Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > God Loves Gay People!

Forum Quick Jump

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

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

whasssuuuppp
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210

Posted 12/1/2001 7:19 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Iconoclast said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am very confused by the rest of what you are saying. Quite simply I see no issue with the statement that God’s grace covers a homosexual even as they continue to “live in sin” – just like the rest of us. Are you suggesting something different?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jewgrass--
My response:

I was trying showing what I believe to be "selective reasoning". By concluding that one's sexual orientation is unescapable, you are saying that this is an irresistable desire. However, I believe most people on this board would run from the idea that grace is irresistable, meaning when God calls people to be saved, they have no choice in the matter: if they are called, they will become Christians. If you say that homosexuality is a irresistable need, then it would be logically consistent to say grace is irresistable.

I'm not sure this kind of reasoning works. Would you say that because we have ANY sort of irresistible desires, then this logically makes God's grace irresistible? What about the irresistible desire to eat? What about the irresistible desire of thirst? What about the irrisistible desire to sleep? What about irresistible heterosexual desires? There are a myriad of things that are built into the fabric of who we are. So, the issue is not whether we all have irresistible desires, but which ones we decide are or are not "irresistible."

Iconoclast puts homosexuality in a category of characteristics about a person that are present very early in life and are essentially unchanging over time. You (please correct me if I'm wrong) would describe homosexuality not as an unchanging desire and affection for sexual intimacy with one's own sex, but as a sinful orientation that one develops at some point in life and which can be reversed.

I won't discount the few testimonies of people who, by their account, have changed their sexual orientations. But before you decide, based on these testimonies, that homosexuality is a behavior that can always be changed to heterosexuality, if only the participant is willing, I'd encourage you to do what Iconoclast said--read Walter Wink's book (biblical discussion on homosexuality), read up on the scientific/psychological/medical evidence, check out some websites written by gay christians who don't believe in "conversion" therapy (sorry, I don't know what it's officially called). I'd recommend www.soulforce.org or cathedralofhope.com. There's others too. If you've already looked into this and have come to your conclusions, then I apologize for this, I really don't mean to sound condescending or anything. But if not, why not check it out? I would say for myself (and I think Iconoclast would agree for himself) that lookng into this, really digging into it, is very worthwhile, and it's worth the time to read up, both with people you agree with and don't agree with.

Iconoclast said this:

quote:
The double-standard is that we all pretty much agree that a divorced and remarried person is “living in sin” yet we also all pretty much agree that it would be even more wrong to divorce and try and stay single and celibate. God himself allowed divorce even though it is sin – not his ideal – this could not have been expressed more clearly. My question is – given this clear and concise judgement by God – allowing divorce and remarriage because of the hardness of our hearts – how can we say that a homosexual person who clearly will never have their homosexual orientation change – should stay single and celibate? God allows and affirms less than the ideal when that is the only path open – who are we to judge differently – who are we to judge at all?

This is a really important point...so I just wanted to post it again.

***********************

If we are going to change the world at all we must first be a little crazy.
-Wislawa

Edited by - whasssuuuppp on 12/01/2001 12:24:54 PM

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 12/1/2001 7:36 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

I'm not sure this kind of reasoning works. Would you say that because we have ANY sort of irresistible desires, then this logically makes God's grace irresistible? What about the irresistible desire to eat? What about the irresistible desire of thirst? What about the irrisistible desire to sleep? What about irresistible heterosexual desires? There are a myriad of things that are built into the fabric of who we are. So, the issue is not whether we all have irresistible desires, but which ones we decide are or are not "irresistible."

I'm a 20 year old college student with goofy ideas. I do believe, however, that there is something to this irresistable idea. Let me think on it a bit and I'll post more later.

quote:

Iconoclast puts homosexuality in a category of characteristics about a person that are present very early in life and are essentially unchanging over time. You (please correct me if I'm wrong) would describe homosexuality not as an unchanging desire and affection for sexual intimacy with one's own sex, but as a sinful orientation that one develops at some point in life and which can be reversed.

