[Linux4christians] OOT: My stand on Gay/Lesbian
Billy F. Staggs
bstaggs at staggs.net
Wed Sep 29 09:44:58 EDT 2010
On 9/29/2010 12:47 AM, David Kuntadi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Billy F. Staggs<bstaggs at staggs.net> wrote:
>> You said that your Pastor told you that, so he is basing his claim that
>> Peter left his wife on this same reading (misreading in my opinion) of Mat
>> 19:27? Are you honestly trying to encourage Christian's to leave their
>> spouses to better serve God?
> Then you did not read my first post properly (but may be the whole
> bunch of others as well). Let;s take it as I did not write it properly
> and let me explain more then.
> 1. The highest standard of sex is celibacy, as Jesus and Paul have demonstrated.
> 2. Sex in Marriage to have kid is surely according to nature,
> otherwise will lead human to extinction. This is considered as a holy
> call as well.
> 3. Sex in marriage, but just for fun to fulfill our heart desire, no
> intentioned to bear children. This is not so good. This is like eating
> not for the health, but eating for fun only.
> 4. Sex outside marriage, gay/lesbian included
> 5. etc...
> What I meant is, I do not agree with gay, but sex in marriage is not
> the highest standard either. So, we despised the gay only and not
> despised all imperfection?
No, I believe you have made your position, I just don't agree with it.
To somehow concoct this pseudo hierarchy whereas the celibate are
glorified above others is just plan silly and not Biblical. And to
somehow include the SIN of homosexuality in this list of "higher
callings" is just blatantly wrong. Makes me wonder if adulterers and
child molesters were also included had you continued with you list? You
have twisted beyond reason almost every single Scripture quoted to you
in a vain attempt to justify your own position. Makes me wonder if your
motives are not to falsely glorify celibate homosexuals for some
unexplained reason? So I do believe we understand each other very well,
and with that said I believe further conversation along these lines
would be pointless.
>> Certainly not when referring to other believes and fellow servants.
>> Here is what Gill has to say on Matthew 7:6 and it doesn't support your
>> position in the least.
>> Here the phrase is used in a metaphorical sense; and is generally understood
>> of not delivering or communicating the holy word of God, and the truths of
>> the Gospel, comparable to pearls, or the ordinances of it, to persons
>> notoriously vile and sinful: to men, who being violent and furious
>> persecutors, and impudent blasphemers, are compared to "dogs"; or to such,
>> who are scandalously vile, impure in their lives and conversations, and are
>> therefore compared to swine;
>> neither cast ye your pearls before swine. But since the subject Christ is
>> upon is reproof, it seems rather to be the design of these expressions, that
>> men should be cautious, and prudent, in rebuking and admonishing such
>> persons for their sins, in whom there is no appearance or hope of success;
>> yea, where there is danger of sustaining loss;
> It is surely relevant. If I demand celibacy among people that craving
> for sex, sure it is like cast my pearls before swine, right?
>> Not from my words, Paul instructed them to marry "to avoid fornication".
>> Surely Paul did not need a wife to avoid fornication, or did he?
>> Paul didn't, but he was clearly advsing others to do so rather than to
> So. Paul did not cast his pearl to swine I guess ..... And below verse
> confirm it:
> 1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye
> were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
> Linux4christians mailing list
> Linux4christians at thelinuxlink.net
More information about the Linux4christians