beaten to a pulp on a regular basis, and then got remarried after their non-sanctioned divorce, thus practicing (according to Jesus) adultery on an ongoing basis, thus practicing sexual sin, then would you say they will not inherit the kingdom of God?

And how do you square that with what Paul says? Or are you saying that when Jesus calls divorce and remarriage except in cases of unchastity to be adultery, that somehow the adultery doesn't qualify as sexual sin?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/24/2003 5:24 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist said:

quote:
To me your argument on genetic determinism doesn't follow because of this article. If you want to use that argument still, I would encourage you to read the above article in order for you to remain intellectually honest to yourself.

The article you posted is only one perspective on the issue and is not the most common opinion held among scientists who do not believe that sexual orientation is simply a matter of choice.

Here are some basic answers from the American Psychological Association:

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

What is important in coming to terms with the issue of homosexuality is the recognition that despite the complexity of genetic and environmental factors that determine a person's sexual orientation, it is not something we choose. I have known many Christian friends who prayed for years begging God to take away their homosexuality...but those prayers were never answered. They had to either come to love themselves for who they were or live in self-hatred believing the crushing words of those who told them they just hadn't "submitted to God enough."

Some more articles that address this issue:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-05-sheep-study_x.htm

http://www.bodymindsoul.org/new_page_26.htm

quote:
And still, none of the homosexual adherents have still explained to me why homosexual deliverance ministries work if this is supposedly genetic as being born caucasian in a caucasian family.

http://www.mlp.org/resources/packet/conversion/conversion.pdf

See article above written by a Presbyterian Elder and M.D.. The evidence is that conversion therapy fails miserably and everyone I know who has been through such programs were not helped but only abused by them. A person can force someone to write with their right hand but it doesn't change the fact that they are left handed.

A_Theist said:

quote:

I don't believe these people are truly giving their burdens up to God and allowing him to transform them.

Ironically, the same argument is often made against Christians who are unable to conquer their depression. The "evidence" that depression is chemical or biological is disputed by Christians who say that God will "cure" anyone who simply allows themselves to be transformed by God. Subsequently, those who continue in depression have "not submitted to God fully." One young man from Master's College who had a history of depression was told this by his pastoral counselor and went home and killed himself because he wanted nothing more than to be "fully transformed by God" but his depression never lifted. These Christian pronouncements heap a burden to heavy to bear by indicting the very sufferers as being to blame. Such messages are spiritually abusive and sound more like the words of the Accuser than of the Holy Spirit to me.

With a heavy heart,
~E

Edited by - Empiress on 02/24/2003 10:32:40 AM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/24/2003 6:28 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress,

You might as well stop showing me anything you feel are facts, because I don't believe you. I belive it is a sin and that is FINAL. Sorry, but your genetic determinism argument doesn't work in my eyes, because there is proof both ways. I am warring against sin, I am sorry you are not. I feel this way about other sins as well, and if you allow one I feel you have to allow them all.

Reject the bible on these matter, but just don't pick and choose what you feel to be ethically sound doctorine from the bible, because Paul explicity says, and I have seen Pauline scholars in agreement, say that he is speaking down on homosexuality.

Don't reply because it will be a waste of your psychic energy.

Don't try to rationlalize sin to a rational mind who feels sin is irrrational.

paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 2/24/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress: you are going to use the APA as your guide?! Please, check out there manual when you have a chance and see all the odd and stupid things they list as "disorders." A person doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
And I know and am in touch with many who, through their own choice recognized what they were doing was wrong and changed. What does that prove?
Conversion theraphy when forced is unsuccessful. But many change because they recognize what they are doing is wrong. Do they still struggle? Of course. Just like all of us.
Having been part of the Presbyterian I can vouch for the fact that it is one of the most liberal churches going today (unless it is a branch of the Reformed), so it doesn't surprise me your doctor would believe as he does. That is why the homosexual community targeted the Presbyterian church USA to get them to allow homosexual. And they even failed there.
I am with A, even if I'm one of those evil meany church people icon is always talking about...(such talk sometimes borders on the comical.

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/24/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist said:

quote:

I am warring against sin, I am sorry you are not.

I believe I am warring against sin, the sin that fuels all forms of hatred and discrimination from racism to sexism to homophobia. I am very sorry you are not.

But yes, I have no desire to continue this conversation with you and will stop "wasting my time."

~E

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/24/2003 10:54 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
homophobia

It is so nice when someone tags that onto people who don't agree with homosexuality; a dirty rhetorical tactic to minimize the persons integrity, such a shame.

I don't think (I hope not) that any of the people who are warring against sin are homophobic. I would hope they are hamartiaphobic (someone who is fearful of sin or discriminates against it). I am sorry you have a failure in dichotomizing between the sin and the sinner, but I pray that you will eventually see the error in your way and stop labelling people homophobic because they don't agree with sin.

Peace,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 02/24/2003 3:57:09 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 2/24/2003 1:21 PM (GMT -6)

A_Theist

I am warring against sin...

Iconoclast

Whose sin? Your own or others? If your own then more power to you and good luck. If other people's sin then how do you deal with Jesus' command to "judge not"? I hear you condemning homosexual people - is this your intent? Or am I hearing you wrong? Are you saying that a monogamous gay couple is going to hell even though they have accepted Jesus as their Savior?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 02/24/2003 6:26:50 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/24/2003 1:40 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Whose sin? Your own or others?

Well, since this is a topic on homosexuality, it is against the sin of homosexuality.

quote:
If other people's sin then how do you deal with Jesus' command to "judge not"?

As others have pointed out to you and other sin adherents on this board, there are plenty of verses that say that we should war against sin and it isn't "judging" in the way you and others have abused that verse and Jesus' mandate against judging. You've seen the verses we've used on why as Christians we feel we can hate sin, why do you act like you haven't.

quote:
Or am I hearing you wrong?

Yes sir!

quote:
Are you saying that a monogamous gay couple is going to hell even though they have accepted Jesus as their Savior?

What is accepting God as your savior mean to you? I have a hard time believing someone has truly accepted Christ and still walk as if they have an excuse to sin. Even though, like you said, I am not allowed to judge, I assess that even though they might have said that, their doing doesn't really show me otherwise.

later,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 02/24/2003 6:42:21 PM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/24/2003 1:47 PM (GMT -6)

A_Theist said:

quote:

It is so nice when someone tags that onto people who don't agree with homosexuality; a dirty rhetorical tactic to minimize the persons integrity, such a shame.

For the record Paul, I have not ever called you or anyone on this board homophobic; I really have no idea what is in anyone's heart. I HAVE said that I believe that homophobia is often at the root of the anti-gay propaganda and if you go back and read my posts you will see where I made this distinction very clearly.

Yes, I do believe that OFTEN throughout history homophobia is at the root of anti-gay sentiment, rhetoric, movements, and beliefs. Anyone who reads history can see for themselves that gays have been not only abused but KILLED for not being heterosexual. Whether or not any one person is homophobic, however, I know not and you took me out of context.

My point is that it is an error for people who speak so loudly against homosexuality to think they are the only one's "against sin" and those who fight for the rights of homosexuals are somehow "for sin." That is a logical fallacy. Those who fight for the rights of homosexuals believe they are "against sin," the sin that prohibits all God's children from being embraced into the fold of God's Church.

For clarity sake,
~E

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/24/2003 2:01 PM (GMT -6)

Fight for the rights of that person to be loved and accepted, don't fight for the right to allow them to remain homosexual. That is my main problem, and no homosexual advocates seems to get it. We Christians are viewed as judgmental or hateful because people fail to distinguish between sin and sinner. I am adamantly opposed to sin and advocates of it, because it is not productive in God's kingdom. I don't know how one could say otherwise. What are you fighting for when allowing one to remain in sin? What war for the Kingdom are you winning by allowing another believer to perish because he or she has convinced you that they are not in sin and something they are born with? I am told to love people and forget they have sin because I am a sinner as well, is it helpful to just go on my merry way even though this person is perishing?

Because you've told them it is ok, and they delight now in no longer struggling with their sin because they don't view it as sin any longer, how have you helped them? We all struggle with fleshly desires, and nobody said it was going to be easy, why are people who struggle (well, I shouldn't call it a struggle because a struggle presupposes it is sin, and it is not viewed this way by the adherents) with homosexuality any different?

Do you realize your advocating one sin is possibly leading others to want to sin as well?

later,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 02/24/2003 7:05:56 PM

Edited by - A_Theist on 02/24/2003 7:08:13 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 2/24/2003 2:26 PM (GMT -6)

If homosexual orientation is something passed down genetically (sounds really Augustinian/Calvinistic to me) it would by definition have to be a diminishing factor in the general population. No reproduction, no passing down of genes.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 2/24/2003 2:30 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia said: So, John, if Paul says that those who practice sexual sin will not inherit the kingdom of God, and Jesus says that those who divorce (except for unchastity) and remarry are committing adultery (which means practicing sexual sin), then would you say that divorced and remarried people (who were not divorced for unchastity) will not inherit the kingdom of God?

