Pocket Full of Mumbles

What's done is done, and this puppy's done. Visit me over at Pearls & Lodestones

My Photo
Name:

I would rather create than destroy, build up rather than tear down, move rather than sit, love rather than hate, live purposefully rather than meander, write rather than stare at an empty page...

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Questions to Consider... Updated








Is it permissible for single Christians to spend time at clubs, where drinks flow and men and women dance close and suggestively, listening to base worldy music, hoping to score with some free-spirited member of the opposite sex? The simple answer is 'No. Absolutely not.'

What about single, committed Christian couples? Is it okay for them to go to a nightclub and dance and enjoy themselves, perhaps even have a drink or two? The answer is still 'No. Absolutely not,' for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the damage it does to their testimony when others who know this couple's profession of faith, sees them carousing and acting no differently than all the other sinners in the club. There is also the temptation of drink that is notoriously adept at lowering inhibitions, which could cause this couple to lust for one another and sin sexually.

Christians are to be set apart from the rest of the world. They are a people called out from the world to be separate and holy according to God's will.

Is it okay for non-Christians to spend time at clubs, drinking alcohol, dancing suggestively, and lusting after each other; actively seeking a 'hook-up'? Again, simple answer... No.

And yet some would have us believe it is okay for Gays to spend time at gay clubs, doing the very same things-- Living and acting out immorally. As if that weren't enough gays can now-- according to some --be devoted Christians, and live as gay men and women in committed loving relationships.

But what about activism? Can these committed gay couples take part in activism for gay rights? Can they, say, stroll with others of their sexual persuasion in a Gay Pride March? After all, it is the Christian thing to do to stand up for what is right, especially when doing so may bring about a change in society in how we as a whole view the gay lifestyle. When these committed gay "Christians" go to a Gay Pride March do they seek out Christians who may be protesting the march and ask to pray with them? Ask for understanding? Or do they join with the other gay marchers and take part in reviling their brothers and sisters on the sidelines?

How does marching in a Gay Pride event separate the gay Christian from the world? How does going to gay clubs demonstrate separateness? How many gay Christians in this country and around the world were appalled at how the gay and lesbian community were treated when they expressed a desire to march in Jerusalem? I'll gander a guess and say a good many.

How many reading this have seen a Gay Pride march in person? I'll gander another guess and say, not many. But we've all-- assuming anyone reading this has bothered to look, because the media hides the worst of it --seen the pictures. We've all heard the stories? How much of those stories are true? Perhaps not all of them, but pictures do not lie.

When heterosexuals parade on St. Patrick's day, Christmas, Thanksgiving, and during community festivals, will you see the level of debauchery you'd see at a gay pride march? Will you see massive protests? Will you see police arresting protesters? Violence? And what about the pictures? If you took a few rolls worth of pictures would any of them be a source of embarassment for you? And if so, just what were you shooting at?

My point is this. Homosexuality is a sin against God, and [a crime against] nature. No one is born homosexual. This is what I believe to be true. It is what the Bible clearly shows in language that clearly spells out what God thinks of homosexuality.

Here's a little slideshow from the Jerusalem Gay Pride event. Relatively tame, but then consider the source... Media!

Is this something Christians should desire for the city of Jerusalem? Division, debauchery, licentiousness, protests and arrests? Men dressing as women, acting out effeminately? Gay clubs swollen to capacity by marchers from around the world? Taking part in even more debauchery? Whatever happened to, 'Pray for the peace of Jerusalem'? What ever happened to Jerusalem being a holy city?

And some wonder why there has been so much of an outcry over gays marching in Jerusalem, the city of God, where the throne of David will once again be raised. The city from which righteousness will flow out and cover the entire earth. What, pray tell, is righteous about gay pride? Especially since Pride itself is inherently evil...


Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
--Jude 7

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
-- 2 Peter 2:6













----
I found these images at Stop the Parade Coalition who are striving to stop "filthy behaviour and lewdness"-- inherent in all such marches --in their city of Belfast, and to invite all homosexuals to come out of Sodom and into the family of God. For our Father is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

59 Comments:

Blogger KEvron said...

"Homosexuality is a sin against God, and nature."

how can one sin against nature? have you forgotten the first commandement?

KEvron

November 12, 2006 11:56 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Fair enough. Allow me to amend...

Homosexuality is a sin against God, and a crime against nature."

November 12, 2006 1:07 PM  
Blogger KEvron said...

"....a crime against nature."

how about "nature is a crime against god", as she has seen fit to insert homosexual tendencies throught the animal kingdom.

KEvron

November 12, 2006 2:16 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "Christians are to be set apart from the rest of the world. They are a people called out from the world to be separate and holy according to God's will."

And this is to be made manifest by what they do in Jesus's name, not what they don't do. And what they are to do in Jesus's name is love one another, love God with all their heart, soul and mind, and love their neighbors as themselves.

Pretty much everything else is social mores and customs.

As for the homosexual part of this, you're concentrating, again, on behaviors, not on the state of homosexuality that some people are born with.

As a much more famous Okie, one with a lesbian sister, once said: "But if you're in love, you've got to follow your heart and trust that God will explain to us why we sometimes fall in love with people of the same sex."

And now, this being a chasm that EL and I cannot bridge, I'll try to bow out of this discussion.

November 12, 2006 2:27 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Oh, it was Garth Brooks who said that.

November 12, 2006 2:30 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Animals do not have the Law of God written on their hearts. Animals will not be judged on the last day for sin.

November 12, 2006 2:32 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Oh, that's right, the great scholar and theologian Garth Brooks!

But seriously. You always assume I don't advoke loving homosexuals. Asking them to turn away from their sin is a very loving thing to do, besides which, I am commanded to do so...

"When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."

--Ezekiel 3:18-19

As I love God, as I love Jesus, and as I love myself, I am to warn the wicked [my neighbor, whatever his foibles] that if he chooses to continue in his sin he will die in his sin and reap that just recompense that God's Law demands. It is love that compels me to invite them to the marriage feast of the Lamb. It is love-- albeit a selfish love --that compels me to ask that they not make me have to watch as they are cast into outer darkness. And I pray they listen, and believe that I care about what happens to them.

November 12, 2006 2:50 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Garth was speaking from experience. Most people who are kin to a homosexual are a lot quicker to let go and let God -- that is, let go of their own tatses and preferences, and let God's grace flow.

BTW: Gospel is "good news."

God hates your sin and you're going to hell is not good news.

"God hates all our sin and loves us so much he died for us so we could all go to heaven" -- that's the Gospel.

Each of us is called to repent. None of us can gauge the repentance of another -- which is one reason your set-up above -- Christians dancing! Christians drinking! The horror! -- gets no traction outside fundamentalist circles.

November 12, 2006 3:37 PM  
Blogger KEvron said...

"Animals do not have the Law of God written on their hearts."

i didn't say god, el. like you, i said "nature".

"nature"....

KEvron

November 12, 2006 11:02 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Nature didn't spring up by itself, Kev. God created nature.

November 12, 2006 11:29 PM  
Blogger aaronjasonsilver said...

GAY “PRIDE MARCHES”

Even though I am a gay man I do have reservations about gay pride marches. I live in the U.S. so I am looking at this issue from within an American cultural context. I do not believe that gay “pride marches” are helpful in furthering the causes for equal rights for gays under the laws of the land which was meant initially to celebrate the diversity of all people and to demonstrate to the world that not all gay people look and act the same has in my mind backfired. Instead of furthering gay causes in which these “gay pride” marches were once intended to accomplish, have now just become parades, lacking integrity and a common or substantial goal. Therefore we first need to call them what they truly are, parades, not marches. These parades tend to attract many of the subcultures within the gay community which are not at all representative of the vast majority of gay people. These subcultures are often made up of individuals that are exhibitionists and these parades are just another opportunity for them express those abhorrent needs. They in no way demonstrate to the society at large, which are the heterosexuals and incidentally our largest voting constituency, that we are anything but the stereotypes that they believe us to be, and we ourselves have created and need to take responsibility for that.

During the tumultuous times of the late fifties and sixties when Dr. Martin Luther King would peacefully gather individuals together to march down the streets of many of our cities or in front of the nation’s capital with one noble goal in mind. All of the participants of these well organized marches seemed to never loose sight of the vision of Dr King and his lofty and rightful goal of attaining equal rights and complete assimilation into the dominant white society. His desire was to demonstrate their cause peacefully and with an air of class and dignity that seemed to surround the participants of these marches.

Do any of you that are old enough, or have at least watched footage of these marches, ever recall anyone behaving in a sexually exploitive manner? Do any of you remember anyone marching without being fully clothed? Do any of you remember anyone pride fully exposing their countless nipple piercings and many with the backs of their pants cut out for the sole purpose of exposing their bare rear ends? Does anyone really and truthfully believe that these behaviors are going to further the rights for gays? On the contrary, all these “parades” do is to deepen the age-old stereotypes of gays and their sexually exploitive lifestyles. Being a gay man myself, I am embarrassed at these parades, and let’s call them what they are. They are parades, not marches, which are organized for the purpose of exploiting the exhibitionists and their desire to be a part of just another party. It seems to me that gay culture has reduced itself to this need for endless partying and delighting over inappropriate street theater. There is a time and place for theater of all kinds. However, let’s not blur the lines or fool ourselves into believing that these parades are going to benefit anyone other than the voyeuristic nature of those that enjoy inappropriate street theater. If gays really and truly want to make progress in regards to equal rights, then perhaps we ought to borrow some very important lessons from the days the civil rights movements under the leadership of Martin Luther King and his style of furthering the common cause that they all shared. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver. asilver@wmis.net

November 13, 2006 6:30 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"How many reading this have seen a Gay Pride march in person?"

Me, for one.

Me and my church have gladly marched with our gay brothers and sisters - including some men who may have dressed in women's clothes - Egad! and some who may have, indeed, been sinners!

How dast we parade about with "sinners"? At least three reasons come to mind.

1. We're sinners are self and we'll be a mighty lonesome and small church if we hang out only with non-sinners. (A church of none!)

2. Jesus hung out with sinners.

3. Jesus would have us be about doing Justice and practicing Love. These marches have been about Justice and Love.

What of it?

(And you'll forgive us, I trust, if we disagree with you about the sinful status of homosexuality?)

November 13, 2006 7:55 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

You quoted one verse from the book of Jude. Let's look at that in context:

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

NOTE: the problem here is "licentiousness," or a license for immorality. Most gay Christians and their supporters are trying to live moral lives, committed and married - if they could be - to one partner, hardly licentiousness.

Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.


NOTE: Again, we're not advocating perversion or immorality, but fidelity and faithfulness.

In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.


"Speaking abusively about things they don't understand," sounds more like some of the anti-gay Christians than the gay Christians I know.

"Why, doesn't nature itself tell us that homosexuality is wrong?!" those who reject the notion of Gay Christians might say. They instinctively know that THEY are straight and only attracted to the opposite sex, so doesn't logic tell us that everyone else must be the same way?!

Well, no. Not in fact.

November 13, 2006 8:06 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Thank you for stopping by Aaron. I appreciate your comments.

November 13, 2006 9:55 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

1. "...we'[d] be a mighty lonesome and small church if we h[u]ng out only with non-sinners. (A church of none!)"

Agreed. Everyone here today is a sinner.


2. "Jesus hung out with sinners."

Agreed. Everyone here today [as well as in Jesus' day] are/were sinners. What choice did He have but to hang out with sinners? What you fail to grasp is Jesus did not condone their sin. He forgave those who were contrite and believing, telling them to go and sin no more. He condemned those who couldn't see the forest for the trees, telling them they would die in their sins and not enter into the kingdom of heaven. So you're only partially right here.

3. Jesus would have us be about doing Justice and practicing Love.

Nope. Sorry. While doing justice and practicing love is certainly part of what it means to BE a Christian, it is not what Jesus wants us to "be about". We are to be out in the fields bringing in a harvest...

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- Mark 16:15-16

And this is evidenced by the work of those who have gone before us; by the very fact that evangelism is alive and well today. The bible says if a man does not work, neither shall he eat. This obviously speaks to a natural application, but it also speaks to a spiritual truth... Faith without works is dead. If a man will not work he may not be saved at all, and will then not join in the feast at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

So. You're half right. Good effort, but you can do better.

November 13, 2006 10:24 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Grab for as much context as you wish Dan, but I distinctly remember you recently saying the sin of Sodom was only mentioned one place in the entire bible... Ezekiel 16:49... with no mention of sexual perversion. Jude 7 pooh-poohs that quite nicely.

Furthermore, while searching for a context to refute my use of Jude 7, you miss entirely the context of Jude 7, which is found in verse 5...

"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."

Jude is asking us to remember what happens to those who do not believe, for God destroyed those who believed not after the exodus. Just as He destroyed those who believed not in Sodom's day; and He graciously tells us why-- "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh". Just as He will destroy those who believe not in this day. Again, for the very same reasons... If God spared not the Sodomites for their sexual perversions, and God changes not, will He not also punish us today for OUR sexual perversions? Homosexual or otherwise?

November 13, 2006 10:48 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"I distinctly remember you recently saying the sin of Sodom was only mentioned one place in the entire bible"

You've misremembered. What I've said multiple times and places about Ezekiel is that this is the place where God tells us in God's own words what the sin of Sodom is. I never said it wasn't mentioned anywhere else.

An honest mistake, I'm sure.

You went on to say:
"Jude is asking us to remember what happens to those who do not believe, for God destroyed those who believed not after the exodus."

Who doesn't believe? Me? My gay brothers and sisters? We are ALL believers and followers of Jesus, the Christ, by whose Grace we are saved.

Or shall you decide for us whether or not we believe?

God may let us perish by our perversions, but seeking a loving, committed relationship - gay or straight - is never condemned as a perversion in the bible.

So, with or without your permission, we remain believers in Christ, saved by his Grace. Amen and Hallelujah!

November 13, 2006 1:03 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Congratulations for selling out the truth. For trading away the faith for a bunch of feel-good platitudes. I'm sure God will be well pleased.

You do your gay "Christian" friends no favors by lying to them, by telling them God is pleased with their sin.

Your friends are welcome in my church any time. They will be told the truth there. We'll even invite them to repent and find forgiveness in Christ Jesus. We'll help them walk away from the life that bars them from the promise of Heaven. If they are truly Christian, we'll help them return to Christ and find favor once more with God.

November 13, 2006 1:39 PM  
Anonymous BenT said...

How does your understanding of the bible interpret the relationships of
Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and Daniel and Ashpenaz? There's a view of these three relationships here.

November 13, 2006 2:25 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Just as you'd be offered the opportunity to repent and enter fellowship at my church, dude.

Hell, we won't even condemn you to hell if you get something wrong... That would be God's role, not ours.

November 13, 2006 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is like alcoholism. Do you ever see alcoholics march for "Drunk Rights?"

November 13, 2006 6:12 PM  
Blogger KEvron said...

"Nature didn't spring up by itself, Kev. God created nature."

actually, nature created man, and man created god. he also created hate and prejudice.

KEvron

November 13, 2006 6:51 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"We'll help them walk away from the life that bars them from the promise of Heaven."

EL, the worst you can say is that they are/I am wrong about a sin. I think you're wrong even about that, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right and I'm wrong.

Are you saying that everyone who is wrong about a sin is going to hell? What sort of messed up, sadistic god do you serve that makes fallible humans who are not omniscient and then punishes them for not being omniscient?

November 13, 2006 9:57 PM  
Blogger KEvron said...

"Homosexuality is like alcoholism."

no, it's "conservatism is like alcoholism". no, it's "theism is like alcoholism". no, wait: "partiotism is like alcoholis"....it's gotta be one of those....

dunderheaded slogans don't make fact. they make hate.

KEvron

November 13, 2006 11:17 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Naomi was Ruth's mother-in-law. Jonathan and David were best friends. Ashpenaz was chief eunich and Daniel the King's slave... So what? I know the Liberal kook theories surrounding these three relationships, and it surprises me greatly that someone as well read as yourself can't grasp the nature of a close ralationship between mother and daughter, friend to friend, master to slave, as described in the written word. Can it be your grasp of language is as poor as your comment suggests? On top of that, no ability to extrapolate whatsoever!

For example:
If Daniel was so concerned about defiling himself with the king's meat, why would he defile himself by having a sexual relationship with someone to whom he was not married? Short answer? He wouldn't.

Why would Ruth abandon her mother-in-law simply because her husband was dead? How long had Ruth lived with her new family? What kind of bond was shared between Ruth and her inlaws?

Why would the chief eunich, who had no parts to perform with, have a relationship with a slave of the King? Especially since Ashpenaz was a slave of the King himself? Nubuchadnezzar was not a kindly King; servants and slaves lost their lives at the drop of a hat in Nubuchadnezzar's court.


Similarly, many people have thought Frodo and Sam to be closet gay's, because they loved one another. Yet these same people fail to understand the level to which men of Tolkien's day esteemed and loved each other. The same cannot be said of men today, unless you're in an organization such as the military wherein men find themselves in situations that require they rely upon each other to get through. Furthermore, Christians are commanded to love one another. How gay does that sound? What about Jesus and 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'? Does that also sound gay? Good grief!

Scholars who claim David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, are anything BUT scholars. They are, quite frankly, idiots. It should go without saying that a scholar is one who studies and is learned, and that is the generally accepted definition, but far too many people take that title to mean such a one's word also holds great authority... Anyone with a modicum of commonsense should be able to see the flaw in THAT bit of logic.

November 14, 2006 12:04 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Did you bother to read the Book of Ruth? 1st and 2nd Samuel? The Book of Daniel? Or did you simply go to the internet looking for something salacious?

No honest read of these four books-- based on a knowledge of custom, and language --would leave a reader with an impression of homosexual behavior shared between the parties you've mentioned.

As for the people who espouse such tripe, it's merely wishful thinking for reprobates.

November 14, 2006 12:18 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

I repeat the question (since you've had a busy day...):

Assuming you're correct, for argument's sake:

Are you saying that everyone who is wrong about a sin is going to hell? What sort of messed up, sadistic god do you serve that makes fallible humans who are not omniscient and then punishes them for not being omniscient?

November 14, 2006 12:37 AM  
Anonymous BenT said...

You ask some questions EL.

"If Daniel was so concerned about defiling himself with the king's meat, why would he defile himself by having a sexual relationship with someone to whom he was not married?"
Perhaps because sexual relationships between men were not viewed the same way as between men and women. Today in the middle east in countries where relations between men and women are so tightly regulated, there are thriving economies of male prostitutes. Men who use these services are not assumed to be gay, and there is little social stigma attached either. The same may have been true in David's day.

Why would Ruth abandon her mother-in-law simply because her husband was dead?
Because in those days it was the custom. In those days women gained status through marriage. Without it their class was reduced to very little. They would almost be forced to live on charity. Ruth had to have great affect for her mother-in-law to brook such social ostracism.

Why would the chief eunuch, who had no parts to perform with, have a relationship with a slave of the King?
Who knows how much of a eunuch the slave master was? Perhaps only the bollocks were removed.

I was only asking your opinion of these three same-sex relationships in the bible. They all have language surrounding them that can be interpreted as sexual. Your strident reaction to even the discussion of such ideas show how much you might fear a loving god. How you are wedded to the idea of a repressive, disapproving, torturer for a deity.

I tell you again EL look as the cosmos. By studying the creation you learn about the creator.

November 14, 2006 2:00 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

"Three same-sex relationships"

Based on what?

"And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me... Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept. And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people... And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her [saying] Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

Do you seriously see a same-sex relationship there? I've left out the parts where Orpah and Ruth's husbands have died. You claim to understand custom, so did you know that according to the commentary written by Jamieson Fausset and Brown (1871) that such kissing was the Oriental custom of friends parting ways? Of course not, you're simply pulling information off the internet that agreed with your own position.


How about this?

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants."

David, a young boy, had just killed Goliath and was brought before Saul the King, to be rewarded. Jonathan, the King's son, and much older than David, was obviously impressed that so small a boy had managed to kill a 9 foot tall giant of a man with a rock and a sling. The gifts were clearly given in admiration and affection... but not a same-sex relationship.

As for Daniel. Daniel is the ONLY man other than Jesus about whom the bible has nothing bad to say. The book in fact says Daniel was a man 'Greatly beloved' of God. When Daniel purposed in his heart to not defile himself with the King's meat, it logically follows that he chose to not defile himself in any other way as well. Sex outside of marriage would certainly have defiled him. Besides which the only verse you can point to to suggest a same-sex relationship is Daniel 1:9 which reads, "Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs." As God must punish sin, He would never have brought daniel into 'tender love' in terms of a sexual sin-- for all sex outside of marriage IS sin.

You're grasping at straws here to attack my 'interpretation' of the Bible, which has NOTHING good to say about homosexuality. And the fact that the word HOMOSEXUALITY cannot be found in the bible is irrelevent. The word Rapture can't be found either in the English language, but you will find it in the Latin Vulgate-- but that's a topic and post for another time.

Your error here is you're not even bothering to read what the bible has to say, relying instead on internet scholars with their own agendas. And that's not particularly scholarly of you.

November 14, 2006 9:04 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

"Are you saying that everyone who is wrong about a sin is going to hell?"

No. I'm saying that anyone whose sin is not covered by the blood of Jesus, that same 'anyone' will go to hell. I am further saying anyone caught in homosexuality is unlikely to have the blood applied to their sins. A genuinely saved person caught in the lie of homosexuality would be under tremendous pressure of guilt and conviction of the Holy Spirit, it would show outwardly, and such a one would either repent or die in their sin. As to what God will do with such a one, I leave that to God. But the practicing homosexual who comes to the altar and God's free gift of salvation, who then shows no evidence of conviction and repentance is not one of His.

November 14, 2006 9:25 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 14, 2006 10:00 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 14, 2006 10:01 AM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

"Sanctimonious twit?" Thanks for deleting that.

"Sanctimonious, pompous twit?" I'll delete that one. Please try to curb your outrage. I said "unlikely".

A saved man or woman may fall into any manner of sin, including homosexuality, does such a man go to hell? Not according to God's word. But at the same time, God will chastise that soul until it either repents, or God takes that soul out of the world to save what testimony it has left.

An unsaved man who lives the homosexual lifestyle who comes to the saving knowledge of Christ who steadfastly refuses to cast off his lifestyle-- he is after all a 'new creature' --the veracity of salvation is seriously in doubt.

I'm not going to allow you to follow in footsteps of KEvron. Pompous? Perhaps-- that's certainly something to investigate. Twit? That word has no merit whatsoever since it's obvious you dredged that word up out of... Anger? Indignation? Self-righteous indignation?

For myself, I'm simply trying to earnestly contend for a faith you seem to have abandoned.

November 14, 2006 11:44 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

Be fair. If you're going to delete my message because I called a spade a spade (like you be willing to say something as outrageous as I've "seemingly abandoned" my faith!), at least acknowledge that as soon as I accused you of being pompous and sanctimonious, I immediately identified myself in the same terms.

The point is, sometimes YOU will be wrong about a sin. I'd contend that God is working with you right now, convicting you of supporting this Iraq War to the degree that you have and of accusing all manner of brothers and sisters in Christ of "abandoning the faith," and like charges. And you may or may not ever realize the error of your way.

Here's hoping God is as gracious as I think he is and forgives you your ignorance and hard-heartedesss rather than being as vindictive as you seem to think God is and condemn you in the same.

November 14, 2006 12:16 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

"Ignorance and hard-heartedness..."

You only say this because we bitterly disagree on whether or not Homosexuality is a sin. But your assessment couldn't be more untrue.

God is not at all vindictive... that is a human trait. God is Holy and Pure and Righteous; He cannot even look upon sin. My concern is for the souls of those who are caught in the lie that Homosexuality is fine and dandy with God. You see my attitude as ignorant and hard-hearted. We obviously disagree... Big Surprise!

I do not hate nor advocate hatred of homosexuals. If I call a spade a spade why should you take offense unless you personally identify yourself as a spade (which I don't believe)? Telling someone that unless they repent of their sins and put their trust in Jesus they WILL die in their sins, and they will go to hell, is not hate speech. It's love speech.

Everyone who doesn't put their trust in Jesus will go to hell, and that includes everyone not of the Christian faith. There won't be any hindus in heaven, nor muslims, nor buddhists. They will all be either members of the Bride of Christ or Tribulation saints. Because "Faith (in Christ) cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God..." not the Vedic Scriptures, not the Qur'an, not the Book of Mormon, and certainly not The Watch Tower magazine. There is only one way. One truth. One life. And that Way is is found in Christ alone.

November 14, 2006 12:35 PM  
Anonymous BenT said...

EL I suggest again that you actually read the link. The reason I called these same-sex relationships was because they were between 2 men and 2 women.

Ruth and Naomi - Were they a couple? Probably not, but in those days women without husbands or fathers had no social status. For Naomi to refuse to return to her father's house was a huge thing. For her to almost become like a leper in Ruth's home country shows a greater than normal affection for the other woman.

Jonathon and David - Did you read the text you pasted? "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul....Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." Jonathon fell in love with David and stripped naked. Seems a bit more than appreciation to me.

Daniel and the Slave Master (sounds like a gay story already) - You know that Abraham had a bastard son? Ever heard of Ishmael? God didn't seem to mind extramarital sex too much in the old testament.

I tell you this EL if you can't even discuss other interpretations then your faith is more brittle than spun glass. You should not have a blog to discuss faith and truth if you can not subject your own personal truths to debate. And if you can only resort to personal attacks when your beliefs are questioned then your beliefs are likely of dubious truth.

November 14, 2006 1:08 PM  
Blogger mom2 said...

I shudder when I see scripture so grossly presented to accomodate someone's personal opinion. I am not young and never have I thought or heard the relationship between Ruth & Naomi, Jonathon & David and I forgot your third pair - presented in such a way as to portray it as homosexual. The culture of today glorifies all kinds of abhorrent sexual dalliances but to suggest that they are right is foolish. The Word tells us that in the last days right will be called wrong and wrong will be called right. It is happening.
Tell me where it said that Jonathon stripped down to nakedness.

November 14, 2006 1:45 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

I tried the link last night at the station and here at the house but the page wouldn't load. I may try again this evening.

My faith is not at all brittle-- I know what I believe and why I believe it. Just because I refuse to entertain the fairy tales you've presented as biblical truth only means I choose to defer to better learned people than yourself. I can read for myself. I have a firm grasp of language. And nowhere in the passage you threw back at me does it say or imply that Jonathan fell in love with David in a sexual way. Nor does it say or imply that he stripped naked in front of him.

You're simply wrong on this. 180 degrees wrong.

November 14, 2006 1:59 PM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

A minor correction. Ben said:

"For Naomi to refuse to return to her father's house was a huge thing. For her to almost become like a leper in Ruth's home country shows a greater than normal affection for the other woman."

It was Ruth who refused to return to her father's house, committing instead to stay with her mother-in-law, Naomi. But Ben is absolutely correct in stating what a HUGE step this was.

Naomi ("call me 'bitter'," she says) was writing her life off and encouraged her still-young daughters-in-law to go home so they might remarry. Instead, Ruth the Moabite chose to return to Israel - Moab's hated enemy. A place where Ruth was bound to expect to be treated badly. She stuck with Naomi, nonetheless, out of love.

She even gave that stirring passage that is so often used in marriages today, "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God."

Whatever the nature of their relationship, it was clearly one of love.

November 14, 2006 2:20 PM  
Blogger KEvron said...

"The Word tells us that in the last days right will be called wrong and wrong will be called right. It is happening."

clearly, your faith brings you endless joy....

KEVron

November 14, 2006 7:16 PM  
Blogger KEvron said...

btw, betsy, i left a response for you on this thread.

KEvron

November 14, 2006 7:27 PM  
Blogger mom2 said...

clearly, your faith brings you endless joy....

kevronius, Yes, my faith brings me joy and peace. You should try it.

If you are referring me to your site, no thanks. I put a watch on my eyes.

November 14, 2006 8:53 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

This is just nuts.

"No. I'm saying that anyone whose sin is not covered by the blood of Jesus, that same 'anyone' will go to hell. I am further saying anyone caught in gluttony is unlikely to have the blood applied to their sins. A genuinely saved person caught in the lie of gluttony would be under tremendous pressure of guilt and conviction of the Holy Spirit, it would show outwardly -- that is, they would lose weight and keep it off -- and such a one would either repent or die in their sin. As to what God will do with such a one, I leave that to God. But the practicing glutton who comes to the altar and God's free gift of salvation, who then shows no evidence of conviction and repentance is not one of His."

Bull. Crap. EL, you "pick and choose" homosexual behavior from among behaviors discouraged in the Bible, and hold it out as the unforgiveable sin. Amazing.

Your stance is biblical -- and unChristian. And they most certainly are not the same thing.

November 14, 2006 10:51 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

"...from among behaviors discouraged in the Bible"

Thank-you, ER, for finally admitting homosexuality is a behavior discouraged in the Bible.

November 15, 2006 2:35 AM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

No, Sir. You have twisted my words, inadvertantly, I'm sure.

I said that homosexual behavior is discouraged in the Bible. I think it is. Paul seems to. But Paul, a creature of his own time and place, says a bunch of things that are invalid today because we are NOT living in his time or place.

I did NOT say that homosexuality -- the state of being that we call homosexuality -- is discouraged in the Bible. It is not mentioned in the Bible.

My take is this: Welcome homosexuals into the church. The Bible says what it says. What they do about it is between them and God -- just as what I do about my own relationships, sexual and otherwise, with other people, and my relationship with God, is between me and God.

And, as you know, "it's in the Bible" is NOT the end of the discussion for me on ANY topic. That is the beginning of the discussion. :-)

November 15, 2006 6:52 AM  
Blogger mom2 said...

And, as you know, "it's in the Bible" is NOT the end of the discussion for me on ANY topic. That is the beginning of the discussion. :-)
November 15, 2006 6:52 AM

Does this mean that you would go to other sources with equal confidence? That is foolish because it would seem that you place some "man" or "woman" in the same status with God.

November 15, 2006 2:13 PM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

No. I don't place the Bible in the same status with God.

November 15, 2006 3:03 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

If you welcome Gays into your church you do well. If you accept their lifestyle as normal or blessed of God you err. Simple as that.

For welcoming them in the front door and loving them, I applaud you. For condoning their continued walk in ungodliness, I scratch my head and wonder what's happened to YOUR walk.

But since you've stated in the past that the Bible, while a repository of truth, is not entirely authoritative for all the errors it contains, I'm not surprised at all. What does surprise me is how you can be 100% sure that you are saved when the bible you use, for spiritual growth and the very knowledge of the plan of salvation, is flawed! If that book was even the slightest bit wrong, none of us would have any assurance of heaven. And that directly contradicts God's word.

November 16, 2006 8:23 AM  
Blogger mom2 said...

The other source I was referring to, was not the Bible. I place the same confidence in the Bible and God. My question was, as to whether you would go to (other) peoples opinions to form your opinion. It seems people today place so much confidence in the culture of the day and talk like God is ever changing with the culture.

November 16, 2006 9:15 AM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

The following is true only if one bases one's faith on the Bible -- and specifically one's understand and interpretation of it -- rather than God himself!

"If that book was even the slightest bit wrong, none of us would have any assurance of heaven."

I didn't think that when I was a young Southern Baptist even because of the old see-through-a-glass-darkly thing.

On a related point: I believe in absolute truth. But I don't believe than unregenerated humans can ever know it clearly.

November 16, 2006 11:05 AM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

Re, "For condoning their continued walk in ungodliness, I scratch my head and wonder what's happened to YOUR walk."

Wow. Harsh.

But I don't "condone" their ungodliness any more than I condone fat preachers, people who drink too much sometimes, everyday people who make mistakes all the time or any other sinner. It's not up to me to condone or condemn! It's up to me to love unconditionally as much as I am able.

November 16, 2006 11:07 AM  
Blogger Erudite Redneck said...

BTW mom2, I don't believe God has changed. I do believe that humankind's concept of God has changed over time, which is about the only way, I believe, that the wrathful God of the O.T. can be reconciled with the forgiving, loving God of the N.T.

November 16, 2006 7:27 PM  
Blogger mom2 said...

Is it my concept of God then or what do you think Luke 21:5-37 might be talking about? I think a righteous God is going to make things right and I doubt that our evaluation of what is right and what is wrong will be the deciding factor.

November 16, 2006 11:21 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

I agree. God's primary concern is what HE knows is right, He's far less concerned with our ideas of right and wrong, except perhaps that He desires we accept HIS version of Right[eousness]. And if we want to know what God thinks is right-- and what is wrong --we need only look to His word.

Jesus prayed to the Father, in the presence of His disciples... "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." --john 17:17

God hasn't changed, God's interpretation of Right and Wrong hasn't changed. But man has... and hasn't. Man has changed his mind a million times and more since the beginning, but his nature hasn't. His nature is still in enmity toward God. But according to Jesus, if we would be sanctified-- set apart for God's use --all we need do is stay in His word.

Getting back to a comment ER made...

"Wow. Harsh.... It's not up to me to condone..."

Harsh, perhaps, by our standards. No one likes the idea of potentially hurting another person's feelings; or rather, no one should like hurting other's feelings. But if you're going to love someone you're going to have to be honest with them, and sometimes the truth is hard to hear... feelings get hurt. And no, it is not up to any of us to condone anything, but we are to correct bad behavior, or at the very least speak out against it, when we encounter it. To do otherwise IS to condone bad behavior. You don't let a child steal from a toy store and not punish him for it... you take him back to the store, make him give it back and insist he apologize and promise not to do it again. The book of Proverbs says you spoil the child when you spare the rod.

As for the injunction against judging in Matthew 7:1-5, it is directed to hypocrites. And since we're all prone to hypocrisy, how then do we make that injunction jibe with 1 Corinthians 2:15?

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

I believe the difference lies in our attitude, and the intent of our heart. We HAVE to make judgments, but it is not our place to condemn.

I HAVE to tell the wicked that if they don't repent they will die in their sins. If I don't, their blood is on my hands [Ezekiel 3:18].

I HAVE to tell the homosexual he/she is doomed unless they repent and accept Christ as the propitiation for their sin. If I care anything about them, I have to try to keep them from falling over the edge.

It IS judgment, but it is not condemnation. And it ultimately has nothing to do with their homosexuality... but everything to do with the state of their soul. Is it lost or redeemed? How could I possibly know for sure? So why take a gamble on their eternal destination? Why NOT warn them of the dangers that lie ahead? Better safe than sorry, after all. Better to warn them despite any hurt feelings. Let the Spirit of God work conviction in their hearts; that's completely beyond me. My only job is to plant the seed. God makes it spring to life and grow to either bear fruit, or wither away. Not me.

All God expects of me is to plant seed. And seek to reap a harvest in due course. God gives the increase.

November 17, 2006 12:19 AM  
Anonymous BenT said...

"God's interpretation of Right and Wrong hasn't changed. ... And it ultimately has nothing to do with their homosexuality... but everything to do with the state of their soul. Is it lost or redeemed? How could I possibly know for sure?"

I posting these two sentences El because I want to show you what you just said.

You said in effect, "I have no way of knowing anyone else's personal relationship with the universe's creator." But a few sentences earlier you said, "I know what a being that created a universe 87-billion light years across, containing uncountable stars thinks is moral and dissolute with 100% accuracy."

Your iron-hard stances on what are and aren't approved of god are a form of arrogance that stunt your faith. It was only when I began having doubt about the teachings of my birth-faith that I began to seek answers that helped me become a more loving, happier and compassionate person.

November 17, 2006 10:17 AM  
Blogger Dan Trabue said...

"I HAVE to tell the homosexual he/she is doomed unless they repent and accept Christ as the propitiation for their sin."

I disagree, of course, on the notion of homosexuality as sin.

BUT, if you're going to do this, be sure to do it for the heterosexual, as well. And the greedy. And the bad tippers. Be sure to go around telling ALL sinners that they are doomed unless they repent of their sin and accept Jesus. Don't single out gays and that one particular sin.

I'm curious: When you approach a greedy person with the Gospel, do you honestly talk about their GREED as the sin that's going to keep them separated from God? Or do you talk about their need for God in general?

Or, suppose you're talking to your neighbor and he says something about cheating on his taxes. Do you go into a sermon on the evil of cheating and beg him to repent, lest he be doomed?

I'm honestly curious: Do you treat all sins the way you treat homosexuality, which you consider to be a sin? Or is it somehow a worse sin than others, to you? Is attending R-rated movies or running red lights a "sin against God and a crime against nature" like homosexuality is?

November 17, 2006 10:26 AM  
Blogger mom2 said...

Dan, WHAT IS THIS OBSESSION you have with homosexuality all about?

November 17, 2006 6:43 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

In answer to BenT's unstated question... Yes. I can read God's word-- His Testimony --and compare that to the evils of this world; in effect, making proper judgments as to what He does and does not approve. I cannot, however, read another man's heart... Or soul.

But as to the heart, God said through the prophet Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" [Jeremiah 17:9]

Well, I certainly can't... God can. What I CAN do is study the tree, "For every tree is known by his own fruit," [Luke 6:44] or rather, 'by its works'.

There is no contradiction here however much you wish to see one. There is further no arrogance in or about standing "iron"-firm in support of God's mission, and that includes calling Sin, sin.

My faith is not stunted in the least by this. If anything, it is strengthened, and free to grow as high as the heavens.

November 17, 2006 11:57 PM  
Blogger ELAshley said...

Moving on...

'When I approach a greedy person' ?

How am I to know if any given person is greedy? For that matter, how am I to know if any person I approach is gay? I reckon the answer is 'Proximity and Familiarity'.

More often than not one can know a guy is gay after a short conversation-- it is such a huge part of who he is that it stands out, front and center, almost immediately. But beyond that, it doesn't make sense to confront ANYone with a particular sin. That will surely get their ire up and close their hearts to the Gospel.

If our primary concern is to see souls saved, then the Law is the best tool we have. Jesus repeatedly used the Law to demonstrate to the crowds and individuals who came to him that they needed a covering for their sins... "That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." --Matthew 5:20

Paul said, "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet" --Romans 7:7. Therefore by using the Law to illustrate a persons need for Jesus you avoid the inevitable confrontation that results when pointing a finger at particular sins.

Of course this can change if the person brings up a particular sin themselves, but even then one needs to exercise a measure of compassion, while at the same time remaining firm and uncompromising of the truth.

But on forums such as this blog, tackling specific subjects such as homosexuality... Or greed... provides a psuedo "voice-crying-in-the-wilderness" soap-box. Here, I have the luxury of speaking out against any and all things unGodly, and none of these posts need address a specific individual, but rather "sin" in general-- as it applies to all people.

Since "...all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" [Romans 3:23], and even the tiniest of white-lies can doom an otherwise righteous person to hell, it then follows that all sin is equal in importance-- as it pertains to one's eternal destination. Homosexuality, while an abomination as far as scripture is concerned, is not anymore damning than stealing a candy bar.

Now, as to entertainment... Some films and television shows aren't suitable for anyone. And that includes nearly ALL R rated movies. One thing a Christian should always be conscious of, in terms of stewardship, is where he invests the money he earns. When he plunks down seven to ten bucks at the movies or twenty for a DVD, for what, exactly, is he paying to see? Or hear?

Example: Last Spring I went to see "Slither" at the theater... It was excessively laced with profanity; namely, GD's and JC's, MF's and you name it... it was in there. The film would have been a perfectly good horror romp WITHOUT the profanity, but if you think about it, I layed down six bucks plus popcorn to hear my Lord's name repeatedly abused and dragged through filth. Did I waste my money? Most certainly. Did I demonstrate poor stewardship? Most certainly. Would I buy the DVD or recommend the film to others? Absolutely not.

Lastly. Is tipping poorly really a sin? Is it truly evidence of greed?

November 18, 2006 12:51 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home