~candice~ Posted August 21, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 21, 2009 Honestly - how can one "prove" a gay member of Church isn't sexually active? The same way that it does for single members of their ministry... the same way it proves that married ministers are not having an affair, etc etc etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Honestly - how can one "prove" a gay member of Church isn't sexually active? The same way that it does for single members of their ministry... the same way it proves that married ministers are not having an affair, etc etc etc... The way it's proven andy is the fruit - remaining in homosexual behaviour is not bearing the Fruit of Christ. Christians are misled if they think it's ok to be homosexual AND to be serving the Lord. It's the same with sexually active "single" Christians in the Church that are serving - it's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted August 21, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 21, 2009 Honestly - how can one "prove" a gay member of Church isn't sexually active? The same way that it does for single members of their ministry... the same way it proves that married ministers are not having an affair, etc etc etc... The way it's proven andy is the fruit - remaining in homosexual behaviour is not bearing the Fruit of Christ. That's circular reasoning LOL. We already removed practicing homosexuals from positions of ministry. Those that are left are obviously not showing the fruits of following their desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Honestly - how can one "prove" a gay member of Church isn't sexually active? The same way that it does for single members of their ministry... the same way it proves that married ministers are not having an affair, etc etc etc... The way it's proven andy is the fruit - remaining in homosexual behaviour is not bearing the Fruit of Christ. That's circular reasoning LOL. We already removed practicing homosexuals from positions of ministry. Those that are left are obviously not showing the fruits of following their desires. Then why call them homosexuals? What are they then? Reformed and proven consistently that their lives are now healed by the Power of Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I am reminded of these verses: John 2 v 23/25 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man. Folks want the "benefits" of being a Follower of Christ but they also want the benefits of the flesh too. And sadly Churches today are bending to the flesh. PC has a lot to do with it and the more the lukewarm, compromising Church bends, the more PC has a firm grip on the Church. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted August 21, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 21, 2009 Then why call them homosexuals? What are they then? Reformed and proven consistently that their lives are now healed by the Power of Christ? People get confused because homosexual is used as both a noun and a verb. They are homosexual in the sense that they struggle with the desire, but not homosexual in the sense that they do not commit the offense. 1 Cor 6 (NASB) 9Or (K)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (L)inherit the kingdom of God? (M)Do not be deceived; (N)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (O)inherit the kingdom of God. 11(P)Such were some of you; but you were (Q)washed, but you were ®sanctified, but you were (S)justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. To answer your question, I would say they are "washed, sanctified and justified" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 '~andy~' People get confused because homosexual is used as both a noun and a verb. They are homosexual in the sense that they struggle with the desire, but not homosexual in the sense that they do not commit the offense. Ok so clarify please andy - Do you think a man who struggles with homosexual urges should serve in the Church? Would it be similar to a man struggling with peadophile urges and wanting to serve as Youth leader? I would say they shouldn't serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted August 21, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 21, 2009 '~andy~' People get confused because homosexual is used as both a noun and a verb. They are homosexual in the sense that they struggle with the desire, but not homosexual in the sense that they do not commit the offense. Ok so clarify please andy - Do you think a man who struggles with homosexual urges should serve in the Church? Would it be similar to a man struggling with peadophile urges and wanting to serve as Youth leader? I would say they shouldn't serve. It irks me to no end when homosexuals are compared to pedophiles. That aside... Do you think that a man who struggles with lust should serve in the Church? The same rule should be applied to homosexuals. If they submit to Christ and not their desires, they can serve. Pedophiles are a totally different kettle of fish, they should not be around children whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 '~andy~' People get confused because homosexual is used as both a noun and a verb. They are homosexual in the sense that they struggle with the desire, but not homosexual in the sense that they do not commit the offense. Ok so clarify please andy - Do you think a man who struggles with homosexual urges should serve in the Church? Would it be similar to a man struggling with peadophile urges and wanting to serve as Youth leader? I would say they shouldn't serve. It irks me to no end when homosexuals are compared to pedophiles. That aside... Do you think that a man who struggles with lust should serve in the Church? The same rule should be applied to homosexuals. If they submit to Christ and not their desires, they can serve. Pedophiles are a totally different kettle of fish, they should not be around children whatsoever. I didn't compare homosexuals to peadophiles but rather the situation andy. I think if a heterosexual man/woman struggles with lust and wants to serve - it is in their best interest to let the Pastor, elders and leaders know of this struggle. For the glorification of God, it would be commonsense to not put this person in any leadership/servant position until matters were handled and the person showed consistent fruit of change. I would feel very uncomfortable serving in Church alongside a man who is full of lust and desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted August 21, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.89 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted August 21, 2009 I didn't compare homosexuals to peadophiles but rather the situation andy. I think if a heterosexual man/woman struggles with lust and wants to serve - it is in their best interest to let the Pastor, elders and leaders know of this struggle. For the glorification of God, it would be commonsense to not put this person in any leadership/servant position until matters were handled and the person showed consistent fruit of change. I would feel very uncomfortable serving in Church alongside a man who is full of lust and desire. I think that lust, regardless of the form, is not a desirable quality in a serving minister. But I don't have a problem with ministers who get tempted to lust and can overcome and reject these temptations. We are all tempted to sin in one way or another, because the fight between the spirit and the flesh continues until we die. So it is not the presence of temptation that bothers me, but what the minister does with these temptations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts