Announcement
Collapse
Nashville Statement
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAgain, I absolutely believe you when you claim that it isn't your experience. I know for a fact that it is the experience of others. I know that it is possible. Why do you and others you know have no luck? I can only guess. But I do know that it is possible, and even if it weren't, I believe one should never give up trying.
Sure, which is why I know that it can be done, because God tells us that we can renew our minds.
I don't know why so many people seem not to have success,.... But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in miracles, or that people can't break off the habits of the old man.
I haven't denied that habits can be broken. Porn addiction can be thought of in terms of a bad habit, in other words a vice. There's sound advice on how to break such a habit: Avoid occasions, cultivate a virtue of resistance, pray for purity, holy friendships, etc... You reinforce in a person a belief that they can overcome, that they're not helpless and they can seek the grace of God. It's still very difficult, but not impossible, even for complete sex addicts to have significant change. Especially as they grow older and their urges diminish.
But I don't think attraction is a habit. I can't train it. It would be like teaching me to see the Mona Lisa as ugly. Or that a certain flavor of yogurt was disgusting, and that's putting it oversimplified terms even. How would you train me to do that? There is no arguing with taste, as it's famously said.
There is no approved way of changing a persons sexuality, and a lot of very dubious pseudoscience, some testimony I trust but can't evaluate as to how I could emulate it, and some claims of miracles I have never witnessed or experienced for myself despite praying for them. The more time I've spent away from Christian websites dealing with that nonsense the worse it looks each time I come back. The atheists are right to ridicule Christians on account of the ludicrous conversion therapy nonsense we've promoted.
Courage, which is one of the only organisations I have respect for are very careful and hesitant in what they're saying in comparison. And like me, they spend more time focusing on the celibate path to holiness for people with deep-seated homosexual attractions.
My entire point is that just because we don't see the miraculous every day doesn't mean that the Christian with congenital heart disease should just give up on his condition, and just give in to his fate. That, in my opinion, is not walking in purity. Walking in purity for the Christian with heart disease means continuing to eat healthy, exercising, meditating on the Word, praying for healing, and remaining faithful that God is willing and able to do mighty works in our lives.
How much of an effort would you say someone should do with it to satisfy you? I'm asking you, because you seem to have something in mind.
I do have a prayer for purity I say everyday. I say it every morning and every evening. I intend it primarily just to be that I don't fall into some old bad habits, and get God's protection on that. However as it touches on sexuality, there is of course an implication of being healed of any iniquity at all, anything that would be a problem.
Is this sufficient, or should I make more effort? Should I drop all the other prayers I say for the people I love, for building up of the Church, for evangelistic, and focus all about me and my loins? Is it really important that I focus on making myself heterosexual even though I'm celibate? Or is it enough that I focus simple on mastering myself and who I am, so that urges aren't what dominate me anymore?
Of all the things, aside from general intentions to be better at very specific problems, I don't want prayer to be all about me. If anything, the best times in prayer are when I'm drawn out of myself, and get to just worship God or contemplate Him.
I would appreciate it if you would stop implying that I think that gay people are "lesser Christians". It's very irritating to constantly have to fight against this strawman of my view on the subject.
So no Adrift, its not clear to me exactly what you're saying. If you weren't saying things that looked like you were walking back a lot on the statement, I'd be more comfortable with believing it when you say homosexual attraction does not cause a person to be a lesser Christian.
That you mention people you consider holier who struggle with those desires, is perhaps the only thing I know of that tells me that you don't consider it at least a huge problem as to whether a person is holy or not.
Honestly I don't know. I'm not sure how to integrate that with the other things you're saying. Not when you're using those phrases which all imply moral evil.
I trust it if you say that it's only a problem of natural evil, and that this is what you mean. Natural evil is something that shouldn't be. And we'd both agree that there is a wrongness in having homosexual attractions. However its not morally wrong to have them, if they're not acted on. Just as its not morally wrong to have heterosexual attractions, if they're not acted on. One however is a natural evil, while the other one isn't.
If we'd agree on that I think we'd be in agreement in regards to Christians with homosexual attractions not being lesser Christians.
I believe Jesus when he says that he will do whatever we ask in his name if it aligns with his will, and I have no reason to believe that it is not God's will that we all experience normative and healthy sexual appetites.
I've asked. I trust Him. I know He can heal me if it is His Will. I haven't received; ergo, it's not His Will; I live by His Will, hence I'm celibate and not seeking marriage.
What else would you have me do?
No, I don't believe the sensible approach to the miraculous is to not expect them, and feel we're lucky if we see them. I believe Jesus when he says that with the faith of a mustard seed we can move mountains. I believe the book of James when it says God gives generously, and that we should not doubt what we ask for in faith. That doesn't mean I believe in some sort of Benny Hinn style faith healing, but what I do believe it means is that when we come to God with our issues, we ought to faithfully come to him expecting to receive.
Whether God will super-abundantly also give me that in this life, maybe. That's His will. I have no control of that. He's God, I'm just a penitent disciple.
I certainly don't believe we can just ask and receive. At least not in the straight forward sense. I don't think God owes us that, and I'm suspicious of how you're reading those texts. If Christianity preaches that then I'm definitely out of here, because I could never relate to that in my experience.
I believe it's our willful cooperation with the Holy Spirit that allows us to put off the desires of the old Man, and renew our minds to the new.
If that's enough for you, then by all means, hold to it. But that's not at all what you've let on. You seem to have made a couple of points pretty clear on the subject. 1.) That this wasn't enough for you for a long long time (and nor has it been enough for many other people), and even at your present state of acceptance, you'd still desire change.
I've never said I'm now a person who like St. Thomas Aquinas was gifted with the gift of angelic purity and so never experience concupiscence of any kind. I have my vices. I won't talk about them here, but I have them. Fighting them is hard, and while I'm starting to see significant improvements there's still a long way to go. At least that's where I am today. Several years ago, before my stint as an atheist, I was a protestant in a Church that didn't believe in celibacy having any value. Only married people could hold authority as elders, and anything else was viewed with suspicion. I was a single, gay, teen Christian so I thought... well, I'm not going to be like the gay Christians who say they can't make the change. I'll make it happen. It just never happened. I was an atheist for a while, became Catholic, made new attempts, failed over and over again for a few years... a few depressions later, I was tired of beating my head against a wall. I decided to focus on a celibate life and not obsess about my sexuality so much.
The less I've thought about sex the better. Its a topic that's starting to sicken me, no matter what direction you're talking. The only change I want is to master my vices.
2.) That most people should not even begin to attempt to change their sexual inclinations. That for the vast majority of Christians it is impossible, and that even talking about renewal of the mind in this area will be met with a lengthy challenge.
I have no problem with people seeking to explore or change their sexuality for what they believe to be the better. There is nothing wrong with that. If this wasn't clear, I should have made it clear.
I have made very specific reservations. I think its wrong to demand of them to change their sexual inclinations. Especially so for those who have made significant attempts at doing so. Or to drill into their head that they're sinful if they even have these desires. I have made very specific reservations regarding Christian amateur psychologists leading conversion camps with zero oversight or professionalism, and without any scientific integrity. That its wrong to cast doubts on a gay Christians father, as if its the fathers fault he was that way. That its wrong to automatically psychoanalyze gay Christians, or to judge their character or motivations for failing to achieving various changes. I out lined most of those in the thread you linked to.
I honestly don't think this view is that confusing.
I would be surprised if you found your own thoughts confusing. Not even John Martin thinks his thoughts are confusing. I'm saying that I've tried to understand you, and apparently I get you wrong. This happens often with me. I guess partly because I'm autistic, and sometimes my read intentions where none are. I apologize if I get you wrong, and I've tried to be fair in this post why its hard to grant some of your points because how you seem to say one thing but then continue differently later.
It doesn't seem accurate to me to say that it is "morally evil" to simply have unacted upon same sex attractions, but I certainly do not think it is God's desire for us to have same sex attractions.
I can easily accept a homosexual attraction as a natural evil. A boil on the back, or a missing eye, or heart defects as little nephew has, are all natural evil. Their final causes are working contrary to your own. In my case it prevents me from forming long lasting romantic attraction to the opposite sex. And provides me with sources of lust that are contrary to nature. It's not my fault that things are like that, but we can both agree that its not proper and if things were good it would have been rectified.
We just live in a fallen world, and so even sexuality in people can be broken.
2 Corinthians 7 tells us to purify ourselves from everything that could contaminate the body and the spirit, as we work towards complete holiness out of reverence for God. This ought to be our lifelong pursuit. That, to me, is what it means to walk in purity. It does not mean that today I'm gay, and tomorrow I'm straight. It means that we continue to work with the Holy Spirit in attaining the image of Christ.
I think it's much more likely that this accusation you're putting into my mouth is born out of your own personal and emotional investment in the topic. You find my view irritating, and impossible, and so are (perhaps unconsciously) casting it in as negative, or as extreme a way as possible. I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the impression I get.
I'm no theologian, and I'm an expert on the patristics, and I can't read koine greek. I am a Catholic. I trust what the Catholic Church teaches, and what it teaches here strikes me as nothing but pure ordinary common sense: Homosexual attractions can only be viewed as natural evils, but are not morally evil if not acted upon. And are then, aside from the special occasions of sin they open up, no impediments to living a virtuous and holy life pleasing to God.
This is unnecessarily crass. Do you think Christian heterosexual men walk around with • Edited by a Moderator • whenever they see women? For that matter, are you implying that Christians struggling with homosexuality walk around with • Edited by a Moderator • whenever they see other men?
Is it then really so important, that if I were to too look at things that I'd find arousing, that they'd be those things I'd have found arousing, if I were aroused by the same things that arouse heterosexual men? See the conundrum to me? Trying to live a celibate life, is not really compatible with adjusting your sexuality to something you prefer, because I don't see how you'd do it, without constantly gauging it and therefore thinking a lot about sex.
It just seems counterproductive to me.Last edited by rogue06; 10-17-2017, 09:56 AM.
Comment
-
The debate in this thread has gone on about Article 8, but off this site, the most controversial article has been Article 10, which states that this is not an "agree to disagree" issue among evangelicals. Given that 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that this is a salvation issue, I must confess I don't understand the mindset that one can think homosexuality is sinful but be willing to agree to disagree on it.
By the way, this isn't the only place I've seen people get up in arms over the lack of a mention of divorce. Some people were trying to stir that hornet's nest up on Rob Gagnon's Facebook page before he told them to knock it off. I doubt everybody is coming up with that talking point independently. Anybody know where this is all coming from?"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
I like what I've read in reading the Nashville Statement. Basically all 'progressive' critiques I've seen of it veer wildly and enthusiastically into the realm of the heretical (and, we can make no mistake, affirmation of homosexuality and transgenderism within the context of Christian ethics is out-and-out heresy). (Incidentally, those very critiques in the name of 'love' and 'tolerance' are dripping with the utmost spite and mockery.)
I contemplated signing the Nashville Statement myself, but I do have a couple misgivings:- The fact that it originates exclusively from one sectarian wing of the evangelical world. I'm deeply disappointed with the CBMW for apparently not having reached out to, say, the CBE to co-sponsor a declaration on behalf of evangelical believers in general. As a result, although some signatories (e.g., Gagnon) have noted that nothing in the Nashville Statement requires an explicitly complementarian reading - and they're probably right about that - nevertheless, the CBMW threw away any avenue of escape out from under that cloud of suspicion of being a wholly sectarian expression, rather than having weight to really speak on behalf of Christianity or Evangelicalism as such.
- As some other evangelical critics have noted, the Nashville Statement really could have done a better job at setting forth the winsomeness of the authentic Christian depiction of love, marriage, desire, and sexuality, in a way that presents a more positive and well-rounded contextualization for the rejection of the homosexualist and transgenderist heresies. (Yes, they do have some of that, but they did handle it more clumsily than was necessary.) As a result, the Nashville Statement gives the wrong appearance of being more negative than it really means to be, and as they say these days, optics really do matter.