The homosexual tendencies are present from birth. They're in one's sinful nature. I agree with Iconoclast on this point.

HOWEVER:

It is not asking the impossible to say that homosexuals will be cleansed of their unnatural sexual orientation as they are sanctified by Christ. Jesus "gave his life to free us from every kind of sin" (Titus 2:14). God saves us from our evil sinful nature (Ephesians 2:1-7). God leaves us a way out of every temptation, meaning no sinful sexual desire is unbearable (1 Corinthians 10:13). Even though homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7), God washes away the sin (1 Corinthians 6:11) and we are transformed (Romans 6:1-4). Homosexuality is not an unescapable and irresistable desire as many would have you believe. Instead, we are controlled by God, not our sinful nature (Romans 8:9). We are no longer slaves to sin, but are instead, slaves of God (Romans 6:18). Sin has lost its power in our lives (Romans 6:6-11). It is our responsibility to stand against advocates/sympathizers of homosexuality in the church, but we should not rebuke unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

quote:

I won't discount the few testimonies of people who, by their account, have changed their sexual orientations. But before you decide, based on these testimonies, that homosexuality is a behavior that can always be changed to heterosexuality, if only the participant is willing, I'd encourage you to do what Iconoclast said--read Walter Wink's book (biblical discussion on homosexuality), read up on the scientific/psychological/medical evidence, check out some websites written by gay christians who don't believe in "conversion" therapy (sorry, I don't know what it's officially called). I'd recommend www.soulforce.org or cathedralofhope.com. There's others too. If you've already looked into this and have come to your conclusions, then I apologize for this, I really don't mean to sound condescending or anything. But if not, why not check it out? I would say for myself (and I think Iconoclast would agree for himself) that lookng into this, really digging into it, is very worthwhile, and it's worth the time to read up, both with people you agree with and don't agree with.

Haven't read it, but I'll look into it.

--Jewgrass

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 12/2/2001 4:29 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi:

I just have to stir things up. You know me.

Fine. God loves homosexuals. Does God RESPECT homosexuality as a "less-than-ideal" manner of human relationship...or does God detest it as sin? If the latter, does God hate homosexuality just like he hates divorce? (Mal 2:16; Mat 19:7-8)

Uh oh.

Iconoclast:

I love the way you do that – ya know – stir things up with the killer question.

I also just loved your TechnaThanatos post – Semeia and I must have read through that about 10 times just laughing our brains out. And that picture was just a hoot! I do hope writerdad didn’t feel attacked by my posting of the complaint dept.

Anyway - my answer: Both. Sort of.

I think God respects homosexuality as a “less-than-ideal” manner of human existence no different than someone who is born blind. I think the relationship piece simply follows from the existence piece and has no particular emotional “weight” to God. I really don’t think he would would want a gay person to torture themselves with the old “Give Up / Try Hard” cycle of being celibate when it wasn’t their gift. Or even worse doing the same thing with an opposite gender spouse only to leave at some point when the spouse insists on a deeper, more fulfilling relationship.

I think God detests it as sin. It is not his ideal and I think he hates it that gay people are so tortured by the world and themselves. I would say the same thing about people who are seriously overweight or born blind and so on.

I also think that God hates divorce for much different and much more serious reasons. Jesus told us very clearly what the goal is: Love God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. Divorce is about a massive failure of love between two people. The human damage from divorce is extensive. Primarily of course on the two people getting divorced but also on all the folks in the immediate vicinity. Ya know – how suddenly people who were friends of both people seem to be forced to take sides and all – not to mention the kids (if any) – ouch! Bad stuff. If you are hearing any judgement on people who get divorced then I am saying it wrong. God wants this to work for us – not us for it to work.

Ok now – no more softballs.

Mephi:

Does God view it as merely an 'alternative", less-than-ideal, BUT VIABLE type of intimate loving human relationship...or does God consider it sin?

