I'll bite, it's been quite a while since I've been down here in the basement. I don't have a Bible in front of me at the moment, but my memory of the first couple of chapters of Romans was, the point wasn't really that homosexuality was the sin - the sin was, there were those teaching it as a sin and condemning homosexuality, who were equally guity of worshiping the creation above the creator. In other words, it was about the hypocrites.
And in the end, I go back to . . "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
When I become perfect, then I MIGHT have the right to judge someone else's relationship with God. Until then, I figure it is between each individual and God to work it out.
Romans 1:25 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.
Let me put this into better words
Romans 1:25 Who changed the design of God creation into a lie and adored and served the flesly being more than God the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen
No where in this verse is the word sin but lie is here -- Like I have said before over eating to much is no different than a man with man or woman with women relationship
When I eat to much and I weight over 300 pounds I am lying to God natural design for my body
But all these are just bad judgments but lets read on
Romans 1:26 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:
from eating a natural amount of pizza to eating the whole pizza
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
from not eating enought to run the body the way it was design
But also notice they receive the recompense of their error not sin
error G4106. plane, plan'-ay; fem. of G4108 (as abstr.); obj. fraudulence; subj. a straying from orthodoxy or piety:--deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.
it is a delusion that I need to eat the whole pizza A lie I have not been able to overcome
Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
its a mountain of life I have not been able to overcome
Lindy, actually I'm quite happy that you started this discussion. I really don't want to get into any arguments those just end up getting ugly and often end up in the basement. So with great joy I am happy to discuss. Oh and thanks for bringing this to the Doctrinal forum. I just noticed this thread this evening so I'm a bit late but...
Since we're starting with Romans, Roy I dont disagree with you but I think we could expand upon it a bit to get a clearer understanding. As Abi said there is a certain amount of the chapter that does talk about hypocrites. But I really dont want to make this post too long so if we all just start at the beginning of the thought we can all discuss what we see and think as we go through the chapter. I hope that is ok with everyone...if not just say so.
Anyway...Romans 1:17, 18
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith"
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Notice that the writer is referring to all "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men and not all ungodly and unrighteous men. They are verbs not nouns, this is important because it is always good to know who someone is talking about and it clearly shows that he is talking about "acts" not "people".
Romans 1:19, 20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
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 fairly easy to understand, given the actual time period in which this particular epistle was written it is clear that the writer is referring to Isreal. They were the "things that are made" that God "manifest" Himself in and "shewed it" to them. "It" being the "invisible things" "from the creation of the world" that were "clearly seen" and "understood by the things that are made" including "His eternal power and Godhead" so now those people have "no excuse" for their acts.
These two verses taken in context with the previous verses leads the reader to expect a list of ungodly and unrighteous acts. Which is kind of not what the reader gets.
Romans 1:21
Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
This verse gives us an unexpected turn. Instead of a list of bad things the writer has decided to give a chronological "how it happened" or "how it can happen". The first thing that the "things that are made" did was they did not glorify Him as God, and they stopped being thankful to God...when this was done they then became (which is a cause and effect word) vain or empty in their imaginations or thoughts and their foolish (which means exactly that 'foolish') heart was darkened. The heart as always represents that which a man loves or desires and that became dark or rather 'without light'.
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
They 'professed' (to declare or admit openly, to pretend, to declare in words only, to practice or claim to be versed in) themselves (they did the professing no-body did it for them) to be wise, they became (the cause and effect word) fools. They claimed to be wise, they knew it all they according to the previous verse did not worship God as God nor did they thank Him their thoughts became empty and their hearts became dark and they professed their great wisdom while they became fools.
So this post is long enough anyone with more insight? I would love to hear it. It seems pretty clear so far to me but I'm not perfect either.
This is fairly easy to understand, given the actual time period in which this particular epistle was written it is clear that the writer is referring to Isreal. They were the "things that are made" that God "manifest" Himself in and "shewed it" to them. "It" being the "invisible things" "from the creation of the world" that were "clearly seen" and "understood by the things that are made" including "His eternal power and Godhead" so now those people have "no excuse" for their acts.
hi eyes
not sure how this kind of adjustment might change meanings you have found in the passages
but it seems to me
that the writer is clearly not referring to Israel
for one...given that Israel has not been around "from the creation of the world"
and i would venture to say
given the cosmopolitan nature of that part of the world
as well as the radically universal nature of Christ (not Jesus, per se)
that that writer was probably familiar with the perennial notion of an "unmanifest Godhead" that preceded Israel
...a perennial wisdom that was discovered by individuals from many cultures during the era Abraham discovered it
...which was a big part of how it was recognized by some as being universal
i think that perhaps it was these discoverers being referred to
...
that said....
i have found the "dangers of homosexuality" have a lot more to do with the division and imbalance of any masculine and feminine "ways of being"
and that one of the deeper meanings behind the great old warnings
had a lot more to do with making sure that the masculine and feminine approaches to life where "married"
and that neither individuals nor cultures were partial to one or the other
because masculine attitudes alone are trouble (war, slavery, conquest, etc...)
just as are feminine alone (surrender, s/mothering, "idiot compassion", etc...)
which has little to nothing to do with mere physical gender
but masculine and feminine "attitudes" or "directions" or "roles"
ascending (masculine) and descending (feminine)
or interior and exterior
or evolving and involving
or competition and cooperation
or "seeking the one" and "being the many"
btw...there are even buddhist and hindu fundamentalisms that regard physical homosexuality as sinful
I would say the writter is talking about all of mankind and Isreal is part of that group so I keep my mouth close
if we are going get into the writter heart
It takes us back to God's design for mankind as flesh
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The order for things to be fleshly or the way God plan them to work fleshly but God did not plan us to stay fleshly and weaknesses like Homosexuality, smoking, non natural foods and drinks, are equare to weakness of over eating when they are not used as God plan in the beginning but God did not plan us to be fleshly
so we have to deal with weakness and work to over come our weaknesses not matter what they are
but I would say the writter was pointing out many things in these few verses
1.for us to reach to get back to God's plan to become spiritual
2. to not get caught up in small things that are delusions like overeating but move to truth
3. and many other layers I do not seem to see yet
I was reading a Gnostic book and the 11 said about Mary to Jesus "she can not be here she is woman" but Jesus said "I will make her male then"
or something like that
While living by God's design is best but getting to one error is no greater than another ones errors and I know your not saying that but pointing the hang up been around a long time and its not going away soon or easy
but yes there are dangers of homosexuality but there are also dangers of overeating like health problems
once we see there are dangers all around us to our fleshly body and the only strenght we have is inner the desire to be favoured in the eyes of the ones who came before us our forefathers
but we need spiritual fovour
fat people wish deep down they were not fat and many homosexual wish they were not homosexual
but some get harden into a false hope they can push their beliefs but others try to move the mountain into outer darkess so they can become normal or what they believe is normal
understanding something we see totally wrong for us is a movement closer to understand what it is to be spiritual being one spiritual body of two sexes
Sir Guess Alot and Roy, You are probably both correct in that no "Isreal" was not around from the beginning but the unseen things of God were. The referrence also emphasizes the fact that 'whoever' the writer is talking about 'knew' ginosko God. I left that out of my short analysis as twi pounded that word into my brain so hard I obviously erroneously thought that everyone had it as a permanent fixture as well. Very few of the 'cosmopolitan' people in Rome or anywhere else in the world could make that claim or have that claim made for them at that time in history. And I dont think that I said that Isreal had been around since the beginning...did it read that way?
The author is, I believe trying to give an example of 'what not to do or this will happen to you', and he is using the closest example possible. He is probably talking to a larger group than just the 'saints' but the message is good for everyone.
As far as homosexual warnings being more about
the division and imbalance of any masculine and feminine "ways of being"
I am curious how you view the two-spirit people and fact that they were and now again are accepted into the communities as liminal people who are granted special wisdom and understanding about both genders to better serve God and their people.
And yes you are correct that fundamental hindus do regard homosexuality as sinful but traditionalist do not. The difference being that the traditionalists did not acquuiesce to the Christian missionaries when they came to shove their religion down their throats as the Muslims had tried to do only a few centuries before.
I dont believe that this is a matter of what everyone else believes I agree with Abi, I walk my own walk.
~No heavy doctrine here, just some personal observations.
Whether homosexuality is a sin in the Christian doctrinal world or not matters very little to me.
I find much of the anti gay reasoning to not even be realistic--not even considering the TWi type thought of the 'lowest of the low' etc. All the 'fall of civilization due to perversion' stuff seems so unreal, a form of demonization and irrational fear-- while how many gay people quietly go about building a life in a sometimes very hostile environment. But instead of seeing real, complex people, they see some weird form they call gay.
My teens have a good friend who is gay and his parents are of a doctrinal viewpoint that will not accept it. The boy is just waiting until he is eighteen. I know three families who have offered him refuge because he has talked to friends about running away, and no one wants to see him on the streets--though his own father has repeatedly mentioned throwing him out. He's a bright, caring, talented kid, involved in lots of school activities, honor roll but none of that seems to matter, he's not sexually experienced or promiscouous, his boyfriends tend to be of the email type...who has a whole church praying for him to not be gay. And his life would be easier if he was not--but how is that going to happen?
How successful are those change 'em ministries? Since it's a choice and all, they just make a different choice? or in reality, they just live a celebate life.
I'm skeptical. One of my best TWI friends married a former gay man. delivered on the WOW field---15 years into the marriage( and out of TWI) and three children later, he confessed that he was always bi but pretended to be 'delivered'. Lucky for him and them, his wife had always known that( she talked to me about it just a couple years after they were married, we concluded at the time that devil spirits were around to tempt him). He has been faithful to his marriage vows, they have a good life, but he is not 'delivered' he's married and has a wife and family he loves.
I have to tell you Bramble that I totally agree with you and have witnessed dozens or more gays trying to act and or live the straight lifestyle because of some peer pressure somewhere. It is sad really when you think about how many people live in a marriage usually with children that although they may love their spouse they never really got to live how they felt or where their heart took them. But if they try to come out as your young friend did they get chastised and told that they are 'wrong' somehow.
I read a story recently where a man was talking of a female relative of his that had been a tomboy that actually wanted to be a boy when she was a child. Her 'tomboy' lifestyle continued but 'with propper parenting' she ended up 'fine', married to a man and she has many children, and 'she is very happy'. Forgive me, but how the heck does he really know that? I have known many who could act really well and appeared very happy and some were to an extent...I mean what choice did they have? Really, they could choose to come out of the closet and alienate their family and loved ones or they could find a piece of happiness in the straight life that society chose for them.
My mom always told me to not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. (I'm sure someone else said it first but it was my mom that I remember). I'm not saying that you cant understand how a gay thinks or feels unless you are one...am I...Yes I am. A man cannot truly understand a woman and visa-versa, also a heterosexual cannot truly understand a homosexual and visa-versa. They just dont think the same way. Well, in some things they do. Such as some gay people are disgusted beyond belief to see two people of the opposite sex kiss, just as some heteros are disgusted by watcing two men kiss. But essentially they are different. Perhaps this is why the ancient world saw gay people as holy people and made them priests and priestesses...no joke.
Anyway, I really dont think that the way that the Bible has been handled on this subject is very accurate and it reflects a lot of personal opinion. Anytime God's love is turned to hate especially since the coming of Christ a person should ask themselves if it really is God's will and not man's agenda.
--you could pop dozens of women in front of me, and though I might make a friend or two, or think someone was nice or pretty or had cute mannerisms or was an admirable or talented person, I wouldn't find any of them sexually attractive. It wouldn't matter how wonderful others told me the relationship with one of them would be, it wouldn't work for me, because I'm hetero. If I did get into such a relationship due to social or personal pressure, sex would be a matter of duty similar to a chore. Yuck.
--you could pop dozens of women in front of me, and though I might make a friend or two, or think someone was nice or pretty or had cute mannerisms or was an admirable or talented person, I wouldn't find any of them sexually attractive. It wouldn't matter how wonderful others told me the relationship with one of them would be, it wouldn't work for me, because I'm hetero. If I did get into such a relationship due to social or personal pressure, sex would be a matter of duty similar to a chore. Yuck.
I hear you, I really do...but just as individuals are well...individual so are circumstances and reactions to circumstances. And from what I hear sometimes the sex is worse than a chore. Some have lots of children to stay sane and out of the 'bed' if you know what I mean.
And I think that you hit the nail on the head with your statement "to be a sin it has to be a choice" That is the definition of 'sin' a willful breaking of God's rules...if homosexuality is not a conscious choice then it by definition cannot be a sin. I loved Melissa Etherid*es comment to Sen. Cl!nton, something to the effect of 'do you think that we all just woke up one morning and said, hey I think I'll be homosexual now?' Gotta love the irony in that one.
Yea, the 'it's a choice' people have to cloak it in a complicated mess of influences and weaknsses, demons, possession.
And then when it really gets down to it, it becomes a choice to be celebate, or to get into a sexual relationship okayed by the church--though the gay person will never have a satisfying sex life either way--but that's just not important. Being Not Gay is what's important.
You hear about couples that have sex a couple times a year, and you kind of wonder. Hmmm.
I think to look at whether it is a sin or not in the Bible, one should look at all those abominations, what that word actually means in Hebrew.
First, from what I've read the word is not as harsh in the Hebrew as it is in English. Secondly, compare it to the other "abominations" to get an idea of what sort of "error" it is if it is an error at all in today's world. Was eating shellfish or pork or the wrong type of bug an error and a sin or was it taboo because of potential health factors? Were these abominations sins or were they condemned for practical reasons? In a world where carrying on your blood line was of major importance, was being a homosexual very practical? Probably not. In a world where population growth will eventually have a major impact on our world, is a same sex couple who is unable to reproduce on there own really such a bad thing? Perhaps the practical error is no longer applicable in today's world. Shellfish seems to be fair game, and pork is now the other white meat. Is that an add campaign from Satan or have we learned how to overcome certain health threats?
In Romans 1 it says that "God gave them up to" this behavior. Are we to read this as "idiom of permission"? That whole concept is up for debate, IMO, and has been here. It also doesn't say the behavior is worthy of death as TWI taught. It says their penalty due is received within themselves. What that means, I'm not sure.
As to the separation between the masculine and the feminine, I think it is much more of a sliding scale than it is black and white. Absent of gender, those things are largely attributes influenced by societal expectations and pressures. There is, of course, a real physicality to be associated with those words but even physically we have quite a bit of variation. You have men with penises as small as a women's clitoris and women with clitorises as big as some men's penises. You have some people born with both sexual reproductive organs. You have people born with one set of sexual organs on the inside and another on the outside. When it comes to hormones we again have a range of possibilities and that alone has an effect on a number of things for an individual. When it comes to attraction you have another set of possibilities. So I think it is a little more fluid.
Of course, you have the norms in terms of the numbers. "Most people are hetro" or "most people have one set of sex organs." That would be true, but whether the norm according to the numbers makes one thing morally right over another is another game altogether. The closer in detail you get, the more differences you see and what is normal and what is not according to the numbers becomes less specific.
Well, in Deuteronomy 14, supposed to have been written by Moses as was Leviticus, where it talks about what to eat and what not to eat, it uses the word tow'ebah. Either someone changed their mind, or that distinction isn't all that it seems.
and acc. to strong's outline of biblical usage, there are 2 different usages for the word "tow'ebah"...
here's what it says:
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
so evidently, it depends on the context what usage applies...
since the rest of deut. 14 speaks about food, specifically unclean food; then it seems that these foods are bothunclean in a ritual sense (as well as contaminated acc. to leviticus 11) rather than unclean in an ethical sense...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. so apparently no one changed their mind... and the distinction remains the same... :)
now that i've read your admission, i think that i understand a little better...
and i do think that you have a vested interest in the outcome of the interpretation of these scriptures...
since you do say that you are a christian...
i think you've said that anyway... correct me if i'm wrong on that...
although it is a little puzzling to me because of certain things you have said regarding christians...
if i may borrow a word from another thread, it seems to me that you have an almost "hateful" attitude toward christians...
as in: "Christian missionaries when they came to shove their religion down their throats"
as well as a dismissive attitude toward the scriptures themselves by referring to them as "tired verses"...
i don't know... maybe it's just me... but most christians i know highly esteem the scriptures...
peace,
jen-o
What pray tell are you talking about? My admission? Of what? How can you understand me if you don't know me? Face it we have never actually had a discussion.
And for the record I dont 'hate' Christians I am one. I do however (as you) disagree with acts. The history of the Christian Church is a bloody one and I am often disgusted by the atrocities that I read about and the butchering of the scriptures is one of those atrocities. I hold the word(s) of God in high esteem. And I'm fairly certain that you do also. But we seem to disagree on some funamental issues. We both need to agree to disagree.
But do please let me know what the heck you are talking about concerning the first comment.
i originally asked you for the reasons why you disagreed with the plain meaning of the scriptures that i had posted, but you refused to give the reasons... and it became a long drawn out thing, partially because you continued to remain evasive and partially because i continued to respond to your insinuations about me...
on a separate thread, you mentioned that you were immediately attacked before you had a chance to elaborate on the topic... which is absolutely not the case... and so i asked for the specifics of where, when, and who "attacked" you... but again you evaded the question... and hence, it became another long drawn out affair...
if we've never had a discussion, it's because you don't want to...
i'm a fairly direct kind of person, and it is not easy for me to converse in this manner...
it's obvious we disagree about what these scriptures say...
yet, i still don't know the reasons why you disagree with the plain meaning...
and eyes, i'm really not going to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board...
Forgive me all, but I tend to be more analytical, allowing the scriptures to speak plainly and simply, though they are also contain tremendous depth, in order to convince the “gainsayers” as well. In answer to the original question in this post concerning whether or not homosexuality is a sin (wrong in God’s eyes) – and the scriptures which back that point of view up – I offer the following in some simplicity, that most may get the point God makes on this subject:
The very first thing for humans to do was given in Gen 1:28 -- “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Now we all know this is possible only with a man and a woman. To do otherwise would be in direct contradiction to this first “admonition”. We are also instructed to be likeminded. So, as a rather extreme example of the folly of this behavior, let us assume that EVERYONE decided homosexuality was the way to go. -- Then, when the present population have all died, say 120 years or so from then at best, there would be nobody left at all! -- Remember the goal of being fruitful and multiplying was to REPLENISH the earth, NOT to completely ANNIHILATE IT !!
As far as scripture to the point is concerned, Romans 1 says it most plainly – and, in order to keep this more simple to begin with, we will not delve into the OT example it refers to...
Rom 1:26 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:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Quite simply, God refers to this as VILE affection. Affection yes, but VILE. Do we need to get out our lexicons and concordances yet and do a study on this word “vile”? If we wanted this to become more complicated, I suppose that is a further option to be used if so needed.
God then informs us that there is a natural way things were designed by Him to work, but that this “vile affection” is a way which is AGAINST that nature. In my eyes, this rather excludes those who believe homosexuals have merely been "born that way". How could that be true if indeed that behavior is in itself AGAINST NATURE?
The truth about how God Himself views this topic is rather plain and simple thus far. To me, it seems a shame for me to even continue at this point, but since God does, that's perfectly fine with me as well!
Later on we see that God describes this as “working that which is UNSEEMLY”. Do we yet need a concordance or lexicon? How about simply using Webster’s if one has a somewhat limited vocabulary? Yet, I believe most have already gotten the point here as to whether or not God desires this sort of action to be performed at all...
Next, God informs us that such action will result in some adequate recompense (consequence). Do we now suppose that it would be some wonderful and blessed reward? I think not....
Finally, He calls this an ERROR If we were to have learned ANYTHING from what has already been said, I think the simplest thing to see would be this point alone – that women who lust after women and men who lust after men is an ERROR.
I believe that simply makes the point – at least it should for those who want to base their morality on what God has authored and designed for us to see in the Bible, which contains all to do with LIFE and godliness -- (II pet 1:3) -- As I said in the beginning, it is not God's wish to have us do that which would surely ERASE ALL MANKIND FROM THE EARTH IN ONE GENERATION'S TIME !!
Logically speaking,
Spectrum49
PS: On a side note, it may be helpful to realize, folks, that the first two humans were Adam and Eve – not Adam and STEVE! (Ha! Ha!) :)
It is a sad thing when people worry more about the sins, errors, abominations, and other fancy word we use for pointing fingers at acts that we do not like than living the love of God
When did one sin, one error, one abomination. and other fancy word we use for pointing fingers at acts we do not like get any greater than any other
noone is saying they are right to do but no one is saying your sins, errors, abominations, or whatever are right either
what we are getting at no where in the word of God does it say a sin of Homosexuality which is never called a sin is unforgivenable or an error of Homosexuality is unforgivenable or abomination of Homosexuality is unforgivenable
NO ONE SIN OR ERROR OR ABOMINATION IS ANY GREATER THAN ANY OTHER
do you eat pigs ?
do you miss any of the hours of pray?
Where as all the grace gone?
Where as all the mercy gone?
Where as all the understanding gone?
Where as all the love gone?
Can you change your bad habits over night or are there some you think do not matter?
Does everybody here drink nothing but natural drinks like water?
How many here do not take enough walks to keep their body in good shape?
How many here do not read enough to keep their mind growthing?
How many here do not sat in the dark still long enough to to receive visions and dreams?
you see I can go endless of errors we make that are against the natural of flesh or the natural of spirit
Yes there are people who have problems acting as we believe they need too but the same thing can be said about us
I AM FAT OVER 300 POUNDS WHICH FROM OVER EATING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL DESIGN FOR MY BODY A SIN AGAINST MY BODY A ABOMINATION TO GOD"S DESIGN FOR MY BODY
but do you hate me for it? NO or do you judge me because of it? NO
You love me with all my errors because we have become friends
The churches and many other groups are making to mush out of Homosexuality
given it more hate than even the sin against the holy spirit
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
17
16
Popular Days
Jun 11
47
Jun 9
16
Dec 22
14
Jun 10
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 15 posts
rhino 17 posts
cman 17 posts
DrWearWord 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
47 posts
Jun 9 2008
16 posts
Dec 22 2009
14 posts
Jun 10 2008
11 posts
Popular Posts
rhino
No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of applicat
rhino
It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forwar
rhino
I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by
Abigail
I'll bite, it's been quite a while since I've been down here in the basement. I don't have a Bible in front of me at the moment, but my memory of the first couple of chapters of Romans was, the point wasn't really that homosexuality was the sin - the sin was, there were those teaching it as a sin and condemning homosexuality, who were equally guity of worshiping the creation above the creator. In other words, it was about the hypocrites.
And in the end, I go back to . . "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
When I become perfect, then I MIGHT have the right to judge someone else's relationship with God. Until then, I figure it is between each individual and God to work it out.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved ALL and lindyhopper
God loves you my dear friends
I will take a drink of the poison doctrines
Romans 1:25 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.
Let me put this into better words
Romans 1:25 Who changed the design of God creation into a lie and adored and served the flesly being more than God the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen
No where in this verse is the word sin but lie is here -- Like I have said before over eating to much is no different than a man with man or woman with women relationship
When I eat to much and I weight over 300 pounds I am lying to God natural design for my body
But all these are just bad judgments but lets read on
Romans 1:26 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:
from eating a natural amount of pizza to eating the whole pizza
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
from not eating enought to run the body the way it was design
But also notice they receive the recompense of their error not sin
error G4106. plane, plan'-ay; fem. of G4108 (as abstr.); obj. fraudulence; subj. a straying from orthodoxy or piety:--deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.
it is a delusion that I need to eat the whole pizza A lie I have not been able to overcome
Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
its a mountain of life I have not been able to overcome
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Lindy, actually I'm quite happy that you started this discussion. I really don't want to get into any arguments those just end up getting ugly and often end up in the basement. So with great joy I am happy to discuss. Oh and thanks for bringing this to the Doctrinal forum. I just noticed this thread this evening so I'm a bit late but...
Since we're starting with Romans, Roy I dont disagree with you but I think we could expand upon it a bit to get a clearer understanding. As Abi said there is a certain amount of the chapter that does talk about hypocrites. But I really dont want to make this post too long so if we all just start at the beginning of the thought we can all discuss what we see and think as we go through the chapter. I hope that is ok with everyone...if not just say so.
Anyway...Romans 1:17, 18
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith"
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Notice that the writer is referring to all "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men and not all ungodly and unrighteous men. They are verbs not nouns, this is important because it is always good to know who someone is talking about and it clearly shows that he is talking about "acts" not "people".
Romans 1:19, 20
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
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 fairly easy to understand, given the actual time period in which this particular epistle was written it is clear that the writer is referring to Isreal. They were the "things that are made" that God "manifest" Himself in and "shewed it" to them. "It" being the "invisible things" "from the creation of the world" that were "clearly seen" and "understood by the things that are made" including "His eternal power and Godhead" so now those people have "no excuse" for their acts.
These two verses taken in context with the previous verses leads the reader to expect a list of ungodly and unrighteous acts. Which is kind of not what the reader gets.
Romans 1:21
Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
This verse gives us an unexpected turn. Instead of a list of bad things the writer has decided to give a chronological "how it happened" or "how it can happen". The first thing that the "things that are made" did was they did not glorify Him as God, and they stopped being thankful to God...when this was done they then became (which is a cause and effect word) vain or empty in their imaginations or thoughts and their foolish (which means exactly that 'foolish') heart was darkened. The heart as always represents that which a man loves or desires and that became dark or rather 'without light'.
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
They 'professed' (to declare or admit openly, to pretend, to declare in words only, to practice or claim to be versed in) themselves (they did the professing no-body did it for them) to be wise, they became (the cause and effect word) fools. They claimed to be wise, they knew it all they according to the previous verse did not worship God as God nor did they thank Him their thoughts became empty and their hearts became dark and they professed their great wisdom while they became fools.
So this post is long enough anyone with more insight? I would love to hear it. It seems pretty clear so far to me but I'm not perfect either.
Now if I could just learn how to spell.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Eyesopen
God loves you my dear friend
thanks that bit you added open a door for me thanks
love your picture on your web site but have you got one with your work uniform on
sorry I am not a good spelling too
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi eyes
not sure how this kind of adjustment might change meanings you have found in the passages
but it seems to me
that the writer is clearly not referring to Israel
for one...given that Israel has not been around "from the creation of the world"
and i would venture to say
given the cosmopolitan nature of that part of the world
as well as the radically universal nature of Christ (not Jesus, per se)
that that writer was probably familiar with the perennial notion of an "unmanifest Godhead" that preceded Israel
...a perennial wisdom that was discovered by individuals from many cultures during the era Abraham discovered it
...which was a big part of how it was recognized by some as being universal
i think that perhaps it was these discoverers being referred to
...
that said....
i have found the "dangers of homosexuality" have a lot more to do with the division and imbalance of any masculine and feminine "ways of being"
and that one of the deeper meanings behind the great old warnings
had a lot more to do with making sure that the masculine and feminine approaches to life where "married"
and that neither individuals nor cultures were partial to one or the other
because masculine attitudes alone are trouble (war, slavery, conquest, etc...)
just as are feminine alone (surrender, s/mothering, "idiot compassion", etc...)
which has little to nothing to do with mere physical gender
but masculine and feminine "attitudes" or "directions" or "roles"
ascending (masculine) and descending (feminine)
or interior and exterior
or evolving and involving
or competition and cooperation
or "seeking the one" and "being the many"
btw...there are even buddhist and hindu fundamentalisms that regard physical homosexuality as sinful
...
as usual ..i left a lot out
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved sirguessalot
God loves you my dear friend
I would say the writter is talking about all of mankind and Isreal is part of that group so I keep my mouth close
if we are going get into the writter heart
It takes us back to God's design for mankind as flesh
Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The order for things to be fleshly or the way God plan them to work fleshly but God did not plan us to stay fleshly and weaknesses like Homosexuality, smoking, non natural foods and drinks, are equare to weakness of over eating when they are not used as God plan in the beginning but God did not plan us to be fleshly
so we have to deal with weakness and work to over come our weaknesses not matter what they are
but I would say the writter was pointing out many things in these few verses
1.for us to reach to get back to God's plan to become spiritual
2. to not get caught up in small things that are delusions like overeating but move to truth
3. and many other layers I do not seem to see yet
I was reading a Gnostic book and the 11 said about Mary to Jesus "she can not be here she is woman" but Jesus said "I will make her male then"
or something like that
While living by God's design is best but getting to one error is no greater than another ones errors and I know your not saying that but pointing the hang up been around a long time and its not going away soon or easy
but yes there are dangers of homosexuality but there are also dangers of overeating like health problems
once we see there are dangers all around us to our fleshly body and the only strenght we have is inner the desire to be favoured in the eyes of the ones who came before us our forefathers
but we need spiritual fovour
fat people wish deep down they were not fat and many homosexual wish they were not homosexual
but some get harden into a false hope they can push their beliefs but others try to move the mountain into outer darkess so they can become normal or what they believe is normal
understanding something we see totally wrong for us is a movement closer to understand what it is to be spiritual being one spiritual body of two sexes
I hope I phase this right my friend
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Funny you asked this, I just got one today that I was going to post on the site tonight or tomorrow. Its me with my "summer" uniform. Woo Hoo! :)
Love you Roy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Sir Guess Alot and Roy, You are probably both correct in that no "Isreal" was not around from the beginning but the unseen things of God were. The referrence also emphasizes the fact that 'whoever' the writer is talking about 'knew' ginosko God. I left that out of my short analysis as twi pounded that word into my brain so hard I obviously erroneously thought that everyone had it as a permanent fixture as well. Very few of the 'cosmopolitan' people in Rome or anywhere else in the world could make that claim or have that claim made for them at that time in history. And I dont think that I said that Isreal had been around since the beginning...did it read that way?
The author is, I believe trying to give an example of 'what not to do or this will happen to you', and he is using the closest example possible. He is probably talking to a larger group than just the 'saints' but the message is good for everyone.
As far as homosexual warnings being more about
I am curious how you view the two-spirit people and fact that they were and now again are accepted into the communities as liminal people who are granted special wisdom and understanding about both genders to better serve God and their people.
And yes you are correct that fundamental hindus do regard homosexuality as sinful but traditionalist do not. The difference being that the traditionalists did not acquuiesce to the Christian missionaries when they came to shove their religion down their throats as the Muslims had tried to do only a few centuries before.
I dont believe that this is a matter of what everyone else believes I agree with Abi, I walk my own walk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
~No heavy doctrine here, just some personal observations.
Whether homosexuality is a sin in the Christian doctrinal world or not matters very little to me.
I find much of the anti gay reasoning to not even be realistic--not even considering the TWi type thought of the 'lowest of the low' etc. All the 'fall of civilization due to perversion' stuff seems so unreal, a form of demonization and irrational fear-- while how many gay people quietly go about building a life in a sometimes very hostile environment. But instead of seeing real, complex people, they see some weird form they call gay.
My teens have a good friend who is gay and his parents are of a doctrinal viewpoint that will not accept it. The boy is just waiting until he is eighteen. I know three families who have offered him refuge because he has talked to friends about running away, and no one wants to see him on the streets--though his own father has repeatedly mentioned throwing him out. He's a bright, caring, talented kid, involved in lots of school activities, honor roll but none of that seems to matter, he's not sexually experienced or promiscouous, his boyfriends tend to be of the email type...who has a whole church praying for him to not be gay. And his life would be easier if he was not--but how is that going to happen?
How successful are those change 'em ministries? Since it's a choice and all, they just make a different choice? or in reality, they just live a celebate life.
I'm skeptical. One of my best TWI friends married a former gay man. delivered on the WOW field---15 years into the marriage( and out of TWI) and three children later, he confessed that he was always bi but pretended to be 'delivered'. Lucky for him and them, his wife had always known that( she talked to me about it just a couple years after they were married, we concluded at the time that devil spirits were around to tempt him). He has been faithful to his marriage vows, they have a good life, but he is not 'delivered' he's married and has a wife and family he loves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I have to tell you Bramble that I totally agree with you and have witnessed dozens or more gays trying to act and or live the straight lifestyle because of some peer pressure somewhere. It is sad really when you think about how many people live in a marriage usually with children that although they may love their spouse they never really got to live how they felt or where their heart took them. But if they try to come out as your young friend did they get chastised and told that they are 'wrong' somehow.
I read a story recently where a man was talking of a female relative of his that had been a tomboy that actually wanted to be a boy when she was a child. Her 'tomboy' lifestyle continued but 'with propper parenting' she ended up 'fine', married to a man and she has many children, and 'she is very happy'. Forgive me, but how the heck does he really know that? I have known many who could act really well and appeared very happy and some were to an extent...I mean what choice did they have? Really, they could choose to come out of the closet and alienate their family and loved ones or they could find a piece of happiness in the straight life that society chose for them.
My mom always told me to not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. (I'm sure someone else said it first but it was my mom that I remember). I'm not saying that you cant understand how a gay thinks or feels unless you are one...am I...Yes I am. A man cannot truly understand a woman and visa-versa, also a heterosexual cannot truly understand a homosexual and visa-versa. They just dont think the same way. Well, in some things they do. Such as some gay people are disgusted beyond belief to see two people of the opposite sex kiss, just as some heteros are disgusted by watcing two men kiss. But essentially they are different. Perhaps this is why the ancient world saw gay people as holy people and made them priests and priestesses...no joke.
Anyway, I really dont think that the way that the Bible has been handled on this subject is very accurate and it reflects a lot of personal opinion. Anytime God's love is turned to hate especially since the coming of Christ a person should ask themselves if it really is God's will and not man's agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
To be a sin it has to be a choice--
--you could pop dozens of women in front of me, and though I might make a friend or two, or think someone was nice or pretty or had cute mannerisms or was an admirable or talented person, I wouldn't find any of them sexually attractive. It wouldn't matter how wonderful others told me the relationship with one of them would be, it wouldn't work for me, because I'm hetero. If I did get into such a relationship due to social or personal pressure, sex would be a matter of duty similar to a chore. Yuck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I hear you, I really do...but just as individuals are well...individual so are circumstances and reactions to circumstances. And from what I hear sometimes the sex is worse than a chore. Some have lots of children to stay sane and out of the 'bed' if you know what I mean.
And I think that you hit the nail on the head with your statement "to be a sin it has to be a choice" That is the definition of 'sin' a willful breaking of God's rules...if homosexuality is not a conscious choice then it by definition cannot be a sin. I loved Melissa Etherid*es comment to Sen. Cl!nton, something to the effect of 'do you think that we all just woke up one morning and said, hey I think I'll be homosexual now?' Gotta love the irony in that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Yea, the 'it's a choice' people have to cloak it in a complicated mess of influences and weaknsses, demons, possession.
And then when it really gets down to it, it becomes a choice to be celebate, or to get into a sexual relationship okayed by the church--though the gay person will never have a satisfying sex life either way--but that's just not important. Being Not Gay is what's important.
You hear about couples that have sex a couple times a year, and you kind of wonder. Hmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think to look at whether it is a sin or not in the Bible, one should look at all those abominations, what that word actually means in Hebrew.
First, from what I've read the word is not as harsh in the Hebrew as it is in English. Secondly, compare it to the other "abominations" to get an idea of what sort of "error" it is if it is an error at all in today's world. Was eating shellfish or pork or the wrong type of bug an error and a sin or was it taboo because of potential health factors? Were these abominations sins or were they condemned for practical reasons? In a world where carrying on your blood line was of major importance, was being a homosexual very practical? Probably not. In a world where population growth will eventually have a major impact on our world, is a same sex couple who is unable to reproduce on there own really such a bad thing? Perhaps the practical error is no longer applicable in today's world. Shellfish seems to be fair game, and pork is now the other white meat. Is that an add campaign from Satan or have we learned how to overcome certain health threats?
In Romans 1 it says that "God gave them up to" this behavior. Are we to read this as "idiom of permission"? That whole concept is up for debate, IMO, and has been here. It also doesn't say the behavior is worthy of death as TWI taught. It says their penalty due is received within themselves. What that means, I'm not sure.
As to the separation between the masculine and the feminine, I think it is much more of a sliding scale than it is black and white. Absent of gender, those things are largely attributes influenced by societal expectations and pressures. There is, of course, a real physicality to be associated with those words but even physically we have quite a bit of variation. You have men with penises as small as a women's clitoris and women with clitorises as big as some men's penises. You have some people born with both sexual reproductive organs. You have people born with one set of sexual organs on the inside and another on the outside. When it comes to hormones we again have a range of possibilities and that alone has an effect on a number of things for an individual. When it comes to attraction you have another set of possibilities. So I think it is a little more fluid.
Of course, you have the norms in terms of the numbers. "Most people are hetro" or "most people have one set of sex organs." That would be true, but whether the norm according to the numbers makes one thing morally right over another is another game altogether. The closer in detail you get, the more differences you see and what is normal and what is not according to the numbers becomes less specific.
But I digress...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
lindy,
i posted this on the "God bless CA" thread back on may 31st in response to this very same question...
i'll post it again here since you raised the question again... :)
hope that helps a little...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, in Deuteronomy 14, supposed to have been written by Moses as was Leviticus, where it talks about what to eat and what not to eat, it uses the word tow'ebah. Either someone changed their mind, or that distinction isn't all that it seems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi lindy!
i checked out strong's...
and acc. to strong's outline of biblical usage, there are 2 different usages for the word "tow'ebah"...
here's what it says:
1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
so evidently, it depends on the context what usage applies...
since the rest of deut. 14 speaks about food, specifically unclean food; then it seems that these foods are both unclean in a ritual sense (as well as contaminated acc. to leviticus 11) rather than unclean in an ethical sense...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. so apparently no one changed their mind... and the distinction remains the same... :)
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
eyes,
now that i've read your admission, i think that i understand a little better...
and i do think that you have a vested interest in the outcome of the interpretation of these scriptures...
since you do say that you are a christian...
i think you've said that anyway... correct me if i'm wrong on that...
although it is a little puzzling to me because of certain things you have said regarding christians...
if i may borrow a word from another thread, it seems to me that you have an almost "hateful" attitude toward christians...
as in: "Christian missionaries when they came to shove their religion down their throats"
as well as a dismissive attitude toward the scriptures themselves by referring to them as "tired verses"...
i don't know... maybe it's just me... but most christians i know highly esteem the scriptures...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
What pray tell are you talking about? My admission? Of what? How can you understand me if you don't know me? Face it we have never actually had a discussion.
And for the record I dont 'hate' Christians I am one. I do however (as you) disagree with acts. The history of the Christian Church is a bloody one and I am often disgusted by the atrocities that I read about and the butchering of the scriptures is one of those atrocities. I hold the word(s) of God in high esteem. And I'm fairly certain that you do also. But we seem to disagree on some funamental issues. We both need to agree to disagree.
But do please let me know what the heck you are talking about concerning the first comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
eyes,
i am not trying to have an argument with you...
i originally asked you for the reasons why you disagreed with the plain meaning of the scriptures that i had posted, but you refused to give the reasons... and it became a long drawn out thing, partially because you continued to remain evasive and partially because i continued to respond to your insinuations about me...
on a separate thread, you mentioned that you were immediately attacked before you had a chance to elaborate on the topic... which is absolutely not the case... and so i asked for the specifics of where, when, and who "attacked" you... but again you evaded the question... and hence, it became another long drawn out affair...
if we've never had a discussion, it's because you don't want to...
i'm a fairly direct kind of person, and it is not easy for me to converse in this manner...
it's obvious we disagree about what these scriptures say...
yet, i still don't know the reasons why you disagree with the plain meaning...
and eyes, i'm really not going to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board...
so, i guess that's where it stands...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Forgive me all, but I tend to be more analytical, allowing the scriptures to speak plainly and simply, though they are also contain tremendous depth, in order to convince the “gainsayers” as well. In answer to the original question in this post concerning whether or not homosexuality is a sin (wrong in God’s eyes) – and the scriptures which back that point of view up – I offer the following in some simplicity, that most may get the point God makes on this subject:
The very first thing for humans to do was given in Gen 1:28 -- “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Now we all know this is possible only with a man and a woman. To do otherwise would be in direct contradiction to this first “admonition”. We are also instructed to be likeminded. So, as a rather extreme example of the folly of this behavior, let us assume that EVERYONE decided homosexuality was the way to go. -- Then, when the present population have all died, say 120 years or so from then at best, there would be nobody left at all! -- Remember the goal of being fruitful and multiplying was to REPLENISH the earth, NOT to completely ANNIHILATE IT !!
As far as scripture to the point is concerned, Romans 1 says it most plainly – and, in order to keep this more simple to begin with, we will not delve into the OT example it refers to...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 1:26 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:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quite simply, God refers to this as VILE affection. Affection yes, but VILE. Do we need to get out our lexicons and concordances yet and do a study on this word “vile”? If we wanted this to become more complicated, I suppose that is a further option to be used if so needed.
God then informs us that there is a natural way things were designed by Him to work, but that this “vile affection” is a way which is AGAINST that nature. In my eyes, this rather excludes those who believe homosexuals have merely been "born that way". How could that be true if indeed that behavior is in itself AGAINST NATURE?
The truth about how God Himself views this topic is rather plain and simple thus far. To me, it seems a shame for me to even continue at this point, but since God does, that's perfectly fine with me as well!
Later on we see that God describes this as “working that which is UNSEEMLY”. Do we yet need a concordance or lexicon? How about simply using Webster’s if one has a somewhat limited vocabulary? Yet, I believe most have already gotten the point here as to whether or not God desires this sort of action to be performed at all...
Next, God informs us that such action will result in some adequate recompense (consequence). Do we now suppose that it would be some wonderful and blessed reward? I think not....
Finally, He calls this an ERROR If we were to have learned ANYTHING from what has already been said, I think the simplest thing to see would be this point alone – that women who lust after women and men who lust after men is an ERROR.
I believe that simply makes the point – at least it should for those who want to base their morality on what God has authored and designed for us to see in the Bible, which contains all to do with LIFE and godliness -- (II pet 1:3) -- As I said in the beginning, it is not God's wish to have us do that which would surely ERASE ALL MANKIND FROM THE EARTH IN ONE GENERATION'S TIME !!
Logically speaking,
Spectrum49
PS: On a side note, it may be helpful to realize, folks, that the first two humans were Adam and Eve – not Adam and STEVE! (Ha! Ha!) :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi again eyes
just wanted to write to say sorry i didnt respond to your post
my life has taken a turn, so my priorities have shifted a bit
peace all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Always a volatile subject, no matter in what context.
Religion, society, politics, your own home.
I believe there are far more weightier or pressing problems that have brought about this question in any situation.
The sheer ignorance of the makeup of a man or woman from biological to psychological to spiritual and back up to biological makeup of men and women.
The feminine and the masculine live in each person.
Till we can get some kind of sight of who we are individually,
the rest is sideshows and reactions to unknown forces within the human.
To call being a homosexual a sin, is so far from what sin there may be if any.
It's still the outside of the cup.
While the inside is undiscovered being drawn away by the outer things.
And yes I have been through some mind changing thoughts on this subject.
Being religious or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves us all my dear friends
It is a sad thing when people worry more about the sins, errors, abominations, and other fancy word we use for pointing fingers at acts that we do not like than living the love of God
When did one sin, one error, one abomination. and other fancy word we use for pointing fingers at acts we do not like get any greater than any other
noone is saying they are right to do but no one is saying your sins, errors, abominations, or whatever are right either
what we are getting at no where in the word of God does it say a sin of Homosexuality which is never called a sin is unforgivenable or an error of Homosexuality is unforgivenable or abomination of Homosexuality is unforgivenable
NO ONE SIN OR ERROR OR ABOMINATION IS ANY GREATER THAN ANY OTHER
do you eat pigs ?
do you miss any of the hours of pray?
Where as all the grace gone?
Where as all the mercy gone?
Where as all the understanding gone?
Where as all the love gone?
Can you change your bad habits over night or are there some you think do not matter?
Does everybody here drink nothing but natural drinks like water?
How many here do not take enough walks to keep their body in good shape?
How many here do not read enough to keep their mind growthing?
How many here do not sat in the dark still long enough to to receive visions and dreams?
you see I can go endless of errors we make that are against the natural of flesh or the natural of spirit
Yes there are people who have problems acting as we believe they need too but the same thing can be said about us
I AM FAT OVER 300 POUNDS WHICH FROM OVER EATING WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL DESIGN FOR MY BODY A SIN AGAINST MY BODY A ABOMINATION TO GOD"S DESIGN FOR MY BODY
but do you hate me for it? NO or do you judge me because of it? NO
You love me with all my errors because we have become friends
The churches and many other groups are making to mush out of Homosexuality
given it more hate than even the sin against the holy spirit
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
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.