Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

    Asdf has stated the following:

    One question to ask is - how do we determine "what does God have to say" about a given thing. For me, I subscribe to something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - that the source of authority has to be balanced between the factors of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, with each mutually informing the others.
    I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each catagory to determine exactly what God has to say.

  2. #2
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Scripture:
    Scripture is clearly against living a ****sexual life style. It is against lust in general, as well.

    However, at least with heterosexual lust you can have a legitimate marriage. Whereas according to the scriptures you can't have a real marriage between a woman/woman, and man/man. However, there is a certain lack of discussion in the Bible about ****sexuality.

    I'm sure that there were some ****sexual Israelites who simply lived a heterosexual lifestyle without doing same-sex sins.

  3. #3
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default a rose is a rose.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Scripture:
    Scripture is clearly against living a ****sexual life style. It is against lust in general, as well.

    However, at least with heterosexual lust you can have a legitimate marriage. Whereas according to the scriptures you can't have a real marriage between a woman/woman, and man/man. However, there is a certain lack of discussion in the Bible about ****sexuality.

    I'm sure that there were some ****sexual Israelites who simply lived a heterosexual lifestyle without doing same-sex sins.
    Scripture is Scripture; Tradition is Tradition; reason is reason; and experience is experience. If we want to glean what each says, it is best we give specific details about it. If we are to ***ume each has equal authority in determining what God has to say as asdf has stated, I myself only adher to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; reasoning and experience without God's revelation is only man's reasoning and man's experience. William James speaks about the mystical experience being nontransferable. To say that I experienced God in a ****sexual act or to say I experienced God in a heterosexual act is mere opinion based on a perception of the individual. However, I believe life is an act of God, so in a heterosexual act where a baby is born... I believe such experience as shared by other parents attests to the miracle of life and from God... ****sexual couples do not get this from their unions. Hence experientially, they are defunct in this act. It is also defunct, because Tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox Church, view marriage as a Sacrament. ****sexuals have always been denied marriage in the Christian Tradition until some Protestant sects deny Tradition, deny Scripture (or reinterpret it).

  4. #4
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Sex, however, is God's give gift excluding birth as well. Otherwise he would not allow pleasure to be experienced with infertile men and women.

    I find that despite the good intentions of Christians, they don't understand the real reasons why ****sexuality is a sin, despite the fact they know it is.

    I might need more elaboration as well, but non-birth is not a reason.

  5. #5
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Present a positive case.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Sex, however, is God's give gift excluding birth as well. Otherwise he would not allow pleasure to be experienced with infertile men and women.

    I find that despite the good intentions of Christians, they don't understand the real reasons why ****sexuality is a sin, despite the fact they know it is.

    I might need more elaboration as well, but non-birth is not a reason.
    If you are going to present a position that God is ok with the ****sexual lifestyle, you better start on a position of offense and not defense. If you position is only a negation, it is not a viable pro-God defense. I would hope that you could start with a Scripture quote, from a quote found in Tradition. At that moment, we can present reasoning with the Scripture or reasoning with Tradition. Experience, is in my opinion the weakest of the quadrilateral since it is open to man's experience only. The Scripture's attest to a long history of interaction between God and mankind... as such, if we are to state of such experiences even in our own day and age, it must also be consistent with the experiences found within Scripture and Tradition. New prophecies are not going to trump old ones. So far, it seems you have not presented a case that stands on the agreement of any one pillar of the quadrilateral.

  6. #6
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Actually, what I said was that I believe ****sexuality is wrong based on Scripture.

    Fertility is not a reason for ****sexuality being a sin.

  7. #7
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Actually, what I said was that I believe ****sexuality is wrong based on Scripture.

    Fertility is not a reason for ****sexuality being a sin.
    I am not stating that fertility is a reason for ****sexuality being a sin, I am saying it is a sin for many reasons; first of all it opposes God in direct contradiction to Scripture (especially if the ****sexual claims they are Christian); secondy of all, it flys in the face of raising children with mother and father. http://parenting.families.com/blog/h...ted-in-schools.
    What kind of responsible parents is it when gays deny the right of the mother, or lesbians deny the right of the father? The children are the battleground for LBGT activism.

    Now, it should be up to asdf to present his quadrilateral support for the lifestyle. Unfortunetly, he seems to be silent because there is none when you delve into the Greek or Hebrew in the Scriptures or even in the writings found in Tradition. The reasons he uses are today's media talking points. Get past them into the writings of the Church in history and he is in big problems... his quadrilateral crumbles.

