The Evangelical Universalist Forum

I've finally openly proclaimed my Universlaism on my Blog

Davo said:

That is huge… :open_mouth:

Give me some time, and I’ll start such a thread within 24 hours.

Close to 95% of Orthodox priests are married men, and I’ve never met one without children.

I admire the 5% of Orthodox priests who are unmarried and the monks and the nuns. They have sacrificed for themselves God’s mystery of marriage as well as of raising up children to the Lord. They have made this sacrifice that they might devote their entire lives to prayer, without having to spend the time and effort of having a spouse, children, paying the mortgage so their families aren’t homeless, etc.

None of this can be said for homosexuality.

This seems to be different than your original stand against these folks… Hey, I’m not trying to paint you into a corner, but we all need to learn from each other and I appreciate your position. I learn from you. :smiley:

You know love does always win… No matter how corrupt, how perverted, how immoral a person may be, Love will win, and when we choose love, I believe God will be with us.

Good Luck

Chad

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails.

The biblical ban on homosexual practice, particularly so in the OT, has little to do with present-day same-sex loving monogamous relationships. And to say that same-sex couples cannot know “agape” is a complete joke and fanciful.

The reason for said ban came on a number of fronts FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD as then constituted.

1) Such could logically/potentially threaten their very existence as Yahweh’s emissaries to the world.
2) The homosexual sex act or practice was directly linked with pagan idolatrous cultic worship.
3) The most poignant… anal coitus was a direct and egregious display of power, dominance and violence over and against another, and in ANE and in particular Hebraic culture, the complete antipathy of hospitableness, i.e., the complete subjugating and bastardisation of another, usually a foreigner — whether male OR female — cut right across their call to love thy neighbour, as a reflection of loving (serving) Yahweh.

Two texts of Scripture show this last point to a tee…

These perverted Benjamite (Israelite ‘sons of Belial’) thugs above were NOT homosexuals BUT fully desired to enforce their dominance over this travelling foreigner via anal rape. They did as the story shows sexually ravish the poor defenceless woman to death.

These violently vile incidents above have NOTHING in comparison to present-day same-sex loving monogamous relationships — they just don’t! That the poor woman could so easily be handed over as she was just shows the degree of importance hospitableness carried in their culture. I personally think the heinous act of handing her over was even more reprehensible.

That would be a fair indicator qaz you are reacting out of NOT having a reasoned nor logical response to my 3 valid points as previously given. Maybe you’re missing the wood for the trees because of the plank in your own eye?

Yes and Jesus is reflecting the conventional view as relevant per Israel and her continence thereof… so what he says makes perfect sense as that was by the nature of the case the essence of “marriage” — but not even all “heterosexual” unions constitute “marriage” do they?

Yeah and again you’re missing the point and focus of Paul’s words… he was speaking to Israel’s past wanton IDOLATROUS violations and unfaithfulness where they went off chasing and serving other gods which entailed ALL those activities mentioned, i.e., these things were the practices of pagan worship… you can readily read of these things in the OT if you’d do some homework.

Yet again… what’s the backdrop? Idol-filled pagan Corinth wherein there was all manner of sexual activity associated with their pagan cultic worship; something Paul in his concern for the believers wanted to guard against their involvement because of its lure back into IDOLATRY.

Your charge of “eisegesis” is nothing but a light-weight lazy cop-out on your part because you cannot stomach the 3 points given, let alone deal with them.

You then divert onto something quite other than what I was dealing with — my guess is because you cannot raise a rational or reasoned response to what I’ve raised. :unamused:

Hmmm… if you didn’t have such a plank in your own eye you’d see the 3 points given are indeed wholly negative… for the reasons stated. :open_mouth:

Go back and read it again qaz as “following other gods” and all that that entailed was but ONE reason. Again, “zero reason”? Can I suggest you do some study on this as there are bulk examples across the OT, but don’t be lazy, I’m not doing your homework for you. And why have you ignored the other two? …because on them you can give no rational or reasoned response either.

I see out of the blue you’ve asked this a few times now… do you have fascination with bestiality and incest? For mine… neither are part of who I am; what need of yours is being met by this enquiry? :astonished:

Man has this thread ever been hijacked.

Well, rabbit trails from time to time, can bring mucho information. Though I understand you sentiment. :smiley:

Yea, I get rabbit trails, but the OP was a believer anouncing that they hav reached a point of assurance to speak out the salvation of all. What followed was no rabbit trail, imo- it bore no relationship to the OP. I think this is why forums end up boiling down to a few posters debating the same ol arguments. Just no sensitivity to anything beyond whatever axe they are grinding. :smiley:

“hijacked” are you kidding Eagle :question: :question: Did you actually READ the OP… look at the two MAIN paragraphs AND the last sentence AND the first respondent’s question. Seems to me what followed was typical of the flavour of the OP. Perhaps your sensitivities were being hijacked?? :mrgreen:

Well, I would say first of all, confessing my sin as I have been a frequent contributor to this thread, so I would ask that you would get all of us involved back on track… And this is a heat felt sentiment. :slight_smile:
No BS involved. :exclamation: :smiley:

There are many who have idea’s and thoughts. We may be able to learn from their ramblings. :slight_smile:

Just a thought

Yea, I am just rambling too. :slight_smile: I think it is an interesting phenomenom. I am not trying to “straighten anyone out”. I am just pointing it out.

We ramble right over folks interests without even noticing when they quit posting in their own thread and participating in our forums because almost every thread will eventually come around to one of three or four long-term doctrinal or philosophical conflicts between 5 or 6 different members.

Same thing occurs over at Tentmaker and I’ve never been able to figure it out… it may be an internet wide indemic rabbit hole :laughing:

And now here I am hijacking this thread in another direction, so I guess I will quit while I am a head.

http://cinapse.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Man-With-Two-Brains.jpg

Just make sure you pick the right content - to fill the head with :exclamation: :laughing:

or

youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q

lol, exactly :slight_smile:

2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. 3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you.…

Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

Here is a Link to my Blog

solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/p/eternal-security.html

You can also find there my in-depth discussion of the Homosexuality issue.

Might this conversation on sexuality be better had in the controversial topics sub-forum?

I understand how it developed naturally, but it seems a little disconnected from the topic title. It wasn’t what I was expecting when I clicked on it - lol :slight_smile: Anyway, just making a note - feel free to tell me to mind my own business if I’m out of order here.

It’s Relevant to this Topic cause it’s tied to why I held off so long. You can move the topic to a different board if you want, I have another one I want to create for this one anyway.

Universalists will at least never think it’s okay to say “God Hates Fags” when you reject Eternal Damnation, the logic behind that Blasphemy dies. And that is why I’m happy to be here.