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.
Originally Posted by flippy
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?
The disposition may not be a choice, but the act certainly is.
Originally Posted by flippy
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?
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.
Originally Posted by flippy
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.
"Watch your thoughts, they become your words
Watch your words, they become your actions
Watch your actions, they become your habits
Watch your habits, they become your character
Watch your character, it becomes your destiny"
Hall of Famer
No, you called it a 'defect', I simply said they were born that way.
Originally Posted by fordfixer
I read the Bible as much as I follow the Steelers and enjoy the discussion. I've experienced the transformational power of the story and seen it change so many people for the better. So I am happy to hear that it's done the same for you.
Originally Posted by BradshawsHairdresser
To answer your questions, I'd frame them with this thought - if we try to earn our salvation through our deeds, we are disregarding the fact that JC died on the cross for all sin. Galatians 2:19-21
With that in mind, we must be careful not to take other items out this context. Remember the Bible is made of many books written by many writers over many periods in history and the instructions written to a specific group at a specific time for a specific reason. Often our tendency is to read one of the books or chapters or passages and try to apply it to now and sometimes the context of the time period does not carry over.
Many Christians look at the Bible as God's divine word. So they want to take everything literally. But consider that the passages from different books written in different eras often contradict other passages in other books. So the only way it makes sense to read any of the books is in the context of the time and people that each book was written for. This is very hard and difficult because 1. we don't understand the language of the original text so many things are unclear 2. we need to study the history of the time in which the books were written to get real insight into why things are written the way they were and 3. the books in the Bible are not in chronological order - for example Job is the oldest book in the Bible, but man put Genesis first - why? Wouldn't God want you to hear his divine word in the order he revealed it?
Here's another way to look at it. When the Bible story originated, people thought the Earth was flat. No true, but their perspective. They didn't understand science, philosophy, medicine, etc like we do today. So a lot of the instruction don't really apply. I'm not saying this means God has changed or his message has changed in any way, just that his instructions to us have varied over time based on our limited understandings and what we needed to stay healthy, happy, safe, etc.
Now let's consider, what is sin? We could spend forever going through the Bible indefinitely to come up with a list. And we'd come up with a complex and contradictory list. And each of our lists would be different based on our interpretations and experiences. It's an impossible experiment. It's pretty much the struggle of the Old Testament. The Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus time knew the law as well as anyone possibly could. But as Jesus taught them, they missed the spirit of the law. Over and over again. And the more we try to drill into the specifics of the Bible, the more we become like the Pharisees and Sadducees - missing the big picture. It's impossible. It's too complex to achieve salvation through our works. This is why JC died on the cross. To cover all of this complexity and perfection we were chasing. We cannot achieve it. We cannot understand it.
So how do we live our lives. Simply faith for the Christian. But we don't get off that easy. We can't get by on cheap faith with no cost. Yet at the same time there are no actions we can take to earn our way to salvation.
So to keep it simple, I think Matthew 22:37-40 sums it up for us. Love God with all your heart and Love Your Neighbor as yourself. If anyone asks themselves if they are doing this and they honestly believe that they are and feel like their lives are in harmony with God, there's no sin happening. Ultimately sin is separation from God. How can you be separated from God if you're loving him with all your heart and loving all of his creation?
God doesn't care if you're hetero or homo? I don't think so. He cares about your faith. We're all gonna sin. We're all gonna screw up. What may be a sin for me, might not be a sin for you. And vice versa. It boils down to does my thought, action, etc. separate me from God in some way? Think about it from the perspective of God being a father. You could be the ugliest or worst kid in the world, but your father is only going to see the good in you. Getting hung up in the details misses the boat on the big picture which goes back to us no being in control. Just accept the gift of JC's sacrafice through faith and live in harmony with God and you will be without separation from him.
The reason we want to focus on the specifics is often because we still want to be in control. And that's idolatry. Let go. Don't worry about tomorrow. Don't get hung up on yesterday. Just live in the here and now and stay in contact with God and where he's leading you. And if you're in constant contact, you can't sin. Gay, straight, yellow, or green. God did all the work. Nothing we can do. Just enjoy it.
And to tie it back into this thread and not put off everyone else, if JC came back to visit today, he'd be hanging out at the Blue Oyster where there'd be some of this:
[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=S y6mYYvB7A6LgM&tbnid=hY319MaI19NgIM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&u rl=http%3A%2F%2Fgucciwolf.com%2Fpage%2F41%2F&ei=4Y SAUaf3Eoy-9QTqo4D4Cg&bvm=bv.45921128,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNEeH92c rvoFk40c72H-3yUW25vZRA&ust=1367463497026989"][/URL]
Not to disrespect religion in any way. Just trying to lighten it up and JC did hang with the lepers, prostitutes, sick, prisoners, etc. Girls just weren't as hot back then. And this goes full circle back to Wally's point. How can people be gay when girls are this hot?
I wonder if Kenny Roger's new look is because he's gay?
There I think I kept the thread completely on topic for everyone.
I might be destined to become a lesbian
Originally Posted by NorthCoast
And exactly what was so wrong in what he said? I have made more-or-less the same crack to a gay friend, while we were out in a bar. He came back with -- we cant figure out how you can go after the chicks, with all those hot guys around either. We laughed and chugged another beer..
To go all PC on it is stupid.
Thanks for the laugh. The only thing I can think to say in response is:
Originally Posted by Ghost
[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&docid=0 AW4MzHMdK8sVM&tbnid=XjIyoaeqUtWY7M:&ved=&url=http% 3A%2F%2Fviewonthenews.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F10%2Fk ick-him-to-curb.html&ei=NoiAUaTzNarb0QGi14HwDg&bvm=bv.4592112 8,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNFFKl-A1j59Kfm3sMSaeXZWpyYE9g&ust=1367464375429018"][/URL]
Originally Posted by flippy
Only the ignorant use the " it's filled with contradictions" argument.
I put the pic at the end just for you
Originally Posted by bostonsteeler