  8. #8
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Asdf has stated the following:
    One question to ask is - how do we determine "what does God have to say" about a given thing. For me, I subscribe to something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - that the source of authority has to be balanced between the factors of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, with each mutually informing the others.
    I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each catagory to determine exactly what God has to say.
    Thanks for starting this thread, Columcille, so we can discuss this in greater depth. I appreciate the opportunity to flesh out my thoughts and bounce them off of others.

    I just wanted you to know that I have seen the thread, and am glad for your invitation to it. Unfortunately, I'm pretty swamped at work right now (still haven't fully caught up with myself after taking a 2-week vacation).

    This is definitely a conversation that interests me, so I hope to carve out some time to outline my perspective for you and anyone else interested in the discussion. Hopefully within the next week. *fingers crossed*

    Cheers,
    asdf

  9. #9
    CleoSquare
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Asdf has stated the following:



    I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each catagory to determine exactly what God has to say.
    I have heard it argued that the ****sexuality that was referred to in Bible times was the apparently common practise of men choosing to use other men from a position of power, partly in addition to their marriage relationships. This, of course had the additional 'benefit' that children were not born of the coupling.

    The reason it was so abhored by God was that it was an abuse from a position of power of one man over another. This relationship was not a relationship of mutual commitment and love. This could account for the fact that as far as I can see, lesbianism is not referred to in the Bible. I am certain that there would have been lesbians, just that it was not condemmed because presumably this same issue of one woman overpowering another was not commonly practised, but that relationships between women tended to be more mutual and loving.

    I am not sure what I think on this issue... I will follow the topic with interest. I do know that the ****sexual people I have known have been genuine people, many in loving commited relationships, and I genuinely believe, having known some since childhood, that they are simply born with a ****sexual orientation rather than choosing it. I also know that the Holy Spirit has 'stopped' my mouth on occasion in the past when I have felt like commenting on the 'error of ****sexual practise within a loving relationship' to ****sexual people- he has faced me with my own shortcomings, in such a way of conviction, that I am struck dumb and very humble.

  10. #10
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    I also know that the Holy Spirit has 'stopped' my mouth on occasion in the past when I have felt like commenting on the 'error of ****sexual practise within a loving relationship' to ****sexual people- he has faced me with my own shortcomings, in such a way of conviction, that I am struck dumb and very humble.
    Sometimes the best correction we can give others is by example of our love.

    That doesn't mean we are necessarily wrong.

  11. #11
    John T
    Guest

    Default What is the shape of the quadrilateral?

    The problem with the imposition of a geometric figure as a hermeneutic tool is that it often makes human reason on par with Scripture. It is not, it is subordinate to, and often at odds with Holy Spirit.

    That equilateral also ***umes that God stuttered when he wrote the Bible. That is not the case.

    Therefore, as warm and fuzzy as your ideas seem to be, they are in direct opposition to what God clearly stated. The ONLY way that you can have legitimate authority to mitigate what God stated is to find a direct statement when Good said "Oopsie! I really did not mean that."

  12. #12
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Sometimes the best correction we can give others is by example of our love.

    That doesn't mean we are necessarily wrong.
    Christ loved people, yet he was also confrontational. He certainly did something to offend people to point of being crucified on the cross, and it wasn't because he hated people or deserved it. He was incarnate love. Love sometimes means to rebuke and discipline. I think Walter Martin was also confrontational. I have been listening to the mp3 of his banquet speech... and he discusses this particular point about confrontation in writing.

    In regards to CleoSquare's statement. Hearing about something can be hearsay or some sort of ***umption. ****sexuality in the bible does not distinguish wether there is some sort of platonic love or even of an abuse of power. It pretty much states its an abomination and to stone to death people that practice it. Obviously, when the law was written... it did not specify the intent only to people who abused authority, but to everyone under the covenant. I should rather see something more concrete, some scholarly linguistic, archeological, or textual criticism of historical documents to establish what you are trying to present.


    As far as JohnT has stated. I also do not necessarily agree with the quadrilateral model. However, sometimes it is necessary to understand or attempt to understand the argument of your opposition. In some of my college cl***es, the professor may have you write your own persuasive paper on any given subject, then make you write another persuasive paper from the opposite perspective. It is an academic benefit to do so. My cl*** on Milton was amazing in this regards. We read "L'Allegro" and "Il Penseroso;" L'Allegro starts with "Hence loathed Melancholy" and "Il Penseroso" starts off with "Hence vain deluding joys." They are both fascinating pieces of poetry, but my point is twofold in that (1) we allow people to establish some sort of authority and then stick them to the premises and conclusions of the same-self authority and (2) we ourselves strive to be as St. Francis of ***isi's prayer for peace "to understand, than to be understood." Perhaps we can say further like St. James writes to be slow to speak and quick to listen. Walter Martin does a grand example in the "Kingdom of the Cults" by quoting the Cult's own authoritative writings and reasonings to demonstrate its contradiction. In this case, we have some sort of Christian p***ing off a premise that ****sexuality is ok in certain instances, yet hasn't really researched in terms of his authority model to see his own biase and presumptions. Give it time, they will be more than willing to give us the rope from which their ideas will hang in its own noose.

  13. #13
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    I should rather see something more concrete, some scholarly linguistic, archeological, or textual criticism of historical documents to establish what you are trying to present.
    I do sometimes have problems with clarity, but at Ephesus, I think it was, one of the Apostles brought more people to Christ through living through example, rather than arguing with the local idolators.

    You have to understand, that I'm not just saying a warm and fuzzy speech when I say we need to be a good example for others. Part of being a good example to others is to mention that ****sexuality is one of the sins that banned humanity from Heaven before they were save.

    They can't lose their salvation due to ****sexuality, but they most certainly can lose their rewards. I know that much.

  14. #14
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post

    They can't lose their salvation due to ****sexuality, but they most certainly can lose their rewards. I know that much.
    Please provide Scripture. For instance:

    Lev. 20:13 (NAB)- If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

    1 Cor 6:9-10 (NAB)

    2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy pros***utes nor sodomites
    10
    nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    Footnotes:

    2 [9-10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God's church. Such lists (cf 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period.

    3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy pros***utes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of pros***ution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in ****sexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

    Sodomite: ****nokoites. The words according to Dr. Thayer mean "a man" and "a bed." "One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite." Strong's numbering 733.

    It seems clear to me... Scripture says they will not enter the kingdom. Hence, there is no salvation for their lot. You will have to demonstrate otherwise. Such sins tend to be behavioral and reoccuring, even unrepentant.
    Last edited by Columcille; 03-25-2009 at 06:18 AM.

  15. #15
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Think about it for a moment.... I only need to produce scripture that Christians do not lose their salvation.

    I need clarification from you that as a Christian, anyone can lose their salvation. Those who come to Christ will not be thrown out. Jesus said that, I only need to hunt for that scripture.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

    9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor ****sexuals,

    10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.


    This is true, but these are sins which barred sinners from entering Heaven in the first place. Those who sin will have their sins blotted out because of Christ's blood atonement. The Bema Seat is of consequence to Christians because of our deeds and misdeeds.

    I put forth ****sexuality as something that is scripturally forbidden, and a sin, wrong, etcetera, but I fail to see how Leviticus matters to non-Jews.

  16. #16
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Catholic Courage and Exodus International

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Think about it for a moment.... I only need to produce scripture that Christians do not lose their salvation.

    I need clarification from you that as a Christian, anyone can lose their salvation. Those who come to Christ will not be thrown out. Jesus said that, I only need to hunt for that scripture.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

    9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor ****sexuals,

    10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.


    This is true, but these are sins which barred sinners from entering Heaven in the first place. Those who sin will have their sins blotted out because of Christ's blood atonement. The Bema Seat is of consequence to Christians because of our deeds and misdeeds.

    I put forth ****sexuality as something that is scripturally forbidden, and a sin, wrong, etcetera, but I fail to see how Leviticus matters to non-Jews.

    ActRaiser, one must qualify in full detail what cons***utes a Christian from one that is just a professing one. If we stand people in a line-up, without knowing their actions, deeds, and core spoken values, it is impossible for us to say that they are Christian or not. The verse I gave is a list from which the Church would excommunicate people who practiced such. What kind of a Christian would you suppose it is who claims to be Christian, but in every detail affirms Buddhism's tenets in direct opposition to the core tenets of Christendom? Either they are very confused, or they are intentionally p***ing themselves off for a host of reasons from gaining acceptance to undermining the churches from which they are entering into. In some manner, the influence and calls of tolerance has lead to moral relativism inside the churches. In the same manner, ****sexuality has always been denied in the longstanding Tradition. How can a ****sexual be a Christian, unless they deny themselves via repentence and practice chasity and encouraging other ****sexuals to leave the lifestyle... in short, no longer being ****sexuals. If your position is that ****sexuality is likened to alcoholism, so at the next AA meeting or the next upcoming ****sexual's anonymous meeting people are claiming to be ****sexuals... I could possibly understand it... but unfortunetly, the only type of ****sexual anonymous is done by groups affiliated or modeling with Exodus International or Catholic Courage. The problem with saying one is a ****sexual and a Christian is that our society is filled with "Gay pride" parades and so it does not have the same stigma as alcoholism.

    You are going to have to do more than just give an unrepentant sinner cloak in Christian clothing, singing Christian jargoon the benefit of the doubt that they are Christian when it flies in the face of Scripture and Tradition. Please present your case in like manner rather than ***uming the possibility that you can be Christain and a ****sexual at the same time.

  17. #17
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    You are going to have to do more than just give an unrepentant sinner cloak in Christian clothing, singing Christian jargoon the benefit of the doubt that they are Christian when it flies in the face of Scripture and Tradition. Please present your case in like manner rather than ***uming the possibility that you can be Christain and a ****sexual at the same time.
    You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.

    How can a ****sexual be a Christian, unless they deny themselves via repentence and practice chasity and encouraging other ****sexuals to leave the lifestyle... in short, no longer being ****sexuals.
    I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

    That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

  18. #18
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default 3 Kings 11

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.



    I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

    That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell
    So are you saying Solomon was a ****sexual, bisexual? Please provide the text proof. Daniel commited adultery, but I do not see evidence of Solomon doing the same. At any rate, David repented and faced the temporal punishments and consequences of his sin. I do not know if Solomon was "saved" at any rate when he started committing idol worship for his wives" sake. He seems to have forgotten the God of his youth. 3 Kings 11.40 states "Solomon therefore sought to kill Jeroboam: but he arose, and fled into Egypt to Sesac the king of Egypt, and was in Egypt till the death of Solomon." Solomon commited idolatry and forsake God. He apostasized. I am not sure how far you want to go in attempting to say Solomon is a Christian? Much less say he made it to heaven. At least David repented from his gross sin, it does not mention that Solomon did the same.
    Last edited by Columcille; 03-25-2009 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Changed adultery to idolatry

  19. #19
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.

    I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

    That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell
    I greatly appreciate your perspective, ActRaiser. Columcille has earlier quoted 1 Cor 6.9-10: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy pros***utes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

    I'll discuss my interpretation of these verses at a later time, but for now I'd like to support what you say by pointing out that even if the words translated here as "boy pros***utes" and "sodomites" could be taken to refer to a modern-day gay person in a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship, Paul here puts these categories of "sinners" all on the same level.

    That is, "adulterers", "boy pros***utes" and "sodomites" are no more in danger of exclusion from the kingdom of God than the greedy and slanderers. If we're going to especially pick out gay and lesbian people, we'd better be similarly prepared to condemn consumerism and gluttony. (These things strike me personally much closer to home than the list of sexual sins, and in my estimation they're much more widespread...)

  20. #20
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    ::Nods to asdf::

    Then to Columcille:
    I'm not saying Solomon was a gay or bi man. I'm saying that sexual sins are all sexual sins. He very clearly lived a hypersexualized life with many professional *****s.

    Furthermore, Solomon has seemed to lay down Prophets for God, and he blessed Israel extremely deeply during his life time. Given God's pleasure towards people who treat the Jews well, it is scripturally possible, if not very probable that Solomon was saved.

    In fact, many Jews were saved by Jesus before he was ever born in a Stable. Moses, Abraham, and the others were saved by Jesus by looking towards a Messiah. They just didn't know it would be a carpenter from Nazareth.
    Last edited by ActRaiser; 03-25-2009 at 05:16 PM.

  21. #21
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    ::Nods to asdf::

    Then to Columcille:
    I'm not saying Solomon was a gay or bi man. I'm saying that sexual sins are all sexual sins. He very clearly lived a hypersexualized life with many professional *****s.