- Finally, Ryan T. Anderson (a respectable scholar) has critiqued the statement, hyper-pedantically but accurately, for utilizing the term "chastity" in a misleading fashion, i.e., as synonymous with celibacy rather than denoting a virtue applicable both inside and outside marital union. Anderson sees this as reflecting a deficient overall theology of sexuality (and I think that's an overreach), but some added care on the drafters' part really wouldn't have gone amiss either.
But, those quibbles aside, certainly the Nashville Statement doesn't say anything actually untrue or actually unloving, and certainly the self-styled progressive critics can, at best, be described as sub-Christian."The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll
"It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley
"Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIn general with joint statements like this, I think the usual approach is to read them as specifically as possible, meaning they only address exactly what they address. So any accusations of them implying something by omission aren't proper. If something is omitted, then its simple not something addressed by the statement, and nothing yay, or nay is implied on other statements.
So we don't read specifically, cause they said they'd be general!
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThe Nicene Creed doesn't talk about divorce either. I guess it's too liberal.
Statement that wants to preach biblical truth about sex and marriage, but no mention of divorce? Something's very wrong!!!Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostBy the way, this isn't the only place I've seen people get up in arms over the lack of a mention of divorce. Some people were trying to stir that hornet's nest up on Rob Gagnon's Facebook page before he told them to knock it off. I doubt everybody is coming up with that talking point independently. Anybody know where this is all coming from?
Libs: 'Shut up!!!!!!!!!'Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View PostI'm deeply disappointed with the CBMW for apparently not having reached out to, say, the CBE to co-sponsor a declaration on behalf of evangelical believers in general. As a result, although some signatories (e.g., Gagnon) have noted that nothing in the Nashville Statement requires an explicitly complementarian reading - and they're probably right about that.
Then they makes statement about 'Holy Bible's truths about sexes!!!'...but it can be signed honestly by egalitarians
What a big fat joke.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI don't believe sexual attraction to be a mere habit to break.
I haven't denied that habits can be broken. Porn addiction can be thought of in terms of a bad habit, in other words a vice. There's sound advice on how to break such a habit: Avoid occasions, cultivate a virtue of resistance, pray for purity, holy friendships, etc... You reinforce in a person a belief that they can overcome, that they're not helpless and they can seek the grace of God. It's still very difficult, but not impossible, even for complete sex addicts to have significant change. Especially as they grow older and their urges diminish.
But I don't think attraction is a habit. I can't train it. It would be like teaching me to see the Mona Lisa as ugly. Or that a certain flavor of yogurt was disgusting, and that's putting it oversimplified terms even. How would you train me to do that? There is no arguing with taste, as it's famously said.
There is no approved way of changing a persons sexuality, and a lot of very dubious pseudoscience, some testimony I trust but can't evaluate as to how I could emulate it, and some claims of miracles I have never witnessed or experienced for myself despite praying for them. The more time I've spent away from Christian websites dealing with that nonsense the worse it looks each time I come back. The atheists are right to ridicule Christians on account of the ludicrous conversion therapy nonsense we've promoted.
Courage, which is one of the only organisations I have respect for are very careful and hesitant in what they're saying in comparison. And like me, they spend more time focusing on the celibate path to holiness for people with deep-seated homosexual attractions.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI've never said we should stop praying. I think if anything good is possible it should be desired, if there's even a minute amount of goodness you could increase in the world, it would be good to seek it. Heterosexuality is a good, so if someone is homosexual it would be natural for them to desire restoration. Even to pray for it.
How much of an effort would you say someone should do with it to satisfy you? I'm asking you, because you seem to have something in mind.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI do have a prayer for purity I say everyday. I say it every morning and every evening. I intend it primarily just to be that I don't fall into some old bad habits, and get God's protection on that. However as it touches on sexuality, there is of course an implication of being healed of any iniquity at all, anything that would be a problem.
