High profile HAC students

[Smellin Coffee]

I never reference the city.  Just the SIN.

Which is a misnomer. "Sodomy" is the "sin of Sodom" and that sin was not homosexuality.

 

[SwampHag]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Rom 1:27
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 recompence of their error which was meet.

No one is born a Sod, they leave their natural desires.
Once they make this turn, they become filled with all unrighteousness.

BTW, the statistics are out there, if you want to do the research, and the monogamous Sod is a myth.

I dont know which sources are cited, but in the documentary  "Aids: The Judgement of God", many U.S. Gov. stats are given. 

And then there is their recruitment method...

Lying is awful, it is hateful.
However, the death penalty wasn't doled out for pride, or lying, etc.
17 states in our Union, however, meted out this just desert for Sodomy at one time in U.S. History.

There is so much wrong with your agenda here, not the least of which is the attempt at equating capital crimes with misdemeanors, LongGone.
Suffice it to say, I, for one, disagree strongly with you.

So you believe in stoning one's children shoud they disobey. That too was a capital offense.

Absolom rebelled, and yes.

Leaving a greenbean on your plate is not the same.

OK, then we need to stone anyone who has touched Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19:13). We need to execute women who were not virgins on their wedding night (Deut. 22:13-21). Rape victims who don't cry loud enough for help (Deut. 22:23-24). How about those who blaspheme (Leviticus 24:16)? We need to kill those infidels who worship gods other than Jehovah (Deut. 17:2-5, 13:5-10)! Psychics (Lev. 20:27)! Oh, and make sure we get the Sabbath police out to stone anyone who picks up sticks from their front yard on a Saturday (Num. 15:32-56). Lest we forget, gotta nab all the Republican talk show hosts who blasphemed "King" Obama (I Kings 21:10).

If you are willing to believe that each one of those "offenses" should be deemed worthy of capital punishment today, I will give you the homosexual belief as well. All I am looking for is consistency, not agreement with me.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

OK, here is a chance to prove yourself. In the teachings of Christ, where did He specifically preach against homosexuality?

If you can't find it, your entire synopsis of what a Christ-follower is, is skewed. In fact, I would contend that there are gay Christ-followers.

I feel sorry for you, Dan, I really, really do...

I don't want to elicit empathy, but rather truth. Here is your chance to take the words of Jesus for those who choose to follow ONLY Him and show where he preached against homosexuality in specific. If you choose to make homosexuality as a form of immorality (which is my perspective), then I would agree with you. Otherwise, you need to prove to Christ-alone followers where He taught homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Let's just quit sniping and agree on a few points....

1. Sodomy is a grievous sin before God, listed right above bestiality in Romans 1 as the final descent of mankind into sin. (anyone who says otherwise is intentionally lying.  They may not believe the Bible is God's word, but they cannot deny the Bible clearly labels it an abomination.)
2. People are born with a sin nature because of the fall of man, not because God created us sinners.
3. People are born with different temptations, once again, due to sin nature.
4. Homosexuals are born with the sinful desire to have "sex" within the same gender.  They are not created this way, they are born this way due to sin.
5. Homosexual temptations are no more sinful than heterosexual temptations.  Acting on any sexual sin is wrong.  (I am born wanting to have sex with multiple women simultaneously outside of my marriage.  I don't act on these temptations because they are sinful and contrary to scripture.  I must suppress my sinful sexual desires that I did not "choose" to have.)
6. A person born with homosexual desires should not act on them anymore than a married person should commit adultery.  I was not born wanting to be sexually monogamous, but I have never slept with anyone who was not my wife.  I choose to not act on my temptations.
7. A person who has homosexual desires can choose to not act on them and can choose to live a life that pleases God.  This has been done for centuries, until society began encouraging people to "be who they are." 
8. Pastors should preach HARD against homosexuality, but not with the intention of hurting others or making church members feel self righteous. 
9. Preaching against heterosexual sins should also be preached hard against, because those are the sins most likely occurring in the church.  Fornication, adultery, pornography, divorce, ect.. are rampant in Baptist churches, but we ignore those.  Lost people are going to act like lost people, but the people of God have no excuse.

Hey, that's enough of that level-headed thinking on the HAC FFF!!!!

We HB punks thrive on stirring the pot. 

 

[subllibrm]

If Jesus didn't condemn it specifically then it must be okay.  :

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

 

[RAIDER]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Dan, just to satisfy my curiosity, do you personally know anyone else who believes this way?

 

[kaba]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

 

[Least of These]

Dan, I agree with so much of what you've said on this subject, but I have one question: Do you believe God intended there to be no options for gay Christians other than life-long celibacy? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Dan, just to satisfy my curiosity, do you personally know anyone else who believes this way?

No. I'm alone on this island. There have been several throughout history that have held similar views (Jefferson, Kierkegaard, H.G. Wells, Paine, and Tolstoy to name a few.) My view is unpopular but not new. Roots go back to the first century of Christianity with the Ebionites in their struggle against Marcionism which eventually invaded the church.

So though I know of no one in my life who believes thusly, history has had some people who hold to the same or similar positions I do.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Dan, I agree with so much of what you've said on this subject, but I have one question: Do you believe God intended there to be no options for gay Christians other than life-long celibacy?

I can't biblically prove it but if homosexuality is a part of immorality, in which I personally happen to define it, I believe it was God's intention for them to be celibate. I haven't studied it out but I wonder if this was the case of biblical eunuchs. And this is where my debate lies with those on this forum, I won't come out and call it "sin" to another because of my personal interpretation of immorality. And I will not judge another Christ follower who is practicing homosexuality if he/she has come to a different conclusion than I.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If Jesus didn't condemn it specifically then it must be okay.  :

Unless you choose to believe Paul's words of condemnation have the same authoritative persuasion as Jesus'.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' I am trying to remember correctly, are you the one who rejects the Pauline Epistles?  No argument, just jogging my memory...

I don't reject everything in them, but I do believe Paul was deceived on the Damascus Road, believed a false Christ his "special revelations" he got from Jesus were the antithesis of Jesus' instructions given at the Great Commission.

Paul is right on some things and wrong on some. Rather than filter the teachings of Jesus through the teachings of Paul (like traditional Christianity does), I try to filter the teachings of Paul through the recorded teachings of Jesus. By doing so, I have come to a whole different outlook on Christianity.

Anyway, that is another argument for another day.

Some people believe much but know little....

Why does it bother you that someone has studied the same texts you have and come to a completely different conclusion?

 

[rsc2a]

If Jesus didn't condemn it specifically then it must be okay.  :

Unless you choose to believe Paul's words of condemnation have the same authoritative persuasion as Jesus'.

Good thing for people into necrophilia...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If Jesus didn't condemn it specifically then it must be okay.  :

Unless you choose to believe Paul's words of condemnation have the same authoritative persuasion as Jesus'.

Good thing for people into necrophilia...

Perhaps, if you want to look at it that way.

Or perhaps you could view it as a desecration to the family members of the deceased and not under the guideline of loving one's neighbor as himself.

 

[kaba]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

Wish I was more eloquent in writing! Just seems like people try to avoid calling sin, sin and just want to explain why we have to accept it, because God is love and would not want to judge others. they are so bent on proving all things IFB/HAC are wrong.  The ones I am disappointed in are not interested in following the teachings of Jesus-just the following of what makes them feel good about the current decisions they are making

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I find that more and more people that were either hurt by IFB/HAC or who were total Man of God worshippers but have since "seen the light" have tried their best to believe everything opposite of HAC/IFB. It saddens me to see this type of thinking!

And the opposite of following man means following God through the teachings of Jesus. Why does that sadden you?

Wish I was more eloquent in writing! Just seems like people try to avoid calling sin, sin and just want to explain why we have to accept it, because God is love and would not want to judge others. they are so bent on proving all things IFB/HAC are wrong.  The ones I am disappointed in are not interested in following the teachings of Jesus-just the following of what makes them feel good about the current decisions they are making

Thanks for the clarification.

From my perspective, a lot of our "Christian beliefs" are based on tradition and not the teachings of Christ. This is why I clearly am opposed to biblical marriage. The "biblical marriage" was one of polygamy and perhaps a harem of concubines with whom the "Husband" had the right to sleep with. In addition, the husband had the right to stone his new bride if a bloody garment couldn't be provided after the honeymoon night. I hate to say it, but I can't demean my wife with any of that stuff. And Jesus set the record straight.

So we through terms like "biblical marriage" and "sodomy" and the like and not research what the terms mean. Basically, Christianity has become living a life of cliches. My following Christ will look different than my wife's following which is different than each of our kids' lives. Following the teachings of Christ looks differently to each individual so this is why I can't come out and adamantly tell everyone that homosexuality as a sin. Following Christ is a relative thing and I cannot condemn someone who is not harming others that their perspective is totally wrong. Now when one harms people, uses them for their own power trips, etc, things become much more clear.