Iconoclast:

I would say both. But then again I bet you mean something quite different when you say “sin” in this context. To me “sin” means “hamartia” – missing the mark – less than God’s ideal. Perhaps what you mean is “evil” – does God consider it evil – and therefore something we should act against in all of its forms? I would emphatically say NO to this – it is not evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

Edited by - Iconoclast on 12/02/2001 10:15:26 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 12/2/2001 5:18 PM (GMT -6)

whasssuuuppp:

I'm not sure this kind of reasoning works. Would you say that because we have ANY sort of irresistible desires, then this logically makes God's grace irresistible? What about the irresistible desire to eat? What about the irresistible desire of thirst? What about the irrisistible desire to sleep? What about irresistible heterosexual desires? There are a myriad of things that are built into the fabric of who we are. So, the issue is not whether we all have irresistible desires, but which ones we decide are or are not "irresistible."

Iconoclast:

Nice argument.

Jewgrass:

My response: Will God take away a person's sexual orientation? Sure! Since homosexuality should be classified as sin (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7) everytime we read of God "saving people" from sin, homosexuality should be included.

Iconoclast:

It seems to me that the key implication to this logic is that if the actual evidence shows that God saves homosexuals from their sin (they accept Christ as their savior) but their sexual orientation doesn’t change (they don’t overnight start having heterosexual feelings) then homosexuality must not be a sin.

Jewgrass:

It is not asking the impossible to say that homosexuals will be cleansed of their unnatural sexual orientation as they are sanctified by Christ. Jesus "gave his life to free us from every kind of sin" (Titus 2:14). God saves us from our evil sinful nature (Ephesians 2:1-7). God leaves us a way out of every temptation, meaning no sinful sexual desire is unbearable (1 Corinthians 10:13). Even though homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7), God washes away the sin (1 Corinthians 6:11) and we are transformed (Romans 6:1-4). Homosexuality is not an unescapable and irresistable desire as many would have you believe. Instead, we are controlled by God, not our sinful nature (Romans 8:9). We are no longer slaves to sin, but are instead, slaves of God (Romans 6:18). Sin has lost its power in our lives (Romans 6:6-11). It is our responsibility to stand against advocates/sympathizers of homosexuality in the church, but we should not rebuke unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:12-13).

Iconoclast:

I hear you suggesting here that once we are saved then we can just stop sinning on any particular thing we focus on. This is neither my experience nor how I understand scripture. If anyone should have been able to do this it was Paul. Paul was a pharisee’s pharisee in my opinion. And they were clearly the most righteous people of the time. Jesus even said so – “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees then you will never enter the kingdom of God” (actually I am paraphrasing). And Paul was clearly saved. But still Paul had a “thorn in the flesh” that God would not take away. Jesus said that saying thou fool (“racca”) to our brother endangers us to hell-fire. Pretty serious stuff. How many of us Christians have just stopped doing this one?

By the way – I would argue that the saying “thou fool” type of attack is an “irresistable” sin for a certain percentage of the population. My evidence for this comes from a body of research that grew out of Transactional Analysis and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. It is called Process Communication Model (PCM) by Taibi Kahler. It was developed for NASA to help them in selecting astronauts. It shows clearly that each of us has a “distress” behavioral sequence that is unconscious and automatic. It is a script that we go into when our needs are not met – and how many of us proactively meet our needs all the time? Two of the types in this model: the “Persister” and “Workaholic” go into a distress sequence that results in them “attacking” others (usually in the “racca” sense – not physically). This is wired in the brain.

Now don’t get me wrong. I neither mean to excuse this behavior nor suggest that God doesn’t help us improve and become more disciplined about meeting our needs proactively and therefore avoiding distress. My experience is that once saved we are no longer under the power of this sin – our distress sequence no longer determines the outcome of our life - we are no longer heading for death. It is also my experience that his power transforms us over time to do this less and less and love more and more. My understanding and experience is that it does this to the extent that we have faith that Jesus loves us and that we are OK – right here – and right now.

thanks,
Iconoclast

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/2/2001 6:08 PM (GMT -6)

I'd like to make this as short as I can. I'll start with Icon's last statement. it is sound and powerful.

Tooooo often Christians talk and write like there is no saving power for now, and like they can not make free-choices that are Godward. We may not do so continually, but to say that we can not have a personal relationship with God (not something abstract) that is empowering it a kind of heresy. I don't know whether Icon shifted towards a kind of fatalism (not literally such) when he mentioned Paul; Paul ascended to the third heaven at one point for a while--or was that someone he knew. I read recently that the Western reading of Be perfect is static, and the Eastern reads more in the becoming and the heading towards kind of thing. But the target is there, and we are meant to hit it. Enoch did!!!! And that was before Christ.

Next:

I'll make these comments with no cover to hide myself behind. I just think they are comments that should be made. If I botch up, please forgive me.

W says: "Would you say that because we have ANY sort of irresistible desires, then this logically makes God's grace irresistible?" I think that this argument completely falls apart, by virtue of what an irresistible desire is. Passions are resistible for the Christian. It is a lie of Satan that they are not. The Spirit is there to help. Sin is against our created nature. It is against the new nature in Christ. And, where you describe nourishment and sleep as desires, it just confused the issue. They are not desires. Where you seem to say that heterosexual desires are irresistible I go to Icon's statement above. The witness that any sin is irresistible is not from God, and is not true. That anything is an ongoing temptation....that is a fact. But even anything can be less frequently a temptation. Deny the myth of inevitability of sin!!!!!

And, Icon, where you espousing this, or reflecting it?

Iconoclast: ___ It seems to me that the key implication to this logic is that if the actual evidence shows that God saves homosexuals from their sin (they accept Christ as their savior) but their sexual orientation doesn't change (they don't overnight start having heterosexual feelings) then homosexuality must not be a sin.

Whichever; I think that you believe homosexuality to be a sin; but I wasn't reading that well in this. (Am I up to late?)

Jewgrass: ___ God washes away the sin (1 Corinthians 6:11) and we are transformed (Romans 6:1-4). Homosexuality is not an inescapable and irresistible desire as many would have you believe. Instead, we are controlled by God, not our sinful nature (Romans 8:9). We are no longer slaves to sin, but are instead, slaves of God (Romans 6:18). Sin has lost its power in our lives (Romans 6:6-11).

Preach, preach.....

Iconoclast: I hear you suggesting here that once we are saved then we can just stop sinning on any particular thing we focus on. This is neither my experience nor how I understand scripture. If anyone should have been able to do this it was Paul.

This may be a matte of words. But I'd bet that we CAN: "stop sinning on any particular thing we focus on." With the caveat that maybe God (in His wisdom and purpose) gets some of the choosing of what is first. God's salvation is Great. I agree with what I think you are trying to say--that sinning usually goes on. Repenting is what life is for, a monk said. I guess I'm not disagreeing. It just sounded give-up-ish at first. (To not emphasize holiness is a mistake."

WELL, NOW I'VE ASKED FOR IT.....

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 12/2/2001 7:42 PM (GMT -6)

Now correct me if I am wrong Selah, but seeing beauty in things (i.e woman) is ok because you are seeing Gods creation. It is your choice to pervert it by letting the flesh(sin) get in the way.

quote:
Satisfying the desires of the 'flesh' is just plain fun!

I am in no way perfect, but I am going to make a bold statement....

SATISFYING THE DESIRES OF THE FLESH STINKS!!!!!!

Keeping your eyes on what is above is very good, but, why would you want to make a statement saying that living in the flesh is fun?? This statement seems to defeat the purpose of the cross, and allows one to justify there sinning. Oy Vay,If I have learned anything these past 2 years since I have been saved it is this: Spirit living in you=realizing sin stinks. My convictions in me hopefully all are from the lord and not from some presupposition of what I think is right or wrong, and I have to say that Holiness through Jesus' is right, living in the flesh is wrong (even slaves were bond servants until there debt was paid, are debt is paid).....
I'm out!
Peace

Our natural greatness is seen as part of God's image, and that natural greatness has been conferred on us to enable us to achieve our supernatural destiny:to be related to God and to obey him freely.---Diogenes Allen

Edited by - faithfullservent on 12/03/2001 12:51:23 AM

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/2/2001 10:34 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Whasssuuuppp:I'm not sure this kind of reasoning works. Would you say that because we have ANY sort of irresistible desires, then this logically makes God's grace irresistible? What about the irresistible desire to eat? What about the irresistible desire of thirst? What about the irrisistible desire to sleep? What about irresistible heterosexual desires? There are a myriad of things that are built into the fabric of who we are. So, the issue is not whether we all have irresistible desires, but which ones we decide are or are not "irresistible

The key in the desires that you mentioned above is that ANYTHING we misuse or abuse becomes sin and puts us in need of God's grace. I guess we have to decide if having sexual relations in any other context than between a man and a woman in a marriage relationship is misusing or abusing God's intention on the sexual relationship.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/3/2001 2:40 PM (GMT -6)

Jewgrass questioned the assumption that because a person is born with a certain inclination (e.g. "gay"), they are "irresistably" lead to act out this inclination. To suggest this, he argued, is to suggest that libertarian freedom is an illusion. If we're going to argue this way we should become Calvinists.

I think the 20 year old college kid is making a very good point!

Not only does it undermine libertarian freedom: it undermines moral responsibility. Consider, men commit 88% of all violent crimes, and this has something to do with the fact that they have more testosterone than women. But no one would want to argue that the testosterone excuses their behavior.

Similarly, there is increasing evidence that there is a significant genetic influence (INFLUENCE, not IRRESISTIBLE CAUSE) which, when combined with a certain sociological environment (another INFLUENCE) that in part explains a person's propensity to be attracted to children, people of the same sex, have an aversion toward monogamy, etc... Yet we wouldn't want to excuse any of this behavior, would we? Knowing this information should make us more compassionate, to be sure. But unless we say that it undermines libertarian freedom altogether, we wouldn't want to admit it undermines a the moral significance of a person's choice.

My only point is that acknowleding that a person is "born a certain way" doesn't NOT itself entail either that a) the behavior is okay or b) the person can't change.

Nice to be back. GREAT discussion.
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/3/2001 4:22 PM (GMT -6)

I want to wonder out loud what the relationship between martyrdom and being powerfully confronted with potential or actual temptation. I see huge similarities.

If the mission of the Church is to produce saints, then it is not to muddle-through.

(o)

Jewgrass
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 12/3/2001 8:15 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast:

quote:

I hear you suggesting here that once we are saved then we can just stop sinning on any particular thing we focus on. This is neither my experience nor how I understand scripture.

My response:

As I showed in my previous post, this idea of being freed from sin is completely biblical.

Iconoclast:

quote:

If anyone should have been able to do this it was Paul. Paul was a pharisee’s pharisee in my opinion. And they were clearly the most righteous people of the time. Jesus even said so – “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees then you will never enter the kingdom of God” (actually I am paraphrasing). And Paul was clearly saved. But still Paul had a “thorn in the flesh” that God would not take away.

My response:

We don't know what this thorn in the flesh was. When put in light of verses like Galatians 4:15 in which Paul writes, "What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me," it is very probably that this "thorn in the flesh" is a physical ailment: some sort of eye disease.

Let's look at the actual verses that speak of Paul's "thorn in the flesh."

"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 2 Corinthians 12:7-10

From these few verses, could this thorn in the flesh be a sin? In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul speaks about a man living in sin. He writes, "hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good." (1 Corinthians 5:5-6a) If Paul is telling this same Corinthian church not to boast about sins, then it would be hypocritical to later boast about his personal sins. This hypocritical conclusion is necessary if you argue that Paul's thorn is an "irresistable" sin.

Why would God display his power in weaknesses? BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HAS! Look at the little shepherd David, the younger brother Jacob, the Egyptian slave Joseph, the good-for-nothing Gideon, the enslaved Jewish nation, etc. etc. etc. God uses physical weaknesses to make his glory known. Doc actually has a part of a chapter in either GOD AT WAR or LETTERS FROM A SKEPTIC dedicated to explaining the weakness of the church and why/how God uses this weakness. I believe that saying Paul's thorn was an "inescapable sin" (contrary to 1 Corinthians 10:13 which says NO SIN is unbearable to followers of Christ) is an assumption that cannot be supported by scripture.

Iconoclast:

quote:
By the way – I would argue that the saying “thou fool” type of attack is an “irresistable” sin for a certain percentage of the population.

My response:

For a person that is a slave to sin, of course they can't escape from evil. But for a Christian, one is a slave to God (Romans 8:9) who doesn't even tempt people (James 1:13)! I believe I have provided enough scripture in previous posts to demonstrate this point. Now, show me scripture that says sin is sometimes irresistable.

--Jewgrass

PS: A humorous note on Paul's physical weaknesses:

The following is the only existing description of Paul.

"And he saw Paul coming, a man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness; for now he appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel."

This is from the Acts of Paul and Thecla which wasn't written until the late 2nd century, so this is probably as accurate as the Book of the Mormon. However, its amusing to read.

"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed." -- General Stonewall Jackson

Edited by - jewgrass on 12/04/2001 01:30:01 AM

Triskal
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198

Posted 12/3/2001 8:41 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome back, Doc. It's good to have you on here again. It wasn't the same without you here.

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

Triskal
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198

Posted 12/3/2001 9:03 PM (GMT -6)

I'm just wondering where everyone is going with this topic. When I started the "God Hates Fags?" thread I was hoping to actually discuss some of the questions brought up by the website of that name. Has anyone been to their site yet? I'd strongly recommend that anyone interested in participating should check out the site and post some questions/comments about what they find there. One of the most important things that I think needs to be discussed is their use of Old Testament verses to display an image of God as hating people who are in sin.

So, check out the site, come back here and let's get cracking.

In His Grip,
Matt

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/4/2001 8:18 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the welcome back Triskal. On Icon's statement that some forms of sin seem to be structured into people's personality profile, I have to side with Icon on this one. As aspects of our fallen nature (and fallen environment, which we largely absorb growing up) we all have certain ungoddly propensities which we do not choose. Some have a propensity to instinctly judge, accuse, slander (in their mind at least) as a defense mechanism. Others have a propensity to be non-selves, letting others walk over them. Others have an opposite propensity to control others. Most have a propensity to want sex in non-goddly forms (how "natural" fornication seems!). etc...

This doesn't excuse the behavior. We are guilty only when we ACT (and thinking is an ACT) on our propensities. But it does mean that we must assume that sanctification is a life long, inch by inch, difficult process. When we are placed in Christ, our essential being -- our "spirit" -- is altered. But our thinking and feeling mechanism -- our "soul" -- largely goes on with the autopilot mechanism it has already installed. Changing this -- being transformed by the renewing of our mind -- is a life long project.

I have met a few people who claimed they no longer sinned --AT ALL. So far as I could tell, they were kidding themselves. In fact, I suspect that what Jesus found to be true would also be true of these individuals. Namely, they likely were further entrenched in sin the the average sinner (viz. the rest of us) who at least KNOW we are not perfect. In my opinion, it takes either a very shallow, a very self-deluded person, or a very evil person to believe they are without sin. A moments introspection with an eye on God's holiness is enough to show that one is a gonner -- if standing before God means standing in one's own righteousness.

Having said all this, I will simply add

I am much farther along the road of holiness than Iconoclast or Semeia -- or anyone else on this board, and much more humble about this than most holy people.

I wish I could hear you choking right now.

The always humble and nearly perfect
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 12/4/2001 9:44 AM (GMT -6)

the Doc says:

quote:

I am much farther along the road of holiness than Iconoclast or Semeia -- or anyone else on this board, and much more humble about this than most holy people.

Having spent much time with the younger Doc, I can vouch for his excellent grasp of the absurd.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/4/2001 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

Triskal: One of the most important things that I think needs to be discussed is their use of Old Testament verses to display an image of God as hating people who are in sin.

Doc: I agree. Here's something Roger Forster pointed out to me. It concerns how careful we must be in taking Old Testament teachings and practices as being normative. Luke 9:54-55 reads: "When the disciples James and John saw this [a town had rejected Jesus] they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them [as Elijah did]?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them [and said, “you don’t know what spirit you are of, for the Son of Man has not come to destroy the lives of human beings but to save them.” ]

The words in brackets are very ancient readings. Many old manuscripts omit them, but many include them. On the textual critical assumption that the more difficult reading is to be preferred over the simpler reading, they should be included. In any case, they at the very least represent an early church understanding of Jesus' words. Even without them, however, Jesus' words here are VERY intriguing, I think.

The disciples simply want to do what Elijah did. "Come on God, show forth your wrath, just like in the Old Testament, just like you did with Elijah." And Jesus rebukes them, with the connotation, if not the expressed wording, that "they don't know what spirit they are of." Though the precedent was set in the Old Testament, it is absolutely antithetical to what Jesus was about!

Now, explaining why this is so is no easy matter, not eased by the fact that Jesus himself regarded the Old Testament as God breathed. (Forester himself makes an intriguing speculation that is too complex to go into here). But it shows that, in light of the revelation of God we find in Jesus Christ, we cannot simply infer what God is like, or how he wants to now relate to sinners, from Old Testament passages.

If Christ is the center of faith, we have to read the Old Testament through the lenses of the cross. When we do this, we may have to conclude, like Jesus did, that some passages are, for whatever reason, antithetical to what God is up to today.

Not sure how exactly this relates to the gay issue, but it certainly relates to the larger issue of how God relates to sinners. For one thing, it would utterly put an end to all the evangelistic tyraids we hear about God judging nations by sending terrorist bombers into their buildings!!!!

Ever learning

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

streetpreacher
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 16

Posted 12/5/2001 6:23 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Dr. Boyd,

This is my first post here... not one to be controversial:-), I will make this very non-threatening statement:

Isn't there a sense in which God both hates and loves the sinner... and I don't just mean the well worn and watered down expression of "God loves the sinner but hates the sin"... but the sinner him/herself.

Else, why does Scripture (N.T.) refer to the sinner as an "enemy of God" (not that the sinner considers God his enemy, most don't, but that God considers the sinner His enemy), "the wrath of God abiding on him", etc.? Can this be compatible (dirty word to Open theists) with God's love?

You wrote:

For one thing, it would utterly put an end to all the evangelistic tyraids we hear about God judging nations by sending terrorist bombers into their buildings!!!!

My reply:

Do you believe that because of the cross of Christ, God no longers brings judgement for national sins? Why? Even with a warfare theology, would this limit God to simply being love... with no reference to Him as Judge ("Behold then the kindness and severity of God")? Why would this kind of divine chastening not be needed today?

I appreciate your reply (I look forward to reading your books on Warfare and Openness, which I have just ordered) and forgive me if my questions seem a little over simplistic.

In His Love (For Truth),

Carlton

My brother, sister, friend - read, study, think, and read again. You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.-- Charles G. Finney

Edited by - streetpreacher on 12/05/2001 11:28:11 PM

streetpreacher
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 16

Posted 12/12/2001 8:31 PM (GMT -6)

I realize that hate might be a strong term... I'm not even persuaded of my own proposition, but I would like to know how we explain the verses about God being our "enemy" or His "wrath abiding on" us?

I do think that I may have inferred from the text when I wrote: "Else, why does Scripture (N.T.) refer to the sinner as an "enemy of God" (not that the sinner considers God his enemy, most don't, but that God considers the sinner His enemy)"

In retrospect, I can quite easily see where the text could indeed be understood as saying, "we make ourselves enemies of God." This seems to gel with Jesus' statement of "he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me, scatters abroad."