Is this sufficient, or should I make more effort? Should I drop all the other prayers I say for the people I love, for building up of the Church, for evangelistic, and focus all about me and my loins? Is it really important that I focus on making myself heterosexual even though I'm celibate? Or is it enough that I focus simple on mastering myself and who I am, so that urges aren't what dominate me anymore?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostOf all the things, aside from general intentions to be better at very specific problems, I don't want prayer to be all about me. If anything, the best times in prayer are when I'm drawn out of myself, and get to just worship God or contemplate Him.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI would be happy to do so, its just that every time you make a post like this where you explain that you don't mean gay Christians are less holy, you introduce some new statement that, it seems to me, conflicts with that. Last time it was about them not properly 'walking in purity', now its that they still have the habits of the old man 'despite being told to put on the new man'. And later you talk about "It's certainly the case that one might be able to stifle that walk through error, or ignorance, or whatever and yet still passionately love God" which was your response to whether a person with homosexual attractions could still walk in purity and love.
So no Adrift, its not clear to me exactly what you're saying. If you weren't saying things that looked like you were walking back a lot on the statement, I'd be more comfortable with believing it when you say homosexual attraction does not cause a person to be a lesser Christian.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThat you mention people you consider holier who struggle with those desires, is perhaps the only thing I know of that tells me that you don't consider it at least a huge problem as to whether a person is holy or not.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHonestly I don't know. I'm not sure how to integrate that with the other things you're saying. Not when you're using those phrases which all imply moral evil.
I trust it if you say that it's only a problem of natural evil, and that this is what you mean. Natural evil is something that shouldn't be. And we'd both agree that there is a wrongness in having homosexual attractions. However its not morally wrong to have them, if they're not acted on. Just as its not morally wrong to have heterosexual attractions, if they're not acted on. One however is a natural evil, while the other one isn't.
If we'd agree on that I think we'd be in agreement in regards to Christians with homosexual attractions not being lesser Christians.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostWhat you have reason to believe God wants or doesn't want is not that important.
I've asked. I trust Him. I know He can heal me if it is His Will. I haven't received; ergo, it's not His Will; I live by His Will, hence I'm celibate and not seeking marriage.
What else would you have me do?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI do so, I know I'll recieve all in the Parousia. There is no doubt of that.
Whether God will super-abundantly also give me that in this life, maybe. That's His will. I have no control of that. He's God, I'm just a penitent disciple.
I certainly don't believe we can just ask and receive. At least not in the straight forward sense. I don't think God owes us that, and I'm suspicious of how you're reading those texts. If Christianity preaches that then I'm definitely out of here, because I could never relate to that in my experience.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAgain, I don't think attraction is a habit, porn addiction, sexual relations, dating scenes etc, are habits. Those can be approached as habits, and changed, leading, for people with deep-seated homosexual attraction, to happy, joyful, celibate lives.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm not quite sure where I've said its not enough. Do you have citations?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI've never said I'm now a person who like St. Thomas Aquinas was gifted with the gift of angelic purity and so never experience concupiscence of any kind. I have my vices. I won't talk about them here, but I have them. Fighting them is hard, and while I'm starting to see significant improvements there's still a long way to go. At least that's where I am today. Several years ago, before my stint as an atheist, I was a protestant in a Church that didn't believe in celibacy having any value. Only married people could hold authority as elders, and anything else was viewed with suspicion. I was a single, gay, teen Christian so I thought... well, I'm not going to be like the gay Christians who say they can't make the change. I'll make it happen. It just never happened. I was an atheist for a while, became Catholic, made new attempts, failed over and over again for a few years... a few depressions later, I was tired of beating my head against a wall. I decided to focus on a celibate life and not obsess about my sexuality so much.
The less I've thought about sex the better. Its a topic that's starting to sicken me, no matter what direction you're talking. The only change I want is to master my vices.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI have never said that.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI have no problem with people seeking to explore or change their sexuality for what they believe to be the better. There is nothing wrong with that. If this wasn't clear, I should have made it clear.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI have made very specific reservations. I think its wrong to demand of them to change their sexual inclinations. Especially so for those who have made significant attempts at doing so. Or to drill into their head that they're sinful if they even have these desires. I have made very specific reservations regarding Christian amateur psychologists leading conversion camps with zero oversight or professionalism, and without any scientific integrity. That its wrong to cast doubts on a gay Christians father, as if its the fathers fault he was that way. That its wrong to automatically psychoanalyze gay Christians, or to judge their character or motivations for failing to achieving various changes. I out lined most of those in the thread you linked to.
