Emergent Leader says "Gay is Biblical Lifestyle"

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

We agree on something?

Spiritual freedom from the eternal consequence of sin does not automatically guarantee physical or emotional freedom from the temporal consequences of sin. You can struggle with a sin issue in your life and still be spiritually free. Suffering of many sorts is part and parcel of the Christian life. But we Westerners don't like that, we want it to be easy and cut and dried just like a microwave dinner. It doesn't work that way. God is sovereign and we bend our wills and understandings to His and exercise our faith in living by faith even when it doesn't make 'sense' all the time.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

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.

Sorry Po Mo, I still do not see your point. It is one thing to be or not to be healed of an illness; however, it is entirely a different thing to be bound by something in a sinful nature. I cannot see someone struggling with sin, only later to be judged because he/she couldn't overcome, while another was delivered from his/her sin to make heaven their home. This reasoning somehow doesn't agree with a just God.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

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

I didn't miss your point. You inferred that Paul's thorn was a sinful thorn that he couldn't be delivered from. When you try and compare the weakness of homosexuality with Paul's thorn, it is kind of difficult to seperate your analogy from the subject at hand.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Spiritual freedom from the eternal consequence of sin does not automatically guarantee physical or emotional freedom from the temporal consequences of sin. You can struggle with a sin issue in your life and still be spiritually free. Suffering of many sorts is part and parcel of the Christian life. But we Westerners don't like that, we want it to be easy and cut and dried just like a microwave dinner. It doesn't work that way. God is sovereign and we bend our wills and understandings to His and exercise our faith in living by faith even when it doesn't make 'sense' all the time.

I understand that we as Christians suffer, and you have a good point; however, I still do not see how one can suffer with sinful issues, and still be free. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Sorry Po Mo, I still do not see your point. It is one thing to be or not to be healed of an illness; however, it is entirely a different thing to be bound by something in a sinful nature. I cannot see someone struggling with sin, only later to be judged because he/she couldn't overcome, while another was delivered from his/her sin to make heaven their home. This reasoning somehow doesn't agree with a just God.

You're mischaracterizing my position here, but I'm sure that's my fault for not articulating it correctly. Even if we're 'free' we are still affected by sin and our sin nature. Like Paul, we struggle to do what's right and must constantly rely on the blood of Christ and we will be saved in spite of our constant sin. I think we disagree on what 'just' and 'fair' is and I guess we'll have to leave it at that. You're trying to impose a Western concept of justice and fairness on a timeless, cultureless God that is sovereign and not bound to any sense of ethics except is his own and these ethics are always fair and justice not\ matter how we may think about it. This is one aspect of theology that us Arminians can learn from Calvinists, imo.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

You're mischaracterizing my position here, but I'm sure that's my fault for not articulating it correctly. Even if we're 'free' we are still affected by sin and our sin nature. Like Paul, we struggle to do what's right and must constantly rely on the blood of Christ and we will be saved in spite of our constant sin. I think we disagree on what 'just' and 'fair' is and I guess we'll have to leave it at that. You're trying to impose a Western concept of justice and fairness on a timeless, cultureless God that is sovereign and not bound to any sense of ethics except is his own and these ethics are always fair and justice not\ matter how we may think about it. This is one aspect of theology that us Arminians can learn from Calvinists, imo.

No worries. I am sure that we will have temptations in life, I just don't equate temptations as bondage. Neither do I beleive that once a homosexual, always a homosexual. Know what I mean?

[tv1a]

I've been reading parts of a biography of Truman Capote online @ Google's book search. Capote was the author of In Cold Blood, screenwriter of Breakfast at Tiffany's. His homosexuality was well known. I found the following comments in the book which prove my point homosexuals have a different definition of monogomy.

The pattern of his relationship with Newton was being repeated, and both he and Jack and other, casual sexual partners... [the next six lines omited because lack of relevancy.]

There was one difference between Truman's relationship with Newton and his relationship with Jack, and it was fundamental. Newton made it clear that Truman was a visitor in Northampton and not always a welcome visitor at that. With Jack, he [Truman] always had a home, even if it was only a hotel suite in Portofino. Although thier paths often diverged, they continued to live together, they were still lovers and still had *** together. By their own standards they also remained faithful to each other. " I did not have affairs", Jack maintained. " I just went to bed with people. In those days I thought I should go to bed with everyone. The homosexual world was all new to me."

Can you cite sources which state a heterosexuals predominately believe one can be monogamous and have affairs?

I don't what burr got in your saddle. We agree on the definition of monogamy. I'm stating the homosexual community has redefined the the word monogamy to fit their agenda. You are saying heterosexuals have redefined the word as well. I proposed and provided evidence to support my assertion. Where is yours?

With less respect than I have for pkdad... (does that make you feel beter?)

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

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.

[tv1a]

Whatever happened to the scripture which says whoever the Son sets free is free indeed? Is it hyperbole or is it true?

Is this the first time we are on the same page? You better run. It will be bad for your reputaion.

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I understand that we as Christians suffer, and you have a good point; however, I still do not see how one can suffer with sinful issues, and still be free. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Jermyn Davidson]

You have Christian "A" who does not struggle with an addictive sin, but still sins every day, if for no other reason than he is fleshly and still human.


You have Christian "B" who does struggle with an addictive sin. He may not fail in the struggle everyday, but he struggles, he fights, he falls, he fights. He's still human.


Is Christian "B" less of a Christian than Christian "A"?

Is Christian "B" simply not saved at all?

The proverb that states a just man falls seven times and gets up-- is that hyperbole?

How many times can a Christian sin till he runs out of God's Grace? Does it matter if the person realizes it is a sin or not, when it comes to receiving Grace?


Are Christians who struggle with an addiction purposely sinning?

If yes, can they even really be forgiven?


As you can see, the last few postings on this thread evokes many questions.

I like it when threads evolve. Some times, it a sign of thought and discussion.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

You have Christian "A" who does not struggle with an addictive sin, but still sins every day, if for no other reason than he is fleshly and still human.


You have Christian "B" who does struggle with an addictive sin. He may not fail in the struggle everyday, but he struggles, he fights, he falls, he fights. He's still human.


Is Christian "B" less of a Christian than Christian "A"?

Is Christian "B" simply not saved at all?

The proverb that states a just man falls seven times and gets up-- is that hyperbole?

How many times can a Christian sin till he runs out of God's Grace? Does it matter if the person realizes it is a sin or not, when it comes to receiving Grace?


Are Christians who struggle with an addiction purposely sinning?

If yes, can they even really be forgiven?


As you can see, the last few postings on this thread evokes many questions.

I like it when threads evolve. Some times, it a sign of thought and discussion.

So then, are temptations bondage? How do you view the saying of Christ taken from John 8:36 " If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed". Jesus said this after he he also said "whosover commiteth sin is the servant of sin". Hyperbole or not, if Christ makes one free, he/she is free indeed. To be a servant of Christ makes you free of the bondage of sin period; although no one is free from temptations, we have the power to overcome those temptations through Christ because we are His servants. To be a servant of sin takes a certain commitment away from the power of Christ and it denies the strength of the cross. This is why I do not beleive that once a homo, always a homo.

Why should a conversation evolve, when the fundamentals of salvation is really elementary?