Struggling to come to terms with something I have read in the bible.

[maleka]

I would very much like to see where in the NT Paul was given the authority to decide what is and isn't a sin.

Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostle means to be a witness. To me that means he represented Jesus Christ while he was teaching.

In his letter to the Galatians he says:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" Gal 1:11-12

To me this means that whatever commandment Paul gave to the members of the church, came directly from Jesus Christ by revelation.

 

[smitten508]

I like Paul as much as any blood bought catholic, but I'm tired of seeing HIS words used as proof of what God has to say about things! Read the red words in your Bible, those are Christ's words. CHRIST is our redeemer, not Paul! Christ is our namesake and our life, not Paul or any other fallible apostle. I'm gay, I'm catholic, I'm within Gods grace. I deal with me. I do not sin when I lay with my partner, we're together and practice monogamy. We're both sealed by the holy spirit. Btw, the holy spirit is the one that is supposed to convict us of sin, not a person... So let that be between the person and holy spirit. And don't let the alleged facts of a person, preacher, priest or lay, affect YOUR relationship with your creator and God!

 

[free spirit]

Paul was an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostle means to be a witness. To me that means he represented Jesus Christ while he was teaching.

In his letter to the Galatians he says:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" Gal 1:11-12

To me this means that whatever commandment Paul gave to the members of the church, came directly from Jesus Christ by revelation.

Were did you get this definition from? Please

 

[McBell]

Apostle means to be a witness.

Equivocate much?

 

[simplytruth]

Hello Enlighten;

Anyway I would be interested to know what both christians and non-christians think about this dilema (well to me it is a dilema), does this mean that I am sinning as I'm not opposing my family members? As you will gather, although I have been thinking about it long and hard, I still havent drawn my conclusion yet as I dont feel it is my place to judge someone because of their sexuality as I am not judged on mine (well not that I know of).

It is written,
"Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" John 7:24

"You judge by human standards (or flesh); I pass judgment on NO one." John 8:15

"As for the person who hears my words but does NOT keep them, I do
NOT judge him. For I did NOT come to judge the world, but to SAVE it." John 12:47

Therefore, if you are a christian, I would ask that you follow the heart of Christ,
and do NOT judge. But instead, LOVE with ALL the essence of your eternal being.

Eternal Truth, Life & Love

simplytruth

 

[Alceste]

Yep totally - I made this point (obv not in these words) earlier, as the BIG focus seems to be on homosexuality these days, what about all the other sins or "abominations"?

Somebody put forward in another thread that homophobia is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry. Homosexuality gets all the attention because it has a human face, and is a fixed group toward which hatred and bigotry can be directed. You couldn't satisfy the tribal human desire to hate / punish / oppress / feel superior toward a group of outsiders if you went up against shellfish-eaters, lepers, menstruating woman-touchers or beard-trimmers instead of homosexuals. All these things are also abominations - some of them, like the rules against touching menstruating women, get more airtime than sodomy.

So why is it that homosexuals such get a thrashing while Christian women get to let their hair hang loose in the chapel and eat rabbit and shellfish? They're an ostensibly identifiable group. A Christian woman might wear a hat one Sunday and not the next, and a Christian man might have sacrilegious bacon for breakfast and wholesome beef for lunch, but a gay person is gay morning, noon and night. Humans love to hate an identifiable group. It's just the sort of thing Jesus came to earth to put a stop to, and IMHO he would heartily approve of your moral strength in standing up for your cousins against the petty, blinkered threats from your fellow churchgoers.

I am thinking, though, is this really a "choose between your faith and your family" issue? I mean, being gay is not a choice, but attending an anti-gay church is certainly a choice. Have you been to church with your cousins? Maybe their church would be more in harmony with the ethical fruit of your own personal relationship with Christ.

 

[maleka]

Were did you get this definition from? Please

I guess I was a little off on the definition of Apostle. I wrote that post according to memory. The LDS Bible Dictionary and the Webster Dictionary says it means: "one sent forth." The Apostles were all sent to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I guess since they were representing Jesus Christ is why I thought it meant to be a witness of Christ. Sorry about that.

 

[maleka]

I like Paul as much as any blood bought catholic, but I'm tired of seeing HIS words used as proof of what God has to say about things! Read the red words in your Bible, those are Christ's words. CHRIST is our redeemer, not Paul! Christ is our namesake and our life, not Paul or any other fallible apostle. I'm gay, I'm catholic, I'm within Gods grace. I deal with me. I do not sin when I lay with my partner, we're together and practice monogamy. We're both sealed by the holy spirit. Btw, the holy spirit is the one that is supposed to convict us of sin, not a person... So let that be between the person and holy spirit. And don't let the alleged facts of a person, preacher, priest or lay, affect YOUR relationship with your creator and God!

