quote:

---

Originally posted by DLW

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress
Yes, I just meant that WHATEVER the biological reason for people being born gay, lesbian or bi, these things are still the direct result of being born into a fallen world, and we are still responsible for controlling ourselves and trying not to give into sin.

Any form of sexual stimulation is only meant for marriage between a husband and wife. By sexual stimulation I mean any type of touching that causes arousal whether that touching is "petting" of breasts and genitalia, or anything else that causes a person to become phyically aroused. So, anal sex is not the only forbidden act for people. So is oral sex, sexual touching like I described above, vision-oriented stimulation, etc.

---

I remember the rule I learned in Jr. High at a rally, that if you wouldn't feel comfortable telling your date's mother what you two did on a date then it isn't right.

And, the point on our potential disagreement is whether should accept Constitutional Homosexual relationships that aspire to the Christian Ideal in all other respects and that abstain from anal-sex with each other.
dlw

---

quote:

---

So, you think that Jesus has no problem with gay men being married to each other and doing sexual things with each other like a hetero married couple would do?

---

quote:

---

Also, don't gay men prefer anal sex over all other forms? I'm sure they'd never go for being allowed to do everything but that.

---

quote:

---

we are still responsible for controlling ourselves and trying not to give into sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Empiress

Tigress said:

quote:

---

we are still responsible for controlling ourselves and trying not to give into sin.

---

St. Paul speaks of life long celibacy as a gift, a charism of the Holy Spirit that not everyone is gifted with. The inability to recognize this fact is the great downfall of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on priesthood because they assume anyone can be celibate for life...but this leads to horrible consequences as we've learned under the Church's tragic circumstances. And not even St. Paul himself advises this!

St. Paul writes:

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. -1 Cor. 7:7-9

We are asking something of homosexuals that we do not ask of heterosexuals...to be celibate regardless of whether they have been gifted by God with that charism. Therefore, it is better for homosexuals to marry one another than to burn if they "cannot" remain celibate for life.

Peace,
~e

---

quote:

---

we are still responsible for controlling ourselves and trying not to give into sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al2Si2H4O9
Make no allowance for sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Empiress

St. Paul speaks of life long celibacy as a gift, a charism of the Holy Spirit that not everyone is gifted with. The inability to recognize this fact is the great downfall of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on priesthood because they assume anyone can be celibate for life...but this leads to horrible consequences as we've learned under the Church's tragic circumstances. And not even St. Paul himself advises this!

Peace,
~e

---

quote:

---

Ezekiel Chapter 33: 1 And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and set him for their watchman; 3 if, when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; 4 then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning, if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him; whereas if he had taken warning, he would have delivered his soul. 6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned, and the sword come, and take any person from among them; he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand. 7 So thou, son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die, and thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way; that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand. 9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. 10 And thou, son of man, say unto the house of Israel: Thus ye speak, saying, Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we pine away in them; how then can we live? 11Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 12 And thou, son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall he that is righteous be able to live thereby in the day that he sinneth. 13 When I say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his righteousness, and commit iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in his iniquity that he hath committed, therein shall he die. 14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 if the wicked restore the pledge, give again that which he had taken by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live. 17 Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. 18 When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die therein. 19 And when the wicked turneth from his wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. 20 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. 21 And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came unto me, saying, The city is smitten. 22 Now the hand of Jehovah had been upon me in the evening, before he that was escaped came; and he had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregBoyd

* The title of this thread IS inappropriate – though it was meant to represent Phelp’s sick perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shell
Also, POW I haven't found anywhere in the bible that states that it is okay to be rude or unloving as long as the person you are dealing with is in a leadership/watchman position. I think calling something PURE BULL has a negative impact on another person, instead of respectfully disagreeing in love. That is why I think it is inappropriate. Using a person's position as an excuse for rude interactions sure opens the door for a lot of abuse towards those in leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregBoyd

Shell: Using a person's position as an excuse for rude interactions sure opens the door for a lot of abuse towards those in leadership.

Doc: And Lord knows we need just a little bit more.

And DLW, thanks so much for the kind, playful invitation to the abortion thread. As fun as THAT sounds (can anybody say hemorrhoids? ), I think I'll just pass for the time being. Been on that merri-go-round one too many times.

lovely day
Greg

---

quote:

---

E-, you write: "if they 'cannot' remain celibate for life." That's an abstraction.

---

quote:

---

Sure, you do SAY, "celibacy as a gift" but you MEAN "chastity as a gift" or "self-control as a gift." (Or am I wrong?)

"self-control as a gift" IS FROM GOD!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shell

Also, POW I haven't found anywhere in the bible that states that it is okay to be rude or unloving as long as the person you are dealing with is in a leadership/watchman position. I think calling something PURE BULL has a negative impact on another person, instead of respectfully disagreeing in love. That is why I think it is inappropriate. Using a person's position as an excuse for rude interactions sure opens the door for a lot of abuse towards those in leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Empiress

Al wrote:

quote:

---

E-, you write: "if they 'cannot' remain celibate for life." That's an abstraction.

---

Al, I'm simply quoting the text which uses the word "cannot" to refer to this predicament: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry." You can certainly disagree with my conclusion based on the Scriptures, but I'd appreciate if you interacted with the particular text I'm basing my conclusions upon.

What do you think St. Paul is speaking about then...life long celibacy or something else? What is the "gift of God" he is talking about if not celibacy? Is not life long celibacy a vocation, a calling? If one does not have a vocation to life long celibacy, it certainly sounds to me that St. Paul is making an "allowance"...but it is NOT an allowance TO sin, it is an allowance to keep one from sinning, from "burning" with passions that one "cannot" restrain for a lifetime. Marriage is the solution for those who are "not as" Paul was...gifted with the particular gift of celibacy.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. -1 Cor. 7:7-9

Al writes:

quote:

---

Sure, you do SAY, "celibacy as a gift" but you MEAN "chastity as a gift" or "self-control as a gift." (Or am I wrong?)

"self-control as a gift" IS FROM GOD!!!

---

Life long celibacy is quite different from self-control in any given instance. Not everyone has the gift of life long celibacy according to St. Paul, therefore marriage is the godly alternative.

Peace, ~e

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GregBoyd

* The title of this thread IS inappropriate – though it was meant to represent Phelp’s sick perspective.
* Saying BULL is inappropriate. Why must we sink to inflamatory verbiage? You can disagree with a "watchmans" assessment of the best course of action toward a group of peple -- whether gay, divorced and remarried, having undergone sex changes, etc... Empiress, nice to have you back. Please excuse (once again) the bashing.

NOW, to address the topic once again:

It may be relevant to note what God says about Sodom and Ghomorah in Ezek 16:

Ezek. 16:48 As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.
Ezek. 16:49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

Wow, I think we American evangelical Christians DO have something to ponder over regarding the sin of Sodom: but its NOT what has come to be known as "sodomy."

Regarding the rest of the objections raised about Gen. 19…
* it’s a barbaric episode by anyone’s standards. Yet, we have to notice that the text doesn’t condon either Lot’s offer of his daughters, or the seduction of Lot by his daughters. It just describes things as they are – in all their barbaric brutality. (The real barbarism is the cultural assumption that women were property and objects – almost universally shared by all cultures at the time).
* I’ve never known what to do with the "pillar of salt" thing… its just weird weird weird.
* It may mitigate things a bit to recall that Lots daughters thought the world had ended and so HAD to reproduce to carry on the race. No doubt they knew they couldn’t talk their dad into this when sober, so they got him very drunk. He was drunk enough so his reasoning faculties were seriously impaired, but not so much that his biological faculties were impaired.

Blessings
And lets be nice

Greg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

Originally posted by shell

Also, POW I haven't found anywhere in the bible that states that it is okay to be rude or unloving as long as the person you are dealing with is in a leadership/watchman position. I think calling something PURE BULL has a negative impact on another person, instead of respectfully disagreeing in love. That is why I think it is inappropriate. Using a person's position as an excuse for rude interactions sure opens the door for a lot of abuse towards those in leadership.

---

I said it was PURE Bull. That can be Amish "stock-tradings" or Bull-onie. Matters not. It was the purity of inappropriateness that I was attacking; not Tigress herself. I can't be "unloving" to an expression. That's an idea, a proposition. And the cheep-shot against the Roman Catholic Church (my employer and co-worker in the Lord's service), THAT called for a bit of serious re-dressing.

Were the post merely about the decline of numbers joining the priesthood, then I'd reply that I think the RCC should receive more than just converting married Anglicans into the ranks. But I took Empiress' post to be, as Greg said, "inflamatory" in itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Empiress

Al wrote:

quote:

---

E-, you write: "if they 'cannot' remain celibate for life." That's an abstraction.

---

Al, I'm simply quoting the text which uses the word "cannot" to refer to this predicament: "But if they cannot contain, let them marry." You can certainly disagree with my conclusion based on the Scriptures, but I'd appreciate if you interacted with the particular text I'm basing my conclusions upon.

What do you think St. Paul is speaking about then...life long celibacy or something else? What is the "gift of God" he is talking about if not celibacy? Is not life long celibacy a vocation, a calling? If one does not have a vocation to life long celibacy, it certainly sounds to me that St. Paul is making an "allowance"...but it is NOT an allowance TO sin, it is an allowance to keep one from sinning, from "burning" with passions that one "cannot" restrain for a lifetime. Marriage is the solution for those who are "not as" Paul was...gifted with the particular gift of celibacy.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. -1 Cor. 7:7-9

Al writes:

quote:

---

Sure, you do SAY, "celibacy as a gift" but you MEAN "chastity as a gift" or "self-control as a gift." (Or am I wrong?)

"self-control as a gift" IS FROM GOD!!!

---

Life long celibacy is quite different from self-control in any given instance. Not everyone has the gift of life long celibacy according to St. Paul, therefore marriage is the godly alternative.

Peace, ~e

---

First, there is NO "life long gift of celibacy." )I won't even look at any proof-texting on it. Its not the issue.) That is the problem, too, with the RCC's presumption that all can be celebate. Celebacy should not be the focus; chastity should.

Second, there is NO such thing as "marriage" that is not God-ordained. Marriage follows the contours created by God that "man" (defined as "male and female" both in Scripture and as God's Word created them) is male and female. One gender by itself coes not constitute humanity.

If you are to go all liberal and claim that 'good feelings' are the ultimate, and that better feelings are a God-replacement... then I can only say that I think that somewhere you know better.

PAUL DID NOT SAY THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD "MARRY."

There. I dealt with the verse. Now YOU should begin to do so.

As someone who's view is condemned by the majority of the world-wide Anglican communion, you aught to take their reproof seriously. The truth is not a smorgasboard.

---