Results 1 to 10 of 178

Thread: If you had told me that an ex-Steeler would tweet something stupid re: current events

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by flippy View Post
    In these verses of Romans, Paul talks about men making a choice to abandon natural relations with women for their lusts for one another. So he's condemning unnatural sexual relations - heteros choosing homo relations outside the context of marriage. Paul says nothing about homos being homos.
    Again, you have to read the passage in context. The passage, beginning in v. 18 of Romans 1, goes back to creation. Genesis 1 and 2 are very clear about God's creation of man and woman, and His design and purpose for sex. In light of that, Rom. 1:26-27 says, "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." The passage is telling us that homosexual sex is against the natural design of God for men and women.

    But, even if you don't buy that explanation, what do you do with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11?

    Quote Originally Posted by flippy
    At the end of the day, is being a homo a choice? Do you remember making a choice of liking men or women? I don't. It never was a choice. Maybe those Christians that think it's a choice have had thoughts about both men and women and considered having relations with both. That must be why they think it's a choice. I've never considered a homo relationship, so it wasn't a choice for me. Likewise, I believe homos when they tell me they just like guys or girls without thinking about a choice. They just are what they are.
    The disposition may not be a choice, but the act certainly is.

    Consider a person who has a disposition to violence. He wasn't trained that way, and it wasn't his environment. That's just his disposition. Does he have a responsiblity to restrain himself, and not try to beat up everyone he might get angry with? Can you see him standing in front of a judge and arguing, "Well, gee, I couldn't help it, I was born that way?"

    Someone else has a disposition to lying. When that person tells a lie, are we to say it's OK, because "that's just who that person is"?

    What about someone who has a heterosexual sex drive? He wants to bang many women; it's quite a natural feeling. According to God, he should get married, and then only do it with his wife. But the drive persists. Would it be right for him to just indulge his desire with any and every pretty woman that he could? Even if he has a wife waiting faithfully at home for him? Seems to me, he could argue, "That's who I am." But would that really justify him acting on his desires?

    Quote Originally Posted by flippy
    Christians throw away lots of ideas from the Bible because they're silly. Paul's world view that homo vs hetero is a choice is one of those silly ideas that's in the Bible that made sense in his time that makes no sense.

    The Bible is a story of salvation. It's a great story. But it doesn't make sense to take every word literally. It was a historical book written in a specific time period for a specific purpose with a specific audience. It's also written from one side of the story. And that's fine. We each bring our experiences to it when we read it and it can have a profound effect on people. So I get that people take this very seriously because the power of the story changes people's lives. And that's a great thing for those people.

    But at the end of the day we get out of it what we bring into our reading of the book. I figure about 100% of what we think or know is most likely wrong.
    When we begin to pick and choose which parts of God's word can be kept and which parts can be discarded, we change God and make Him over into our own image. The Bible calls it idolatry. We also change the message. If you want to reject one part as not being true, how can you know for sure that the other part is? If you want to reject parts that call something sin, for example, how do you know that the parts about God's love, and God's grace, and Jesus' atonement, etc., are trustworthy? Not a road that I want to go down...the Bible gives strong warnings about "adding to" or "taking from" God's word.

    Yes, there are parts of the Bible that are hard to understand. But for the most part, I believe it's meant to be taken at face value.

    And yes, I'm one of those who take it very seriously, because the power of the story definitely has changed (and is changing) my life!

    BTW, even if we disagree, I love having the discussion, and I respect your thinking mind!
    Last edited by BradshawsHairdresser; 04-30-2013 at 09:13 PM.


Posting Permissions

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