Originally posted by Leonhard View Post"I understand perfectly anything I say."
I would be surprised if you found your own thoughts confusing. Not even John Martin thinks his thoughts are confusing. I'm saying that I've tried to understand you, and apparently I get you wrong. This happens often with me. I guess partly because I'm autistic, and sometimes my read intentions where none are. I apologize if I get you wrong, and I've tried to be fair in this post why its hard to grant some of your points because how you seem to say one thing but then continue differently later.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf you would be willing to diagnose homosexual attraction as a natural evil, then we'd probably be in perfect agreement!
I can easily accept a homosexual attraction as a natural evil. A boil on the back, or a missing eye, or heart defects as little nephew has, are all natural evil. Their final causes are working contrary to your own. In my case it prevents me from forming long lasting romantic attraction to the opposite sex. And provides me with sources of lust that are contrary to nature. It's not my fault that things are like that, but we can both agree that its not proper and if things were good it would have been rectified.
We just live in a fallen world, and so even sexuality in people can be broken.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI would agree with this, if you would accept that the celibate life can be such an expression.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI love you Adrift, and I've never tried, and will never try to psychoanalyze or judge your character, I'd appreciate it if you treated me with the same courtesy.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIt was intended as a little humor to round off the discussion, sorry if you thought it was too much. If I get what I'll want I'll be a person who doesn't really think about whether something is sexually arousing anymore, and at any rate avoids those things that I would find arousing.
Is it then really so important, that if I were to too look at things that I'd find arousing, that they'd be those things I'd have found arousing, if I were aroused by the same things that arouse heterosexual men? See the conundrum to me? Trying to live a celibate life, is not really compatible with adjusting your sexuality to something you prefer, because I don't see how you'd do it, without constantly gauging it and therefore thinking a lot about sex.
It just seems counterproductive to me.Last edited by Adrift; 09-01-2017, 06:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThe debate in this thread has gone on about Article 8, but off this site, the most controversial article has been Article 10, which states that this is not an "agree to disagree" issue among evangelicals. Given that 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that this is a salvation issue, I must confess I don't understand the mindset that one can think homosexuality is sinful but be willing to agree to disagree on it.Last edited by hedrick; 09-01-2017, 10:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThe debate in this thread has gone on about Article 8, but off this site, the most controversial article has been Article 10, which states that this is not an "agree to disagree" issue among evangelicals. Given that 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 says that this is a salvation issue, I must confess I don't understand the mindset that one can think homosexuality is sinful but be willing to agree to disagree on it.Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostBy the way, this isn't the only place I've seen people get up in arms over the lack of a mention of divorce. Some people were trying to stir that hornet's nest up on Rob Gagnon's Facebook page before he told them to knock it off. I doubt everybody is coming up with that talking point independently. Anybody know where this is all coming from?Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostWhere do you see anyplace in the statement that suggests we should be willing to agree to disagree on the sinful nature of homosexuality (or transgenderism for that matter).
Comment
-
I do not see KG as putting homosexuality up as an unforgivable sin. The passage he referenced spells out that this is something that was in the past prior to salvation. None of that allows for practicing approving homosexuality to be consistent with Christianity. The statement spells out the requirement for living an obedient life. No sexual orientation or gender dysphoria condemns one living an obedient life.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI do not see KG as putting homosexuality up as an unforgivable sin. The passage he referenced spells out that this is something that was in the past prior to salvation. None of that allows for practicing approving homosexuality to be consistent with Christianity. The statement spells out the requirement for living an obedient life. No sexual orientation or gender dysphoria condemns one living an obedient life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hedrick View Post1 Cor 10:31. Eating meat sacrificed to idols was apparently just as serious in the 1st Cent as homosexuality is now. Rev 2:20, e.g. condemns Paul's position as strongly as Nashville condemns that liberal position today. For conservatives, this issue was even more serious than homosexuality is today, because from their point of view it involved people in idolatry. That's surely more serious than a moral offense.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
28 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
342 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,369 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment