Yes I did notice that homosexuality wasn't in that list as you said some would point out.
So that's how ya do it. You just get to add your own private interp where you want to. It's not in the list but you decide God must have meant for it to be there too. Seems to me if it was that important to God IT WOULD be on the list.
Outofdafog; I have posted numerous times quoting Scripture that is very clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. I honestly believe at this point that it wouldn't matter what I say, you will object to it just because you don't want to accept the possibility that your daughter is living in a state that God finds objectionable. I can understand how you feel, but feelings don't determine truth, nor do they determine judgment.
So just for the fun of it, let's take a look at some of the what the Bible says about homosexuality.
And since Trefor says it all depends on translation and interpretation, I'll go out of my way to allow for vaguaries in the text that may be interpreted some other way, and we'll look at alternate translations.
Romans 1:18-20
quote:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
This is where the context begins. Note please that the subject at hand is judgement. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven...". God's ****** about something, as we would say. Is it specifically against homosexuality? Nope. Here it only says His wrath is revealed "against all undgodliness and unrighteousness of men...". So we're talking about ungodly, unrighteous men who are in for wrath. Wrath is not good, by the way. Wrath is judgment. "Wrath" is translated from the Greek word orge, meaning anger. Prior to this usage it is also used in Matthew 3:7, Mark 3:5, Luke 3:7, 21:23, and John 3:36. All but one clearly refer to the coming judgment of God. The other (Mark 3:5) refers to Jesus being angry at the Pharisees. In this usage, the context is amply clear that we're talking not just about displeasure, but judgment.
God's wrath has been kindled because these men were surpressing the truth. They knew God, but failded to revere Him as God. They knew God because He had made himself known by the world He created, yet they refused to aknowledge His glory. Bear in mind please that verse 20 ends with the clear statement that those who do so are "without excuse". Why would they need an excuse if we were not talking about judgment? But we stil don't know exactly what they're being judged for. What behaviour is it that has incurred God's wrath, for which they have no excuse? Read on.
quote:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Hmmm. How can we interpret this? It seems to me that these people made the mistake of not honoring God as sovereign. They became vain in their imaginations. What does that mean? "Became vain" is translated from mataioo, which means to make empty,vain, or foolish. They became vain or foolish and empty-headed in their imaginations. This word is translated from dialogismos, which is very interesting in light of this particular discussion.
Dialogismos means, "1) the thinking of a man deliberating with himself a) a thought, inward reasoning b) purpose, design 2) a deliberating, questioning about what is true a) hesitation, doubting b) disputing, arguing". Their inward reasoning about what is true had become vain, empty, foolish. Their disputing and arguing was foolish. The result is that their "foolish heart was darkened."
The word "foolish" is translated from asunetos. You've heard of the word sunesis which is described as the rivers of thought flowing together. More simply put, it's an understanding. These men had hearts without understanding. In other words, they were stupid. That's not just my interpretation, that's from Thayer's lexicon. They became foolish in their reasonings, and their stupid hearts were "darkened". Darkened means what it appears to mean. Their hearts were covered in darkness. Whether this darkness is evil or ignorance is open to interpretation, but it's certainly not light nor is it wisdom nor is it good. So these men who, in their minds saw themselves as wise men, became foolish in their reasonings and disputings and their stupid hearts were covered in darkness. As bad as that is, it's not the focus of the passage.
The main point is their sin in not glorifying God despite their knowledge of Him. Now I find it hard to believe that people who knew God could refuse to glorify Him, but they, in their vanity thought such a decision was reasonable. Verse 22 puts it succintly. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. In what specific manner was their folly manifested?
quote:
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
I tink that's pretty clear, don't you? They became idolaters. They replaced God with men, birds, animals, even creeping things. Why someone who knew God would choose to worship creeping things, is beyond me, but that's the decision these stupid "wise men" made.
So it is fairly clear that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ungodliness of men because these men rejected God and became idolators. Is that the end of the story, or is there more? The first word of the next verse is "wherefore" which is a conjunction. Conjunctions link thoughts and connnect one statement to another. Think back to Schoolhouse Rock
Conjunction Junction,what's your function?
Hookin up words and makin em function?"
Wherefore connects the following verse to what we've just learned about these foolish idolators.
quote:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
"Wherefore" is translated from dio which means "on account of" or "for which cause"
Wherefore (because of their idolatry) God also gave them up to uncleanness. Interesting choice of words here. The phrase "gave them up" is translated from the word paradidomai which means to deliver into someone else's power. It's the same word used in Matthew 14:12 in reference to John the Baptist being cast into prison. The Blue Letter Bible defines it this way.
quote:
1) to give into the hands (of another)
2) to give over into (one's) power or use
a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage
b) to deliver up one to custody, to be judged, condemned, punished, scourged, tormented, put to death
c) to deliver up treacherously
1) by betrayal to cause one to be taken
2) to deliver one to be taught, moulded
3) to commit, to commend
4) to deliver verbally
a) commands, rites
b) to deliver by narrating, to report
5) to permit allow
a) when the fruit will allow that is when its ripeness permits
b) gives itself up, presents itself
Which usage is the right one in this passage? Could it mean that because of their idolatry, God in His wrath delivered a narration to them? Sounds kind of silly. Did God in his wrath permit the idolators to ripen? Could be. Or it could be that God, in his wrath allowed the idolators to be taken into the power of something or someone else. Unto what were they paradidomai'ed?
Unto uncleanness. Now that can't be good.
Uncleanness is translated from (akatharsia) can be physical uncleanness such as contamination from touching a corpse, or moral uncleanness from a corrupt heart. It is of course from the root word akathartos meaning unclean. Interestingly the first usage of this word in the New Testament is in Matthew 10:1.
quote:
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Lest you think I'm grasping at straws here, 23 of the 29 New Testament uses of this word refer to unclean spirits. So it is biblically accurate to say the word Unclean in the New Testament almost always refers to devil spirits or demons. It may not be the case here. But the phrase immmediately preceding says that God "gave them up" paradidomai delivered them into the power of...uncleaness.
Maybe it's just talking about physical or moral uncleanness, not spiritual uncleanness. The uncleanness to which God delivered or surrendered them was "to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." Well Holy Saint Francis, that could be anything! Oh, wait a minute. It says, uncleanness "through the lust of their own hearts".
Still, people lust for a lot of different things. They could have lusted in their hearts for golden chariots which they traded among themselves. OH, wait a minute. It says "to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."
"Dishonor" is from the Greek word atomizo meaning, to treat with contempt or to treat shamefully, either in word, deed, or thought. If the verse merely said they dishonoured themselves, we could interpret it as "in word or thought" Since the verse adds the word bodies (soma), the sense of treating each other with contempt in deeds is a more logical interpretation. BUT. It still hasn't told us what kind of uncleanness, physical, moral, or spiritual uncleanness was involved when they, through the lust of their own hearts, dishonored their own bodies between (en) themselves. So it could have been violence. Maybe they had fistfights and just beat the crap out of each other. It could have been...adultery. Maybe they were just cheating on each other's wives. Or, it could have been...homosexuality. We don't really know. But wait there's more. Verse 25 essentially repeats what we learned in verse 23
quote:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Since the very next verse repeats the message of what we just learned, it is obvious that we are still on the subject of the wrath of God against ungodly and unrighteous men. We have learned so far that these bastages knew God, but refused to glorify Him, became foolish, and their hearts were darkened. God, in his wrath, delivered them into the power of unleanness and they, in their lust, did some contemptuous things with their physical bodies. Since verse 25 repeats the charge of idolatry, it is established that this is the sin that got the whole foolish, unclean, comtemptuous ball rolling, so to speak. Having seen that the context continues, we should follow it to find out if there is more information about the wrath of God upon these wicked idolators.
quote:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Hey, look at that. More repetition. "For this cause" in verse 26 repeats the meaning of the "Wherefore" at the beginning of verse 24. And following the repetition of the sin of idolatry, it is obvious and established that the "cause" spoken of is beause they changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. Verse 24 said that on account of that God had given them over to the power of uncleanness to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
Here the meaning of being given into some other power is repeated in the use of the same word, paradidomai. God gave them over to the power of "vile affections." The word "vile" another form of the verb "dishonor" used in verse 24. Here again, it means contemptuous or disgusting. "Affections" is translated from pathos and is only used two other times in the New Testament and in both places is translated as lust or "concupiscence". That's delicate King James language for sexual passion. In response to idolatry, God delivered them into the power of contemptible passions.What these contemptible passions, these "vile affections" were is not yet clear. But we have another clue.
Here in verse 26 we have a little more information about what kind of uncleanness is being revealed. "For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."
The phrase "for even their women" is the first reference to gender. The Biblical use of the word "men" is often gender-neutral, or in the language of Sinatra and Brando, refers to guys and dolls.
But the phrase, "for even their women" (te autos thelus) means 'but also' their women. So again, we're getting more specific. This logically tells us that whatever uncleanness was spoken of in which they treated each other contemptuously in their bodies, was among the men only. Otherwise this statement 'but also their women' makes no sense.
Furthermore, since the verse links these acts of the women to the same sin of idolatry and the same "for this cause" referring to God's repsonse to the sin, we can assume that whatever information is given about the women applies to what the men were doing.
While it doesn't say exactly what the women were doing it does note that they "changed the natural use". The word "changed" is the word metallasso which Thayer's defines as 'to exchange one thing with or for another'. What did they swap? The natural for the unnatural.
"Natual" is from the word phusikos. Thayer's Lexicon defines it as "produced by nature, inborn, agreeable to nature, or governed by the instincts of nature".
The word "against" is interesting. It's the preposition parawhich is used 200 times in the New Testament. Prepostions, (contrary to VP and PFAL) don't have minutely specific meanings that determine exactly what the context is talking about. Para basically means "beside". So it could be that the women changed the natural use into or exhanged the natural for that which is beside nature. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? But there are a slew of rules and cases and relationships that determine the proper translation of Greek prepostions. If there is some dispute as to how this one should be interpreted, it should show up in variant translations. It doesn't. the Darby, the New Living Translation, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, even the Websters, all translate it as "against" nature. So the women, acting in some as yet undetermined behaviour that is in common with the men (who burned in their lust and treated each other contemptuously, in some physical manner) exchanged the natural use into or for something that is against nature. What was it? Accounting? Politics? Wrestling? No. Verse 27 makes it perfectly clear what unnatural behaviour these women fell into.
quote:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,...
Not only did the women change the natural for that which is against nature, but the men did likewise. They left the natural use of the woman. Well Gee I wonder what that's talking about?
"Likewise also" refers to the leaving of that which is agreeable to nature and in accordance with natural instinct in prference for that which is against nature. The men did as the women. The word for "men" here is arrhen which always refers to the male gender. (See Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Luke 2:23, Galatians 3:28, Rev 12:5 and 13). Likewise also the males leaving the natual use of the women. What is the natural use of the woman? That may be subject to interpretation. It could be said to be companionship. But the sins in this context are described as "vile affections" and are associated with "lusts" and dishonoring their own bodies between themselves", so it would be more than a stretch to say that the men were simply displacing their wives in companionship. The natural use referred to must be interpreted in accordance with everything in the context which leads logical people to believe that this "natural use of the women" is sexual intercourse and companionship. This is obvious as the verse continues to reveal its message.
quote:
And likewise also the men arrhen, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (males with males) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
These males "burned in their lust" one toward another. Well, what does that mean? They really liked golfing together. Yeah. "Lust" is translated from orexis which means strong affection. Thayer's Lexicon puts it this way. "1) desire, longing, craving for
2) eager desire, lust, appetite
a) used both in a good and a bad sense, as well of natural and lawful and even of proper cravings (of appetite for food), also of corrupt and unlawful desires"
So lust isn't necessarily evil. Could be lust for a good steak hoagie. And if we want to ignore the context and rip this verse from the flow of thought that precedes and follows it, we can say the it's really not talking about homosexuality. Males with males, having been given into the power of uncleanness, and vile affection, dishonouring their own bodies between themselves, leaving the natural use of the woman and burning in their lust for each other could be....fishing buddies! Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
No ladies and gentlemen of the Cafe, the context is quite clear. These males with males left the natural use of the women and, burning with lust for each other, had sex with each other. (yuck). And this is referred to as
"vile affection"
"that which is against nature"
"uncleanness" (spiritual, physical, moral, or perhaps all three)
"unseemly" (aschemosune, something you should be ashamed of)
And just in case you still think this vile, unnatural, unclean, unseemly behavior of males with males and women with women is okay with God; remember where we started. What's the context?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven. God does not condone homosexuality. He didn't create it, didn't ordain it, and doesn't approve of it.
Now, I could go on in like manner, through the rest of the chapter and demonstrate that falling into homosexuality opens one's mind to all kinds of other sordid vices. But...
1)This post is waaaaaay too long already
2)Outofdafog, Garth, and Trefor probably aren't goinng to accept a word of this anyway
3)And it's almost 2am and I have a ten hour work day tomorrow. Yikes!
So why did I bother? Just to show Outofdafog that I don't just pull assumptions out of my mean little heart because I want to point fingers at people. I don't just make assumptions and throw things in because I want to make a point. I believe what I believe because it is, imho, the inescapable conclusion of a logical approach to the Bible, the truth of which has been established in my life. As I said at the beginning, Fundamentalist Christians don't necessarily hate gays. They're not being self-righteous or hard-hearted. They're just accepting the testimony of Scripture. If you want to say that it's okay to be "gay", you have to convince these people, myself included, that the Bible is completely without authority and cannot be trusted. It's not a matter of "interpretation" or "translation". It's a matter of accepting the truth or rejecting it.
Jerry, believe it or not I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am pretty comfortable with where things stand with my child. Your preaching means nothing to me, your quoting of the bible, your meanings of all the greek words and ad nauseum. I have heard it all before, taught, spewed, spitted......
Ex10 - I apologize if your thread was derailed -one of the reasons I even got involved in it was because of your original question. I think you can see from this thread alone that there are a myriad of ways people think about this subject and your child will probably hear them all over the course of a lifetime.
I think Long Gone said it best, treat others the way you would want to be treated, let your kids see how you treat others and tell them why you live the way you do. Some of the best advice and sound biblical advice I have heard on this thread.
Jerry - please don't assume it is okay for yuo to use my tag line. Please remove so others do not think that your post is mine.
"They're not being self-righteous or hard-hearted. They're just accepting the testimony of Scripture. If you want to say that it's okay to be "gay", you have to convince these people, myself included, that the Bible is completely without authority and cannot be trusted. It's not a matter of "interpretation" or "translation". It's a matter of accepting the truth or rejecting it."
Ok, so then I can assume that you follow these rules as well?
1. To put tzitzit on the corners of clothing (Num. 15:38)
2. To bind tefillin on the head (Deut. 6:8)
3. To bind tefillin on the arm (Deut. 6:8)
4. To affix the mezuzah to the doorposts and gates of your house (Deut. 6:9)
Jbraxx,
Little weak on how to bind tefillin, or get your tzizit to lay straight, I'll get my husband to show you how.
I'm not sure how it goes, but didn't the Ol' Doc say something about believing the whole book and if you didn't it would work?
s.
Hi Sharon. If you take the time to reread that post you will find that there's nothing in there about the Law. Romans 1 is not telling people that they'll be judged by the Ten commmandments. But if you'd rather dodge the subject and play with your straw man, have fun.
Jerry, believe it or not I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am pretty comfortable with where things stand with my child. Your preaching means nothing to me, your quoting of the bible, your meanings of all the greek words and ad nauseum. I have heard it all before, taught, spewed, spitted......
Ex10 - I apologize if your thread was derailed -one of the reasons I even got involved in it was because of your original question. I think you can see from this thread alone that there are a myriad of ways people think about this subject and your child will probably hear them all over the course of a lifetime.
I think Long Gone said it best, treat others the way you would want to be treated, let your kids see how you treat others and tell them why you live the way you do. Some of the best advice and sound biblical advice I have heard on this thread.
Jerry - please don't assume it is okay for yuo to use my tag line. Please remove so others do not think that your post is mine.
Outofdafog
I didn't expect you to believe it. I merely hoped you'd have a little more respect for where I'm coming from. This is not some kneejerk response to people I don't like. And, as Johnny lingo stated, I borrowed your tag line for that one post. I really don't think anyone is going to confuse your posts and mine. :-)
So Jerry, how do you treat homosexuals that you come in contact with, or have to work with? What do you do, or would you do if your kids had gay friends at school that they have to work with and spend time with because of common interests?
Ok, so God disapproves. Do you think that because of that, homosexuals are less deserving of respect, kindness, consideration?
I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just wondering how you live your strongly held beliefs in everyday life. You don't have to answer if you don't want to....
The way I read the Bible, the main thing, if not the only thing, that Christians should judge about others is how their words and actions affect other people. It is proper to esteem people highly for the good they do. It is proper to condemn the things people do to harm others. Other than that, how people live is pretty much between them and God, and not for others to judge. I’m not a Christian, but I think that’s a very good standard, and one I try to live by.
Jerry.,.THANK YOU very very much for the GREAT "preaching" on your rather long post..I for one APPRECIATE IT & love your heart towards God for truly working God's Word in a logical manner.I'm just very blessed that you are a man of conviction & have searched & found.
In all honesty..I'm pretty dissappointed at the amount of people who have tossed the Bible aside in their lives & for "me & my house" God's Word sure sets the record straight in tough subjects such as this one.. So my friend this has not fallen on these deaf ears & I'll wager that there's alot more of the GSers that honestly agree with what you've written & the search you've made being worthwhile..SO I applaud you sir!JJ
So Jerry, how do you treat homosexuals that you come in contact with, or have to work with? What do you do, or would you do if your kids had gay friends at school that they have to work with and spend time with because of common interests?
Ok, so God disapproves. Do you think that because of that, homosexuals are less deserving of respect, kindness, consideration?
I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just wondering how you live your strongly held beliefs in everyday life. You don't have to answer if you don't want to....
I treat them politely just as I do most people. If they ask my opinion about it (which is rare) I share it as diplomatically as possible and we go on from there. I don't think homosexuals are less deserving of kindness or consideration just because they're homosexuals. Especially since they've probably been told by more than one Christian that it's okay to be gay. So I can't assume that they've made a concious decision to reject God and live like the devil.
I don't think my kids have gay friends at school, but I don't encourage them to avoid them. My wife is involved in theatre (as was I in college) and has a gay friend. She treats him with kindness and we have discussed his situation after rehearsals. She doesn't condone his lifestyle, but doesn't try to confront him about it either. Our view is that it's good to know the truth so you can live it and teach it to your kids, but, if you scare people away the people who need it most will never hear it.
Jerry.,.THANK YOU very very much for the GREAT "preaching" on your rather long post..I for one APPRECIATE IT & love your heart towards God for truly working God's Word in a logical manner.I'm just very blessed that you are a man of conviction & have searched & found.
In all honesty..I'm pretty dissappointed at the amount of people who have tossed the Bible aside in their lives & for "me & my house" God's Word sure sets the record straight in tough subjects such as this one.. So my friend this has not fallen on these deaf ears & I'll wager that there's alot more of the GSers that honestly agree with what you've written & the search you've made being worthwhile..SO I applaud you sir!JJ
I am always surprised at how much time guys devote to telling us how evil homosexuality is. I mean - point taken....but if you really believe "the word" about it, then why do you keep coming back to topics like this? If homo sex disgusts you, then why do you take so much time focusing on it and scripture to back it up? Ya'll sound a little obsessive to me.
I don't like mud and I don't roll around in it and I sure as heck don't keep talking about it. It's dirty...nasty, but if you want to take a bath in it, good for you, because I know where the bible says...
What do you do, or would you do if your kids had gay friends at school that they have to work with and spend time with because of common interests?
I’m going to be a little presumptuous and elaborate on this question. I don’t wish to put anyone on the spot or to argue. I don’t even care if anyone posts a reply, though I’d be interested in reading it. I just want to maybe provoke a little thought about things that actually do come up. At least some people who strongly disapprove of homosexuality on Biblical grounds surely must face these sorts of questions.
Suppose that your kid is passionate about some school activity (theater, athletics, whatever) and some of the kids involved in that activity are homosexual. How would you advise your child to relate to them? Should they be friends?
Would a homosexual child be welcome in your home to work on lines for a play, to practice shooting baskets, or to practice a musical duet? How about to attend a party for cast or team members? How about just to hang out with your child and perhaps other kids? Would you offer a homosexual child a ride home from school or a school-related activity? Are there any circumstances in which you might invite a homosexual child to spend the night in your home?
Suppose an activity involves out of town travel and overnight stays, like some of my daughter’s activities did. Do you object to a homosexual child going on the trip? Do you forbid your child to go? Do you object or forbid only if your child and the homosexual child are of the same gender? Do you not object if they both go on the trip but do object to (or forbid) their sharing a hotel room? Do you allow them to share a hotel room but discuss concerns you may have and warn your child first?
If you allow your child to be friends with homosexual children who share common interests, and your child is getting grief about it from church friends, what advice do you give to your child? Depending on how close you are to your child’s church friends, what, if any, advice do you give to them?
Suppose that you are getting grief from your adult church friends about permitting your child to be friends with homosexual children who share common interests. How do you respond to them?
Again, I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot or to provoke an argument. I don't have any religious objections to homosexuality, but I'm not sure how I would answer some of these questions, so I'm surely not going to challenge any answers that might be posted. (Well, if you say you'll invite them over and then stone them, I might challenge that.)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
This is where the context begins.
Jerry, this is not where the context begins. Go back at least 3 verses - the subject is "the Gospel, the power of God for salvation"(v.16). The "truth" that certain wicked men were suppressing or "holding captive" in verse 18, against which this "wrath" or "anger" was originally directed.
Most likely those "pillars" mentioned in Galatians.
Which inexplicitly and quite sloppily becomes altered against those heathen who should have learned God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" from "the creation" anyway (!) rendering "the truth" of "the gospel" via preaching mentioned earlier quite superfluous.
This section has been reworked by editors long after Paul's death.
Thanks EX10 that was nice of you to say. I think compassion is something that God celebrates.
We first moved back to our hometown here last year (July 04). We had been gone for about three years. My daughter started high school last fall. It was very difficult for her to adjust because she had gone to school with a lot of these kids when we were here before (5th and 6th grade) but went somewhere else 7th and 8th.
She started not wanting to go to school and calling me during the day wanting me to come home saying she was sick. One day she called and told me she wanted to come home and I felt it was time to talk to her counselor. I left work and went right to the school and we talked with her counselor.
In my mind, I was thinking kids were giving her a hard time about being gay. Seems she just missed all her friends from where me moved from and also she was still having trouble accepting the death of her grandmother which happened this past year. My mother lived with us through March of 04 when she passed. She wanted to move back and of course I told her that was not possible because I had a very good job and could not give that up - that my choices to move were right and unfortunately she was going to somehow have to come to terms with that. All this going on in the counselors office and both of us crying.
The point being, my mind immediately jumped to her being gay and that kids were picking on her. The parent defense, if you will. I asked the counselor if she felt that the kids in this school would be mean about that. The counselor assured me, that no way, most kids at this school are pretty accepting of others who are considered different in our society. I really think the majority of kids think differently these days then when we were younger.
I remember when in my 20's I first learned that a long time male friend of our family was gay. All my life growing up this was always like a "big secret" in our family that only the adults knew.
End of story she has adjusted well, once we both talked to her and got her to admit what was bothering her. She merely missed her friends. Don't get me wrong - there have been kids that pass her in the hall and call her derogatory names (dyke, fag, queer) but this does not appear to be the norm. Usually children are programmed by what they learn at home. I have learned to be less offended (except when others just want to spew their hate)and try to be understanding of where other parents may be coming from. The majority of her friends parents welcome her with open arms though.
She has had to go work on projects in other kids' home, has been invited to sleepovers, has had co-ed sleepovers here (I monitor well) and pick everybody's sleeping space for the night ;)-->
As an added thought......you know teenagers aren't always just thinking about sex (I don't know maybe boys are - just a joke haha).
Just like we were when we were teens, we just loved to hang out with our friends, listen to our music, talk about how unreasonable our parents are being, talk about the other sex etc etc.
Regardless of their sexual persuasion, teens will be teens........
If God did not invent evil, and Satan did, then that means that Satan has an equal ability to create, which is against what is in the Bible. If God did invent evil, then he is not "love"...
Let's take a look at that type of statement. Not only the statement itself but the TYPE of thinking it represents.
"Evil" is not a THING that has been invented. The thinking that Satan "created" "evil" illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both "evil" and what it means to "create."
Please don't take this post personally, I'm speaking against the thought process popularized and accepted by people in general. Not you, personally. I'm as guilty of buying into the process as anyone else.
Ever try to feed a baby a tasty morsel of baby food? Sometimes the baby will clamp his cute little mouth shut utilizing what physicians say are, pound for pound, the stongest muscles in his rolly-polly little, barely able to sit up by himself body - - and just say NO. You're not gonna get that spoon into that mouth.
That is a straight up, flat out refusal to follow the will of the parent. Especially when parent says, "Open the hangar so the airpwane can come in..."
At that point, especially, the NO is "sin."
That, in principle, IS "evil." Just as it took the baby no "ability equal to God's to create" to say no, it takes no ability to 'create' for Lucifer to think, say, then do and encourage others to just say NO to God and what God wants or instructs.
We don't (or maybe we do -->) see a baby not opening his mouth as evil. We tend to see what we individually, then collectively, believe as very bad to heinous as "evil." Society has largely bought into a definition that has birthed a term into an entity that has some sort of life of its own.
It doesn't. The entire concept of evil as some sort of 'thing' is simply a lie.
Evil is simply the result of a decision, its not a 'created thing.'
It is actually quite easy to do the opposite of any specific instruction, ask any baby, or child; take mine (please ) for example.
The term is applied to specific behaviors that lumps them into a specific category. God uses the term throughout the Bible as in "these things are bad." The term evil was applied later, IMO, as a means to an end of behavior modification by religious zealots to scare folks away from specific behaviors that they don't want you to do. "oooOhhh, thats baaad" or "He's eeeevvil; stay away from him."
One of my biggest pet peeves concerning evil is what I feel is the rediculous concept of "cursing" i.e. saying a " bad word. In the context of this thread; a "fag" in America is this greatly stigmatized male with what society says is (at best) a 'confused' sexuality. In Europe a fag is a cigarrette that lots of people desire; now increaingly stigmatized in the US.
I don't curse much, because I believe over much use of "curse words" illustrates a lack of education and command of the language, not because I believe the words, themselves, are "evil." A well placed 'F-bomb' can be ****in' effective if you ask me, however.
There was never any creation involved nor any "invention" of "evil."
As far back in man's recorded history as Genesis 2:9 Evil is simply used as a term representing a category of behaviors. Evil and wickedness is manifested one thought and one action or deed at a time.
"Good" is what God IS, "evil" is what Lucifer became. Lucifer decided one event at a time to illustrate a propensity towards rebellion against God and His goodness; therefore his works were "evil."
In Genesis, God saw everything that he had made and called it all "good." Lucifer's rebellion and subsequent expulsion from "heaven" (as place of residence) had occured prior to God's statement. He then went to work on "evilatizing" all that God has so piously (in lucifer's opinion) called "good."
Lucifer & his hosts personify 'evil,' they want us to see evil as a living thing that inevitibly WILL devour us all.
From the evil POV, evil IS good, and GOD, and his goodness is the perversion. "Well, IF God is so damn "good" and "loving" why does he... "all of the above...."
"Oh, HE doesn't actually DO the bad stuff? Then he allows it, how GOOD is that?"
All the while God is "silent." He doesn't take the time to defend his position.
Unfortunately, it is the Christian's, those who boldly claim to know God, have an intimate relationship with Him and live their lives according to His will.... They are the ones who do the most to keep the "concept of evil" alive. Non-christians, the non-religious, just live. Sure 'they' do evil, but the Bible says that WE (Christians) DO TOO.
It also goes so far as to say that if we SAY we DON'T do evil, we ARE lying and the truth is NOT in us (like we SAY it is; ellipsis supplied). AND. It says that the PROOF that we are, in fact, in him, that is in Christ, is the
LOVE we show one to another.
When we read 1st John it says NOTHING about speaking in tongues as undeniable proof that we are born again. It speaks of loving and LIKING your brother as external proof (in the way you LIVE) of the internal change in a person's life
when they change from death to life with the new birth of God, in Christ in you.
There is NOTHING in the Bible that prevents a 'gay' person from being born again. I teach my children to "do good unto ALL men, especaily those who are of the household of faith."
I add ANY faith. I teach my children that ANYONE who believes they love God, under ANY banner is YOUR brother or sister in Christ. I teach them to avoid "evil" as in "the best way to stay out of trouble is to stay AWAY from trouble. I teach my children to LOVE people no matter how BAD the stuff they do is.
It is a shame that the Christians are leading the charge against people they define as injured and damaged at the specific hand of satan under the auspicies of HELP and LOVE. The current "anti Homosexual" position of the Christian community does more damage to their cause than good.
Ex10. For what its worth.
My 18yr old daughter brought the same, "Why should I be a Christian when I see Christians acting so UN-Christian?" question to me a few years ago, probably around the same age of 15 as yours.
I used what has become my standard approach, "What makes you feel thay way honey? Tell me about it, ok? Can you tell me what you're feeling about it?" I stop everything, give her my undivided (as much as possible with other little ones running around) attention. We sit away from the TV and little kid noise. I do that because what she says then helps me to craft my response without going off on my irrational "parental concerns" tangents (which really hack teens off BTW).
I teach my children to use the SAME separation of the person from their behavior as I do with them. I love them and hate some of the things they DO. Everything we do has consequences, I teach them the consciously choose things that will bring them consequences that want to live with as best they can and DON'T do things they know will bring them things they don't want to live with.
I've found it gives a solid foundation that we can use as a starting point. Personally I handled the homosexual issue with my daughter under the "consequences of abstinence and lack thereof" talks. She has friends who partake of a number of things I/we disagree with. My response to her about ANYONE discriminating against anyone else, especially in the Christian context, was,
"They are NOT being Christian when they act like that. I don't care WHO thay are, you show yourself Christian by the way you treat people. I've tried to raise you to BE Christian, if you like the person, personally, BE their friend - same as you would ANY of your other friends."
I really don't care who a person desires to have sex with. I'm not gonna witch hunt someone's sexuality any more than I'll witch hunt lying. As a WOW I lived with a crazy person and we had an openly gay guy become a faithful person in our/my fellowship. Even then, I didn't 'confront' him with what the Bible says about homosexuality, I didn't go one inch further out of my way to prepare teachings to "confront the issue" no more than any other needs or issues to "confront."
Jesus said "go and sin no more" (or "stop doing that") when he was right in the midst of the specific situation. It was like, "...hellO-o, they were killing you with rocks, go and stop doing that stuff, it IS wrong, you know."
When my gay guy brought "gay issues" to me. I talked to him about it, appropriately for the situation. I didn't pull any punches, but I didn't stomp him into the ground. I gave him enough to make his own decision and treated him like any other brother ni Christ. I believe I'll see him in heaven. I think he hung around our fellowship because he felt WELCOME there.
If we truly believe people have "issues," we, who say we are Christians, should welcome them to be with us. We need to develop the confidence in our own position in Christ and in God Himself that we don't have a problem with ANYONE.
I'd say tell your daughter to invite her gay friends over for dinner at your house and have a great time.
My daughter has become one of the most popular kids in her school, one that her friends respect and bring some of their issues to. When she has questions about it she brings them to me. She has to deal with "TWI kids" who have done some pretty heinous and insane things. He friends even like ME! Some of them that I don't even know sent me birthday greetings.
You daughter seems to be one who care about people. You're doing the right things, I know you didn't tell her to shun her gay friends too.
Gay people aren't going anywhere. We have to learn to live with 'them' (ooh I HATE calling people 'them') same as they have to live with the hypocracy that is rampant in the Christian community.
If I need a body guard I'm gonna hire the biggest, most intimidating black guy I can find and give him dark sunglasses to wear at night. If I need some shrimp fried rice I'm gonna hire an Asian cook. If I need to win a decorating contest, I'm hiring "the Fab Five."
"Most boys spend at least 5 to 10 minutes a day not thinking about sex. Grown men can sometimes go as much as a whole hour without thinking about sex."
As I have explained previously, this is largely effected by female pheromones. When in the presence of them, males are 'influenced' to thinking about females more. Without the presence of them males are far less likely to think about females. Granted males would likely still think about females even without being influenced as such, but not nearly as often; and it is not nearly as distracting.
I have had the unique experience of working many years within environments which often were devoid of female pheromones, and I have seen the effects of what happens when even one man brought along some sample of his wife's [or girlfriend's] pheromones. When those are released into the atomosphere, it does have it's effect.
To be truly free from the effects of these influences a male needs to be isolated for a few weeks [2 to 3 weeks] for the influences to have really flushed out of his system and to air out from his personal effects.
Ask any submariner, it takes between 2 and 3 weeks for the crew to finally settle down and focus on their jobs. Which is primarily why Commanding Officers prefer to stay at sea, when the opportunity presents itself to pull into a port for a couple days. Two days in port, will disturb the entire crew for the next three weeks, all over again.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
37
30
26
63
Popular Days
Apr 26
46
Apr 27
43
Apr 28
42
Apr 29
36
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 37 posts
LG 30 posts
J0nny Ling0 26 posts
outofdafog 63 posts
Popular Days
Apr 26 2005
46 posts
Apr 27 2005
43 posts
Apr 28 2005
42 posts
Apr 29 2005
36 posts
LG
Treat others as you would like others to treat you. Let your kids see how you treat others and tell them why you live the way you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Outofdafog; I have posted numerous times quoting Scripture that is very clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. I honestly believe at this point that it wouldn't matter what I say, you will object to it just because you don't want to accept the possibility that your daughter is living in a state that God finds objectionable. I can understand how you feel, but feelings don't determine truth, nor do they determine judgment.
So just for the fun of it, let's take a look at some of the what the Bible says about homosexuality.
And since Trefor says it all depends on translation and interpretation, I'll go out of my way to allow for vaguaries in the text that may be interpreted some other way, and we'll look at alternate translations.
Romans 1:18-20
This is where the context begins. Note please that the subject at hand is judgement. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven...". God's ****** about something, as we would say. Is it specifically against homosexuality? Nope. Here it only says His wrath is revealed "against all undgodliness and unrighteousness of men...". So we're talking about ungodly, unrighteous men who are in for wrath. Wrath is not good, by the way. Wrath is judgment. "Wrath" is translated from the Greek word orge, meaning anger. Prior to this usage it is also used in Matthew 3:7, Mark 3:5, Luke 3:7, 21:23, and John 3:36. All but one clearly refer to the coming judgment of God. The other (Mark 3:5) refers to Jesus being angry at the Pharisees. In this usage, the context is amply clear that we're talking not just about displeasure, but judgment.
God's wrath has been kindled because these men were surpressing the truth. They knew God, but failded to revere Him as God. They knew God because He had made himself known by the world He created, yet they refused to aknowledge His glory. Bear in mind please that verse 20 ends with the clear statement that those who do so are "without excuse". Why would they need an excuse if we were not talking about judgment? But we stil don't know exactly what they're being judged for. What behaviour is it that has incurred God's wrath, for which they have no excuse? Read on.
Hmmm. How can we interpret this? It seems to me that these people made the mistake of not honoring God as sovereign. They became vain in their imaginations. What does that mean? "Became vain" is translated from mataioo, which means to make empty,vain, or foolish. They became vain or foolish and empty-headed in their imaginations. This word is translated from dialogismos, which is very interesting in light of this particular discussion.
Dialogismos means, "1) the thinking of a man deliberating with himself a) a thought, inward reasoning b) purpose, design 2) a deliberating, questioning about what is true a) hesitation, doubting b) disputing, arguing". Their inward reasoning about what is true had become vain, empty, foolish. Their disputing and arguing was foolish. The result is that their "foolish heart was darkened."
The word "foolish" is translated from asunetos. You've heard of the word sunesis which is described as the rivers of thought flowing together. More simply put, it's an understanding. These men had hearts without understanding. In other words, they were stupid. That's not just my interpretation, that's from Thayer's lexicon. They became foolish in their reasonings, and their stupid hearts were "darkened". Darkened means what it appears to mean. Their hearts were covered in darkness. Whether this darkness is evil or ignorance is open to interpretation, but it's certainly not light nor is it wisdom nor is it good. So these men who, in their minds saw themselves as wise men, became foolish in their reasonings and disputings and their stupid hearts were covered in darkness. As bad as that is, it's not the focus of the passage.
The main point is their sin in not glorifying God despite their knowledge of Him. Now I find it hard to believe that people who knew God could refuse to glorify Him, but they, in their vanity thought such a decision was reasonable. Verse 22 puts it succintly. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. In what specific manner was their folly manifested?
I tink that's pretty clear, don't you? They became idolaters. They replaced God with men, birds, animals, even creeping things. Why someone who knew God would choose to worship creeping things, is beyond me, but that's the decision these stupid "wise men" made.
So it is fairly clear that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ungodliness of men because these men rejected God and became idolators. Is that the end of the story, or is there more? The first word of the next verse is "wherefore" which is a conjunction. Conjunctions link thoughts and connnect one statement to another. Think back to Schoolhouse Rock
Conjunction Junction,what's your function?
Hookin up words and makin em function?"
Wherefore connects the following verse to what we've just learned about these foolish idolators.
"Wherefore" is translated from dio which means "on account of" or "for which cause"
Wherefore (because of their idolatry) God also gave them up to uncleanness. Interesting choice of words here. The phrase "gave them up" is translated from the word paradidomai which means to deliver into someone else's power. It's the same word used in Matthew 14:12 in reference to John the Baptist being cast into prison. The Blue Letter Bible defines it this way.
Which usage is the right one in this passage? Could it mean that because of their idolatry, God in His wrath delivered a narration to them? Sounds kind of silly. Did God in his wrath permit the idolators to ripen? Could be. Or it could be that God, in his wrath allowed the idolators to be taken into the power of something or someone else. Unto what were they paradidomai'ed?
Unto uncleanness. Now that can't be good.
Uncleanness is translated from (akatharsia) can be physical uncleanness such as contamination from touching a corpse, or moral uncleanness from a corrupt heart. It is of course from the root word akathartos meaning unclean. Interestingly the first usage of this word in the New Testament is in Matthew 10:1.
Lest you think I'm grasping at straws here, 23 of the 29 New Testament uses of this word refer to unclean spirits. So it is biblically accurate to say the word Unclean in the New Testament almost always refers to devil spirits or demons. It may not be the case here. But the phrase immmediately preceding says that God "gave them up" paradidomai delivered them into the power of...uncleaness.Maybe it's just talking about physical or moral uncleanness, not spiritual uncleanness. The uncleanness to which God delivered or surrendered them was "to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." Well Holy Saint Francis, that could be anything! Oh, wait a minute. It says, uncleanness "through the lust of their own hearts".
Still, people lust for a lot of different things. They could have lusted in their hearts for golden chariots which they traded among themselves. OH, wait a minute. It says "to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."
"Dishonor" is from the Greek word atomizo meaning, to treat with contempt or to treat shamefully, either in word, deed, or thought. If the verse merely said they dishonoured themselves, we could interpret it as "in word or thought" Since the verse adds the word bodies (soma), the sense of treating each other with contempt in deeds is a more logical interpretation. BUT. It still hasn't told us what kind of uncleanness, physical, moral, or spiritual uncleanness was involved when they, through the lust of their own hearts, dishonored their own bodies between (en) themselves. So it could have been violence. Maybe they had fistfights and just beat the crap out of each other. It could have been...adultery. Maybe they were just cheating on each other's wives. Or, it could have been...homosexuality. We don't really know. But wait there's more. Verse 25 essentially repeats what we learned in verse 23
Since the very next verse repeats the message of what we just learned, it is obvious that we are still on the subject of the wrath of God against ungodly and unrighteous men. We have learned so far that these bastages knew God, but refused to glorify Him, became foolish, and their hearts were darkened. God, in his wrath, delivered them into the power of unleanness and they, in their lust, did some contemptuous things with their physical bodies. Since verse 25 repeats the charge of idolatry, it is established that this is the sin that got the whole foolish, unclean, comtemptuous ball rolling, so to speak. Having seen that the context continues, we should follow it to find out if there is more information about the wrath of God upon these wicked idolators.
Hey, look at that. More repetition. "For this cause" in verse 26 repeats the meaning of the "Wherefore" at the beginning of verse 24. And following the repetition of the sin of idolatry, it is obvious and established that the "cause" spoken of is beause they changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. Verse 24 said that on account of that God had given them over to the power of uncleanness to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
Here the meaning of being given into some other power is repeated in the use of the same word, paradidomai. God gave them over to the power of "vile affections." The word "vile" another form of the verb "dishonor" used in verse 24. Here again, it means contemptuous or disgusting. "Affections" is translated from pathos and is only used two other times in the New Testament and in both places is translated as lust or "concupiscence". That's delicate King James language for sexual passion. In response to idolatry, God delivered them into the power of contemptible passions.What these contemptible passions, these "vile affections" were is not yet clear. But we have another clue.
Here in verse 26 we have a little more information about what kind of uncleanness is being revealed. "For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."
The phrase "for even their women" is the first reference to gender. The Biblical use of the word "men" is often gender-neutral, or in the language of Sinatra and Brando, refers to guys and dolls.
But the phrase, "for even their women" (te autos thelus) means 'but also' their women. So again, we're getting more specific. This logically tells us that whatever uncleanness was spoken of in which they treated each other contemptuously in their bodies, was among the men only. Otherwise this statement 'but also their women' makes no sense.
Furthermore, since the verse links these acts of the women to the same sin of idolatry and the same "for this cause" referring to God's repsonse to the sin, we can assume that whatever information is given about the women applies to what the men were doing.
While it doesn't say exactly what the women were doing it does note that they "changed the natural use". The word "changed" is the word metallasso which Thayer's defines as 'to exchange one thing with or for another'. What did they swap? The natural for the unnatural.
"Natual" is from the word phusikos. Thayer's Lexicon defines it as "produced by nature, inborn, agreeable to nature, or governed by the instincts of nature".
The word "against" is interesting. It's the preposition parawhich is used 200 times in the New Testament. Prepostions, (contrary to VP and PFAL) don't have minutely specific meanings that determine exactly what the context is talking about. Para basically means "beside". So it could be that the women changed the natural use into or exhanged the natural for that which is beside nature. That doesn't sound so bad, does it? But there are a slew of rules and cases and relationships that determine the proper translation of Greek prepostions. If there is some dispute as to how this one should be interpreted, it should show up in variant translations. It doesn't. the Darby, the New Living Translation, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, even the Websters, all translate it as "against" nature. So the women, acting in some as yet undetermined behaviour that is in common with the men (who burned in their lust and treated each other contemptuously, in some physical manner) exchanged the natural use into or for something that is against nature. What was it? Accounting? Politics? Wrestling? No. Verse 27 makes it perfectly clear what unnatural behaviour these women fell into.
Not only did the women change the natural for that which is against nature, but the men did likewise. They left the natural use of the woman. Well Gee I wonder what that's talking about?
"Likewise also" refers to the leaving of that which is agreeable to nature and in accordance with natural instinct in prference for that which is against nature. The men did as the women. The word for "men" here is arrhen which always refers to the male gender. (See Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Luke 2:23, Galatians 3:28, Rev 12:5 and 13). Likewise also the males leaving the natual use of the women. What is the natural use of the woman? That may be subject to interpretation. It could be said to be companionship. But the sins in this context are described as "vile affections" and are associated with "lusts" and dishonoring their own bodies between themselves", so it would be more than a stretch to say that the men were simply displacing their wives in companionship. The natural use referred to must be interpreted in accordance with everything in the context which leads logical people to believe that this "natural use of the women" is sexual intercourse and companionship. This is obvious as the verse continues to reveal its message.
These males "burned in their lust" one toward another. Well, what does that mean? They really liked golfing together. Yeah. "Lust" is translated from orexis which means strong affection. Thayer's Lexicon puts it this way. "1) desire, longing, craving for
2) eager desire, lust, appetite
a) used both in a good and a bad sense, as well of natural and lawful and even of proper cravings (of appetite for food), also of corrupt and unlawful desires"
So lust isn't necessarily evil. Could be lust for a good steak hoagie. And if we want to ignore the context and rip this verse from the flow of thought that precedes and follows it, we can say the it's really not talking about homosexuality. Males with males, having been given into the power of uncleanness, and vile affection, dishonouring their own bodies between themselves, leaving the natural use of the woman and burning in their lust for each other could be....fishing buddies! Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
No ladies and gentlemen of the Cafe, the context is quite clear. These males with males left the natural use of the women and, burning with lust for each other, had sex with each other. (yuck). And this is referred to as
"vile affection"
"that which is against nature"
"uncleanness" (spiritual, physical, moral, or perhaps all three)
"unseemly" (aschemosune, something you should be ashamed of)
And just in case you still think this vile, unnatural, unclean, unseemly behavior of males with males and women with women is okay with God; remember where we started. What's the context?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven. God does not condone homosexuality. He didn't create it, didn't ordain it, and doesn't approve of it.
Now, I could go on in like manner, through the rest of the chapter and demonstrate that falling into homosexuality opens one's mind to all kinds of other sordid vices. But...
1)This post is waaaaaay too long already
2)Outofdafog, Garth, and Trefor probably aren't goinng to accept a word of this anyway
3)And it's almost 2am and I have a ten hour work day tomorrow. Yikes!
So why did I bother? Just to show Outofdafog that I don't just pull assumptions out of my mean little heart because I want to point fingers at people. I don't just make assumptions and throw things in because I want to make a point. I believe what I believe because it is, imho, the inescapable conclusion of a logical approach to the Bible, the truth of which has been established in my life. As I said at the beginning, Fundamentalist Christians don't necessarily hate gays. They're not being self-righteous or hard-hearted. They're just accepting the testimony of Scripture. If you want to say that it's okay to be "gay", you have to convince these people, myself included, that the Bible is completely without authority and cannot be trusted. It's not a matter of "interpretation" or "translation". It's a matter of accepting the truth or rejecting it.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Jerry, believe it or not I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am pretty comfortable with where things stand with my child. Your preaching means nothing to me, your quoting of the bible, your meanings of all the greek words and ad nauseum. I have heard it all before, taught, spewed, spitted......
Ex10 - I apologize if your thread was derailed -one of the reasons I even got involved in it was because of your original question. I think you can see from this thread alone that there are a myriad of ways people think about this subject and your child will probably hear them all over the course of a lifetime.
I think Long Gone said it best, treat others the way you would want to be treated, let your kids see how you treat others and tell them why you live the way you do. Some of the best advice and sound biblical advice I have heard on this thread.
Jerry - please don't assume it is okay for yuo to use my tag line. Please remove so others do not think that your post is mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
OoDFog
I don't think Jerry is using your tagline any more than this one time at the end of that particular post, which he simply put on there for emphasis...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Sharon. If you take the time to reread that post you will find that there's nothing in there about the Law. Romans 1 is not telling people that they'll be judged by the Ten commmandments. But if you'd rather dodge the subject and play with your straw man, have fun.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Outofdafog
I didn't expect you to believe it. I merely hoped you'd have a little more respect for where I'm coming from. This is not some kneejerk response to people I don't like. And, as Johnny lingo stated, I borrowed your tag line for that one post. I really don't think anyone is going to confuse your posts and mine. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
deleted
Edited by sharonLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
So Jerry, how do you treat homosexuals that you come in contact with, or have to work with? What do you do, or would you do if your kids had gay friends at school that they have to work with and spend time with because of common interests?
Ok, so God disapproves. Do you think that because of that, homosexuals are less deserving of respect, kindness, consideration?