It seems to me that you place the words of the Apostles as if they do not come from God. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But Jesus Christ choose those Apostles to teach everyone in the world the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very words written in red were written from the memory of his followers decades after those words of the savior were said. And speaking of Paul's words as proof as to what God has to say about things, the Lord says this to Ananias: "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to BEAR MY NAME before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel". Acts 9:15. Those words are written in red.

I think that verse alone should imply that Pauls words should be used as proof as to what God has to say about things. Christ is our Redeemer, I agree with you 100% on that statement. He uses people like Paul along with all the other Apostles and Prophets to teach us how to accept Christ be our Redeemer.

 

[Alceste]

Pauls words should be used as proof as to what God has to say about things.

I wish everybody thought like you. If they did, millions of women would abandon Christian faith and turn to something a bit less phallocentric and misogynistic. And the men would follow the women, because that's what men do. And the world would become a kinder place.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me that you place the words of the Apostles as if they do not come from God. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But Jesus Christ choose those Apostles to teach everyone in the world the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very words written in red were written from the memory of his followers decades after those words of the savior were said. And speaking of Paul's words as proof as to what God has to say about things, the Lord says this to Ananias: "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to BEAR MY NAME before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel". Acts 9:15. Those words are written in red.

I think that verse alone should imply that Pauls words should be used as proof as to what God has to say about things. Christ is our Redeemer, I agree with you 100% on that statement. He uses people like Paul along with all the other Apostles and Prophets to teach us how to accept Christ be our Redeemer.

Seems your post #201 shows just how reliable memory can be...

 

[Enlighten]

Somebody put forward in another thread that homophobia is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry. Homosexuality gets all the attention because it has a human face, and is a fixed group toward which hatred and bigotry can be directed. You couldn't satisfy the tribal human desire to hate / punish / oppress / feel superior toward a group of outsiders if you went up against shellfish-eaters, lepers, menstruating woman-touchers or beard-trimmers instead of homosexuals. All these things are also abominations - some of them, like the rules against touching menstruating women, get more airtime than sodomy.

So why is it that homosexuals such get a thrashing while Christian women get to let their hair hang loose in the chapel and eat rabbit and shellfish? They're an ostensibly identifiable group. A Christian woman might wear a hat one Sunday and not the next, and a Christian man might have sacrilegious bacon for breakfast and wholesome beef for lunch, but a gay person is gay morning, noon and night. Humans love to hate an identifiable group. It's just the sort of thing Jesus came to earth to put a stop to, and IMHO he would heartily approve of your moral strength in standing up for your cousins against the petty, blinkered threats from your fellow churchgoers.

I am thinking, though, is this really a "choose between your faith and your family" issue? I mean, being gay is not a choice, but attending an anti-gay church is certainly a choice. Have you been to church with your cousins? Maybe their church would be more in harmony with the ethical fruit of your own personal relationship with Christ.

Thank you for your post, I would love to attend their church with them but they live quite a bit from me so its not so easy to get to, this is the reason that they moved actually to get away from the discrimination that they faced daily (sad world). It is a point to think about though, thank you and I will be making the effort to at least try to get there. I would also like to thank you for echoing my point that being gay is not a choice, I do however have to point out that not everyone in the congregation feels the way that the lovely individuals who gave me the talking to.

I can only grow in strength I suppose when I meet people who will try to steer me in directions that I am not comfortable with.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I really have to disagree with you on this, the members of my family whom I love and trust did not wake up one day and think "Hey I'm gonna be gay", thats like saying I woke up one day and thought "Hey I'm gonna be straight". Point being I am who I am and have always been, and my family members are the way they are and have always been. Before they "came out" they were unhappy living a lie. (I'm not too great on PC so hopefully I dont offend anyone as I really dont mean to). To answer your point on God creating gay individuals, yes he did as he created us all. We are all born sinners and I know that in the bible there are passages that implies homosexuality is a sin, but there are also many passages that highlight sins that we commit on a daily basis, but do these sins get blown out of proportion in the media etc. :no: as these are seen as "minor" and "can be fixed". And yes, the bible says we should love one and other, but it does also say that we shouldnt judge, correct?

Then isn't there a contradiction from your god on this? If he created people who are gay then why does he condemn it in the book? If it is the nature of the person, as he created them, to be a gay person then why should they change? Aren't they just submitting to the will of God? If it were not his will then surly he would have created them straight..correct?

 

[Enlighten]

Then isn't there a contradiction from your god on this? If he created people who are gay then why does he condemn it in the book? If it is the nature of the person, as he created them, to be a gay person then why should they change? Aren't they just submitting to the will of God? If it were not his will then surly he would have created them straight..correct?

God condems a lot in the bible but we can all ask for forgiveness, in my eyes, I have sinned many times in my life and continue to as it is human nature, we are born into sin, we can but try to change our ways. However, on the subject about if someone is gay then they have to change, you will see from my previous posts that I dont think they should as that is the way that they are, same as if it condemed me for being straight, it is the way I am. And you have hit my point as you will probably see from previous posts, it is the way they are and YES He would have created them straight if it wasnt the way they were intended as it is not a "choice" in my eyes.

To be honest I think you are questioning the wrong person :sorry1: as I am totally fine with my family members being gay and love them for who they are. You will probably see that I have also questioned these matters and also why is homosexuality the hot topic being highlighted so much through religion/media etc when there are so many things happening in the world that is condemed in the bible but these dont see light of day. My way of thinking is that it will all come down to the day of judgement as will happen to us all, so why should we bicker over it in the meantime. I'm all for everyone having equal rights.

 

[Alceste]

Then isn't there a contradiction from your god on this? If he created people who are gay then why does he condemn it in the book? If it is the nature of the person, as he created them, to be a gay person then why should they change? Aren't they just submitting to the will of God? If it were not his will then surly he would have created them straight..correct?

Not all Christians are biblical literalists. In fact, most Christians are not. The sect that makes a lot of noise about every single comma and conjunction being the literal word of God haven't read the Bible. They may have looked at it, memorized a couple of quotes that pretty much represent their current preacher's personal political views, they might even carry one around with them at all times, but they haven't read it, from cover to cover. Therefore they aren't aware that in the same chapter God condemns man-on-man action (woman-on-woman action doesn't get a mention ), he also commands us to cease bathing, tear our clothes and walk down the center of the road screaming "UNCLEAN!" if we have a disease of the skin.

So, no, there's no contradiction in Enlighten's point of view. She has taken the parts that say things like "God is love", "Love your neighbour as you love yourself", "Love does not hold a record of wrongs" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to heart and discarded the parts that say "Slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling", "Slaughter every man, woman, and male child and keep the female children for yourselves", "Suffer not a witch to live", and "It is an abomination for a man to lie with another man / for a man not to trim his beard / to eat shellfish / to eat anything with a cloven hoof / to touch your wife during menstruation etc."

It's a very sensible approach.

 

[smitten508]

It seems to me that you place the words of the Apostles as if they do not come from God. (Correct me if I'm wrong). But Jesus Christ choose those Apostles to teach everyone in the world the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The very words written in red were written from the memory of his followers decades after those words of the savior were said. And speaking of Paul's words as proof as to what God has to say about things, the Lord says this to Ananias: "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to BEAR MY NAME before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel". Acts 9:15. Those words are written in red.

I think that verse alone should imply that Pauls words should be used as proof as to what God has to say about things. Christ is our Redeemer, I agree with you 100% on that statement. He uses people like Paul along with all the other Apostles and Prophets to teach us how to accept Christ be our Redeemer.

As a catholic I place great value on the words of the apostles concerning Christ, however it only takes a look at the book to realize when they taught they disagreed on some issues, and this means they were using their own slant in their teachings. Paul indeed was a vessel to reveal God to the non Jewish world, but his role was to spread Christs name, not to give rules of conduct... Personally I follow the laws set out with God's own hand and mouth. Those being the 10 commandments and Jesus' words. The apostles were human, and fallible, except where Peter was concerned in his role as pope. And we don't hear from Peter concerning this subject. I do not subject myself to any authority under heaven than the papal office, and while the SEE does consider my life style as sinful, even there I must respectfully disagree considering the holy spirit hasn't convicted me of any wrong doing...

 

[starlite]

Easy-to-Read Version
2Ti 33:16
All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people the things that are wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching how to live right.

King James Version
2Ti 33:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[McBell]

gotta love random verses thrown in a thread without rhyme, reason, or explanation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Easy-to-Read Version
2Ti 33:16
All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people the things that are wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching how to live right.

King James Version
2Ti 33:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

gotta love random verses thrown in a thread without rhyme, reason, or explanation.

... or without thought as to what the author would've meant by the word "scripture".

 

[starlite]

gotta love random verses thrown in a thread without rhyme, reason, or explanation.

So....you really don't get the point?? Come on....use your thinking ability.

 

[McBell]

So....you really don't get the point?? Come on....use your thinking ability.

With over 200 posts in the thread I am supposed to guess which one the verses are allegedly relevant to?
Not likely.

Especially given the way verses are abused on this forum by those who are supposedly most versed in their use.