John replies: First of all, it is taking things out of context for one to take Jesus’ statements on divorce and then try to force them to fit with Paul’s.

Second, you seem to be overlooking the fact that Paul added the possibility that desertion by an unbeliever was also grounds for a believer being freed from the marriage bond.

Third, there is the distinct possibility that Jesus was speaking specifically about Herod (who was notoriously immoral) when he said these things. In another place, Jesus seems to place his blessing on those who even leave houses, wives, lands, children, etc., for the gospel’s sake:

Luke 18:29 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

I freely confess that this is a difficult passage in many ways. However, I think we can begin to see why some evangelical scholars have concluded that it is virtually impossible to make a hard and fast rule about divorce based on the known sayings of Jesus we possess.

Semeia said:Jesus only mentioned unchastity as an exception. Not wife-beating or child abusing or thieving or compulsive gambling or alcoholism or any of dozens of serious crimes that can break up a marriage. So if someone divorced their spouse not because they were unfaithful, but because they were being beaten to a pulp on a regular basis, and then got remarried after their non-sanctioned divorce, thus practicing (according to Jesus) adultery on an ongoing basis, thus practicing sexual sin, then would you say they will not inherit the kingdom of God?

John replies: I guess you’re problem would be with Jesus and not me, then, wouldn’t it? As I am definitely not Him (or Paul), I should not presume to speak authoritatively where they have not. If it makes any difference, some have interpreted the things you list as “practical abandonment.” The Eastern Orthodox Church, from what I understand, in the early centuries developed exceptions in the cases of precisely the kinds of abusive things you refer to. (Not that I am EO by any means, but just for informational purposes, and because if I ever could get past sacramentalism, infant baptism, prayers, praises, and songs to Mary, and the like, I would probably convert).

That being said, if I were to try to come up with a list of good reasons for divorce, they would not be authoritative for Christians, now would they? For what it’s worth, I do believe that wife-beating or child abuse would be grounds for divorce, and that this would fall under the category of “practical abandonment.” But again, I have no scriptural authority whatsoever to say this.

Semeia said: And how do you square that with what Paul says? Or are you saying that when Jesus calls divorce and remarriage except in cases of unchastity to be adultery, that somehow the adultery doesn't qualify as sexual sin?

John replies: I don’t feel compelled to “square” Jesus with Paul on this issue; much greater minds than I have grappled with precisely this, and have also come away more than a bit perplexed. My understanding is that the Gospels are no more inspired than Paul’s letters, and therefore should not be viewed as superior to Paul’s writings. As an evangelical, I view all Scripture as God-breathed, and thus all-sufficient for doctrine and practice. If the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul another possible exception (desertion) in the general “no divorce” rule, then I have no problem at all accepting that. I really don’t think your question is worded fairly. Adultery is clearly sexual sin; who said it wasn’t?
FWIW, what I find Jesus was saying (to some Jewish men of his day who felt they could divorce for “any reason”) was this—“You guys can’t divorce for such flimsy reasons! It’s no better than committing adultery to divorce your wife just because you find one who’s more attractive to you!”

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 02/24/2003 8:21:14 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/24/2003 2:41 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I believe I am warring against sin, the sin that fuels all forms of hatred and discrimination from racism to sexism to homophobia. I am very sorry you are not.

Can't we all just get along!?!

Ummm...Miss E. Upon reading this quote, it does come off sounding like ad hominem towards A_Theist. If he is not included in the last one (which you said "often homophobia is at the root of anti-gay sentiment, rhetoric, movements, and beliefs" thereby connecting his obvious anti-gay stance to it), would he be included in the first two?

Secondly, having a negative stance does not logically entail having a phobia.

But I think those on the pro-gay side need to realize that those of us on the other side of this issue understand it to be one of changing an absolute ethical standard. We don't pick out homosexuality as some special sin.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/24/2003 3:54 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
If homosexual orientation is something passed down genetically (sounds really Augustinian/Calvinistic to me) it would by definition have to be a diminishing factor in the general population. No reproduction, no passing down of genes.

I guess we would have to leave it up to the memes then to pass it on.

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 2/24/2003 3:59 PM (GMT -6)

John said:

I guess you’re problem would be with Jesus and not me, then, wouldn’t it? As I am definitely not Him (or Paul), I should not presume to speak authoritatively where they have not.

Semeia:

Are you saying that Jesus did not speak authoritatively when he said:

Matthew 5:31-32 It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Can you tell me what is ambiguous or unauthoritative about Jesus' words?

Whether or not Paul added "desertion" as a sanctioned reason, still we are left with hundreds of different reasons for the break-up of marriages which are not covered by these exceptions. And Jesus says that the wife commits adultery by remarrying even when it is the husband who has brought about the divorce!

Since you agree that adultery is sexual sin, and Jesus says that remarriage after a non-sanctioned divorce is adulterous, then how is it that you do not go after remarried people and try to get them to stop "living in sin" by staying in their non-sanctioned marriage?

Why do Paul's words drive you to try to stop homosexuals from participating in "sexual sin" - and yet Jesus' words leave you unmotivated? If sin is such a primary issue for you as a Christian to root out in others, why not go after remarried people?

Or does Paul have more authority for you than Jesus?

I don't say that to be disrespectful; it is just a natural conclusion based on the different weight you give to the two scriptures.

John said:

If the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul another possible exception (desertion) in the general “no divorce” rule, then I have no problem at all accepting that.

Semeia:

If you agree that the Holy Spirit can reveal exceptions to Paul, do you also agree that the Holy Spirit can reveal exceptions to other human beings? Or does the Holy Spirit have no power to reveal things to human beings other than Biblical characters?

If the Holy Spirit does have the power to speak to individuals, and most gay Christians say that God has spoken to them, and told them they are okay as they are, on what basis do you deny that this is possible?

John said:

As an evangelical, I view all Scripture as God-breathed, and thus all-sufficient for doctrine and practice.

Semeia:

Then why do Paul's words on "sexual sin" motivate you to action, while Jesus' words on "sexual sin" do not?

Semeia said: Jesus only mentioned unchastity as an exception. Not wife-beating or child abusing or thieving or compulsive gambling or alcoholism or any of dozens of serious crimes that can break up a marriage. So if someone divorced their spouse not because they were unfaithful, but because they were being beaten to a pulp on a regular basis, and then got remarried after their non-sanctioned divorce, thus practicing (according to Jesus) adultery on an ongoing basis, thus practicing sexual sin, then would you say they will not inherit the kingdom of God?

John replies: I guess you’re problem would be with Jesus and not me, then, wouldn’t it?

Semeia:

No, I don't have a problem with what Jesus says, because it is completely consistent with my understanding that he is pointing out the massive sinfulness of ALL people, and that anyone who thinks he has less sin than the next person is completely mistaken.

It does pose a problem for your argument, though, because you are arguing that sexual sin is "worse" than other sins, to the point that it will keep one out of the kingdom of God. To be consistent, and hold scripture to the high standard that you do, you would have to also argue that divorced and remarried people (divorced for the wrong reasons) are headed for eternal damnation (based on the scripture from Paul).

If you do not believe that, you have to give some evidence for why Jesus' words don't apply, while Paul's words do.

If you do believe that, you have to give some explanation why your focus is on homosexuals and not on divorced and remarried people.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 2/24/2003 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Semeia,

Perhaps I have been to wordy. Let me spell it out for you: Jesus made an exception. Paul added another. The words of both these men carry inspired status and are thus authoritative. All this I explicitly preach and teach. 'Nuff said. I have no further interest in responding to your cavils. He that sins is of the devil. He that is begotten of God does not sin. (see 1 John 3) One who says they believe in libertarian free will and does not live free from sin (a la Romans 6) simply does not live what he says he believes.

Sin shall not be your master, for your are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14)

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 02/25/2003 01:37:48 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 2/25/2003 1:49 AM (GMT -6)

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1046177284-4290.html

God is Love,

Tim

1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father…

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/25/2003 3:37 AM (GMT -6)

BBC Canada said:

quote:
Ummm...Miss E. Upon reading this quote, it does come off sounding like ad hominem towards A_Theist. If he is not included in the last one (which you said "often homophobia is at the root of anti-gay sentiment, rhetoric, movements, and beliefs" thereby connecting his obvious anti-gay stance to it), would he be included in the first two?

Secondly, having a negative stance does not logically entail having a phobia.

I think the main reason one would suppose that by saying that OFTEN homophobia is at the root of anti-gay sentiment is an ad hominen attack on anyone who believes homosexuality is a sin is because they do not understand my position and are so used to others automatically connecting the two.

By way of explanation:

I used to believe that the Bible was clear in its condemnation of all and any form of homosexuality as sin and that homosexual behavior across the board was "abominable" (to use the Levitical rendering). At the same time I had many gay friends whom I loved and prayed for and hoped they would be "healed." I was never "homophobic" in the sense that I feared or hated gays, I simply believed that the Scriptures were clear on the matter as I had been taught. I remember being called "homophobic" by many including one of my pastors and it angrered me to be labelled something I knew I was not.

As time went on I came to realize that many of the people in my theological circle were in fact very homophobic and that distressed me. I began to do heavy research into all the theories of homosexuality and kept finding that it was often tied to racism and sexism in people's minds. Again this baffled initially. But as I read through the history and logic people have used historically against homosexuality, I began to read the absolute and incredible HATRED and rabid fear of homosexuals that have predominated history and certainly Church history. Then I began to realize that my beliefs, whether or not I personally was homophobic, were tied to a larger historical evil of homophobia. I began to that see people had construed the very words of Scripture in translating the Greek and Hebrew according to this bias. (For example, to make them say "homosexual" rather than "sodomizer" which are very different concepts.) I began to see that there was NO EQUIVALENT to the kind of homosexuality of our culture today in which two people love one another and want to commit to one another in life long union in ancient culture. The concepts the Bible dealt with had to do with same sex rape and promiscuity and lust and had nothing to do with sexual orientation as scientists understand it today. I began to see that homophobia, like racism and sexism, was something people can be apart of without themselves being racist, sexist, or homophobic.

I spoke with my gay friends for many hourse about their experiences and learned that all of them had known or felt themselves to be gay since their first thoughts and that all of them had struggled in prayer with God for years over it. Many of them were so injured by the Church and her teachings that they became clinically depressed and believed God had abandoned them and left the Church. They ALL struggled with the severest self-hate despite the fact that many of them were the most dedicated Christians and servants of God that I had ever known. I simply couldn't understand it because if what people say is true...that homosexuality is an abomination of God and that it destroys people...then my friends should have looked like very different people, not the kindest, most sincere and loving followers of Christ.

My "conversion" occurred one day in prayer while I was crying and asking God to help me understand this very issue. I believe I heard God say to me, "Do you think I am concerned with behavior more than love?" And I immediately knew the answer was "no." I was transformed that day in more areas than merely my questions about homosexuality.

So although I was not "homophobic," a lot of my beliefs were rooted in a historical belief system that was homophobic.

Where I'm at now: I don't go around telling people that what they do sexually is either "wrong" or "right." What I do is I love them and accept them wherever they are and leave the rest to God. I believe that all of us are in sin in some way and I personally don't have any answers as to exactly what behaviors constitute sin for a person and which don't, I believe it depends on the person. I certainly don't believe that the Bible gives us a clear answer as to how we are to view monogomous homosexuality in today's culture. I distance myself from any system of thought that does not put love first because when love is not motivating it, something else is.

I believe that when Christians fail to see the ways in which anti-gay thought is tied to the deeper homophobia of history and society and the church, they are failing to speak out against one of the greatest evils in human history.

My point to A_Theist is that while he believes he alone is "warring against sin" and that I am "condoning it," he is failing to war against the greater systemic evil...the one that really threatens people's souls more than any particular behavior.

Again for clarity sake,
~E

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/25/2003 5:00 AM (GMT -6)

Hi, E.

The thought of one being "healed" from one's sins is a nice one, and a necessary one. It belongs to that collection of "now and not yet" that is so-o-o-o-o true. And as such, to fail to acknowledge the very real presence of eschatological victory OR to fail to acknowledge the stuborn endurance of the "old man" BOTH give a misleading picture.

A thought. You said: "...he is failing to war against the greater systemic evil...the one that really threatens people's souls more than any particular behavior. "

I've been between the covers of G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" lately. This particular comment of yours seemed like a bookmark to something he said in that book.

quote:
(hypothetically answering Mr. Bernard Shaw) "You cannot admire will in general, because the essence of will is that it is particular."

And a wonderful little bit in chapter three ("The Suicide of Thought") goes like this:

quote:
The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race -- because he is so human.

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/25/2003 5:24 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
My point to A_Theist is that while he believes he alone is "warring against sin" and that I am "condoning it," he is failing to war against the greater systemic evil...the one that really threatens people's souls more than any particular behavior.

How do you know that?

quote:
I really have no idea what is in anyone's heart.

hm...

Maybe your God has given you insite into the human ~~soul~~ mind?

quote:
Again for clarity sake

Believe me, there is no clarity. You are just clouding are mind with filth. Sin is sin, stop trying to justify it because you feel sorry for people who fail to give up their burdens to God.

I guess our God's are in disagreement.

Later,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 02/25/2003 1:16:46 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 2/25/2003 7:35 AM (GMT -6)

John Earp said:

Perhaps I have been to wordy. Let me spell it out for you: Jesus made an exception. Paul added another. The words of both these men carry inspired status and are thus authoritative. All this I explicitly preach and teach.

Semeia:

I'm sorry, John. I missed where you said that divorced and remarried people (who were divorced for the wrong reasons) are living in sin and should go back to their original spouses or remain celibate. Because the whole point of bringing up this scripture was to point out the divorces and remarriages that Jesus DID NOT sanction. You seem to be focusing on the exception rather than the rule.

If you explicitly preach and teach it, why have you not brought yourself to say it here? More than half of all marriages end in divorce (including those of a lot of people on this board, and those of many of their loved ones) and so it certainly affects many more people than homosexuality does.

All of us know many divorced people. Do you and A_Theist regularly confront them about living in sin? (Many, many people divorce for reasons other than unchastity or abandonment.)

If not, why not? Why would the sin that Jesus’ called adultery, which affects many more people than homosexuality, not be confronted?

Of course my point in all this is not to get people to go around confronting other people’s sins, but to show that when they DO that they are being very selective about WHICH sins they confront.

John said:

'Nuff said. I have no further interest in responding to your cavils. He that sins is of the devil. He that is begotten of God does not sin. (see 1 John 3)

Sin shall not be your master, for your are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14)

Semeia:

So, John, either you are saying that you are WITHOUT SIN,

or

you are saying that you are OF THE DEVIL.

Could you clarify for me in which category you see yourself?

John said:

One who says they believe in libertarian free will and does not live free from sin (a la Romans 6) simply does not live what he says he believes.

Semeia:

This website is filled with people who believe in libertarian free will. I would be really interested in knowing how many of them see themselves as living free from sin in the sense that you suggest: of being without sin.

I guess you would have to say that I am of the devil, because I am very clearly not without sin.

I am, however, free from sin in the sense that Jesus meant it. Jesus set me free from the bondage of sin: I am no longer defined by sin; I am defined by Jesus’ love for me and my love for him. So I am free in the fallen world to love God with all my heart, and love my neighbor as myself. As long as I am going around looking for the speck in my brother’s eye, I can’t be working on the log in my own eye. The very act of focusing on my brother’s doing of the law prevents me from doing the law:

James 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters. Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor?

DOING from Bonhoeffer’s Ethics:

It is evident that the only appropriate conduct of men before God is the doing of His will. The Sermon on the Mount is there for the purpose of being done (Matt.7.24). Only in doing can there be submission to the will of God. In doing God’s will man renounces every right and every justification of his own; he delivers himself humbly into the hands of the merciful Judge. If the Holy Scripture insists with great urgency on doing, that is because it wishes to take away from man every possibility of self-justification before God on the basis of his own knowledge of good and evil. The Bible does not wish man’s own deed to be set side by side with the deed of God, even as a thank-offering or sacrifice, but it sets man entirely within the action of God and subordinates human action to God’s action. The error of the Pharisees, therefore, did not lie in their extremely strict insistence on the necessity for action, but rather in their failure to act. ‘They say, and do not do it.’

When the Bible calls for action, it does not refer a man to his own powers but to Jesus Christ himself. ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ (John 15.5). This sentence is to be taken in its strictest sense. There is really no action without Jesus Christ. All the innumerable different activities which in general assume the appearance of action are, in the judgment of Jesus, as though nothing had been done. This saying of Jesus demonstrates more clearly than any other saying in the Bible that all action is entirely bound up with Jesus Christ and no clearer distinction can be drawn than this between true action and all kinds of false action.

Our definitions are designed to ward off possible misunderstandings of the action of which the Bible speaks and to display the peculiar character of this action.

The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment. ‘He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge’ (Jas.4.11). There are two possible attitudes to the law: judgment and action. The two are mutually exclusive. The man who judges envisages the law as a criterion which he applies to others, and he envisages himself as being responsible for the execution of the law. He forgets that there is only one lawgiver and judge ‘who is able to save and to destroy’ (Jas.4.12). If a man employs his knowledge of the law in accusing or condemning his brother, then in truth he accuses and condemns the law itself, for he mistrusts it and doubts that it possesses the power of the living word of God to establish itself and take effect by itself. In making himself the lawgiver and judge he invalidates the law of God. Hence there arises the irreparable cleavage between knowledge and action. If by his knowledge of the law a man has become the judge of his brother and so eventually of the law itself, then he can no longer perform the law, however much else he may appear to reform. The ‘doer of the law’, unlike the judge, submits to the law; the law never becomes a criterion for him such as he might apply to his brother; the law never confronts him otherwise than in summoning him personally to action. Even when he has to deal with a brother who is at fault, the ‘doer of the law’ has only one possible means of giving effect to the law, and that is by performing it himself. It is precisely in this way that the law is held in honor and is rendered effective, and is acknowledged to be the living word of God which takes effect by its own power and which has no need of human assistance. This does not mean, then, that the doer of the law is content with his own doing and that with a sidelong glance he calls upon God to be the judge of his sinful brother whom he himself is, unfortunately, not permitted to judge. There is really no such sidelong glance here, but there is only conduct which is appropriate to the law of God, namely the doing of the law, and it is only in this exclusive concentration upon one’s own doing of the law, without any other thought in mind, that the law is given its due and is allowed to exercise its power also upon one’s brother. There does not therefore remain, in addition to action or through action, some ultimate possibility of judgment; action is and must continue to be the only possible attitude towards the law of God; any residue of judgment would disrupt this action entirely, and transmute it into false action, into hypocrisy.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 02/25/2003 12:37:03 PM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/25/2003 1:09 PM (GMT -6)

Miss. E,

Soooo…you ARE saying that A_Theist is homophobic. Granted, though you say,

"My point to A_Theist is that while he believes he alone is "warring against sin" and that I am "condoning it," he is failing to war against the greater systemic evil...the one that really threatens people's souls more than any particular behavior."

it still seems like you are tagging him to me. By the way, I enjoyed your testimony and how you came to thinking like you do. Here is what I was thinking as I read it.

There have been numerous times that I have been downtown on a weekend and seen people drunker than a skunk. I see guys going into strip clubs. I also see signs that advertise sex just to sell a can of Coke. I see materialism and greed. What is my response to all of this? Is there not something that tells me this is not the way it should be? That some of this is wrong? I'm sure you see much sin everyday and what is your response to it? Are you judgmental because you simply know sin when you see it?

In my heart of hearts I don't look at sin and whisper..."That's wrong!" or "That's sinful!" or "Wretched person!" every time I'm confronted by it. I just know those things. I'm not emotionally callous towards it? But I'm not judgmental either. "This is reality to me," I say, "Get use to it."

I don't stand on a soap box external nor internal. All I can do is try to love in spite of the s*** that I see around me. But I don't deny that the s*** is there either. I don't have sinners clean themselves up before they present themselves to Jesus. I am not the Holy Spirit. But I do not deny that cleansing needs to take place either.

Miss E, I understand your ethic of love. James Nelson speaks of it. McNeil speaks of it. Furnish speaks of it. The "love ethic" is that which places homosexual behavior on the same level as heterosexual behavior or suggests controls for both homosexual and heterosexual expression. Nevertheless, without further guidelines our attempts to live out a pure ethic of love become fraught with potential pitfalls. Humans are notorious for being able to draw erroneous conclusions as to what love might entail in any given situation. Devoid of guidance as to what love involves, we repeatedly find ourselves distorting genuine love in the name of "love" (talk about living in a fallen world! Greg acknowledges concessions for divorce, etc, but none for a love ethic! It's as if this ideal can be lived out perfectly, but another can't).

Left to ourselves, we are susceptible to the temptation of reducing the rich biblical understanding of love to a "shell-word" the content of which quickly finds itself at the mercy of whatever meanings the loudest voices within contemporary culture pour into it. Or we transform "love" into a self-regarding relativistic individualism.

This is POSSIBLE isn't it?

POW…love that last Chesterton quote. Bill Gothard speaks about how every positive virtue has it’s negative side. Good stuff.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/25/2003 4:57 PM (GMT -6)

BBC Canada said:

quote:
Soooo…you ARE saying that A_Theist is homophobic. Granted, though you say,

"My point to A_Theist is that while he believes he alone is "warring against sin" and that I am "condoning it," he is failing to war against the greater systemic evil...the one that really threatens people's souls more than any particular behavior."

it still seems like you are tagging him to me.

It still "seems" like I'm "tagging him"? I don't know how much more explicit I can be then to say that it impossible for me to know what is in his heart or anyone else's unless they tell me. Growing up in California I've had friends call homosexuals horrible names like "f**ing faggots" and admit to beating them up to the point of needing hospitalization in north Hollywood...in that case I'd say they've admitted to homophobia. But I stated explicitly that when I myself believed that homosexuality was a sin, I was not homophobic, so clearly I believe a person can be one without the other. Is there something I'm saying that you could point me to that leads you to believe that I'm "tagging him" or does it come down to the fact that you think I'm just being dishonest?

quote:
There have been numerous times that I have been downtown on a weekend and seen people drunker than a skunk. I see guys going into strip clubs. I also see signs that advertise sex just to sell a can of Coke. I see materialism and greed. What is my response to all of this? Is there not something that tells me this is not the way it should be? That some of this is wrong? I'm sure you see much sin everyday and what is your response to it? Are you judgmental because you simply know sin when you see it?

First, what does these sorts of thing have to do with a loving couple who wants to commit to one another in lifelong union before God??

Second, please note that I have never said it is impossible to makes judgements about right and wrong. But that doesn't mean we can know the hearts of our fellow humans. One must tread very carefully when speaking about going on gut reactions as our moral guide because just because I -feel- like something is wrong does not make it wrong anymore than just because I feel like something is right makes it right. The way I try to "judge" is to ask: is someone being hurt emotionally or physically? If so, I also need to ask: is this the lesser of two evils? It can quickly become difficult to know what is the best thing...as in the case with the death penalty, abortion, war, self-defense, etc.

quote:
I don't stand on a soap box external nor internal. All I can do is try to love in spite of the s*** that I see around me. But I don't deny that the s*** is there either. I don't have sinners clean themselves up before they present themselves to Jesus. I am not the Holy Spirit. But I do not deny that cleansing needs to take place either.

I agree with everything you say here.

It seems the only difference is that we don't agree on what is sinful and what isn't. Take for instance: I believe the death penalty is sinful, while you don't. I believe that two adults who love a person of the same sex and want to commit to that person is not sinful, while you think it is. But we likely both agree that kicking old ladies in the shin for fun is sinful and neither of us would "deny" it. I'm not saying we should deny that sin exists, I'm saying that a person's unchosen sexual orientation and its monogomous expression isn't sin.

quote:
Miss E, I understand your ethic of love. James Nelson speaks of it. McNeil speaks of it. Furnish speaks of it. The "love ethic" is that which places homosexual behavior on the same level as heterosexual behavior or suggests controls for both homosexual and heterosexual expression. Nevertheless, without further guidelines our attempts to live out a pure ethic of love become fraught with potential pitfalls. Humans are notorious for being able to draw erroneous conclusions as to what love might entail in any given situation. Devoid of guidance as to what love involves, we repeatedly find ourselves distorting genuine love in the name of "love" (talk about living in a fallen world! Greg acknowledges concessions for divorce, etc, but none for a love ethic! It's as if this ideal can be lived out perfectly, but another can't).

I agree that we can make mistakes in making such judgments, but that is part of the inherent problem of being human. And when confronted with historical evil, I believe we must combat it with overwhelming love. And the Bible, unfortunately, leaves a lot more questions than answers on most subjects. And if it didn't, there'd certainly be a lot more agreement from Christians on every topic.

quote:
Left to ourselves, we are susceptible to the temptation of reducing the rich biblical understanding of love to a "shell-word" the content of which quickly finds itself at the mercy of whatever meanings the loudest voices within contemporary culture pour into it. Or we transform "love" into a self-regarding relativistic individualism.

But Brandon, we are "left to ourselves" to the extent that even with the Bible we are still forced to use our brains. You used your brain very well in speaking about why polygamy is no longer an ethic we ought to hold to despite the fact that the Bible condones it and even calls having many wives a "blessing." Ought we to turn off our minds and simply take everything literally? Why don't people still wear head coverings? Why do women cut their hair? Why do we wear clothes of many threads? Why do we prevent child marriage? Why do we allow divorce? Why do ALL Christians pick and choose what verses are relevant and which aren't? Why do we not simply do everything it says or nothing at all??? Why? Because we understand that the Bible is not a Rule Book and that it must be interpreted and understood in its cultural and social context. In short, because we still have to use our brains. Why would God allow us such a dangerous task?? Why didn't God simply give us an A to Z guide on everything? Because that isn't the point! God wants us to live creatively and dynamically and passionately and to learn from our mistakes and grow in love and to think.

I believe this debate isn't really about whether or not homosexuality is wrong or right. The debate is about who we thing GOD is. And I believe in an untamed God who creates wild diversity among his people and wants nothing more than to help us be the extravagantly unique creatures he created us to be! And if we make mistakes or we get it wrong sometimes or we live less than ideal and miss the mark our whole lives....he's still going to love us and accept us into his kingdom. And all my cards are laid down on the idea that this is who God is. And if God isn't that way, if God really is the rule bearing ogre who is ultimately concerned with laws and how well I performed, then I am totally screwed. I mean it. Because I've already made too many mistakes to ever be accepted by that kind of God.

For what it's worth,
~E

264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual