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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by brad2723

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.

When greek words are defined to us in the english language then yes you can use english definitions.

If they are tainted then those that write greek dictionaries need to choose better ENGLISH words into which to translate them and tell us what they mean.

BTW you did not respond to my posts that appeared just before Newmans

[Praxeas]

Brad my replies to you on this page were not responded to
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...t=2828&page=16

Originally Posted by Charlie Brown

So if 10 years from now they find that there is a specific gene that makes someone a murderer, or a pedophile, should we reconcile that since God made them that way, we should accept them as ok?

These kind of arguments are futile. As I've stated before (I am getting a bit exhausted with repeating myself) pedophilia, rape, adultery, etc. all take place within one's sexual orientation not because of one's sexual oreintation. There are homosexual pediphiles and heterosexual pediphiles. There are homosexual rapists and there are heterosexual rapists. Orientation is something we are born with. How else do we explain the strong genetic correlation that exists between chromosomal sex and orientation?

There is absolutely no genetic correlation to even remotely explain murder, pedophilia, rape, etc. But that's a scientific argument not worth implementing here.

However, companionship and human intimacy is a God-given desire. Murder, pedophilia, etc. are not. God allowed his creation to desire companionship which is why, as I've stated before, He created the animals for Adam. Adam, however, was not pleased with the animals so God created another living being out of the flesh and bone of Adam himself. Healthy companionship is something God allowed for His creation. Rape, adultery, pedophilia, murder are not healthy and invade the very human rights of those in which they are acted upon.

I would only concede that same-sex orientation does not line-up with God's original creation but, even then, neither do hermaphrodites and intersexed individuals. I believe homosexuality is just as much a genetic variation from God's orginal creation as hermaphroditism is.

Also, the book of Genesis reveals that God initially provided animals to be Adam's help-meat and not woman. Based on this fact, we cannot infer that woman was God's original and divine choice for man's help meet. The standard is not a divine one but one based on man's personal choice and desire. It was Adam who did not find a help meet within God's first creation for him. Again, God is relational. He then created another option for Adam which, consequently, he was pleased with.

Gen 2: [18] And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. [19] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. [20] And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Brad my replies to you on this page were not responded to
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...t=2828&page=16

I apologize if I do not respond to some replies. Because there are so many I tend to miss some. I will take a quick look and then I have to get back to studying : )

If I do not respond to a comment you make do not assume I am avoiding it. I may have just got too involved in responding to someone else.

-Brad

[Theresa]

Originally Posted by brad2723

I would only concede that same-sex orientation does not line-up with God's original creation but, even then, neither do hermaphrodites and intersexed individuals. I believe homosexuality is just as much a genetic variation from God's orginal creation as hermaphroditism is.

does this mean you think God made a mistake? Or allowed such a deviation from his original plan that someone would be born in oppositon to his Word?

just asking...?

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

I fail to see what that has to do with the conversation, considering you are referring to Jewish law. I'm not Jewish.

I'm really confused now. Let me clarify that ALL the Law is Jewish Law and I'm not Jewish either. Why then do you judge me according to Jewish Law?

You can't use my argument to defend the Laws that apply to you and then turn around and judge me using the same Laws.

Am I the only who sees the contradiction here?

Originally Posted by brad2723

I think I may have misrepresented myself or possibly mis-spoke. I will clarify.

I believe that IF every scripture that people continue to quote from the OT and NT are to be understood the way in which everyone in this room seems to understand them that they still only speak against homosexual sex and NOT desires or emotions. That is to say, according to the arguments provided in this room, two homosexuals should be able to live together and have an intimate relationship, without performing sodomy, and still be living within the restrictions of the OT Law. I would go so far as to say that the OT Law was not even written to all of Israel but specifically to the Levitical Preists. I cannot in my own heart and mind come to the conclusion that we are under any of the Levitical Law.

What you're missing here is that engaging in the intimate relationship itself is also homosexual sin because it is the choice to embrace and act on your underlying unnatural same-sex attraction. Further, attempting to mate (having a marriage-like relationship) with someone of one's own sex is a rejection of God's created design for male and female.

In fact, I personally do not believe we are under any part of the Law except that which was identified in the book of Acts chapter 15. That is why I do not honor a seventh day sabbath. I personally am not involved with anyone physically but I do not feel that doing so in a committed and monogamous manner is sinful or abominable because of OT Levitical Law.

Look at the context of Acts 15, though. The issue there was whether the Gentiles had to keep what is often referred to today as the "ceremonial" Law of Moses, i.e. the various rituals and ordinances. It is not referring to God's moral law. Do you really think the Church is exempt from such laws of God as the laws against idolatry, taking the Lord's name in vain, making for ourselves a graven image, stealing, bearing false witness, murder, adultery, covetousness, etc.? Do you think the Church is exempt from such laws of God as the law against a man having sex with his daugther?

My only point in mentioning that I am not involved with anyone physically was to defend against someone accusing me of going to hell because of my homosexual behavior. Though I do not feel I will go to hell if I do engage in homosexual behavior I felt I should at least clarify that I am not currently engaging in such activity.

Jesus said that whoever even looks at someone lustfully has already committed adultery with that person in his heart. It doesn't matter that you're celibate in outward behavior, it matters that you are in rebellion against God's created design for you by your choice to embrace your homosexual attraction and "accept" that attraction as if it was normal, natural or otherwise acceptable to God.

Originally Posted by Theresa

does this mean you think God made a mistake? Or allowed such a deviation from his original plan that someone would be born in oppositon to his Word?

just asking...?

God didn't make a mistake. Man made a mistake. Since man's fall there have been all sorts of "deviations" within his creation. As I've stated before; hermphroditism is one example as is intersexism. Both are genetic deviations from God's initial creation yet nobody has answered my question: Based on OT Law and even NT teachings, who are intersexed individuals allowed to be in an intimate relationship with? Should they be defined based on their genitalia or based on their chromosomal sex?

Just asking...?

Originally Posted by brad2723

I'm really confused now. Let me clarify that ALL the Law is Jewish Law and I'm not Jewish either. Why then do you judge me according to Jewish Law?

You can't use my argument to defend the Laws that apply to you and then turn around and judge me using the same Laws.

Am I the only who sees the contradiction here?

Is all of God's law Jewish? Did God not have any law prior to His giving a set of laws to Moses on Mount Sinai? If God had no law prior to that which He gave to Moses, then on what basis did God banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden? On what basis did God punish Cain? On what basis did God destroy the world by flood? On what basis did God punish the people at Babel?

Originally Posted by brad2723

Again, we are making an assumption that the NT Church is under some of the Law; that being the moral law as opposed to the ceremonial law. Again I present the fact that when Paul said we are no longer under the Law he made no distinction between different catagories of Law (Galatians 3). I don't know how else to state this fact. It is very clear to me.

The Church is under the law of grace and, yet, the Church is also under God's moral law. Do you really think the Church is exempt from God's law against murder? Do you really think the Church is exempt from God's law against adultery? How about God's laws against stealing or lying? Is the Church exempt from those laws? Are we free to commit sin, which is transgressing God's laws (see 1 John 3:4)?