I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just wondering how you live your strongly held beliefs in everyday life. You don't have to answer if you don't want to....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
outofdafog,
No need to apologize dear. It's good to hear the parent's perspective. Hopefully, it'll make me a much more compassionate person.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
The way I read the Bible, the main thing, if not the only thing, that Christians should judge about others is how their words and actions affect other people. It is proper to esteem people highly for the good they do. It is proper to condemn the things people do to harm others. Other than that, how people live is pretty much between them and God, and not for others to judge. I’m not a Christian, but I think that’s a very good standard, and one I try to live by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
well, said, Long gone. As far as I can see, being a christian, I will be judged someday by the way I treat others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Second James
Jerry.,.THANK YOU very very much for the GREAT "preaching" on your rather long post..I for one APPRECIATE IT & love your heart towards God for truly working God's Word in a logical manner.I'm just very blessed that you are a man of conviction & have searched & found.
In all honesty..I'm pretty dissappointed at the amount of people who have tossed the Bible aside in their lives & for "me & my house" God's Word sure sets the record straight in tough subjects such as this one.. So my friend this has not fallen on these deaf ears & I'll wager that there's alot more of the GSers that honestly agree with what you've written & the search you've made being worthwhile..SO I applaud you sir!JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I treat them politely just as I do most people. If they ask my opinion about it (which is rare) I share it as diplomatically as possible and we go on from there. I don't think homosexuals are less deserving of kindness or consideration just because they're homosexuals. Especially since they've probably been told by more than one Christian that it's okay to be gay. So I can't assume that they've made a concious decision to reject God and live like the devil.
I don't think my kids have gay friends at school, but I don't encourage them to avoid them. My wife is involved in theatre (as was I in college) and has a gay friend. She treats him with kindness and we have discussed his situation after rehearsals. She doesn't condone his lifestyle, but doesn't try to confront him about it either. Our view is that it's good to know the truth so you can live it and teach it to your kids, but, if you scare people away the people who need it most will never hear it.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks James. God bless.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
I am always surprised at how much time guys devote to telling us how evil homosexuality is. I mean - point taken....but if you really believe "the word" about it, then why do you keep coming back to topics like this? If homo sex disgusts you, then why do you take so much time focusing on it and scripture to back it up? Ya'll sound a little obsessive to me.
I don't like mud and I don't roll around in it and I sure as heck don't keep talking about it. It's dirty...nasty, but if you want to take a bath in it, good for you, because I know where the bible says...
to him who thinks it unclean, it is unclean...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Suppose that your kid is passionate about some school activity (theater, athletics, whatever) and some of the kids involved in that activity are homosexual. How would you advise your child to relate to them? Should they be friends?
Would a homosexual child be welcome in your home to work on lines for a play, to practice shooting baskets, or to practice a musical duet? How about to attend a party for cast or team members? How about just to hang out with your child and perhaps other kids? Would you offer a homosexual child a ride home from school or a school-related activity? Are there any circumstances in which you might invite a homosexual child to spend the night in your home?
Suppose an activity involves out of town travel and overnight stays, like some of my daughter’s activities did. Do you object to a homosexual child going on the trip? Do you forbid your child to go? Do you object or forbid only if your child and the homosexual child are of the same gender? Do you not object if they both go on the trip but do object to (or forbid) their sharing a hotel room? Do you allow them to share a hotel room but discuss concerns you may have and warn your child first?
If you allow your child to be friends with homosexual children who share common interests, and your child is getting grief about it from church friends, what advice do you give to your child? Depending on how close you are to your child’s church friends, what, if any, advice do you give to them?
Suppose that you are getting grief from your adult church friends about permitting your child to be friends with homosexual children who share common interests. How do you respond to them?
Again, I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot or to provoke an argument. I don't have any religious objections to homosexuality, but I'm not sure how I would answer some of these questions, so I'm surely not going to challenge any answers that might be posted. (Well, if you say you'll invite them over and then stone them, I might challenge that.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Jerry, this is not where the context begins. Go back at least 3 verses - the subject is "the Gospel, the power of God for salvation"(v.16). The "truth" that certain wicked men were suppressing or "holding captive" in verse 18, against which this "wrath" or "anger" was originally directed.
Most likely those "pillars" mentioned in Galatians.
Which inexplicitly and quite sloppily becomes altered against those heathen who should have learned God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" from "the creation" anyway (!) rendering "the truth" of "the gospel" via preaching mentioned earlier quite superfluous.
This section has been reworked by editors long after Paul's death.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
sharon,
here's a spell checker for you
if you are using internet explorer
http://www.iespell.com/
after download and install just right click
inside the reply box and click "check spelling"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Thanks EX10 that was nice of you to say. I think compassion is something that God celebrates.
We first moved back to our hometown here last year (July 04). We had been gone for about three years. My daughter started high school last fall. It was very difficult for her to adjust because she had gone to school with a lot of these kids when we were here before (5th and 6th grade) but went somewhere else 7th and 8th.
She started not wanting to go to school and calling me during the day wanting me to come home saying she was sick. One day she called and told me she wanted to come home and I felt it was time to talk to her counselor. I left work and went right to the school and we talked with her counselor.
In my mind, I was thinking kids were giving her a hard time about being gay. Seems she just missed all her friends from where me moved from and also she was still having trouble accepting the death of her grandmother which happened this past year. My mother lived with us through March of 04 when she passed. She wanted to move back and of course I told her that was not possible because I had a very good job and could not give that up - that my choices to move were right and unfortunately she was going to somehow have to come to terms with that. All this going on in the counselors office and both of us crying.
The point being, my mind immediately jumped to her being gay and that kids were picking on her. The parent defense, if you will. I asked the counselor if she felt that the kids in this school would be mean about that. The counselor assured me, that no way, most kids at this school are pretty accepting of others who are considered different in our society. I really think the majority of kids think differently these days then when we were younger.
I remember when in my 20's I first learned that a long time male friend of our family was gay. All my life growing up this was always like a "big secret" in our family that only the adults knew.
End of story she has adjusted well, once we both talked to her and got her to admit what was bothering her. She merely missed her friends. Don't get me wrong - there have been kids that pass her in the hall and call her derogatory names (dyke, fag, queer) but this does not appear to be the norm. Usually children are programmed by what they learn at home. I have learned to be less offended (except when others just want to spew their hate)and try to be understanding of where other parents may be coming from. The majority of her friends parents welcome her with open arms though.
She has had to go work on projects in other kids' home, has been invited to sleepovers, has had co-ed sleepovers here (I monitor well) and pick everybody's sleeping space for the night
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
As an added thought......you know teenagers aren't always just thinking about sex (I don't know maybe boys are - just a joke haha).
Just like we were when we were teens, we just loved to hang out with our friends, listen to our music, talk about how unreasonable our parents are being, talk about the other sex etc etc.
Regardless of their sexual persuasion, teens will be teens........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Most boys spend at least 5 to 10 minutes a day not thinking about sex. Grown men can sometimes go as much as a whole hour without thinking about sex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Let's take a look at that type of statement. Not only the statement itself but the TYPE of thinking it represents.
"Evil" is not a THING that has been invented. The thinking that Satan "created" "evil" illustrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both "evil" and what it means to "create."
Please don't take this post personally, I'm speaking against the thought process popularized and accepted by people in general. Not you, personally. I'm as guilty of buying into the process as anyone else.
Ever try to feed a baby a tasty morsel of baby food? Sometimes the baby will clamp his cute little mouth shut utilizing what physicians say are, pound for pound, the stongest muscles in his rolly-polly little, barely able to sit up by himself body - - and just say NO. You're not gonna get that spoon into that mouth.
That is a straight up, flat out refusal to follow the will of the parent. Especially when parent says, "Open the hangar so the airpwane can come in..."
At that point, especially, the NO is "sin."
That, in principle, IS "evil." Just as it took the baby no "ability equal to God's to create" to say no, it takes no ability to 'create' for Lucifer to think, say, then do and encourage others to just say NO to God and what God wants or instructs.
We don't (or maybe we do
-->) see a baby not opening his mouth as evil. We tend to see what we individually, then collectively, believe as very bad to heinous as "evil." Society has largely bought into a definition that has birthed a term into an entity that has some sort of life of its own.
It doesn't. The entire concept of evil as some sort of 'thing' is simply a lie.
Evil is simply the result of a decision, its not a 'created thing.'
It is actually quite easy to do the opposite of any specific instruction, ask any baby, or child; take mine (please
) for example.
The term is applied to specific behaviors that lumps them into a specific category. God uses the term throughout the Bible as in "these things are bad." The term evil was applied later, IMO, as a means to an end of behavior modification by religious zealots to scare folks away from specific behaviors that they don't want you to do. "oooOhhh, thats baaad" or "He's eeeevvil; stay away from him."
One of my biggest pet peeves concerning evil is what I feel is the rediculous concept of "cursing" i.e. saying a " bad word. In the context of this thread; a "fag" in America is this greatly stigmatized male with what society says is (at best) a 'confused' sexuality. In Europe a fag is a cigarrette that lots of people desire; now increaingly stigmatized in the US.
I don't curse much, because I believe over much use of "curse words" illustrates a lack of education and command of the language, not because I believe the words, themselves, are "evil." A well placed 'F-bomb' can be ****in' effective if you ask me, however.
There was never any creation involved nor any "invention" of "evil."
As far back in man's recorded history as Genesis 2:9 Evil is simply used as a term representing a category of behaviors. Evil and wickedness is manifested one thought and one action or deed at a time.
"Good" is what God IS, "evil" is what Lucifer became. Lucifer decided one event at a time to illustrate a propensity towards rebellion against God and His goodness; therefore his works were "evil."
In Genesis, God saw everything that he had made and called it all "good." Lucifer's rebellion and subsequent expulsion from "heaven" (as place of residence) had occured prior to God's statement. He then went to work on "evilatizing" all that God has so piously (in lucifer's opinion) called "good."
Lucifer & his hosts personify 'evil,' they want us to see evil as a living thing that inevitibly WILL devour us all.
From the evil POV, evil IS good, and GOD, and his goodness is the perversion. "Well, IF God is so damn "good" and "loving" why does he... "all of the above...."
"Oh, HE doesn't actually DO the bad stuff? Then he allows it, how GOOD is that?"
All the while God is "silent." He doesn't take the time to defend his position.
Unfortunately, it is the Christian's, those who boldly claim to know God, have an intimate relationship with Him and live their lives according to His will.... They are the ones who do the most to keep the "concept of evil" alive. Non-christians, the non-religious, just live. Sure 'they' do evil, but the Bible says that WE (Christians) DO TOO.
It also goes so far as to say that if we SAY we DON'T do evil, we ARE lying and the truth is NOT in us (like we SAY it is; ellipsis supplied). AND. It says that the PROOF that we are, in fact, in him, that is in Christ, is the
LOVE we show one to another.
When we read 1st John it says NOTHING about speaking in tongues as undeniable proof that we are born again. It speaks of loving and LIKING your brother as external proof (in the way you LIVE) of the internal change in a person's life
when they change from death to life with the new birth of God, in Christ in you.
There is NOTHING in the Bible that prevents a 'gay' person from being born again. I teach my children to "do good unto ALL men, especaily those who are of the household of faith."
I add ANY faith. I teach my children that ANYONE who believes they love God, under ANY banner is YOUR brother or sister in Christ. I teach them to avoid "evil" as in "the best way to stay out of trouble is to stay AWAY from trouble. I teach my children to LOVE people no matter how BAD the stuff they do is.
It is a shame that the Christians are leading the charge against people they define as injured and damaged at the specific hand of satan under the auspicies of HELP and LOVE. The current "anti Homosexual" position of the Christian community does more damage to their cause than good.
Ex10. For what its worth.
My 18yr old daughter brought the same, "Why should I be a Christian when I see Christians acting so UN-Christian?" question to me a few years ago, probably around the same age of 15 as yours.
I used what has become my standard approach, "What makes you feel thay way honey? Tell me about it, ok? Can you tell me what you're feeling about it?" I stop everything, give her my undivided (as much as possible with other little ones running around) attention. We sit away from the TV and little kid noise. I do that because what she says then helps me to craft my response without going off on my irrational "parental concerns" tangents (which really hack teens off BTW).
I teach my children to use the SAME separation of the person from their behavior as I do with them. I love them and hate some of the things they DO. Everything we do has consequences, I teach them the consciously choose things that will bring them consequences that want to live with as best they can and DON'T do things they know will bring them things they don't want to live with.
I've found it gives a solid foundation that we can use as a starting point. Personally I handled the homosexual issue with my daughter under the "consequences of abstinence and lack thereof" talks. She has friends who partake of a number of things I/we disagree with. My response to her about ANYONE discriminating against anyone else, especially in the Christian context, was,
"They are NOT being Christian when they act like that. I don't care WHO thay are, you show yourself Christian by the way you treat people. I've tried to raise you to BE Christian, if you like the person, personally, BE their friend - same as you would ANY of your other friends."
I really don't care who a person desires to have sex with. I'm not gonna witch hunt someone's sexuality any more than I'll witch hunt lying. As a WOW I lived with a crazy person and we had an openly gay guy become a faithful person in our/my fellowship. Even then, I didn't 'confront' him with what the Bible says about homosexuality, I didn't go one inch further out of my way to prepare teachings to "confront the issue" no more than any other needs or issues to "confront."
Jesus said "go and sin no more" (or "stop doing that") when he was right in the midst of the specific situation. It was like, "...hellO-o, they were killing you with rocks, go and stop doing that stuff, it IS wrong, you know."
When my gay guy brought "gay issues" to me. I talked to him about it, appropriately for the situation. I didn't pull any punches, but I didn't stomp him into the ground. I gave him enough to make his own decision and treated him like any other brother ni Christ. I believe I'll see him in heaven. I think he hung around our fellowship because he felt WELCOME there.
If we truly believe people have "issues," we, who say we are Christians, should welcome them to be with us. We need to develop the confidence in our own position in Christ and in God Himself that we don't have a problem with ANYONE.
I'd say tell your daughter to invite her gay friends over for dinner at your house and have a great time.
My daughter has become one of the most popular kids in her school, one that her friends respect and bring some of their issues to. When she has questions about it she brings them to me. She has to deal with "TWI kids" who have done some pretty heinous and insane things. He friends even like ME! Some of them that I don't even know sent me birthday greetings.
You daughter seems to be one who care about people. You're doing the right things, I know you didn't tell her to shun her gay friends too.
Gay people aren't going anywhere. We have to learn to live with 'them' (ooh I HATE calling people 'them') same as they have to live with the hypocracy that is rampant in the Christian community.
If I need a body guard I'm gonna hire the biggest, most intimidating black guy I can find and give him dark sunglasses to wear at night. If I need some shrimp fried rice I'm gonna hire an Asian cook. If I need to win a decorating contest, I'm hiring "the Fab Five."
Forget you buddy! I wanna win!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Thanks Sharon,
I hope it works for you cuz mine uses the dictionary from microsoft word. If you don't have microsoft word I don't know what it will use.
-----------
It's interesting to note that "the serpent" was also in the Garden of Eden that God created.
Wonder why....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Long Gone:
"Most boys spend at least 5 to 10 minutes a day not thinking about sex. Grown men can sometimes go as much as a whole hour without thinking about sex."
As I have explained previously, this is largely effected by female pheromones. When in the presence of them, males are 'influenced' to thinking about females more. Without the presence of them males are far less likely to think about females. Granted males would likely still think about females even without being influenced as such, but not nearly as often; and it is not nearly as distracting.
I have had the unique experience of working many years within environments which often were devoid of female pheromones, and I have seen the effects of what happens when even one man brought along some sample of his wife's [or girlfriend's] pheromones. When those are released into the atomosphere, it does have it's effect.
To be truly free from the effects of these influences a male needs to be isolated for a few weeks [2 to 3 weeks] for the influences to have really flushed out of his system and to air out from his personal effects.
Ask any submariner, it takes between 2 and 3 weeks for the crew to finally settle down and focus on their jobs. Which is primarily why Commanding Officers prefer to stay at sea, when the opportunity presents itself to pull into a port for a couple days. Two days in port, will disturb the entire crew for the next three weeks, all over again.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.