    Furthermore, Solomon has seemed to lay down Prophets for God, and he blessed Israel extremely deeply during his life time. Given God's pleasure towards people who treat the Jews well, it is scripturally possible, if not very probable that Solomon was saved.

    In fact, many Jews were saved by Jesus before he was ever born in a Stable. Moses, Abraham, and the others were saved by Jesus by looking towards a Messiah. They just didn't know it would be a carpenter from Nazareth.
    I quoted 3 Kings 11. I guess that is 1 Kings 11. I was using my Douay-Rheims when I quoted it. He was in the end into idolatry. Your lack references to Solomon's apostasy. He may have built the temple, he may have done a lot of good, but in the end... I am uncertain as to the state of his soul. Since he wanted to kill a prophet of God, Jeraboam, I do not think he was repentent. I would be very weary to quote him as an example. Christians are called to a life of repentance. Hence, you cannot be a practicing ****sexual and a practicing Christian. The law in Leviticus does not give distinction to a loving ****sexual relationship or an abusive manipulative one. It states it without condition to kill them both in the theocracy. As far as Moses, Abraham, or the so-called others, you need to demonstrate that they were ****sexuals, unrepentant in that, and God calls them righteous. You are not going to get that with the patriarchs in the O.T. nor the Prophets. Dig deeper. I was hoping for a pro-God position for ****sexuality, not a negation.

  22. #22
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Who says ****sexuals need to be an example? Like A pointed out, a rampant womanizer is no better.

  23. #23
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    Who says ****sexuals need to be an example? Like A pointed out, a rampant womanizer is no better.
    It is not a point to compare apples to oranges. The subject is a call for a quadrilateral support of a pro-God defense of the ****sexual lifestyle. Behavioral sins do affect the mentality of the people to the point that they justify their behavior. The alcoholic blames their loved ones for driving them to drink. The slanderer seeks to elivate themselves by cutting others down, the glutton seeks to feed their appe***e. It is the state of mind where there is no repentant desire to end the behavior. The glutton, knowing he is fat should not desire to stay that way. The same goes for ****sexuality, and all the behavioral mortal sins. What is worse is that you have professing Christians supporting the lifestyle as the Bishop Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church USA. You have just recently a Lutheran faction now embracing it. Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle? It is not a defense, it is an an***hesis. If God if for ****sexual marriages, is allowable for Christians to participate in it... then present a thesis, not an an***hesis. Use your quadrilateral.
    Last edited by Columcille; 03-25-2009 at 06:36 PM.

  24. #24
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    It is not a point to compare apples to oranges. The subject is a call for a quadrilateral support of a pro-God defense of the ****sexual lifestyle. Behavioral sins do affect the mentality of the people to the point that they justify their behavior. The alcoholic blames their loved ones for driving them to drink. The slanderer seeks to elivate themselves by cutting others down, the glutton seeks to feed their appe***e. It is the state of mind where there is no repentant desire to end the behavior. The glutton, knowing he is fat should not desire to stay that way. The same goes for ****sexuality, and all the behavioral mortal sins. What is worse is that you have professing Christians supporting the lifestyle as the Bishop Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church USA. You have just recently a Lutheran faction now embracing it. Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle?
    I think you're still not getting ActRaiser's point. What he/she (sorry, haven't met you yet ) is saying is precisely to compare apples to apples. You yourself cited Paul in putting "****sexuality" on the very same terms as greed and slander.

    So if you're denying that "salvation" is achievable for an unrepentant ****sexual person, you'd better be ready to bar the kingdom of heaven to an unrepentant greedy person.

    (Quotes on "salvation" because I think you're needlessly conflating "salvation" with "going to heaven after you die". I don't take that to be a necessary Christian view, but that's a topic for another day.)

  25. #25
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    I think you're still not getting ActRaiser's point. What he/she (sorry, haven't met you yet ) is saying is precisely to compare apples to apples. You yourself cited Paul in putting "****sexuality" on the very same terms as greed and slander.

    So if you're denying that "salvation" is achievable for an unrepentant ****sexual person, you'd better be ready to bar the kingdom of heaven to an unrepentant greedy person.

    (Quotes on "salvation" because I think you're needlessly conflating "salvation" with "going to heaven after you die". I don't take that to be a necessary Christian view, but that's a topic for another day.)
    Rightly so. If unrepentant, with no desire to change... you bet, I'd bar them also. However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •