Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! !

[berkeley]

WHERE IS ESSAYS?? (SAVED THIS SOME TIME AGO)

Friday, November 24, 2006
6:53 PM - Malakos

written by: Elias

Paul says that the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9)

He ranks the effeminate among fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, and sodomites. Thus, the effeminate man is as hell-bound as the fornicator, adulterer, idolater, and the sodomite.

We routinely hear the clarion calls for a "kindler, gentler" preaching and witnessing. If a man declares that sodomy is an abomination to God, and is unnatural, and leads to hell, the man is declared "harsh" and "unloving". The sodomites are apparently not to be told that they are abominable. In fact, we are routinely told that it is not the sodomites alone who are not to be made "upset" with "hard preaching", but all sinners!

"They will never seek the grace of God if you preach harshly to them!" So we are told.

What does this "harshness" consist of? Why, it consists of plain talk. It consists in simply identifying what the Bible and nature teach about sin, sinfulness, and sinners.

There are folks who have become so effeminate that they think even the terms "sin" and "sinner" are "harsh and judgemental, unkind and unloving".

Then there are others who, while pretending to "stand firm" on Biblical terminology, nevertheless chafe and resist the "delivery". They say "it is not the words, but the tone which turns people away."

If something is an abomination to God, shall we present it to the people as if it weren't? It is a sure sign of DISHONESTY and INSINCERITY to say with your words what you deny with your tone and manner. Subconciously, even, people tend to DISBELIEVE a man when his words do not match his tone. Thus, when a man speaks of the "abominable sin" of idolatry, or fornication, or sodomy, if he uses a soft tone of voice, gentle and soothing, his tone gives the lie to his words.

Those who are so upset and offended by what they style "harsh preaching" are, in most cases, effeminate. (I do not speak of women, for it is natural for a woman to be feminine, delicate, "effeminate". I speak of men here.) And the effeminate, according to Scripture, is bound for hell unless he repents and experiences the CHANGING power of God's mercy.

Who is "effeminate"?

The English word means literally "from woman", and means a man who partakes of the qualities of a woman. The Greek term is malakos, which literally means "soft". So, the "effeminate" are in actuality "soft, womanly, delicate men". But what does this mean?

In ancient Greek culture (let's remember the cultural context, right?) malakos, or effeminacy, was opposed to manliness. Aristotle described it thus:

"Of the dispositions described above, the deliberate avoidance of pain is rather a kind of softness (malakia); the deliberate pursuit of pleasure is profligacy in the strict sense." (Ethics, VII, vii. 3)

"People too fond of amusement are thought to be profligate, but really they are soft (malakos); for amusement is rest, and therefore a slackening of effort, and addiction to amusement is a form of excessive slackness." (ibid.)

Later on, Aquinas gave the results of his inquiry into the question of what "effeminacy" meant, thus:

"...perseverance is deserving of praise because thereby a man does not forsake a good on account of long endurance of difficulties and toils: and it is directly opposed to this, seemingly, for a man to be ready to forsake a good on account of difficulties which he cannot endure. This is what we understand by effeminacy, because a thing is said to be "soft" if it readily yields to the touch." (Summa., Q. 138ff)

(Referring to Aristotle's definitions in Ethics VII) "...properly speaking an effeminate man is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion." (ibid)

"Accordingly just as it belongs to effeminacy to be unable to endure toilsome things, so too it belongs thereto to desire play or any other relaxation inordinately". (ibid)

So then, the effeminate are those (men) who are soft, who "withdraw from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure". You see, the effeminate man hates plain preaching and plain speaking, because it causes him sorrow. He withdraws from plain speech because he is made sorrowful by it, and why is he made sorrowful? Because there is lack of plasure. The words are not calculated to make him "feel good."

Because plain preaching is not designed or delivered for the purpose of making the hearer "feel good", the effeminate man does not like it. He withdraws from the "good" (the Truth of God's Word) because the speech makes him sorrowful (ie "makes him feel bad", angry, upset, sad, or whatnot).

Rather than being man enough to put up with the "bitter sting" of the Physician's prick, he flees from the psychological, emotional "pain". Then, needing to justify himself, he blasts the messenger as "harsh" (that is, as "causing pain").

The effeminate man is soft. He flies from the Words of truth because they cause pain. If preaching does not make him feel good, he rejects it.

And the effeminate man is hellbound, and in need of repentance.

[berkeley]

If I had a dog, I would name him Malakos...

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

The cross was also a place of judgment.

Col 2 [8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; [14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

I'm not sure what judgment you are referring to but I do know that the ordinances of the OT which others try to force on NT believers were nailed to the cross and have been blotted out.

I attend a Seventh Day Adventist University and am continuouslly told that I must honor the 7th Day Sabbath and that I should not eat meat. I say to them the same thing I say to anyone who tries to judge me against a backdrop of OT Law, "because Christ's sacrifice at Calvary I am no longer under the Law."

Originally Posted by Berkeley

WHERE IS ESSAYS?? (SAVED THIS SOME TIME AGO)

I don't want to sound rude or unkind but this essay lacks any academic or intellectual integrity and is not worth responding to. I will, however, briefly respond with this:

You cannot not mix/match English defintions with Greek/Hebrew definitions in order to prove your point. If you want to prove what the Bible says then you must use Biblical definitions only. Modern English definitions are tainted with a myriad of cultural and religious influences.

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Ever wonder why God created just one man and one woman? Adam and Eve, not Annie and Eve or Adam and Steve?

It wasn't for procreational purposes. He could have created ten people and had plenty of that going on.

And if you think that two people, regardless of gender, can do the above and leave it at that, you live in a different world than I do. It doesn't justify it in any way.

God didn't create Adam and Eve, He created Adam. However, Adam desired a help meat so God created the animals but no help meat was found with them. So, God created another human being from the flesh and blood of man. It was then that Adam was satisifed. What if Adam hadn't been satisifed with Eve? The entire creation of woman was based on Adam's desires not God's divine will. If it was based on God's divine will then the animals should have been sufficient for Adam. God is a relational God and responds to each of us individuals.

I do not deny that homosexual relationships do not reflect the relationship between Adam and Eve. But then again, not much does line up with God's initial creation since the fall of man. God did not create inersexed individuals at Creation yet they exist today. According to the initial creation who are these intersexed individuals allow to marry and have intimate relationships with? Are they suppose to be defined by their chromosomal sex or their genitalia?

Also, may I point out that the term gender is a sociological term which is not sex-specific. I assume you were referring to biological sex.

I do live in the same world as you and would strongly argue that intimacy can be and often is experienced without having sexual intercourse.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by brad2723

Well, I am standing at the cross because it is at the cross where the blood of Christ is applied. I guess I'm standing in a pretty good place.

brad- Do you recognize that fornication encompasses all sexual relations outside of marriage?

Are you standing unrepentant in front of the cross because you don't believe homosexual relationships are the works of the flesh or because you believe once saved always saved?

Does a pedophile or a mass murderer also stand unrepentant in front of the cross with no fear of judgment?

[Newman]

Originally Posted by brad2723

I certainly cannot answer for God and would never try to. However, it is important to understand that the Law was given to the Jews and had specific implications for those people at that time. There appears to be a lot of things in the OT Law that God did not want His people to do. Why He doesn't require those same things now I do not know. All I know is I'm glad we are no longer under the law.

We were never told that God hated all the other things comanded in the OT. Consequently it would seem to me that intellectual integrity would demand that one be able to reconcile their belief about something God said he hated in the OT with God's alleged differing response in the NT.

What changed from the OT to the NT that now made homosexuality OK in God's eyes even though other abominations such as lying, idolatry and witchcraft are still sin?

[Newman]

Originally Posted by JerichoExp

If Gods Love had conditions, then they would certainly not be met by our frail humanity. The same holds true with the law, it was never kept or met no matter how hard men tried, until Christ Fulfilled it by understanding that the written letter of the law was only ever supposed to point us back to spiritual things. When He cried, “It is finished,” He met any condition that may have been required…

(1 John 4:9,10,16):
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. ...
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Eph. 1:6 -- To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein
He hath made us accepted in the Beloved.

While we may not see the words “Unconditional Love”. We can be assured that He met the conditions!

So Adolf Hitler is in heaven?

Originally Posted by Newman

So Adolf Hitler is in heaven?

I neither said nor alluded to that, for the bible teaches us that whom God loves He Chastens, Hebrews 12:6 (same Greek as chastise). What I was saying however is if we think that we are sufficient in and of ourselves to earn anything of Christ, love or otherwise, then we are blinded by our own self righteousness, and we would not have needed of a Savior, having the ability to meet the conditions ourselves!

Does God start loving me the moment that I hear His truth that he allows me to hear, and opens my spiritual ears to? Does He start loving me when I have been obedient to this truth that I have heard? What condition do I need to meet to merit His conditional love? I would like to know in case I am missing out on something! I have simply been foolish enough to believe that the bible is true when I read John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

After a while a persons posts are no longer moderated

Ah, I see.