Emergent Leader says "Gay is Biblical Lifestyle"

[citizen]

Originally Posted by tv1a

The homosexual definition of a monogamous relationship is one sexual partner at a time. It is not uncommon for homosexuals to hop around from partner to partner yet claim to be monogamous.

Neither is it uncommon for heterossexuals to hop around from partner to partner yet claim to to monogamous. And if they are 'saved' heterosexuals then you only hop from partner to partner in the bounds of 'marriage'.
You marry, then divorce, then marry, then divorce, then marry...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by citizen

Neither is it uncommon for heterossexuals to hop around from partner to partner yet claim to to monogamous. And if they are 'saved' heterosexuals then you only hop from partner to partner in the bounds of 'marriage'.
You marry, then divorce, then marry, then divorce, then marry...

Both need to repent

[tv1a]

I find it hard to believe the percentages would support your assertion in your first sentence.

btw, are we all spelling monogamous correctly? it looks it is spelled wrong to me.

Originally Posted by citizen

Neither is it uncommon for heterossexuals to hop around from partner to partner yet claim to to monogamous. And if they are 'saved' heterosexuals then you only hop from partner to partner in the bounds of 'marriage'.
You marry, then divorce, then marry, then divorce, then marry...

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

I completely disagree with all of what you've said here. Straight people are promiscuous too. Your view of recovering addicts is naive, salvation is an ongoing process. Sometimes people are miraculously freed from their vices, most times they are not and must learn to take up their cross daily, ala the Apostle Paul and his 'thorn in the flesh'.

I am having a hard time reconciling this particular phrase according to scripture such as John 8:36. Perhaps I may be taking this passage out of context, and if by chance I am, how do you explain the justness and fairness of God? How could he miraculously deliver one, but make the other suffer such a weakness?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by tv1a

No one said straight people were not promiscuous. We were discussing the definition of monogamy in the homosexual community.
My view of addictions is scriptural. God does not give partial freedom from addictions. Whom the Son has set free is free indeed. The struggle occurs when the flesh doesn't line up with the Spirit. You cannot support that God wants people to struggle and not be free. I know people who have been delivered from homosexuality. I know others who struggle. The difference between deliverance and the struggling is when the man is aligned with the Spirit to receive deliverance.

When Jesus delivered people from demonic control, it wasn't a partial deliverance. Cite a biblical example where Jesus performed a partial miracle. Paul's thorn in the flesh is at best unprovable speculation.

We agree on something?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by tv1a

There is no a single scripture which suggests a chirstian has to struggle with addictions. Addictions are flesh problems. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away from his own lust. Temptation occurs because there is a fleshly craving to participate in sin.

If Jesus came to set the captive free, than every addict wanting addiction can be delivered.

I lost track of how many people I know who no longer struggle with addictions because the flesh is under subjection to the Spirit.

This is what I'm saying.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

you'll have to provide a source outside of your speculation where your definition of monogamy in the gay community is given. i have gay friends and i've kept half an eye on the gay issue and my understanding is that monogamy to gays is the same as monogamy for straights. I think we can both agree that promiscuity exits on both sides of the swing. My point was that you seem to be connecting the two and I don't necessarily see that connection in a general sense.

If Paul had a thorn in the flesh was he not free or was he still on bondage. Obviously he tried to align himself with the Spirit but God disallowed it and kept him in his condition against Paul's wishes.

Kind of difficult to speculate about Paul's thorn when no one here really knows what the thorn was. I really doubt that it was a "homosexual" crisis that was his thorn.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by tv1a

With all due respect, to really understand homosexuality, one needs to have both eyes on the issue.

.

with all due respect, please don't be smart aleck.

what you call 'monagamy' is promiscuity no matter if it's straight or gay.

and we have strayed far from the original point of this thread.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Kind of difficult to speculate about Paul's thorn when no one here really knows what the thorn was. I really doubt that it was a "homosexual" crisis that was his thorn.

You missed my point by a mile, I never inferred Paul had a problem w/homsexuality.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I am having a hard time reconciling this particular phrase according to scripture such as John 8:36. Perhaps I may be taking this passage out of context, and if by chance I am, how do you explain the justness and fairness of God? How could he miraculously deliver one, but make the other suffer such a weakness?

The justness and fairness of God are complete and pure in his sovereignty. God is God and God can do whatever he wants and it will always be just and fair even if we don't think so. His ways are not our ways. Was it fair for the guy that Jesus healed who had been ill all his life and Jesus said he was sick not because of his sin or the sins of his parents but solely so that at that moment in time Jesus could heal him and demonstrate his divinity. Is that fair? By our standard that is cruel. But it's what God did.