On the verge of a break-through

I don't look at this situation as something that concerns us. It concerns the world. IMHO, we will stay out of it but we're not obliged to endorse what God calls sin. But I would say that this doesn't mean believers such as I and you, are obliged to endorse homosexual behaviour.There might be a worldly law that says it is fine, and indeed, God has gave us freewill, but does that then mean that we should preach that desire should simply be fulfilled? Well then, that would have to include any fleshly desire. But this dis-regards the function of nature, which has proven the purpose of the desire.So if the Ukraine monster has a desire to murder because it gives him a hard-on, are we to say, "oh - that's fine, you're free". No. What we are to say is that freewill is there so that every single person will be held accountable to the decisions they make.That that pathetic person would actually murder a child to satisfy his hard-on, is evidence that desire can be a sickeningly wicked and evil thing.By all means we are free. Free indeed! And therefore truly responsible and accountable for those choices we make.Likewise, straight and gays have desires, but their hands are not forced, and they are all told that sex has a specific purpose, and we are therefore guilty of being obedient to the flesh rather than God.To me, the bible is clear, that all are guilty. That is all straight and gay people are fornicators. So let's not pretend we're in one boat and the gays are in another. But let's not also pretend that we endorse gays. For even if their nature made them gay, God never told us to obey our nature, for nature is where sin comes from. It is only marriage which sanctifies and cleanses the desire, that it is there for a purpose. But a gay's purpose is one of gratification, and obviously God won't sanctify such a thing.Now all of this desire is from the selfish evil flesh, and we know it's nature; that it would murder to gratify. Therefore we are guilty of obeying our evil selfish genes.But do we then endorse fornication, and believe that it is "fine" to do what God says to not do. Why no, ofcourse not. Rather we say all are free, and that we are not going to endorse sin, but we are going to state that all are guilty of it. The path is to then desire to not sin, if we know the functional purpose. few of us are able. But only the gay person who does not act out fornication, would be hypothetically guiltless, because he was never forced to obey his fleshly nature which is evil and selfish.

I am only saying that according to the scripture, and to a believer, only the marriage is sanctified for the purpose of procreation. Since the condomn came after the bible, I cannot answer the question. I wouldn't like to judge your situation.I can only speculate at best, that a gratifying motive would be hypothetically sinful I suppose, but that is dependent on my own ideology only;
the ideology is that I believe those versus in the NT show that the nature is the animal, and is not created by God, but only the spirit is. The earth brought forth lifeforms.It is impossible for us to justify sin, even as sinners. The desire of the nature is also responsible for rape etc, which means the desire itself, and it's nature, is willing to become any perverse wicked form, in order to fulfill it's selfish desire, according to evolution.Can you atleast see the problem for believers if we are asked to justify/condone something like this? It's nothing to do with prejudice, it's that we observe the perfect law of God as correct.

That's not it RR. In my post I said that freewill is there, that people are responsible for their choices.If a homosexual makes a choice to follow his nature, then that's his freedom (as I said). But this doesn't mean I have to endorse it because secularists want me to.I don't care about pleasing men. If they're pissed because I won't say "oh yeah, be gay and prosper", then that's their problem, because I believe in God, not gay pride.Also, I didn't say that consentual relationships are the same as rape etc. I sure hope nobody thinks that's what I meant. Infact what I thought I made pretty clear, is that there is spirit and flesh, as the New Testament says. Sexuality comes under the flesh/natural.My only real point in this thread, is to state that I will not endores/please men by voicing a condoning voice for the gays. Nor have I judged them.Hey RR, I pretty much agreed with most of your post.

What I was saying is that both actions are the result of the same drive. Nothing more. It is the marriages itself, which would be God's blessing/cleansing, as far as I know.Can you say that the Ukraine monster would have murdered those children, if he didn't have a sex drive?I don't think you can. So my point is that the natural desires/traits, lead to sin in people. This is true.(not just lust, but feeding anger, hatred etc..) I loathe rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, killers of babas. Ofcourse I loathe these things that exist in us. None of them would happen if people obeyed God and feared God's justice that will come upon them for doing wicked things.Where lust is concerned, and God's precepts, gays are not a special case like you're side is trying to tout. They also are under the rules as far as I read.

You're not obliged to take pleasure in looking at it. It can even disgust you. You don't have to feel bad about that. Gays don't own the world. it's not racist to dislike gay action RR.But God forbid if you tell this to the recent gay-pride culture, or they'll hang you for being a homophobic fundy.Frankly, the whole protect-the-gays thing has just become a bore. They're not an endangered species for goodness sake.

Can you quote what I stated about same-sex marriages, and what specifically you took as me judging gays? I require quotes of my words which led you to believe this.I've only told the truth, that I personally, will not say "I find gaydom to be fine by God". Lol. Why should I? Infact, logically, that's a distraction. It dissuades the Christian into saying, "oh well, if I'm evil by not supporting gays then I must endorse them".Sorry but I'm too clever to fall for that. The actual issue is what God says. Gaydom is irrelevent, God says no fornication is allowed, and that marriage between a man and woman is the only correct course of action.I don't care if you're gay, pink, or an alien, as long as you realize that God hasn't said that anyone is an exception to sin.You see, all I know is that the scriptures only mentioned what sex is for. I didn't see that it said, "and when the gays rise up, support them in their gayness".You see, society is so politically correct in Britain, it's quite pathetic. If I said that I don't enjoy an eyeful of gay action, or that it disgusts me the idea of two men going at it, then I would probably be sent to prison as a homophobic terrorist who desires to bake gays in an oven.Listen, guys, please, mike hasn't fell for the guilt trip.

That sounds a bit "begging the question" because you have assumed that Paul cannot represent God, and therefore you guarantee I cannot answer on your own terms. IMHO, it's Argumentum ad nauseam for your own ideology, because you're just asserting that your own ideology is correct, via much repetition. So you also assume this is so, and mine isn't so.Mainstream would agree with the NT, IMHO. Otherwise, can you list what is God's words and what isn't, and why that is so. Otherwise there is no reason to assume your position.I cannot say that God says it, if you qualify that Paul/NT, isn't the word of God. But then, there is always a writer, so we have to assume that they tell us his word. Even if you believe Christ's words as God's, you have to assume this, because that's also only in writing. Likewise for Yahweh.The NT says it. Since I am a believer in the NT, then as a believer in the NT, I am allowed to claim it is [my God's] law/rule, which is the reason why I, from my theological perspective, am not obliged to voice praise/confirmation for gay activity.Why is this a problem to people? I can only guess that they find my own rights to what I believe, as unacceptable, or fallaciously conclude that they are intolerance.The none-mention of gays in the bible doesn't mean they are not allowed to get married. I have never asserted the contrary. All I have said is that with the information I have, I cannot personally voice a condoning principle. Fair enough?

RR, you've made lots of strawmans concerning my own position. Can you stop telling me what I am saying.Example;You said, "You've said more than that. You've pushed that definition to everyone, even those that do not believe in God."I really must insist that you show me how I done this, because it's most unfair if yuo are going to say I have done things, which the readers will the assume I have done.My only position is that I am not obliged/will not condone gay activity.Other people can do what they want, but I will not personally, observe any kind of activity I deem as against the will of God, possibly against it. I also think believers should take that position.We don't have to be involved, but if someone asks me the question, they have to be aware that my answer will be one that goes along with the scriptures of the New Testament, rather than pleasing them, because of a fear of a rejection of my belief system.An example would be this;A man wants to follow God, but God says to give up his riches. The man doesn't want to follow because he won't give them up. Would God then turn around and say, "okay, keep the riches". Why ofcourse he wouldn't.

I could write a book on what people think I am saying.Can we stick to what I actually have said?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Nothing. You're forgetting that it was only you who said I was equating this with such people. I was infact adressing the problem of lust overall.You're trying to get me to defend a gay-hate position I haven't partaken in. Whereas I have infact said that the issue involves God, and people, in general. NOT any specific group.So, a partnership of the same gender is also under fornication, as the NT describes. That's the only problem. Because they're gay doesn't mean they're not fornicators like the straight people. The only difference is that the bible condones straight marriage but doesn't condone gay marriage, so there seems to be only one option, apparently; that a gay person has no righteouss way of partaking of gay acts, technically, or atleast that is what the bible implies.This is all hypothetical. I am only inferring from the information I have got.Some things I have NOT concluded:That gay marriage is a sin.
That gay marriage is unacceptable to God
That gay marriage is acceptable to God.
That gay marriage isn't a sin.Just treat mike like a logic puzzle. The guy's fruity about specifics.I am only working from the possibility that it is sinful, therefore witholding judgement. To condone/condemn, would be to judge. I have done neither.But I feel that secularist groups such as yourselves, put pressure on people such as me, to condone gay activity/marriage etc..

How did you know that? Was it a lucky guess? It's true that if I condoned gays personally, I'd feel I was giving into the world/nature. I am usually cynical about any world-rules, because man as a subjectivite, creates a law today, against that which was righteouss yesterday.So then, if man's rules are fletting and change, then how can they be worth anything?I can understand rules which haven't changed, such as "do no murder", because they only are correct because they are based on what God said. I only need to answer if I am arguing it should not be allowed. I only need to answer if I am arguing from such a position.I think you're playing righteouss believer versus sinful believer here a bit, RR. But I am not going to become the bad guy like the group dearly wants me to.They're just furious because I have found a reasonable way to not condone gays on personal terms. haha.If you do have the spirit of truth, tell me what I am honestly feeling about gays.

I admitt my statement was provocative, but it was nevertheless worded in a fashion that cannot allow anyone to infer much other than the fact I have put provocative spin on it.IOW, I observe God's sayings rather than pleasing cultural fads/political correctness.

Neither. I am trying to observe the logical wisdom behind my theology. Well, I'm grateful you feel this. I can see you are one with cleverness, to realize that I diodn't want to give in to the world. Maybe you're correct about this part, as the NT says to submitt to the worldly authority in place, even if it is not of God.(or atleast similar such words if I remember correctly).Bye for now.

I don't recall the scriptures but perhaps they were addressed to the immediate apostles?I don't remember anything said about women's judgement being inferior to men's.I know what you're doing, young woman. You're trying to say I have a double standard. That I disregard some biblical musings etc....I don't go to church but if I did, there might be found the best way, to observe the rules. It might be that there is an inexplicable reason for why things work best under certain guidelines.For example, men might be right-thumber, and so therefore can preach a better wisdom, or something like that. In mike-church the women can only wear bikinis, and they can only use tongues.(pun intended)But it's what God says that counts, not what mike says.But what do you say? How would you say I was going wrong as a believer concerning this issue?