Almishboii007 has just started posting regularly to his blog. If you haven't seen it yet, go over and take a look and say hi. He's an American currently living and studying in the UK. He's 21 and grew up in a religion that lived in communes and shunned much of modernity sort of like the Amish.
Joe is an Englishman, 16 years old, with divorced parents. He has been posting sections of a story titled "Alexander" as well as stuff about his own life since he started his blog last month. Check it out.
Thanks for following, guys. I hope you find interesting things here.
21 comments:
Hi Naturgesetz thanks alot for the welcome. I look forward to reading your blog as soon as I get my revision done. My last exam is tomorow ;) Just wanted to stop in quickly and say muchos gracias senor.
nat
if you examine the words of scripture you will find that scripture never said homosexuality was a sin.
in fact according to paul's writings affirming, supporting and celebrating homosexuality in the same way we do heterosexuality is of the new covenant of christ.
consider that romans says that all new covenant law is summed up in the second commandment. therefore, under the new covenant, accordingly, all sin is that which comes against the 2nd commandment.(love your neighbor....)
so what is in the essence of being homosexual that makes it come against the 2nd commandment. how is it a sin to want to bond with someone of the same gender, when that desire has been there 24/7 since their first sexual memory.
and gay believing marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as heterosexual marriages.
homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a brother, friend, attorney, teacher,doctor, pastor, soldier, father, neighbor, etc.
for 2000 years, believers have assigned meaning to certain verses about this subject in spite of their words. no one has yet explained how the words of those verses actually say it is a sin.
repeating the verses explains nothing.
in fact how do support the magisterium creating new regulations or affirming old ones to be under, in the new covenant, when the tearing of the curtain at the cruxifiction indicated that we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut. 28, but instead directly to the one who lives in each believer.
paul said all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.
paul also said(romans) that we are to be led by and serve of the spirit.
jesus said we would recognize them by their fruit(fruit of the spirit(gal5). a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
can murder,thievery, adultery, produce the fruit of the spirit? then why is it that believing homosexual marriages can if it is a sin?
@ Almisboii007 — Good luck on the exam!
@ feetxxxl — I think one has to be clear on what one means by homosexuality. If one means a homosexual orientation, same sex attraction, I certainly agree. If you mean sexual activity engaged in by two men with each other I think you are simply ignoring the plain meaning of some verses. I do not see how one can reasonably say that behavior which scripture says excludes one from inheriting the Kingdom of God is anything other than sinful. You have not made your case. And you do not make it by saying not to quote the verses in question. You have to explain why you think that what excludes you from the Kingdom is not sinful.
And you will have to cite something in St. Paul's writings where he is explicitly "affirming, supporting and celebrating homosexuality in the same way we do heterosexuality" before you can get away with the whopper in your second paragraph.
You can't legitimately use a generality — such as the point that all right behavior is summed up in the command to love — to abrogate a specific. Love wills the good of the other. So love does not will that the other will engage in behavior which will exclude him from the Kingdom of God. Love will's that the other use God's gifts according to God's plan.
It is not a sin to want something, but if the thing that is desired is wrong, then it is a temptation. We know from Genesis that God created us male and female so that we would have suitable helpmates and so that we could be in his image and likeness as we become one flesh in a way that can fulfill his command to be fruitful and multiply. Any other use of his gift of sexuality falls short of his plan and so is a misuse. And to lead another to misuse God's gift is not a loving thing to do.
There is no necessity for sexual behavior to be part of a loving relationship in which two men. It is not as if a person has to be completely virtuous in every respect in order to have some good qualities and behavior.
"[F]or 2000 years, believers have assigned meaning to certain verses about this subject in spite of their words. no one has yet explained how the words of those verses actually say it is a sin." You've got it completely backwards. It has been clear for 2000 years that the verses express strong disapproval of homosexual conduct. It is not in spite of the words but on the basis of their obvious intent. You have not explained how you can possibly say that they do not tell us that it is sinful. If you want to say that St. Paul was wrong and set aside the scripture, that's fine. But you have to remember that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Scripture has to be read and understood with the church. You are telling us that you are setting aside the church's reading in favor of your own idiosyncratic reading — a doctrine of men. And even apart from the action of the Holy Spirit, 2000 years of believers are more likely to have gotten it right than you with your novel and unsupported take on it.
Jesus said to the apostles that he who hears them hears him, and when he gave the great Commission he promised to be with them until the end of the world. Clearly that has to include their successors, since they are not still living. The magisterium are those who have been given the place of the apostles for our time.
Your allusion to a couple of generalities in the writings of St. Paul does not suffice to nullify the many specifics in which he told us how we are to live. Taking the writings as a whole, and not wiping out vast stretches of them, there is obviously still conduct which is forbidden.
When Jesus speaks of knowing them by their fruits in Matthew 7:15-20, he is speaking of recognizing false prophets. I don't think it is proper to restrict what Jesus means to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians, because in context he goes on to contrast those who say "Lord, Lord" (as false prophets would) with those who put his words into practice. Jesus is clear that he is not abolishing the law (Matthew 5:17) but showing us the spirit which must motivate our conduct which fulfills and goes beyond the requirements of the law (matthew 5:20-48).
Your reference to Galatians 5 is à propos. But when we look at verses 13-24 as a whole, rather than just alluding to 22-23, we see that those who indulge the desires of the flesh, including sexual misconduct, are NOT living according to the Spirit. Because they are not under the Spirit, they must use the corrective of the law to get them to the point of living by the Spirit. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control. This passage does not tell us that homosexual conduct is moral. It tells us that sexual immorality shows that we are not living according to the spirit. We learn elsewhere specifically about homosexual conduct. If homosexual conduct is sinful (and I think scripture, fairly read, is clear on the point that it is), then those who engage in it lack the self-control which is one of the fruits of the spirit.
And again, there is no reason to believe that people must be either totally good in their behavior or totally bad. A murderer can love his wife. An adulterer can feed the hungry and treat his mistress tenderly, with patience, kindness and gentleness. A thief can be faithful to his wife. So the presence of some things which are among the gifts of the Spirit does not prove that everything a person is doing is virtuous.
I don't know if you are coming up with this stuff on your own or if someone else is feeding it to you. But if you're getting it from someone else, it's clear that he is twisting scripture to his own purposes, and you'd do well to shun his teaching and find someone who presents the word of God rightly.
nat
humans are sexual beings. desiring a one flesh bonded relationship with another is part of the essence of being human. from early adolesence humans have desires and urges since their earliest sexual memory, that prepare them for that one flesh relationship. remember genesis "it is not good for man to be alone." the nature of not being alone is to bond with someone that you are attracted to that allows for the natural expression of sexual intimacy.
how can there be a natural expression of intimacy with someone, one is not attracted to from their earliest sexual memory, rather than to bond with another that they have been attracted to 24/7 from their earliest sexual memory.
the proof of the pudding is that gay believing marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages.
christ said we would recognize them by their fruit(fruit of the spirit)
paul said in romans as believers of the new covenant we are to be led by and serve of the spirit.
if as i said both homosexual and heterosexual believing marriages are equally filled by the fruit of the spirit, then accordingly, as spoken by jesus they are both of god.
OR........are you saying that the fruit of the spirit of christ(GAL5) is the same as the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities.
if you are referring to 1tim and 1cor. then you will have to explain how "homosexual" was legitimately transposed for (kjv)"defiling themselves with mankind"
the historical background about the transposition is that first it was done in a country in the 1800's where there was no seperation between church and state. the royal monarch of england was head of the church.
second there has never been found any written explanation for the transposition.
third the transpositon took place at the end of a 400 year period where there was a king henry 8th law on the books that punished homosexual sex with hanging. it was because of this cultural influence that in the 1700's, that english settlers upon arriving in this country immediately instituted new laws against homosexuality with different punishments. it is only recently that finally after 700 years, that homosexuality was deemed legal in english speaking society.
in 1cor and 1tim, defiling oneself is to degrade the essence one was made, an essence that was created thru the spirit of christ. to defile this essence causes inner shame which brings on its" due penalty"(romans1).....self hatred and self loathing. none of this is of the essence of being homosexual. its is the antithesis of what is experienced by those who come out of the closet. which is a lifting of a burden off their shoulders, a new sense of joy, the relief that one is free from having to live a lie, and a sense of inner peace.
this has no resemblance to the defiling shamebased self loathing of 1tim and 1cor(kjv).
furthermore homosexuals do not bond in a spirit of defilement(shame and self hatred) and as expressed in romans (shameful lust), but in a spirit of mutual love, devotion, affirmation, trust , and respect for shared committed life together, in the same way as heterosexuals.
and there is no indication that the legal gay marriages in mass. are trending anywhere near the divorce percentages(50%) of those heterosexuals that were married during that same period.
"And you will have to cite something in St. Paul's writings where he is explicitly "affirming, supporting and celebrating homosexuality in the same way we do heterosexuality" before you can get away with the whopper in your second paragraph."
1thess5:21 test everything keep the good.
everything means understandings about the law.
1john1 gives us a method of testing. it was the same one he used to determine that christ was the messiah.............."that which we have heard, that which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched" in the "fellowship"of "walking in the light"
paul says in romans that believers are to "be led by" and "serve of" the spirit.
it is in the same way in the leading and serving of the spirit that believers were able to see christ was the son of god(which is the same thing as saying one is god) although jewish law said that anyone who said he was god was a blaspheemer.
no one comes to the son unless the father leads him"
witness is the test of believers, as proscribed by christ "you will recognize them by their fruit"..............which is again the fruit of the spirit.....................the leading being by the ones(the triune god) who lives in each believer.
i know of no scripture that says we are to be led by our, or others understanding of the law.
if you do, please annotate.
actually paul says in romans and ephesians we are no longer under the law, we have a new relationship to the law, that the law is for making us "CONSCIOUS" of sin in regards to all new covenant law, ALL new covenant law being summed up in the 2nd commandment of loving one's neighbor..........
am referring only to one love.........the love that is god, the love described in 1cor13, the love of 1john 4(you cannot love god if you do not love your brother), the love of the fruit of the spirit, and the love of the three commandments of love.
we love god, because he first loved us. it is thru the GRACE of that love that we love him back, ourselves and our neighbor with that same love.
all the scripture in genesis and in matthew 19 are not prefaced or proceeded with the word "only". to add it means to add ones own stroke to the law.
jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law.
to add ones own comes against this.
in matthew christ is giving one possibility in receiving the "word"
to have a one flesh relationship with another.
surely it is not the law but witness of where the spirit rests that says what is of god.
i have annotated that our leading is of the spirit, in the new covenant. PLEASE show annotation that says we are to be led by our understanding of regulation as in deut 28.
paul in the epistles, did not teach thru the law, even about the man who took his father's wife.
im not not understanding what generalities you say i am making.
i still need annotation about our relationship to the law. you are not giving it to me . in order to support your understanding about the legitimate purpose of the magisterium please give it.
and that we are to be concerned about any law other than that which embraces love your neighbor as yourself.
law being regulation which determines what is prohibition, with no acknowledgement or witness of the spirit of heart.
such as killing being forbidden, therefore a sin, regardless of war,capital punishment, self defense.
in other words, maintaining the same relationship to the law as in deut 28. acknowledgement of spirit has no bearing as whether something is a sin.
num 15: 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
what im hearing you say is that even if the spirit of the relations in a believing gay marriage, are the same(of the fruit of the spirit) as any lifted up believing heterosexual marriage it is still a sin.
that is an old covenant relationship to the law.(whatever is called old will become obsolete and soon pass away) and ignores christ teaching about recognizing them by their fruit, and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit.
a gay believing marriage which is founded on a one flesh relationship, supports it, affirms it, and celebrates it, if as you say it is a sin, can produce no other fruit than that of a relationship that was founded on, celebrated, affirmed, and supported murder, thievery or adultery.
nat
"And you do not make it by saying not to quote the verses in question. You have to explain why you think that what excludes you from the Kingdom is not sinful."
quoting verses of scripture only identifies the verses and the meaning you have assigned to them. it is no explanation as to how the words say that meaning.
case and point: the believing south said that verses of lev directed believers to engage in ethnic slavery, so much so as to infer that ones enslaving showed how much they loved god and were obedient to him.
Leviticus 25:46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
however, they ignored the verses of scripture in romans that said that under the new covenant all law was summed up in loving ones neighbor as oneself, and the new covenant identified everybody else as being ones neighbor.
they also ignored the 150 verses where god said he blessed the isrealites by delivering them from slavery, and that he would punish the nations that had enslaved them.
they also ignored that we are led by and serve the spirit(romans), but instead chose to be led by their understanding of the law.
in scripture love(the greatest of these is love ) always trumps everything (1cor`13) without it we are nothing and gain nothing. it is thru our love of christ that we obey him, not because we obey him we love him(not everyone who says lord.................) it is thru the grace of love for him that we are able to obey him.
@ feetxxxl — You are grossly misusing Sacred Scripture and twisting its meaning, and now you are beginning to try to tell me what I am saying. You set up a false dichotomy between what St. Paul says about living by the Spirit and his clear moral teachings, as if it were possible for one and the same person to say you must not do this and to say that the prohibition on this conduct has been abolished. Your position is a complete absurdity.
I have already explained that your all-or-nothing approach to the fruits of the Spirit is not true. Sinners can seem to have some elements of the fruits of the Spirit.
For your information, St Paul did not write the KJV. He wrote in Greek, and it is his Greek, not the English of the KJV, which is the inspired word of God. And when it comes to 1 Cor 6:10 and 1 Tim 1:10, there is no word in St. Paul's text which corresponds to "defiling themselves." So all your blather about what is defiling and what is not has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the actual scripture. In Corinthians St. Paul is speaking of those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God; in Timothy he is speaking of those who are not upright (and so need the law to correct them). In both cases he includes in his list of evildoers "arsenokoitai." This is a masculine word which is a compound of elements which mean "men" and "liers" so it means "men who lie with men" and the words he has put together are precisely the words of Leviticus 18:22 which refer to lying with a man as with a woman. So Christian men know that they are forbidden to have sexual intercourse with other men because St. Paul tells them so. He tells them that if they do it they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Leviticus only makes it perfectly clear what St. Paul is talking about.
@ feetxxxl —
1 Thes 5:21-22 tells us both to hold on to what is good and to shun what is evil, and elsewhere the same writer tells us that homosexual conduct is evil. Therefore, any teaching which would approve homosexual conduct must be shunned.
I have already given you the words of Jesus that tell us that he is not abolishing the law. Beyond that, if you insist on saying that we are not under the law, on what basis do you regard adultery or thievery as wrong? Whatever that basis is, the same basis applies to homosexual conduct. The fact that the New Testament law, which you acknowledge can be summed up in the commandments to love God and neighbor does not mean that there is no specific conduct which is sinful. There are things which are not consistent with love of God or love of neighbor, and those are the things that Paul and Jesus say we should not do, and among them St. Paul mentions homosexual conduct. If it is not against love of neighbor, it is against love of God, or St. Paul would not have written about it the way he did.
"in matthew christ is giving one possibility in receiving the "word"
to have a one flesh relationship with another." You're making that up. He is saying a man becomes one flesh with his wife. He does not say any other one flesh relationship is part of God's plan from the beginning.
"surely it is not the law but witness of where the spirit rests that says what is of god.
i have annotated that our leading is of the spirit, in the new covenant. PLEASE show annotation that says we are to be led by our understanding of regulation as in deut 28.
paul in the epistles, did not teach thru the law, even about the man who took his father's wife." It is not Deuteronomy that leads us. It is St. Paul himself who tells us. Anyone who has not been blinded to the clear meaning of what he wrote will realize that homosexual conduct is wrong.
The generalities are your constant repetition of love as the summary of the New Testament law (which means that there are specifics) and being under the Spirit without acknowledging what conduct it entails and forbids.
You said that St. Paul approves homosexual conduct, but you have not been able to point to one single place where he mentions homosexual conduct by name and says it is permitted. The reason you cannot show it is that you are flat out wrong to claim that he approves of it. He clearly disapproves.
@ feetxxxl — Please do not waste your time repeating your attempts to empty scripture of its meaning by pretending that general principles about the law of love and living under the Spirit can justify ignoring clear teachings about specific forms of conduct. I have done you the courtesy of responding seriously to you up to this point. Now, unless you have something new and relevant to say on the topic, I will either delete or ignore any further comments.
i have addressed all your points
if i repeat myself one time feel free to discontinue our discussion or for that matter any time. it is interesting that you feel threatened so early in the discussion
you have responded to my points with accusation and derision, and still have not given any annotations of our being led by the law.
i have addressed all your points
in being led by the law, one can obey the law without an ounce of love or faith in christ.historically we have seen this happen over and over
however if we live by the three commandments of love, we do much more than follow the law, instead we do as christ did, we fulfill it. because fulfillment of the law is love.
the verses about the law.
Romans 8:3
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Hebrews 10:1
[ Christ's Sacrifice Once for All ] The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
Hebrews 7:18-20 (New International Version)
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
Philippians 3:12
[ Pressing on Toward the Goal ] Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect,(not thru the law but instead thru christ) but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
About arsenokoitai, which is merely an argument of legalization., because the term was used for a multitude of uses. You are still are missing the point, to legitimize any understanding of the law so that it becomes a regulation and manifests the relationship to the law as in deut 28, and in num 15:32 attempts to resurrect an old covenant relationship to the law, which is obedience to regulation with no qualification of spirit. to do so is to deny the leading and serving of the spirit which is of the new covenant. in essence you are keeping one foot still firmly planted in the old covenant(that which becomes obsolete and will soon pass awayheb8). that is not of christ.
As you can see you are unable to make any qualifications about the essence of spirit about homosexuality. Homosexuals have not been found lacking in any sector of society compared to heterosexuality. They bond in the same spirit as heterosexuals. Your qualification is merely about same gender. That has nothing to do with spirit.
why would paul who said in romans and also in ephesians say that we are no longer under the law, and then turn around and reaffirm old ones to put people under, when paul never taught thru the law. we are under that which we are led by. Under the new covenant we are under grace which is spirit.
being led by the law, one is being led by the assessment of outward acts, while being led by the spirit is being led by the conviction of one's heart thru the relationship with the one who lives in him.
Remember jesus’s words about committing adultery in ones heart by lusting after another, even though no outward act was committed.
"I have already explained that your all-or-nothing approach to the fruits of the Spirit is not true. Sinners can seem to have some elements of the fruits of the Spirit."
surely there is distinct difference between a sinner who commits a sin, knowing he is sinning, and another who celebrates the sin(murder,etc), affirms that it is good, supports and encourages others to(murder,etc) sin as well.
in order to do this, one would have to be given over to powers and principalities as expressed in romans 1. "they worshipped and served the created" and were given over to the spirit of shameful lust that serviced those powers and principalities.
surely the fruit of spirit of powers and principalities is different from the spirit of christ.
how can there be any possible similarity? If homosexuality is a sin how can believing homosexual marriages be filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as believing heterosexual marriages?
"and elsewhere the same writer tells us that homosexual conduct is evil. "
i know the term sexual immorality is used. i see no mention of homosexual bonding for a shared committed life together being declared sexual immorality. even in romans (niv) the motivation is
"shame based lust", what resemblance does that have to love, devotion, affection, trust and respect.
Heterosexuals also indulge in shame based lust, but this in no way denigrates the orientation.
i did not say abolish the law. Those are your words. i, instead, repeated romans that the law is to make us CONSCIOUS of sin in regards to living our lives thru the second commandment, which is the summation of all new covenant law.
"that there is no specific conduct which is sinful." are you saying that if murder and adultery were not mentioned in scripture you would not know they were against christ?
paul says in galatians5, that the acts of the sin nature are obvious by the essence of their very nature it is obvious they are against christ. The essence of homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality they are both about human bonding.
romans 1:20 says that from the beginning of time. no man i has an excuse to commit sin because god showed his divine nature and eternal power thru that which he created. so, what is of the essence of being gay that shows that it comes against god's eternal power and divine nature thru what he made?
"Anyone who has not been blinded to the clear meaning of what he wrote will realize that homosexual conduct is wrong."
if it is so clear why are you having so much difficulty explaining it. you have yet to print and discuss one verse.
are you saying………. im not telling you what you are saying…….. im asking...........are you saying that loving your neighbor as yourself is so vague that it does not embrace the 10 commandments. or is it vague because it shows no indication that homosexuality is a sin.
paul never mentions homosexual conduct. he mentions (romans1)those abandoning heterosexual relations out of shame based lust to have sexual relations with those of the same sex. first of all homosexuals do not have women. not from their first sexual memory. they cannot abandon what they do not have and have never had. why would the women choose to engage in the same sexual practices as their men, just because the men did it. lastly where there is shame based lust(niv) or any thing that is shamebased there is defilement and self hatred. and where there is lust there is no relational commitment. the commitment is only to the satiation of the lust. the people involved are mere instruments for satiation of that lust.
surely just because something is not mentioned in scripture does not mean it is against god.
im sorry that you are so offended. i was looking forward to discussing this issue with someone who is deeply catholic. perhaps you can direct me to someone who who is more open to discussion.
regardless i am appreciative of all you have shared.
god bless you, your brother in christ.
@ feetxxxl — I'm sorry I got impatient. The thing is, it felt as if you were trying to bury me under a mountain of assertions and that to give an adequate response to everything would take an impossibly long time. So it didn't feel like an attempt at dialogue but an attempt to smash me into the ground. That may not have been your intent, but it is how it felt.
For a dialogue to be possible, it cannot deal with everything at once. It must take one issue at a time and proceed to impasse or agreement. Then it can move on to the next point.
Furthermore, the comments on a post welcoming a new follower is not a good place for the dialogue because it is not apparent to others that it is taking place. So when I have a chance, I'll make a post which deals with one of the many topics you have raised, and we can dialogue about it.
i will look forward to it.
@ feetxxxl — I've begun to make the promised posts about St. Paul's teachings. I decided to lay out a series to try to cover the core issue you raised, and I've posted some introductory matter. I'll probably get to the first one of real scriptural substance sometime over the weekend.
Post a Comment