The New Pope

KingJ....Where do you get this idea?: I'm trying to understand how you think that a drunken, wife-beating, divorced pastor is a common thing and will "come right"....
Jimmy Swaggert? Which scandal? Which time? Which confession?
Not saying its common and sure coming right is a longshot. Likely forever disqualified from being an elder. Jimmy Swaggarts sex scandal 1988.
 
Friend, what makes you think everyone has been called to have a sex life in the first place? If someone has been called to NOT marry, then they are also called not to have a sex life as a sex life comes after marriage.
You have the tool for sex with a woman whether you marry or not. You said somewhere that people can be born gay. But a baby's thinking is not on sex. A baby however is NOT born neutral either....it is born hetrosexual as God MADE the baby straight. God even gives most people eyes and hands to confirm their sex. No Christian should entertain the homo-gene rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Not saying its common and sure coming right is a longshot. Likely forever disqualified from being an elder. Jimmy Swaggarts sex scandal 1988.
We're not talking of elders, friend, but pastors and in this case a world famous one.

1988? Only partially correct:
On October 11, 1991, Swaggart for a second time was found in the company of a prostitute, Rosemary Garcia,[9] when he was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol in Indio, California, for driving on the wrong side of the road. According to Garcia, Swaggart stopped to proposition her on the side of the road. When the patrolman asked Garcia why she was with Swaggart, she replied, "He asked me for sex. I mean, that's why he stopped me. That's what I do. I'm a prostitute." This time, rather than confessing to his congregation, Swaggart told those at Family Worship Center that "The Lord told me it's flat none of your business." Swaggart's son Donnie then announced to the stunned audience that his father would be temporarily stepping down as head of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries for "a time of healing and counseling."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart#1991_scandal
 
You have the tool for sex with a woman whether you marry or not. You said somewhere that people can be born gay. But a baby's thinking is not on sex. A baby however is NOT born neutral either....it is born hetrosexual as God MADE the baby straight. God even gives most people eyes and hands to confirm their sex. No Christian should entertain the homo-gene rubbish.

You bring up an interesting point, because I do agree with you that a baby is born neutral, but is heterosexual neutral? I remember having this discussion with my mom a year or so ago (she's an OBGYN). Both her, the multiple institutes for NIH (with whom I do work for--I'm providing public domain info) express that because the default gender for fetuses is female, when the fetus becomes male, hormones are released into the baby otherwise the body will reject the foreign object (a male fetus). Sometimes an abundance of these hormones are released and this can cause people (when they develop and get a little older) to have more female qualities, and sometimes this means sexual orientation.

I think one of the biggest problems with our culture is that we've decided that if something is too difficult, then we ought not consider it to be right. Our culture has now decided to embrace homosexuality among other things simply because it's easier (abortion is easier, sex before marriage is easier, divorce is easier, etc. etc.) But on the other side of the spectrum, it's also easier to say "this is black and this is white--it's that simple!" when sometimes there is much more that needs to be evaluated. I think we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The "homo-gene" is not rubbish--it is a statement of embryology and bio-genesis whether we like it or not. However, practicing these tendencies IS a sin and should absolutely be rejected, not encouraged like our culture does.

But here's an example -- when I was 5, I knew I was straight, I wasn't neutral. I remember having little kid crush's on girls. Granted, they were immature because there was only so much I could understand, etc, but I knew that I was attracted to the opposite sex. This wasn't a decision of mine--I never looked at both boys and girls and said "I think I'm going to like girls more." That never even crossed my mind. It was instilled.

Of course, that's because that IS the default, but why couldn't we, with all the scientific evidence and all the logic we have, attribute the homosexual tendencies (not practices, but simply tendencies--before the a practice has even been committed) to an abnormality like autism or even cases when some people have a quicker, stronger temper than others (which in very few cases is due to a serotonin imbalance)?

I think it's just food for thought, especially since the scriptures expresses being against homosexual PRACTICES vs. homosexual tendencies. I think this is something that we should at least dissect and look into before either 1) throwing everything out the window or 2) accepting everything for merely being "tolerant" (especially when Scriptures and the Church are every direct regarding this).
 
Last edited:
You bring up an interesting point, because I do agree with you that a baby is born neutral, but is heterosexual neutral? I remember having this discussion with my mom a year or so ago (she's an OBGYN). Both her, the multiple institutes for NIH (with whom I do work for--I'm providing public domain info) express that because the default gender for fetuses is female, when the fetus becomes male, hormones are released into the baby otherwise the body will reject the foreign object (a male fetus). Sometimes an abundance of these hormones are released and this can cause people (when they develop and get a little older) to have more female qualities, and sometimes this means sexual orientation.
Our gender is a ''coin toss'' dependant on an x or y chromozone from our father.

The process on how we become our respective sex is an amazing work of intelligent design. God planned you to be a male. The means to achieve that is thus a rather pointless discussion.

More female qualities NEVER means sexual orientation!!! The tools you have for the job the moment you popped out your mothers belly = sexual orientation = God's will. So if I was born with genes that made me an aggressive goliath.... I am automatically going to be a bully? That reasoning is terrible. You have to understand that.

I think it's just food for thought, especially since the scriptures expresses being against homosexual PRACTICES vs. homosexual tendencies
What scripture says tendencies?
But here's an example -- when I was 5, I knew I was straight, I wasn't neutral. I remember having little kid crush's on girls. Granted, they were immature because there was only so much I could understand, etc, but I knew that I was attracted to the opposite sex. This wasn't a decision of mine--I never looked at both boys and girls and said "I think I'm going to like girls more." That never even crossed my mind. It was instilled.
Unless you are blind and have no hands a sexual attraction that goes against the natural purpose of your body IS your decision. But lets have some mercy for the unsaved. As for the saved....NO excuse!
 
Last edited:
Our gender is a ''coin toss'' dependant on an x or y chromozone from our father.

The process on how we become our respective sex is an amazing work of intelligent design. God planned you to be a male. The means to achieve that is thus a rather pointless discussion.

By no means am I suggesting that abnormalities have interrupted God's plan. For argument's sake, let's say we both agree with my position--just for argument's sake mind you. If John was born and as a child developed and realized that whether he wanted it or not, he had an attraction to other boys the same way we as children might have looked at another girl and had a natural attraction.

Now because John feels this way and it's not his fault because he didn't choose it, this doesn't mean he can now commit gay practices and it's OK. In fact, John knows that it's wrong and is frustrated because he feels he's been cheated by God.

You and I both agree that everything that God creates is good and has a cause. God has created my autistic cousin, and while he cannot speak and has the mind of a 3-year-old and it creates difficulties for his family, this doesn't mean that God did this arbitrarily or out of punishment--he has done this for a greater purpose.

We are dismissing that perhaps God has a greater purpose for John to be a witness to others, to live a chaste life, rejecting his temptations, and to explain that all people, regardless of their handicaps and difficulties, can come to God. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 expresses that God desires for all people to come to him.

More female qualities NEVER means sexual orientation!!!

I'm only going by the embryological explanation. Perhaps my terminology is bad, but the principle is still there. Can you explain to me why it is wrong?

The tools you have for the job the moment you popped out your mothers belly = sexual orientation = God's will. So if I was born with genes that made me an aggressive goliath.... I am automatically going to be a bully? That reasoning is terrible. You have to understand that.

No, friend. You've missed the point. Maybe I can give a personal explanation for this. Most of my family have experienced difficulties with depression. It hasn't been due to any bad upbringing for any of us, nor have we experienced trauma. We have a hereditary history of a serotonin imbalance. We're not ashamed of it, and we've had it treated differently and at different times of our lives.

I sincerely believe this was God's will because he created each of us and it is something that is out of our control (by that, I mean we didn't choose to have the neurological imbalance). Now just because God made us this way doesn't mean we will automatically harm ourselves even if we've contemplated it in midst of our depression.

So the answer is NO; in the earlier analogy given, it wouldn't mean you are aut0omatically going to be a bully.


What scripture says tendencies?

You tell me--you're the one who believes the tendency equals the sin. However, I can point you to where it only says "practice." Is a practice a tendency or can a tendency only lead to a practice?

By the way, by no means do I want you to take this discussion as ill-willed. We clearly have a disagreement on doctrine and translation, but I'm enjoying the discussion with you, friend. :)
 
Friend, don't take this facetiously, but you're confusing practice with tendency. This is why I said it's simplistic (not to be confused with simple).

The Bible is very VERY clear on where it stands with immoral practices. In at least 12 books of the Bible, it is blatant about not committing the practices of homosexuality. But let's say for argument's sake that we had two men who both lived chaste lives, though since both are men, both still have a natural temptation to sin...one would be tempted to have lustful thoughts about women. The other had lustful thoughts about men. Both of them prayed to God to redirect their temptations toward goodness, and God answered their prayers. Now because one of them happened to have a homosexual temptation but prayed out his thoughts, would this make him straight? And in the same light, because the straight man prayed out his own lustful (and straight) temptations, does this mean he is not straight?

"But Shapiro, heterosexuality isn't a sin." Of course not, but the point is that doesn't mean free game to do with our heterosexuality what we want. It becomes a question of what is the definition of homosexuality and where does sin begin (in other words, when has the temptation crossed over to sin).

Rehearsing the verses that express disapproval for homosexuality, I'm reading from the old text that it's referring to practices vs. tendencies. We recognize that alcoholism in excess is a sin, but we don't consider alcoholics to have sinned until they've pursued their own tendencies (this is only an analogy, mind you).

I think the discussion on homosexuality and where the line has drawn is a very important one because it means the souls of our brothers and sisters, but let's not shut out the discussion with "it's simple" -- this is a very careless approach to a pretty important topic. This doesn't mean I think your position should be thrown out the window either, but I think it's important to get to the bottom of it.

No my friend, I am not confusing anything. You on the other hand are assuming Bible directions allow something that it does not allow. You seem to be trying to accuse me of being "simple minded" because I have a literal understanding of God's Word.

If you do not agree with my understanding, that is fine with me. BUT I find no reason to imply that because I disagree with you, my comments are simple. That is not the way to grow friendships.

You said....
"But Shapiro, heterosexuality isn't a sin." Of course not, but the point is that doesn't mean free game to do with our heterosexuality what we want. It becomes a question of what is the definition of homosexuality and where does sin begin"

See. You once again say that heterosexual activity is not a sin. My friend, sex is for married people. It is what God gave men and women to do inside of marriage. Heterosexuality is the way God demanded men and women to react to one another in order to "multiply". That was His command in Genesis 3.

Now you can slice it and dice anyway you want to but it still comes down to that simple fact. God married Adam and Eve and told them to have children by the act of heterosexuality. It is just that simple. Sex is good and it was recommended by God in order to procreate the human race.

All of the other things that you are bringing up are smoke screens to try and cover what God has said. Now, I am not a simple man but I do say that God has given us His Word to live by and His words are really very simple. When WE begin to add to His Word to make it more acceptable to all who may not follow His Word, then we see the problem develop.
 
Not speaking on Rusty's behalf, but...

1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32.

The Bible has expressed a great concern with divorce, and part of that is due to it involving God so closely which can be found in Matthew 19:6. This is why the release of that binding is not through divorce, but through death (Romans 7:2). But that's further why when one gets involved with another who is divorced, it is seen as adultery in the eyes of our Lord.

But......where is the verse that says a divorced man is unfit to serve God???

The verses you listed, which I am familiar with, do not say that a divorced man is unfit to serve God and do not apply to the question that was asked.

WE are not talking about divorce but is a divorced man able to serve God?
 
No my friend, I am not confusing anything. You on the other hand are assuming Bible directions allow something that it does not allow. You seem to be trying to accuse me of being "simple minded" because I have a literal understanding of God's Word.

If you do not agree with my understanding, that is fine with me. BUT I find no reason to imply that because I disagree with you, my comments are simple. That is not the way to grow friendships.

I don't think you're simple minded at all. I don't want you to take what I'm saying facetiously or insultingly. We also agree that the Bible means what it says about homosexual practices as being a sin. However, I think we're at a disagreement on when something becomes a sin.

Well I do believe that your earlier statements weren't simple, but rather simplistic. I didn't mean it to be harsh or insulting, but I take my faith very seriously. I would die to defend the faith and I was expressing my opposition to what you said in defense of the faith. I certainly meant no offense.

See. You once again say that heterosexual activity is not a sin. My friend, sex is for married people. It is what God gave men and women to do inside of marriage. Heterosexuality is the way God demanded men and women to react to one another in order to "multiply". That was His command in Genesis 3.

I'm not refuting that at all, nor am I suggesting that heterosexuality is a sin. However, people do commit sin by fornication, adultery, lustful thoughts, etc. I'm not even suggesting that these are because of our heterosexuality, but just because these acts might be straight doesn't mean they are now no longer sinful.

We both know this--but I guess I'm trying to get forward motion on this discussion.

All of the other things that you are bringing up are smoke screens to try and cover what God has said. Now, I am not a simple man but I do say that God has given us His Word to live by and His words are really very simple. When WE begin to add to His Word to make it more acceptable to all who may not follow His Word, then we see the problem develop.

I completely agree that it is wrong to add to his word. However, I think one major thing that has divided our position is because you believe in Sola Scriptura as a protestant and I don't as a Catholic (though I used to when I was a protestant). I believe it is sinful to add to the scriptures, but I don't believe the scriptures are the only infallible authority of Christian practice.

Perhaps that is for another forum ;)

Friend, I will conclude though that I certainly didn't mean for anything I said to offend. You're more important to be as a brother than that.
 
I've never once disagreed with this, friend. I'm afraid you're misreading what I have written.



What is a homosexual? What makes a homosexual a homosexual? I understand this may sound like a stupid question, but indulge me. Be precise. Explain how one becomes a homosexual, what entails being one, and how one can not be one.

Also, what is a heterosexual, how one becomes one, and how one can stop being one.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but I think you brought up an interesting point--we should get to the bottom of this one.

If I could answer your question......."What makes a homosexual a homosexual", I would be a really smart man.
I have no answer for you, only what I have experienced in my life. I have spent many years listening to others who have problems and I can promise you that the problems never end.

But to focus on your question, I would say that at least three answers seem possible.

1. Homosexual behavior is a bad habit that people fall into because they are sexually permissive and experimental. This view holds rat homosexuals choose their lifestyle as the result of self-indulgence and an unwillingness to play by society rules.

2. The second position is held by a number of psychoanalysts (e.g., Bieber, Socarides). According to them, homosexual behavior is a mental illness, symptomatic of arrested development. They believe that homosexuals have unnatural or perverse desires as a consequence of poor familial relations in childhood or some other trauma.

3. The third view is "biological" and holds that such desires are genetic or hormonal in origin, and that there is no choice involved and no "childhood trauma" necessary.
Which of these views is most consistent with the facts? Which tells us the most about homosexual behavior and its origins? The answer seems to be that homosexual behavior is learned. The following seven lines of evidence support such a conclusion.

Research by Paul Cameron, Ph. D. of the Family Focus Group has said.............

1) No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior
Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredible genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable. (9, 12) While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove at inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists.
2) People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned.
 
But......where is the verse that says a divorced man is unfit to serve God???

The verses you listed, which I am familiar with, do not say that a divorced man is unfit to serve God and do not apply to the question that was asked.

WE are not talking about divorce but is a divorced man able to serve God?

You're right--you didn't claim that divorce wasn't a sin, but rather that the scriptures never said that divorced men are unfit to serve God. Nor would I disagree with you on that.

Where is there a verse that says a homosexual man is unfit to serve God?

Establishing that all sins, little and small, must be brought forward in asking for forgiveness since they all offend God of course.
 
I don't think you're simple minded at all. I don't want you to take what I'm saying facetiously or insultingly. We also agree that the Bible means what it says about homosexual practices as being a sin. However, I think we're at a disagreement on when something becomes a sin.

Well I do believe that your earlier statements weren't simple, but rather simplistic. I didn't mean it to be harsh or insulting, but I take my faith very seriously. I would die to defend the faith and I was expressing my opposition to what you said in defense of the faith. I certainly meant no offense.



I'm not refuting that at all, nor am I suggesting that heterosexuality is a sin. However, people do commit sin by fornication, adultery, lustful thoughts, etc. I'm not even suggesting that these are because of our heterosexuality, but just because these acts might be straight doesn't mean they are now no longer sinful.

We both know this--but I guess I'm trying to get forward motion on this discussion.



I completely agree that it is wrong to add to his word. However, I think one major thing that has divided our position is because you believe in Sola Scriptura as a protestant and I don't as a Catholic (though I used to when I was a protestant). I believe it is sinful to add to the scriptures, but I don't believe the scriptures are the only infallible authority of Christian practice.

Perhaps that is for another forum ;)

Friend, I will conclude though that I certainly didn't mean for anything I said to offend. You're more important to be as a brother than that.

I appreciate that my brother and my the Lord bless you for your sincerity. I have been not feeling to well lately for some reason and I was probably more sensitive than I normally am.
 
If I could answer your question......."What makes a homosexual a homosexual", I would be a really smart man.
I have no answer for you, only what I have experienced in my life. I have spent many years listening to others who have problems and I can promise you that the problems never end.

But to focus on your question, I would say that at least three answers seem possible.

1. Homosexual behavior is a bad habit that people fall into because they are sexually permissive and experimental. This view holds rat homosexuals choose their lifestyle as the result of self-indulgence and an unwillingness to play by society rules.

2. The second position is held by a number of psychoanalysts (e.g., Bieber, Socarides). According to them, homosexual behavior is a mental illness, symptomatic of arrested development. They believe that homosexuals have unnatural or perverse desires as a consequence of poor familial relations in childhood or some other trauma.

3. The third view is "biological" and holds that such desires are genetic or hormonal in origin, and that there is no choice involved and no "childhood trauma" necessary.
Which of these views is most consistent with the facts? Which tells us the most about homosexual behavior and its origins? The answer seems to be that homosexual behavior is learned. The following seven lines of evidence support such a conclusion.

Research by Paul Cameron, Ph. D. of the Family Focus Group has said.............

1) No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior
Occasionally you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredible genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals - at least none that is replicable. (9, 12) While the absence of such a discovery doesn't prove at inherited sexual tendencies aren't possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists.
2) People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned.

All in all, I don't think any of this is wrong. Actually, much of this sounds very spot on. Keeping it brief, the NIH nor any private medical institute has found evidence of some hereditary gene like some claim. That's certainly not my position. But there is reason to believe that much of it is biological...but that doesn't mean it is always ONLY biological.

I think you and I have forward motion here (y)
 
You're right--you didn't claim that divorce wasn't a sin, but rather that the scriptures never said that divorced men are unfit to serve God. Nor would I disagree with you on that.

Where is there a verse that says a homosexual man is unfit to serve God?

Establishing that all sins, little and small, must be brought forward in asking for forgiveness since they all offend God of course.

I agree that all sins, not matter what must be confessed and repented of for forgiveness.

I was responding to a comment Rusty made in #24.............

"KingJ: I see a preacher with these bad traits as unfit, as did Paul, and preaching a warped message:"
  1. divorced
  2. heavy drinkers
  3. money oriented
  4. inhospitable
  5. violent or promoting violence as a "Christian solution"
  6. spoiled or rebellious kids
Preachers and deacon are servants of God and he seems to be saying that a divorced man can not be a preacher or a deacon.

I just wanted to know what verse of Scripture says that a divorced man cannot be a preacher or a deacon to serve the Lord.
 
I appreciate that my brother and my the Lord bless you for your sincerity. I have been not feeling to well lately for some reason and I was probably more sensitive than I normally am.

Blessings to you, too. Please, if I ever cross the line somewhere, call me out on it. I don't want to offend anyone here, and despite out doctrinal differences, we both have the same goal in mind in glory of the same Father. Hopefully we can better understand each others positions on these topics.

Why haven't you been feeling well? Everything OK?
 
All in all, I don't think any of this is wrong. Actually, much of this sounds very spot on. Keeping it brief, the NIH nor any private medical institute has found evidence of some hereditary gene like some claim. That's certainly not my position. But there is reason to believe that much of it is biological...but that doesn't mean it is always ONLY biological.

I think you and I have forward motion here (y)

Be careful with that "forward motion" stuff. Being an old Baptist, someone may think I have been out dancing!
 
I agree that all sins, not matter what must be confessed and repented of for forgiveness.

I was responding to a comment Rusty made in #24.............

"KingJ: I see a preacher with these bad traits as unfit, as did Paul, and preaching a warped message:"
  1. divorced
  2. heavy drinkers
  3. money oriented
  4. inhospitable
  5. violent or promoting violence as a "Christian solution"
  6. spoiled or rebellious kids
Preachers and deacon are servants of God and he seems to be saying that a divorced man can not be a preacher or a deacon.

I just wanted to know what verse of Scripture says that a divorced man cannot be a preacher or a deacon to serve the Lord.

That's a good point. That also supports the Pope's statement (though maybe I'm pushing it with you by saying that :p )
 
Blessings to you, too. Please, if I ever cross the line somewhere, call me out on it. I don't want to offend anyone here, and despite out doctrinal differences, we both have the same goal in mind in glory of the same Father. Hopefully we can better understand each others positions on these topics.

Why haven't you been feeling well? Everything OK?

I am not sure. All my vitals are in good shape but the last several days I have been sick to my stomach. I am type 2 diabetic so I think it is probably something with that. I go to the dr. in few weeks so I pray that it will be healed by then.

Thanks for asking and please pray for me, as I will for you.

And by the way, welcome to this site. I hope you will be active and encouraging to us as we hopefully will be to you.

I have enjoyed our conversation.
 
Top