I picked up the former line of argumentation from John Macarthur. Apparently, classical theism has not been completely rooted out of me.

On another note, I received my copy of "God at War" today. My wife and I were under a severe attack today (although we didn't recognize it as such). Later tonight, the Lord led us to the first chapter of Job and then to a chapter in the book. Afterwards, we had a tremendous breakthrough in prayer. My wife was literally broken before God as the guilt fled and we saw the real author of our battle. Just this morning, she had been wrestling with the whole idea of "God causing" this to happen. It is amazing the amount of change wrought in just one night by the application of Biblical truth; something that we should instinctively know, but unfortunately the ingraining of classical Christian theism from birth (even among unbelievers) is imbedded in us more deeply than perhaps many of us dare to recognize. Thank you dear brother for this God-honoring work.

In His Love (For Truth),

Carlton G. McLemore

FIRE. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and scholars. Certainty. Certainty. Feeling. Joy. Peace. God of Jesus Christ

Blaise Pascal
Pensées

Edited by - streetpreacher on 12/13/2001 01:34:28 AM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/13/2001 12:15 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

In retrospect, I can quite easily see where the text could indeed be understood as saying, "we make ourselves enemies of God." This seems to gel with Jesus' statement of "he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me, scatters abroad."

It is important to note that the opposite is also said by Jesus: "Whomever is not agianst us is for us." (Mark 9:40) and "....whoever is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:50)

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/13/2001 3:05 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

You wrote:

For one thing, it would utterly put an end to all the evangelistic tyraids we hear about God judging nations by sending terrorist bombers into their buildings!!!!

My reply:

Do you believe that because of the cross of Christ, God no longers brings judgement for national sins? Why? Even with a warfare theology, would this limit God to simply being love... with no reference to Him as Judge ("Behold then the kindness and severity of God")? Why would this kind of divine chastening not be needed today?

Lasley is usually cynical on his website (I'm waiting for his take on "Openness theology" that he has been promising, at least in the past), but I think he drives his point home. Here's his take on Robertson and Falwell-the Beavis and Butthead of American Christianity as he calls them. This article should address the questions you raise here.
www.americanwasteland.com/beavis.html

Brandon

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/14/2001 8:49 PM (GMT -6)

Streetpreacher, welcome to the cite. Great to have you with us. And thanks for the kudos. I am delighted about the breakthrough you and your wife experienced in prayer. Praise God.

Regarding God judging nations today: I of course can't rule this out, but I have serious reservations about employing the concept when a nation is experiencing adversity. Here's why:
a) God was working with a nation in the Old Testament and dealt in national terms with sin. After Christ and the creation of the new humanit, he is dealing with individuals, and sin is no longer the issue: accepting or rejecting the new founder of the human race is.

b) When God judged Israel (and most national judgements in the bible are about Israel), he told them WHY he was judging them. You can't teach something if the students aren't aware of what you're teaching them. But just this is lacking in supposed contemporary "judgements" of God. How many Americans, other than Folwell types, interpreted our disaster as judgement.

c) Pronouncing that God is "judging" a nation for its misfortunes relieves others of responsibility. If God is judging America, then why go after the Taliban? If God is judging Calcultta, then maybe we aren't at all responsible to try to help this nation?

d) There are almost always other explanations for why catastrophies happen that don't invoke God. for example, the reason why the World Trade center was attacked is because Osama and other terrorists hate us, and chose to do this. Why do we need a further explanation?

Hope this helps.

Blessings
Doc
The people doing the judging are sinners and are as deserving of judgement as the nation they think God is judging. So why

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

June
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 105

Posted 12/31/2001 6:36 AM (GMT -6)

i want to go back to when faithfullservant said he thought the apostle paul was gay. any scripture or anything to back it up? or are you just guessing?

June

46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:46 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