 |
Well, there is church tomorrow morning. It's getting late. And, before I go to bed at 12:30, I do so want to answer the Sploofus web site's Trivia Question of the Day (TQOTD), especially since I will be able to wager and win 8 million points if it is a subject I'm comfortable with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Please don't confuse its and it's any longer. I'll be watching.
We can pick this up tomorrow sometime. Maybe some of our buddies will join us.
Sleep well. Good night.
And I thought that you said that you were good to go all night!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Oh, I'm good, but this is in your best interest. I don't want you to get overtired. Don't forget -- I'm a mom and can sense these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Heh heh heh, well there is a mom closer than you who knows me much better. I am another timezone away from you, so I have a one hour advantage. But if I am wearing you down, I understand - get well rested for the next round!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
My best friend is struggling with being homosexual.
She has been a christian for several years.
She says the situation is weighing her down and takes her further away from God.. she said that when she is close to God (praying everyday, doing bible studies etc) she feels as if the "problem" is lifted off her.
The bible also says in 1 corinthians 6:8-11 that its not something that can lead u to the path of righteousness. And at the beginning of time God made man but thought man needed something more, a women.. so like obviously God intended only man and women to be together in a more intimate relationship I spose..
They're just my thoughts.. :)
LOL... my mind isn't painted shut neither is it open to drivel. There is nothing in the Word that would suggest Paul had a some secret sin he couldn't overcome. Quite the contrary. I'm going to go out on a limb here and point blank tell you that what you are suggesting is something that Paul told Timothy was a "doctrine of demons". I'm not a woman that is tossed too and fro like James wrote about gobbling up silly theory's and thoughts without a bit of proof. I prefer to take Paul at his word... he was MORE than a conqueror and leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Tj3,
Incidentally, you are right. I believe Paul was married not only was he a pharisee but he was in a special group ( can't recall the type) but anyway marriage from what I have learned was one of the requirements.
You are probably thinking of the Sanhedrin.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
And that proves what, if he was a homosexual?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
It was apparently no secret!!Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
And what a fantastic thorn in the flesh it would have been -- the perfect humiliation!!Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
That's what my list does, takes his words right out of the epistles.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
OK OK OK... let me rephrase... I prefer to take Paul at ALL of his words... in other words I prefer the entire PICTURE painted of Paul... not just romans 7. He was so much more than that chapter... Wondergirl, what do you do with ALL of his writings... what about him being MORE than a conqueror? What about him forgetting those things which are behind and press forward... what about this great man saying... I DIE DAILY. He LEARNED how... why do you want to diminish who he was and what he accomplished for the Lord? Why do you tell half of the story?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
My list is taken from his words in many of his epistles.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Wondergirl,Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If the apostle paul didn't learn how to die daily and wasn't more than a conqueror than he was a liar and I wouldn't WANT to read any of his epistles. I said before and I will say it again... you tell HALF of the story.
The Word (capital "W") is the second person of the Trinity, incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible, sometimes also called the "word" by some, is a book--or really a collection of texts composed at various times by various people under various circumstances. When you use a capital "W" to talk about the Word, it is quite natural to think that you are talking about the second person of the Trinity. But you are clearly referring to the Bible. You want to be careful about the Word/word distinction, since Christians are prohibited from worshipping a collection of texts, but are encouraged to worship the Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Except it makes NO sense how he could suddenly be given a THORN and the THORN was to lust after men.. LOL it is so silly. Of course it wouldn't a doesn't JIVE with how he lived his life... dying to himself and living for Christ. Yes the Lord allowed satan to give him a lust for men at the ripe ol age of what..? I don't know 40 something? Just sos he would get all puffed up and think he was something... yep.. I see it now... it all makes sense. LOL LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don't see how it would diminish anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I have no idea whether Paul was gay or not, but I don't really see what hangs on it. Could you explain where the problem is that I seem to be missing?
I'm also unclear what this "half the picture" is that Wondergirl is supposedly omitting.
And using a capital letter when referring to the word of God means I am worshipping a collection of texts? Naah, I just think it is more than a mere book written by men or it could be a typo... never know with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
I still am genuinely puzzled by the exchange between you and Wondergirl, though. Could you explain why (a) you think it would somehow diminish Paul if he had been gay and (2) what the "half the story" is that Wondergirl is leaving out? I've read through the discussion and am honestly confused about that.
Be careful with apostrophes too. Plural nouns don't get one.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Well, the apostle Paul wrote against homosexual behavior.. he said it was sin. That is kind of important before I fill you in. He said he died daily, ( psst. When you do that, you don't fulfill the lust of the flesh), he also said he was MORE than a conqueror, therefore he wasn't living in a active sin lifestyle. And that would include lusting after women as well. He said he forgot those things which were behind and pressed forward. He said he was in a race and he was running for the prize set before him which was Christ ( gosh, that doesn't sound like a guy boggled down with thoughts of another man) He said for him to LIVE was Christ and to die was to gain.. this wasn't a man struggling with some sin cycle. That wondergirl thinks he felt shame about. The man understood how to REALLY live and that was dying to himself, his wants, his thought, his needs and he gladly did it all for the Glory of Jesus. He DID in romans 7 give a picture of the man that struggled with sin the struggle EVERY Christian goes through in order to get victory and he gives the outline for victory in romans 8. This is cleary a man who understood victory over his flesh and it IS in fact demeaning to say otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Guys... my grammar and punctuation sucks rocks. Sorry, if that is all you got though.. I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Okay, so he wasn't engaging in homosexual sex--neither was he engaging in heterosexual sex. He wasn't "boggled down with thoughts of another man", nor of any woman. How does his sexual orientation change anything? He didn't lust after men or women, so what's the diff? Except that some people don't like the thought that he might have been gay. I just don't see what hangs on his sexual orientation. In dying to the flesh he would have died to whatever lusts--heterosexual or homosexual--that he had had.
I didn't say he was. BEING a homosexual isn't the same as BEHAVING in a homosexual manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Exactly!! Homosexuals can do that too.Quote:
dying to himself, his wants, his thought, his needs and he gladly did it all for the Glory of Jesus
Again, exactly! Paul would certainly think you have really aggrandized him in your mental image of him. And none of what you say would knock out his being a homosexual. In fact, your arguments make it even more plausible!Quote:
This is cleary a man who understood victory over his flesh
More plausible? LOL okie dokie care to expand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Well, akoue, I do believe that he was in fact married at least at one time. He was a pharisee and in order to be one, you had to be married. He admitted he was a murderer, in fact he killed Christians before becoming saved. There is just no indication whatsoever that he was homosexual and correct me wondergirl if I am wrong here but I THINK she is implying he was STRUGGLING with this behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
HOW? Everything I said about him came right out of his epistles. I didn't quote the bible word for word but I didn't exaggerate. HE SAID IT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So he had to be married in order to be a Pharisee. And he really wanted to be a Pharisee... See where I'm going with this? If you have to do B in order to do A (and you really want to do A), then the rational thing to do is... B.
I just honestly couldn't care less whether he was gay or not. It wouldn't diminish him one bit in my eyes.
But maybe that's why he never once used the standard term for homosexuality in his epistles. Maybe that's why he used as unusual a term as "arsenokoitai", in preference to a term that would have been completely unambigious in his condemnation of homosexuality of any kind. Perhaps he was WAy ahead of his times.
I am still waiting for you to come forward with something of substance. That IF is one massive "IF".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Except that some of your claims are not Biblical (words added, subtracted or altered) and NONE of them even suggests that he was a homosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
He couldn't be a married homosexual?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
He couldn't be a homosexual and murder Christians?
No one struggles with their sexual feelings? (not behavior -- homosexuals can be that without the behavior)
Yep - that God would allow him to have a thorn in the flesh to make him humble by giving him a desire to commit sin, and giving him a sinful orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Since when does God tempt us with sin?
James 1:13
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
NKJV
So far your strongest argument appears to be innuendo against Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You may want to ask Wondergirl why she keeps pushing this unBiblical idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You're the only one saying it was sinful. God didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I don't really see how it is any more or less "Biblical" than the idea that Paul was straight. But, then again, I rarely know what you mean when you throw around the words "Biblical" and "unBiblical". It sometimes looks like "Biblical" just means "Tom likes it" and "unBiblical" means "Tom doesn't like it". But that's just me. I'm not interested in making a thing out of it. But it also means that I don't think that Wondergirl is out of line to raise the issue. Seems perfectly fine to me.
There's nothing wrong with being a homosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But He did - not just in the NT but also in the OT. We have already shown you some passages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So are you telling us that you deny that the Bible is right when it says that homosexuality is sinful?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It is unBiblical because her claim is not found in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:17 AM. |