Featured Do You See a definite satanic Inluence In Strident Homosexuality?

His favorite past time is to call those on here who walk with the Lord 'wicked' all the while defending this 'alternative' lifestyle. It all makes one wonder. :love2: :smilewinkgrin:

It's hard to understand why so many engage dialogue with these types who sow incessant discord.

 

Some of the confusión in this issue is caused by the lack of education in the legal definitions of our courtroom modern english.
The Word:"reprobate", for instance, is the Word for those who we miss-call 'homosexuals'. The term is given to one whose probation has been revoked. The judge will never again give them another chance. They are beyond mercy. They are beyond grace. They have rejected the longsuffering of their sentencer.
The Reprobate is filled with all unrighteousness, and perversion, because he has rejected nature, and nature's God.
We simply see a 'gay' activist, and not a 'reprobate'.

 

I call wicked behavior wicked. And I've never been impressed by foks who think that because they are Christians that their wicked behavior deserves to be called something else.

And I will repeat for the umpteenth time that I haven't begged a single person on this board to engage in dialog with me.:wavey:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

He KNOWS this is true, but don't expect any reasonable dialogue.

 

Oh, great knower of all things....

....you are the one who knows squat. You are on my ignore list, and will remain their until you are removed from the membership of this board!

 

And I reiterate what I said in the other post and your response here shows the lie.

Ain't nobody told you squat just like ain't nobody told you about the last response. You read it yourself and can't seem to control your need to "put me in my place" with your need to unIGNORE me and comment to try and make yourself appear to be so pious. Too funny. :wavey:

 

Yes, homose*ual activity is sat*nic.

Consider this....

1. The relationship between a man and a woman (marriage) was the first institution created by God.

2. The relationship ("oneness"...not s*x) of a man and a woman somehow reflects the relationship within the Godhead. (..."make them in our image...male and female He created them..."

3. The relationship between a man and a woman (marriage) reflects the relationship between Christ and His church. (We are the "bride" of Christ)


Sexual impurity is an area (perhaps the strongest area) of sat*nic attacks on God's creation.

Homose*uality, fornication, adultery, pornography, prostit*tion, etc... all pervert God's intended relationship between man and woman.

And.... there is no widely organized effort to promote adultery, pornography, prostitution in our schools...

....although one could argue there has been an ongoing effort for decades to legitimize fornication as "ok" for both boys and girls in our schools.

However, in fairness to the argument, scripture specifically states that homose*uality is unnatural. These other sins are condemned, of course, but the term "unnatural" is not used as best as I can find.

I believe calling homose*uality "unnatural" and unhealthy is a biblical argument and should be used.

 

Yes it does. But Scripture always involves the STATED and the principle to go with the stated. It is unnatural because it goes against God's original design. In that regard the stated principle applies to ALL sin because God's original design and creation was sinless.

I completely agree. But that doesn't make it any more unnatural and unhealthy than any other sin.

 

'God's original design' is not a definition of "nature", which is what reprobate sexual deviants LEAVE.
They dont LEAVE God's original design, they were born long after sin's curse showed up.
They leave their own built in desires, in defiance of God's authority.
They turn, and burn.
They turn to lusts that aren't even there, when we are born.

 

That makes no sense. How can the ORIGINAL not be the natural?

Again, that makes no sense. If they haven't left God's original design, then they would be considered free of sin.

Again, this is true of ALL sin.

Will be true of ALL sinners who don't repent of their sins andaccept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

How do you turn to lusts that aren't there? If hey weren't there, you couldn't turn to them.

ALL sin entered the world with the first sin. It's ALL unnatural. Folks just want this one to be more unnatural than the rest for apparently their own personal reasons.

 

Here's how:
Rom 1:20-32
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections:for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(KJV)

 

I'm still looking. WHERE? Where in that Scripture do you see God saying His original design was not the natural?

The original created design for women was for women to be with men. The original created design for men was for men to be with women.

So what exactly are you talking about? God's original creation has always been the example of what He originally expected of us. Anything that goes against that is unnatural.

 

The question appears to be the difference between what is "natural" and what is sinful.

S*x between a man and a woman is natural. God invented it. God ordained it. God intended for it to happen. And God gave His blessing on it and designed it to be practiced within a union between one man and one woman.

To practice it outside of God's intended design is "sinful" (according to scripture).

Being "sinful" is not the same as being "unnatural".

S*x between men and men/women and women is unnatural (specifically designated as "unnatural" by scripture), unhealthy (specifically designated so by scripture) and sinful.

 

And this is where I disagree. There is no Biblical reason for anyone to refer to ANY sin as natural and sinful. If He naturally created us to not lie, and He did as HE created man without sin, then it is unnatural for us to sin.

How do you go from referring to God's original intent of man and woman together as natural and then say that being sinful is not the same as being unnatural?

If God's original design, morally, is the natural, then anything that goes against that original design is unnatural.

The original design was all good. It was without sin. It was natural.

And I refer again to the principles behind all Scripture.

God does not have to tell us specifically to not do something if the principle has already been covered.

He doesn't have to say don't get high and addicted to cocaine if He has already said to treat your body as His temple.

He does not have to say that ALL sin is unnatural if HE shows you there is a natural and gives an example.

If it goes against His original design, it's unnatural and it simply applies to all sin.

 

God created us to speak. Speaking is a natural thing for us to do. Speaking, itself, is morally neutral. Speaking in ways that fall short of God's moral expectations is sinful.

I am only stating how such things are referred to in scripture. It is natural for a man to have s*xual desires for a woman. Do you agree or disagree? God invented that emotion, that desire, and He gave us instructions for how it was to be practiced.

It is unnatural for a man to have s*xual desires for another man, or a woman to have s*xual desires for another woman. Do you agree or disagree?

"Sin" refers to falling short of God's moral requirements. The "natural order" is morally neutral. Animals are part of the natural order, and general live in a morally neutral state.

I do understand what you are saying.

I can only come back to scripture, and how such activities are described.

I'm only disagreeing with you because that one activity is specifically referred to in scripture as unnatural. Paul, nor any other writer, didn't make that distinction with any other activity (as far as I can remember)

I'm just curious about why are you making so much effort on this topic?

 

We're not speaking to things that are morally neutral. We're speaking to things that are sinful and that are not. But God told us how to speak so speaking isn't morally neutral. His word says Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. Eph. 4:29

I'm in agreement with what Scripture says. But I'm also saying that you're missing the principles that accompany all Scripture. It's natural for a HUSBAND to have sexual desires for his wife. It IS NOT natural for a man to have sexual desires about a woman who is not his wife. That's lust.

It's not an issue of what I agree with. It's an issue of what God's word says and shows. You seem to get that God's original design is natural when it comes to sex, but for some reason you don't want to recognize that the principle holds true for ALL other acts of obedience.

In the original design man did not sin. That's natural. There is no natural sin.

Again, I'm not talking about things that are morally neutral. If they are morally neutral, God's word hasn't spoken to it. We're talking about sinful acts and whether or not theu are natural.

And again, I would venture that it's in part to show us that all sin is unnatural. It would take forever to list everything as unnatural. But there's no need to as with all Scripture once God gives the principle, there's no need to list everything

They didn't have to. That's the argument that gay people use with marriage. They will tell you that God didn't speak to gay marriage. HE didn't have to if He's already given the principle for what He says marriage, of the original design, is.

So again, why would Scripture have to go through and list every sin as unnatural when one is listed and shown to be unnatural?

Scripture gives testimony that there was no sin in God's original design. Thus there can be nothing natural about sin.

And I'm curious as to why folks in the church always make so big a deal about this one sin and feel the need to convince everybody that it's somehow the worst sin of all time?

 

1Co 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:for they are foolishness unto him:neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(KJV)

 

You Hit IT Out of the Park!

>The question appears to be the difference between what is "natural" and what is sinful.

S*x between a man and a woman is natural. <

AMEN...Still, natural sex can be sinful when conducted outside of marriage, and none of us will ever say that even in its natural form, it still has its own array of sin, i.e., fornication, adultery and a list of perversions that are way to many to list. And the truth is, God hates natural sex acts that are not within the perimeters of his guidelines of marriage!

>God invented it. God ordained it. God intended for it to happen. And God gave His blessing on it and designed it to be practiced within a union between one man and one woman. <

But it must be done within the perimeters of legal marriage. Anything else is sin, including sex outside of a marriage by one or both partners!

To practice it outside of God's intended design is "sinful" (according to scripture). But if between a man and a woman, it falls in the area of natural sin.

>Being "sinful" is not the same as being "unnatural". <

>S*x between men and men/women and women is unnatural (specifically designated as "unnatural" by scripture), unhealthy (specifically designated so by scripture) and sinful. <

This is where the rubber meets the road ... not only is a homosexual committing a sin, they are committing an UNNATURAL sin, and while God hates or abhors sexual sin committed between men and women outside of or when breaking the marriage vows, the word says that same-gender sex is an ABMONATION to Him.

This is what separates these two sins apart. We can't even consider including heterosexual sexual sins in the same category as homosexual sexual sins. And yes I know that a sin is a sin! Still, we need to be discussing these sins in different realms. One is hated and still leads to judgement, but that which is unnatural is not even in the same classification, because it is, unnatural.

Will the homosexual go to a different hell for not coming to God and dying in their sin? NO ... but something like the giving out of jewels for our crowns, I believe God will direct his judgement towards those who have sinned, and those who have committed an abomination to his created desires. In the end, they will all go to hell! Nevertheless, in their time of judgement, their form of sin will be more seriously addressed.

AGAIN, I don't know what Zaac will say about my response, and to be quite frank, I don't care (he is in fact on IGNORE)! BUT, like most on this board have said, over-and-over, on this and many other topics of the same kind, when it comes to sexual sins of the natural kind versus the unnatural kind, homosexual sin is like talking about apples and oranges, not Gala versus Fuji or Granny Smith!

 

NOPE. Natural sex as defined by God's word is the sex of His orginal design. And that was sex between one man and his one wife. Sex outside of marriage is sin and there is nothing natural about that sin unless we consider all sin natural.

Yall obviously don't know just how crazy this sounds. You're essentially saying that God considers it natural for a man and woman to have sex outside of marriage

Yep, just the church making modern day lepers. ALL sin is unnatural.

 

Y'all are talking past each other. Zaac isn't saying homosexuality is okay; he's saying it's a sin. Like my wife says, homosexuality is a sexual sin just like adultery and fornication. Y'all are saying it different ways, but you're all saying the same thing.

Zaac's curious why we seem to harp on homosexuality, when there's also adultery and fornication to deal with; it's because, for the most part, there aren't groups of people lobbying congress to make adultery and fornication legally eligible for recognition and status. The public perception of adultery and fornication is still one of disapproval, although things like TV shows and advertisements are working hard to change that perception; but to make homosexuality legally recognized, its participants placed themselves on par with people of color. The problem there is, most men are born with the inclination to commit adultery; we choose to actually engage in the sin. Homosexuals may be born with the inclination (some would debate, I know); but they choose to engage in the sin. The color of someone's skin neither gives them an inclination towards nor a choice to engage in sin. And thus, we have the legalization of sin. If they'd just kept it quiet, like with adultery and fornication, then it wouldn't be such a hot point.

Zaac's right; it's not the worst sin. They're all equally against God.