[Edited] against Jesus

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Mark Osgatharp, Sep 26, 2002.

  1. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the thread on "Homosexuality and the Scriptures" Post-it made the following statement in regards to Paul's celibacy:

    "What was Paul's wife's name again?

    Was it Paul who had no need for sex or women?

    I'm not saying he was homosexual, I'm saying he had some type of problem with sex, many people do. But that doesn't justify them projecting their problems onto others. Following Pauls direction for men and women, there would be no people left on earth now."

    By this statement Post-it proves:

    1. He has no regard for the Scriptures, for he denigrates Paul's teaching found in I Corinthians chapter 7. If he reject these teachings of Paul about the validity of celibacy, then he wouldn't accept a passage of Scripture that said, "all homosexual acts are sinful in every circumstance and in all societies in every era."

    2. He has no understanding of what Paul said about celibacy. Paul said that some men had the gift of celibacy from God. Paul in no way speak negatively of sex itself. His reason in advocating the option of celibacy was to promote singular devotion to God, not to propogate some sexual hang-up.

    3. He has no regard for the teaching of Jesus Himself who explicitly said that some men were born eunuchs and some men had made themselves such for the kingdom of God. Jesus, just as did Paul, said that not all men were given the ability to be celibate, but He certainly presented as an option to married life.

    Mark Osgatharp

    [ September 26, 2002, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
     
  2. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I wonder how homosexuals would have populated the earth?
    And about Paul's direction. It's the word of God, either He's God or He isn't and we are. God created, God owns, God has the right to direct anyway He wants, and He lets us know His direction in His written word, the bible. I just thought it was a given that christians believed the bible.
     
  3. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Corinthians 7:8
    8. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.

    Is it good or is it just ok. If it is good, then no one should marry. This implies it is better not to marry at all. Is it better for everyone not to marry? No more families? No more babies?

    Or should the word have been "acceptable" or some other word that didn't encourage not getting married but showed that some men and women never lust for sex like Paul. A person with no sex drive is not normal. Maybe his past life killed his passion and love for women, I don't know. But something is not right with a man who is this young and has no sex drive.

    The Bible's authors made many such oversights that cloud issues, that left a broad spectrum of interpretation.

    For myself, as a believer that the Bible is inspired rather than dictated by holy secretaries from Gods own mouth; I can accept Paul's problems with sex, sin, language, ambiguous meanings and his contradictions. I can still learn from his writings, his deep understanding of the spiritual work of Christ and what it means to each of us.

    I attribute the most to Paul after Christ himself. It's just that one was Perfect and one was not.

    [ September 27, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: post-it ]
     
  4. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Paul made no mistake. The Bible made no mistake. God makes no mistakes. And neither does the Bible contradict itself when it says:

    1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    Paul never advocated celibacy for everyone. That is quite obvious if you read the entire chapter. It is also obvious if you read in Timothy that the requirement of a pastor is that he must be the husband of one wife. So what's all this nonsense about Paul being not normal?? Perhaps if you studied the historical context of the first letter to the Corinthians, you would gain some insight into why these verses were written. First look at both verses together:

    1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
    9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

    He did NOT advocate complete celibacy for anyone. Verse 9 is quite clear. If it is not possible for one keep from marrying then by all means marry. Why did Paul say what he did in verse 8 in the first place? Consider history. The church was undergoing an intense persecution. It was during this persecution that this letter was written. He advises these young women and widows to keep themselves from marriage lest they be swallowed up in grief shortly after their marriage because of the persecution. It would be very probable that their new found husband would become a martyr to the faith.

    1Co 7:25 ΒΆ Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
    26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
    27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

    Note carefully verse 26: "This is good (advice) for the present distress" (persecution). If you are married, stay married; if you are single; stay single.

    For myself the Bible is inspired, every word of it. Paul didn't have the problems you attribute to him. Remember that he was a member of the Sanhedrin at one time. A qualifying factor would have been marriage. Thus Paul himself was a widower. There are no contradictions in the Bible, only in the minds of those who cannot understand it.
    DHK
     
  5. M Wickens

    M Wickens
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Post-it said "The Bible's authors made many such oversights that cloud issues, that left a broad spectrum of interpretation."

    Fantastic! Now when I see something that causes me to give something up or is socially unacceptable I can just view it as an oversight of the human authors and disregard it! What freedom!

    Isn't it great to have the freedom to pick and choose what Scripture suits me! Today I will be more popular if I condone homosexuality, so I'll view the Scriptures that condemn it as sin as mere oversights of those old Apostles.

    Hm, now it is I that has the authority as I can pick and choose what parts of the Bible suit and which don't. In that case, I'll just live as I choose and get rid of the Bible all together......
     
  6. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    THAT'S THE POINT! It is God's Word and we have to obey it. Good on ya, M Wickens! [​IMG]
     
  7. preacher

    preacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]. ;)
     
  8. hrhema

    hrhema
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This sound a lot like the excuses I heard from male friends growing up that because of their sexual drives they could not contain themselves and so they committed fornication.

    Everything comes from the heart and mind of man.
    So yes a person can control their lusts or their desires. I don't care how much of a sexual appetite a person is supposed to have it can be controlled.

    The world looks on abstinance as a joke. I had an accident by slipping on ice in the early 80's. Here I was 26 years old not married and a
    virgin and when I was hospitalized for this injury in Texas you had to see a psychologist so I had to take this written test and on the test it asked if you are sexually active and when I said no and gave my explanation when this guy saw it he said I was either Homosexual or lying.
    He could not grasp the idea of purity at all.
    Yet here I was in my mid 20's and pure.

    When I hear people make excuses for why they do something I know it is a choice or a decision they made. No one forced them to do it.
     
  9. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't this amazing! Post-it says that a man with no sex drive "is not right" but he says a man who has lust for another man may be perfectly normal; and all of this in light of the fact that Jesus Christ explicitly said that some men were "given" the gift of celibacy, some because they were born that way and some because the decided to be that way for the kingdom of God.

    His words are found in Matthew chapter 19 in response to the disciples's assertion that, in light of His prohibition of divorce and remarriage, it was better for a man not to marry at all. He says:

    "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb."

    Now we don't find Jesus saying that some men were born with a need for other men, but He does say that some were born with no need for women. Perhpas some men who decide they are "gay" are men who were born with no need for women but some idiot convinced them there had to be something wrong with them because they didn't need a women, so they turn to men.

    Jesus continues,

    "there are be eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men."

    Apparently Daniel and his companions were of this category - they were made eunuchs as slaves so they would not be distracted from their duties by women. According to his promise found in Isaiah that He would give the eunuch which served him a name greater than children, God blessed Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah with a reputation for great godliness and faith.

    Another interesting point here is that the Scripture says God brought Daniel into "tender love" with the prince of the eunuchs, which shows that two men can have a close and tender friendship of a non-sexual nature.

    So much for the Freudian idea that everything man does revolves around sex.

    Then Jesus says,

    "there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

    This refers to men like Paul who decided to be celibate so they could devote themselves more fully to the work of the kingdom. Jesus acknowledges that not everyone has the ability to do this, just as Paul did. Obviously, Paul's teachings about divorce, remarriage and celibacy are just an expostion of the things Jesus said here.

    So when Post-it condemns Paul's teaching he is really condemning Jesus' teaching.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  10. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, so you are saying that Paul gave a special group of people instructions that only apply to them and not to us in our day today.

    When I use this defense using homosexauls earlier with Romans 1, I was hit with "God doesn't change", while he may have been talking about a certain group of people, it even applies today; and what God said at one time, he meant for all time.

    Sorry, but you can't have it both ways unless you are willing to allow my argument back in the post that Romans 1 list of wrong behavior was just for the Idol worshippers that God gave over to their own lust and would not apply to Christian homosexuals.
     
  11. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well you are in direct disagreement with Paul with this belief of yours. Paul admitted that certain men and women could NOT CONTROL their lust and that it was alright for them to marry. So you must be wrong, there are Christians who can't control their lusts.
     
  12. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark
    Points well taken!

    I also wonder did post it ever come up with scripture to back his belief that it was ok to be homosexual, or did he just continuely deny scripture given to him? I have re-read the other thread and I cannot see where he ever gave direct scripture that said it was ok. Just twisted scripture that others gave that said it wasn't.

    And I am a very opened minded woman. I have seen a lot of things and been in a lot of different places. But I cannot understand Joshua, who says he is a Man of God, who made a vow to God to bring His sheep to Him, To guide them, could pssible slander Gods Word, or still be allowed to procede. I am afraid Gods Wrath will not be sweet to taste, nor His torment easy to bare. You will be accountable for all those you lead astray. You should be ashame. I am praying that your heart be changed. You need to repent.

    Sherrie
     
  13. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark you conveniently left out the first part of this verse from Jesus. I assume so you can hide it.

    Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb:

    What exactly is a "born" eunuch? That it would be common place to bring up in scripture. Even Jesus allowed for homosexuals born that way.
     
  14. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Isn't this amazing! Post-it says that a man with no sex drive "is not right" but he says a man who has lust for another man may be perfectly normal

    I think Mark summed it up well concerning Post-it.
     
  15. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark you conveniently left out the first part of this verse from Jesus. I assume so you can hide it.

    Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb:

    What exactly is a "born" eunuch? That it would be common place to bring up in scripture. Even Jesus allowed for homosexuals born that way.
    </font>[/QUOTE]POST-IT,

    Go back and read it again. I did not leave out this statement of Jesus. Your assumption is just plain old wrong.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  16. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are now saying it is normal to be born with no use for women. What asexual is normal? Right. :rolleyes:
     
  17. jasonW*

    jasonW*
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets get a couple of things cleard up. It (Mark's pretty clear post) says nothing of asexuality being 'normal'. Normal implies being of the norm or majority.

    Why is it I always have to give you the correct meaning of words, post-it?

    So, no where does Mark's post imply it is 'normal' to be asexual, just that some are. So your argument is a strawman.

    What other arguments do you have that we can correct?
     
  18. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please give chapter and verse on this idea.
    Murph
     
  19. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    [QB]
     
  20. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can't argue Scripture with guys like Post-it and Joshua. They have a tremendous advantage, from a rhetorical point of view. Your arguments, from a practical point of view, are limited, since you place yourselves in submission to the Scriptures and God the author. So, you are restricted to the limits and borders of Truth, as declared in God's Holy Word.

    They, on the other hand, sit in judgement of God and His Word (I'm not sure whether to say this is humorous or horrifying but in the end if anyone is laughing it will be God, not them). So, they can play the Word like putty in their hands (they think) and never have to submit to the truth that you stand on, at least not on this side of the grave.

    Maybe it's better to stop arguing with them and turn them over in prayer to God.
     

Share This Page

Loading...