Merged Thread: Various Themes by Evangelical

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

err.. maybe should I say "very few" or "most Christians don't know".

Many words and items in culture began with questionable origins, shall we then sanitize our lives of all these?

If so, just as Balaam was the first prophet for hire, then all those who charge for their "ministry" must also be rejected. (II Peter 2.15; Jude 11)

Anybody you know charge for their ministry trainings?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nope. God created music, Satan created rock which is corrupted music.

Everyone knows that "Rock and rolling" originally was a term frequently used in predominantly black neighborhoods to mean "having sexual intercourse".

@Song of Songs being a sex book - lol people with dirty minds read the Bible like a sex book. Jewish tradition reads it as an allegory of the relationship between God and Israel. Shows you know nothing about it if you just read it as a "sex book", shows the true state of your spirituality.

What!?! You can't do this. You have defended Witness Lee's use of the term deification saying that the original use of the word is not relevant.

Christian worship music doesn't use the term "rock and roll" they merely use guitars and other instruments, sometimes the melody as well.

You condemn that use because of the history of Rock and Roll yet you excuse Witness Lee's use of Deification because the pagan, idolatrous history of the Roman Empire somehow doesn't apply to him. That is hypocrisy. At least be consistent in your bizarre stance.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But Bono and U2 supports gay marriage, and so I don't see the connection between a person who supports gay marriage and a "true Christian".

He's a true Christian because he has made and continues to make the confession of faith. He works spreading Christ's love put yours and mine to shame I'm sure.

Yes, his comments about gay marriage are unfortunate. But that doesn't effect his position as a redeemed believer. He is one. He majors on the majors. He doesn't quibble about minors like rock and roll.

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOQClgNRoPc

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nope. God created music, Satan created rock which is corrupted music.

Everyone knows that "Rock and rolling" originally was a term frequently used in predominantly black neighborhoods to mean "having sexual intercourse".

Well, suffice to say I disagree with you. And since you've given no evidence of any kind of special insight or holiness resulting from it (quite the contrary), I'll leave it at that.

@Song of Songs being a sex book - lol people with dirty minds read the Bible like a sex book. Jewish tradition reads it as an allegory of the relationship between God and Israel. Shows you know nothing about it if you just read it as a "sex book", shows the true state of your spirituality.

Who said sex was dirty? There is nothing wrong with sex. God created it. Yes, the SoS can be seen as an allegory, but it is also about sex. There is no doubt. If you have a problem with that the problem is with you. Which makes my original point.

Religious extremists like yourself never live up to their own standards. They are always struggling with sin and feel guilty about it. Which is why they condemn everyone else for not doing so. It's the same reason a bully picks on other people. It's a kind of self-loathing. I'm not saying we shouldn't stand up for the truth, but we should do so in a humble and loving way, speaking the truth in love, and you don't do that.

It's sad that LCMers have come down to being what you display. But I know all of them haven't. I know sincere and humble ones. I hope you are still the exception.

The more you write your nonsense the more you make the point that the LCM has gone off the deep end.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Who said sex was dirty? There is nothing wrong with sex. God created it. Yes, the SoS can be seen as an allegory, but it is also about sex. There is no doubt. If you have a problem with that the problem is with you. Which makes my original point...

Saying it is about sex is like saying the gospels are about torture. It's not a sex book any more than the gospels are "torture books".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He's a true Christian because he has made and continues to make the confession of faith. He works spreading Christ's love put yours and mine to shame I'm sure.

Yes, his comments about gay marriage are unfortunate. But that doesn't effect his position as a redeemed believer. He is one. He majors on the majors. He doesn't quibble about minors like rock and roll.

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOQClgNRoPc

Is gay marriage a minor or a major according to you? A redeemed believer would not support gay marriage.

Have we seen this video where he turns one of his songs into a gay marriage anthem:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...-united-center

He really is majoring on the majors.. he's got the gay pride flag there, unrolling it on the floor, he's really showing "Christ's love" here. That's a "true Christian" according to you?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many words and items in culture began with questionable origins, shall we then sanitize our lives of all these?

If so, just as Balaam was the first prophet for hire, then all those who charge for their "ministry" must also be rejected. (II Peter 2.15; Jude 11)

Anybody you know charge for their ministry trainings?

Then the Reformers should not have gotten rid of the statues of Mary, saints and other negative items in the church, is that what you are suggesting? Will you be happy if someone drew a pagan pentagram or two on the walls of your church building or wherever you meet? It is just as pagan as a Christmas tree, would you allow it in your church?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many words and items in culture began with questionable origins, shall we then sanitize our lives of all these?

If so, just as Balaam was the first prophet for hire, then all those who charge for their "ministry" must also be rejected. (II Peter 2.15; Jude 11)

Anybody you know charge for their ministry trainings?

I think we should distinguish between "prophet for hire" and "you shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn".

For example, in a court of law you can hire an expert witness. If the expert is legitimate he will examine the case but make it very clear to the attorney that he will release his findings regardless of who is harmed.

There is a gray area here, the lawyers hire the expert, they pay him for his time but don't tell him what to say, but they control the testimony. So if it hurts the client they don't release it. This also is not legitimate. This is used by corporations all the time. They will hire 20 different scientists to examine some product, hide the results of the 19 studies that were least favorable, and that one study they do publish makes it look like the product is effective. However, if you saw all 20 studies you would have a very different conclusion. This also is a lie.

If you sell your testimony so that they own it, regardless of whether or not the testimony is true, you are a prophet for hire. But if you own your testimony, say in a copyrighted manuscript and then sell the book to cover publishing costs and so that the "ox is not muzzled" then that is not a prophet for hire.

If LSM hires someone to certify that they are "fundamental" Christians -- that is a prophet for hire.

Balaam was guilty of two crimes.

1. He did give true and faithful testimony, but he sold it to Balak who did not release the blessings.

2. He also advised Balak on how to defeat the Israelites. In this way he sold his counsel without any conscience, like a scientist counseling the Germans on the best way to exterminate people in a gas chamber.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is gay marriage a minor or a major according to you? A redeemed believer would not support gay marriage.

Have we seen this video where he turns one of his songs into a gay marriage anthem:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...-united-center

He really is majoring on the majors.. he's got the gay pride flag there, unrolling it on the floor, he's really showing "Christ's love" here. That's a "true Christian" according to you?

Torture is evil. Sex is good. Except to religionists who have hidden sins and try to cover them up by being self-righteous.

Do you believe sex is evil?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is gay marriage a minor or a major according to you? A redeemed believer would not support gay marriage.

Have we seen this video where he turns one of his songs into a gay marriage anthem:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/co...-united-center

He really is majoring on the majors.. he's got the gay pride flag there, unrolling it on the floor, he's really showing "Christ's love" here. That's a "true Christian" according to you?

I agree that supporting gay marriage is a mistake. But a proper stance on that is not a requirement for salvation. Also, Bono has the right idea about caring for people rather than judging them. Something you could definitely learn from him, Mr. Pharisee.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you had been there you probably would have picked up a rock and chunked it at the woman.

I don't want to weigh into these arguments, seems like some brothers see their first love not as Christ but rather winning the debate or by all means downgrade opinions hold by other believers...there are tons of people out there meeting not in denominations without being in the LC...stop speaking like you are the only one....

But I can provide an objective truth - as one who has been(or was) meeting in the LC in North Cal (but not really anymore I just keep in touch with my friends...those who are kind enough to remain as my friends....part of the reason I left was because of is the similar attitudes shown here...and yp...they don't care as much...), most of the people around me at my age don't know much about homosexuality being a sin - I see someone bragging about it here but lol, when I was in LC I felt like I was the only one who acknowledged as a sin, all the young people around me only responded "yea I don't know"... Like they had no feeling at all...

And homosexuality is not the only sin, some of the pride and slander shown here is equally sinful. God forgives I know I fall into the same problem too. I won't comment anymore lest I stumble others or be stumbled but I just wanna share that part of my experience.

[UntoHim]

Thanks for stopping by Ypnomore. You have provided some valuable insight for us oldies but goodies out here. However, I wouldn't worry so much about being stumbled, or even stumbling others. Our little forum is simply a venue for people to share their experiences, as you have noted in your post.

I would take issue with your "slander shown here" quip. If you want to point me to something specific, I would definitely consider deleting such postings without hesitation. As far as the "pride shown here" contention - well I will plead guilty to that one without so much as a whimper.

Please consider registering for membership. Our forum needs people with your specific experience and point of view.

-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree that supporting gay marriage is a mistake. But a proper stance on that is not a requirement for salvation. Also, Bono has the right idea about caring for people rather than judging them. Something you could definitely learn from him, Mr. Pharisee.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you had been there you probably would have picked up a rock and chunked it at the woman.

As evident by the video link I gave, he's not caring for people he's pushing the gay rights agenda. He believes that gay love is acceptable because it is love.

In another discussion on James, we were discussing the importance of works showing our faith and that a truly saved person will bear good fruit.

Now supporting gay marriage must be bad fruit and so it must indicate the true nature of their heart. A genuinely redeemed person has their life controlled by the Holy Spirit and unless you would try to argue that the Spirit led him to support the gay rights movement, I must conclude that he is led by some other spirit or his fallen human nature. That is far from an example of a "true Christian".

Is it not hypocritical for people on this forum to state the importance of good works to show our genuine salvation, and yet when faced with the truth about their favorite rock star supporting the gay rights movement, they do not hesitate to ignore that bad fruit and uphold him as an exemplar of what a "true Christian" is supposed to be.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Torture is evil. Sex is good. Except to religionists who have hidden sins and try to cover them up by being self-righteous.

Do you believe sex is evil?

You seem to be saying that gay sex is good? You better explain yourself what you really believe about homosexuality I'm sure a lot of people other than me would like to know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You seem to be saying that gay sex is good? You better explain yourself what you really believe about homosexuality I'm sure a lot of people other than me would like to know.

Every normal reader would know from his posts, that Igzy has never promoted homosexuality.

But you seem to be obsessed with it. It has never been a point of discussion on this forum, but you, however, take every opportunity to introduce the topic. Why is that? Why do you constantly change the subject and introduce homosexuality, as if this forum needs it.

Perhaps this is an issue that constantly plagues you personally. I have heard this about others who struggle with homosexuality. Most of the posters on this forum, however, are in normal long-time man-woman marriages.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every normal reader would know from his posts, that Igzy has never promoted homosexuality.

But you seem to be obsessed with it. It has never been a point of discussion on this forum, but you, however, take every opportunity to introduce the topic. Why is that? Why do you constantly change the subject and introduce homosexuality, as if this forum needs it.

Perhaps this is an issue that constantly plagues you personally. I have heard this about others who struggle with homosexuality. Most of the posters on this forum, however, are in normal long-time man-woman marriages.

I am a normal reader, I can read and speak English very well. If you read the past discussions in this thread, Igzy has held up a gay-rights supporter as an example of a true Christian. That in itself amounts to promoting homosexuality.

Igzy states "He's a true Christian because he has made and continues to make the confession of faith. He works spreading Christ's love put yours and mine to shame I'm sure. "

Igzy is promoting a gay-rights supporter as an example of a true Christian because Bono says this:

http://www.holybibleprophecy.org/201...marriage-vote/
The band dedicated Pride (In The Name of Love) to the cause of marriage equality. Bono introduced Beautiful Day by stating: “We’re putting the gay back in Gaelic!”

Speaking in Vancouver ahead of the start of the iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE earlier this month, Bono endorsed a Yes vote in the referendum.

He said “trying to co-opt the word marriage is like trying to co-opt the word love.

“Marriage is not owned by any church, but instead owned by the community who should decide who it does and does not apply to.”

The definition of marriage had changed through the millennia, he pointed out. Jesus was not married and many characters in the Bible had several wives.

He described commitment as “one of the most impossibly great human traits, the hardest to hold on to.

“Anything that enshrines that is a wonderful thing. Marriage is nearly impossible. Wherever it is occurs it should be encouraged.”

Now we might think that Bono has diverted from the truth in recent years but we can find early quotes from him where he has supported these things all along:

When asked about his position on homosexuality, Bono said: “My bottom line on any sexuality is that love is the most important thing. That love is it. Any way people want to love each other is OK by me” (Bono, Mother Jones magazine, May/June 1989).

Now let us consider taking Igzy's advice in #66 http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5632

By their fruits you shall know them. Go look at the fruit, Evangelical.

and ZNPaaneah's in #241

Jesus said that you can know a tree by its fruit.

So on this basis Bono is found to be a false Christian because his fruit is bad.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am a normal reader, I can read and speak English very well. If you read the past discussions in this thread, Igzy has held up a gay-rights supporter as an example of a true Christian. That in itself amounts to promoting homosexuality.

I can't speak for Igzy, but his appreciation for Bono's song "One" in no way makes him (Igzy) a promoter of gay rights. Neither does my appreciation for Martin Luther (an avid anti-Semitic) make me a promoter of the terrorist organization called Hamas.

All men are flawed.

It is good for all men to know this simple truth. It is even better for all men to know that only Jesus Christ was flawless. The good news and saving truth of the Gospel of grace is simply that the Flawless died for all the flawed, the Righteous for the unrighteous. (I Peter 3.18)

This forum basically exists because we (and yes, I was an active member of 3 LC's for some 30 years) were led to believe that Witness Lee was also among the short list of Flawless men. Lee was even referred to as a "god-man" and the "acting-god." As a result of these blasphemous assertions, much like the Roman Catholic papal "vicar-of-Christ" heresy, many LC members were confused, deceived, and ship-wrecked in the faith. This forum is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lasting carnage in the wake of Lee's ministry.

Both Bono and Lee are flawed, difference being that Bono never claimed to be flawless. Lee basically did. His Blendeds definitely did. And many beloved children of God have been subsequently hurt. Stumbled is the Biblical word. Think about millstones around the neck. Hence the subject of this forum. Like you said, "know them by the fruit."

Sadly Witness Lee is known more for what he was against, than what he was for. Sure he was an avid promoter of his pet doctrines, but when it came to the basic truths of "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," (I Tim. 1.15) Lee was known to refer to this as the "low gospel." How disgusting.

Your message to the world (and to the greater body of Christ) should not be that you hate all denominations, hate all free groups, hate homosexuality, hate the clergy, hate all names of churches, hate contemporary Christian "rock" music, etc. and etc. but that you love Jesus, you love Christ crucified for all sinners. This is also part of my "recovery" from the Recovery.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Igzy

In his very self. He HIMSELF is our peace.

I liked what OBW and Igzy posted here. Jesus Christ is our peace. Thank God we can rest in Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every normal reader would know from his posts, that Igzy has never promoted homosexuality.

But you seem to be obsessed with it. It has never been a point of discussion on this forum, but you, however, take every opportunity to introduce the topic. Why is that? Why do you constantly change the subject and introduce homosexuality, as if this forum needs it.

Perhaps this is an issue that constantly plagues you personally. I have heard this about others who struggle with homosexuality. Most of the posters on this forum, however, are in normal long-time man-woman marriages.

Okay, I'll chime in here, with my measly two cents.

While in the local church I was getting together with another brother to study Jessie Penn-Lewis on the cross. I didn't know it at the time but we were studying the cross for two different reasons. I was studying it to learn more, but he was studying it hoping that it would deal with his homosexuality. At the time I had no clue that he was gay. He was married with 3 children.

About 6 months after I left the local church he came out and admitted to his wife, parents, kids, and the local church, that he was gay.

By that time it was to late for me. I had come to love the brother and remained friends with him for years. His sexuality wasn't my business. But I made it my business. Being heterosexual, I didn't understand homosexulity. So I spent years digging into his brain trying to figure out what made him gay.

In the process I learned a lot. I even learned that the guy he had his first sexual experience with was in the local church and was an elder on the west coast (sneaking out to pull tricks with boys -- that blew my mind).

In short "John" revealed that it wasn't a choice he made. He was certain that he was born that way. Well I'm pretty liberal but I thought, how can that be? The Bible says that homosexuals will be judged by God. So to me God couldn't make some homosexuals.

Years later John's lover died from aids. So John became asexual, and contacted me to go back to Jesus and the local church. I hooked him up and he attended a meeting but was rejected by the elders who knew him. (Funny how Christians reject homosexuals but don't reject whisperers (gossipers) that Paul lists along with homo's.)

So now I'm not sure if God makes some gay or not. Does God make those born with ambiguous genitalia, or both sex organs? They certainly don't chose to be both. Paul doesn't mention hermaphrodites. He prolly didn't know about it. But if God makes them He certainly can't judge them.

In the end it is God that judges. In Matthew 21:31 Jesus tells the chief priest and elders, ""Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you." That had to be a shocker, and against all that the chief priest knew about the Torah.

And for all we know that may be the case for homosexuals. God didn't seem to hold it against king David for getting naked with Jonathan, kissing him, and loving him more than women.

In Romans Paul asks : "For who hath known the mind of the Lord?"

So I say, be careful judging homosexuals. Cuz you may be judging someone that God doesn't judge.

[Ohio]

I was hoping to change the subject. So much for that!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You think it's dangerous that God has given you the Holy Spirit and wants you to become like Him? It's not dangerous, that's Christianity in a nutshell. Even Catholicism teaches that. If you aren't like Him, then you get to go to hell where people who "aren't like God" live.

Theosis is not new with Lee. It's a main theme in Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been for a long time.

However, no one has ever become Christ ... except in their imagination. All it ends up being is, dancing with ghosts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Theosis is not new with Lee. It's a main theme in Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been for a long time.

However, no one has ever become Christ ... except in their imagination. All it ends up being is, dancing with ghosts.

It was a main theme with the books "the God Men" and "The Mind Benders". These books came out when I first came into the Local Church. I heard from Ray Graver directly how they had twisted and intentionally misunderstood Witness Lee's teaching. I watched video tape from Witness Lee boasting of how they ran circles around the lawyers in the depositions.

There was a very strong defense at that time that Witness Lee had a fundamental, Bible based understanding that had been misinterpreted by these writers. At that time he condemned the Eastern Orthodox view, warned us that it was off, and warned us that the use of terms like deification could be pagan and idolatrous.

However, 14 years later he embraces the term "deification" even though it could easily provoke the "misunderstandings" that prompted the earlier books. He also switched, saying that the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Deification supported his use of the word (even though his teaching would be considered heretical by them).

I feel this is his MO, to be intentionally provocative, to play with heretical terms yet fill his teachings with caveats and redefinitions so he could stir up a controversy and then say we didn't understand.

Why? Witness Lee's main teaching is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the builded church, that he alone is building the church and you know it by the intense spiritual warfare over the church. Therefore he had to do something that would provoke a response from others to maintain this pretense that there was a spiritual warfare over his teachings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I can't speak for Igzy, but his appreciation for Bono's song "One" in no way makes him (Igzy) a promoter of gay rights. Neither does my appreciation for Martin Luther (an avid anti-Semitic) make me a promoter of the terrorist organization called Hamas.

All men are flawed.

It is good for all men to know this simple truth. It is even better for all men to know that only Jesus Christ was flawless. The good news and saving truth of the Gospel of grace is simply that the Flawless died for all the flawed, the Righteous for the unrighteous. (I Peter 3.18)

This forum basically exists because we (and yes, I was an active member of 3 LC's for some 30 years) were led to believe that Witness Lee was also among the short list of Flawless men. Lee was even referred to as a "god-man" and the "acting-god." As a result of these blasphemous assertions, much like the Roman Catholic papal "vicar-of-Christ" heresy, many LC members were confused, deceived, and ship-wrecked in the faith. This forum is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lasting carnage in the wake of Lee's ministry.

Both Bono and Lee are flawed, difference being that Bono never claimed to be flawless. Lee basically did. His Blendeds definitely did. And many beloved children of God have been subsequently hurt. Stumbled is the Biblical word. Think about millstones around the neck. Hence the subject of this forum. Like you said, "know them by the fruit."

Sadly Witness Lee is known more for what he was against, than what he was for. Sure he was an avid promoter of his pet doctrines, but when it came to the basic truths of "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," (I Tim. 1.15) Lee was known to refer to this as the "low gospel." How disgusting.

Your message to the world (and to the greater body of Christ) should not be that you hate all denominations, hate all free groups, hate homosexuality, hate the clergy, hate all names of churches, hate contemporary Christian "rock" music, etc. and etc. but that you love Jesus, you love Christ crucified for all sinners. This is also part of my "recovery" from the Recovery.

This is not because he appreciates a song, but because he states that a gay-rights supporter is a true Christian.

Now to add to his folly, you also explain away Bono's commitment to gay rights as a "flaw", for which you ought be condemned. A flaw is something we often struggle with. But Bono is not struggling with the sin of supporting gay pride, he has supported it all along. Over 20 years of supporting something God clearly disapproves of is evidence of a false Christian. It's evidence of someone led not by the Spirit but by something else. Flaws are things such as homosexual tendencies, bad tempers, gluttony, a loose tongue, a bad habit... now supporting an evil movement that redefines the definition of marriage for many years that's not a flaw that's a bad fruit.

The point Lee made about the low gospel was not to belittle it but to emphasize it in the context of the meaning of human life. Salvation is an important and necessary means to an end but not the goal. Mankinds purpose is not merely to go to be saved and go to heaven. The meaning of human life is that mankind needs God with him all the time. The meaning of the low gospel is that mankind needs to be rescued from hell and go to a happier place, but does not address what man is supposed to be doing with their life and reason for living. The preaching of the low gospel alone has resulted in numerous saved with tickets to heaven yet not practical living of the Christian life nor caring for God. God has raised up people such as Rick Warren to promote the meaning and purpose of human life yet still fall short in explaining exactly what that purpose is.

I disagree with your concept about love and hate. It is entirely appropriate for Christians to love Christ and hate the world and make that known when appropriate. This is commanded in 1 John 2:15. To know Christ is to love what he loves and hate what he hates. If we focus just on the love we will be carried away into the "love everything" cult like Bono and U2, who do not understand the meaning of love. To focus just on the hate is to be carried away into the other extreme.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, I'll chime in here, with my measly two cents.

While in the local church I was getting together with another brother to study Jessie Penn-Lewis on the cross. I didn't know it at the time but we were studying the cross for two different reasons. I was studying it to learn more, but he was studying it hoping that it would deal with his homosexuality. At the time I had no clue that he was gay. He was married with 3 children.

About 6 months after I left the local church he came out and admitted to his wife, parents, kids, and the local church, that he was gay.

By that time it was to late for me. I had come to love the brother and remained friends with him for years. His sexuality wasn't my business. But I made it my business. Being heterosexual, I didn't understand homosexulity. So I spent years digging into his brain trying to figure out what made him gay.

In the process I learned a lot. I even learned that the guy he had his first sexual experience with was in the local church and was an elder on the west coast (sneaking out to pull tricks with boys -- that blew my mind).

In short "John" revealed that it wasn't a choice he made. He was certain that he was born that way. Well I'm pretty liberal but I thought, how can that be? The Bible says that homosexuals will be judged by God. So to me God couldn't make some homosexuals.

Years later John's lover died from aids. So John became asexual, and contacted me to go back to Jesus and the local church. I hooked him up and he attended a meeting but was rejected by the elders who knew him. (Funny how Christians reject homosexuals but don't reject whisperers (gossipers) that Paul lists along with homo's.)

So now I'm not sure if God makes some gay or not. Does God make those born with ambiguous genitalia, or both sex organs? They certainly don't chose to be both. Paul doesn't mention hermaphrodites. He prolly didn't know about it. But if God makes them He certainly can't judge them.

In the end it is God that judges. In Matthew 21:31 Jesus tells the chief priest and elders, ""Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you." That had to be a shocker, and against all that the chief priest knew about the Torah.

And for all we know that may be the case for homosexuals. God didn't seem to hold it against king David for getting naked with Jonathan, kissing him, and loving him more than women.

In Romans Paul asks : "For who hath known the mind of the Lord?"

So I say, be careful judging homosexuals. Cuz you may be judging someone that God doesn't judge.

Thankyou for your input regarding homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality itself, this is about promotion of the redefinition of marriage, the support of the 'gay pride' movement which is 100% anti-Christ. This is what Bono and U2 stand for. This is what some on this forum claim is an example of a "true Christian". When they make these statements they are basically promoting the redefinition of marriage.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou for your input regarding homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality itself, this is about promotion of the redefinition of marriage, the support of the 'gay pride' movement which is 100% anti-Christ. This is what Bono and U2 stand for. This is what some on this forum claim is an example of a "true Christian". When they make these statements they are basically promoting the redefinition of marriage.

Wow, I must have missed some very important posts. Your "local church experience" and "your testimony" is about the gay pride movement and the redefinition of marriage?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, I must have missed some very important posts. Your "local church experience" and "your testimony" is about the gay pride movement and the redefinition of marriage?

It's been about many different things in the journey of discussion. Yet like Ohio and Igzy you are merely trying to avoid the issue. Why don't you just admit that this forum is merely a front for liberal emergent church views, that supports the redefinition of marriage and the gay pride movement, by promoting gay-right supporters as true Christians? This is why people are trying to change the subject, because Igzy has let the "cat out of the bag" and now all genuine Christians can see what sort of a forum this is. This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views. It does not surprise me however because there are only a limited number of degraded church models and theologies you could appeal to once you leave the Lord's recovery.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's been about many different things in the journey of discussion. Yet like Ohio and Igzy you are merely trying to avoid the issue. Why don't you just admit that this forum is merely a front for liberal emergent church views, that supports the redefinition of marriage and the gay pride movement, by promoting gay-right supporters as true Christians? This is why people are trying to change the subject, because Igzy has let the "cat out of the bag" and now all genuine Christians can see what sort of a forum this is. This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views. It does not surprise me however because there are only a limited number of degraded church models and theologies you could appeal to once you leave the Lord's recovery.

I think my point was that this forum and this thread are not about those things.

If you would like to discuss it you have several options:

1. Demonstrate where it falls in Witness Lee's ministry, and create a thread based on that. I will be happy to discuss it there with you.

or

2. Go to the "alternate views" website and post a thread about gay pride there.

I have not responded previously to this, not because I am trying to avoid the "issue" but because this was not a part of my local church experience nor was it my testimony. Since that is what this thread is about I find your discussion off topic. Make a thread where it is on topic and more people will freely discuss it there.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views.

Well if this was true then I wouldn't have asked you to register, now would I? This forum is about whatever one wants to post regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church movement, and the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Igzy's word is just as good as anybody's around here. Evangelical's word is just as good as anybody's around here. Occasionally, when I can find the time to post, my word is just as good as anybody's as well.

As a general rule, I haven't tried to encouraged the promoting of any particular brand of theology or teaching; much, much less, "emergent church views". Longtime forum members are given a little more leeway to express their understandings and views of a whole host of matters and concerns. Evangelical and others who come to participate in our discussions are also free to do the same. I only ask that we try to stir clear of any discussions about politics or political figures on the main forum.

As far as matters related to homosexuality, I would only ask that such discussions be kept out of the political/sociological realm. The fact is that human sexuality was not an issue brought forth in the ministries of Nee or Lee. Therefore, such matters have a somewhat limited value for us here on this forum. This doesn't mean it has zero value.

Human sexuality is part and parcel of our human nature and condition. If we are to believe the opening chapters of Genesis, the Fall of Man included all parts, body and soul. The pure and innocent body and soul God created became corrupted and deeply damaged. Human sexuality, being intrinsically part of human nature itself, became corrupted and deeply damaged. God has been working to redeem human sexuality, along with all other facets of the human nature and condition, ever since. Man has not been very cooperative in this endeavor. Homosexuality is simply one expression of the brokenness of the soul and body of Man. Adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, debauchery, etc are also expressions of the brokenness of the soul and body of Man. God is not in the business of "fixing" this brokenness, at least not in this age. He is, however, in the business of redeeming this brokenness. The end result with be the redemption of our mortal bodies. In the meantime, God calls up to repentance and belief in The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thankyou for your input regarding homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality itself, this is about promotion of the redefinition of marriage, the support of the 'gay pride' movement which is 100% anti-Christ. This is what Bono and U2 stand for. This is what some on this forum claim is an example of a "true Christian". When they make these statements they are basically promoting the redefinition of marriage.

Thanks for your response. But I doubt very much that anyone on this forum ever promoted the redefinition of marriage. That was settled by the Supreme Court. So I'll just ask everyone, "Did any of you submit an amicus to the Supreme Court regarding samesex marriage.

And claiming that someone who likes Bono's "One" song is promoting redefining marriage is a red herring.

All I was doing, or trying to do, with my "homosexual post," was to point out how using the Bible as the law -- selectively using it, btw, aka, rejecting gays, but not whisperers -- may turn out to be wrong ; that God may have something else in mind that we're not privy to ; since we're privy to only a very little of what God thinks, is doing, or will do.

From reading the OP this thread has gone completely off the rails. But carry on brother. Let's hear more of what you have to say. I'm curious of what you are really driving at.

Now back to something ZNP presented ... that I think relates to the OP.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is not because [Igzy] appreciates a song, but because he states that a gay-rights supporter is a true Christian.

Now to add to his folly, you also explain away Bono's commitment to gay rights as a "flaw", for which you ought be condemned.

So ... let me get this right ... I am to be condemned because I said that Igzy appreciated a song written by a Christian singer who is sympathetic to the gay movement. That's guilt by association thrice removed!

Sounds to me like you have decided to no longer defend the indefensible teachings and deplorable actions of Lee and other LSM leaders, and have taken us on the gay tangent, where you can now condemn us all one by one for being too tolerant and almost "supportive" of gays. Straw man on a wild goose hunt.

You sure have learned well the ways of your leaders. They too are never accountable for their teachings or actions. Like the Pharisees of old, the self-righteous can only attack those who shine a light on the darkness.

[awareness]

Before getting back to ZNP as intended, I can't resist jumping on this one by ZNP :

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's been about many different things in the journey of discussion. Yet like Ohio and Igzy you are merely trying to avoid the issue. Why don't you just admit that this forum is merely a front for liberal emergent church views, that supports the redefinition of marriage and the gay pride movement, by promoting gay-right supporters as true Christians? This is why people are trying to change the subject, because Igzy has let the "cat out of the bag" and now all genuine Christians can see what sort of a forum this is. This forum is about denigrating Lee and the Lord's recovery, while promoting liberal theology and emergent church views. It does not surprise me however because there are only a limited number of degraded church models and theologies you could appeal to once you leave the Lord's recovery.
I think my point was that this forum and this thread are not about those things.

Evangelical is more than welcome in Alternative Views. We more than welcome apologetics "down" there. Plus, it might be fun discussing the gay thing, and how it relates to being a Christian.

But concerning Evangelical's claim about the "real" purpose of LCD, he could, for example, start a thread on something like "What is the real purpose of the LCD forum?" That might prove to be interesting. But of course Untohim could answer it in just one post, so the thread might die a quick death. Still, brother Evangelical go for it. Let's have it spelled out. Inquiring minds want to know. Is LCD advocating jumping from the LSM/LC cult into just another cult?

[awareness]

Back to ZNP's post, that I think more closely relates to the OP.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It was a main theme with the books "the God Men" and "The Mind Benders". These books came out when I first came into the Local Church. I heard from Ray Graver directly how they had twisted and intentionally misunderstood Witness Lee's teaching. I watched video tape from Witness Lee boasting of how they ran circles around the lawyers in the depositions.

There was a very strong defense at that time that Witness Lee had a fundamental, Bible based understanding that had been misinterpreted by these writers. At that time he condemned the Eastern Orthodox view, warned us that it was off, and warned us that the use of terms like deification could be pagan and idolatrous.

However, 14 years later he embraces the term "deification" even though it could easily provoke the "misunderstandings" that prompted the earlier books. He also switched, saying that the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Deification supported his use of the word (even though his teaching would be considered heretical by them).

I feel this is his MO, to be intentionally provocative, to play with heretical terms yet fill his teachings with caveats and redefinitions so he could stir up a controversy and then say we didn't understand.

Why? Witness Lee's main teaching is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the builded church, that he alone is building the church and you know it by the intense spiritual warfare over the church. Therefore he had to do something that would provoke a response from others to maintain this pretense that there was a spiritual warfare over his teachings.

For what it's worth, it's so refreshing to have you back around. Turns out Untohim is a cool guy. I don't know for sure cuz he's been unpredictable in the past. I've just come to picture him as I sometimes picture God ; he has a crazy streak.

Anyway I left the local church around the time The God-Men, and Mind Benders came out. At that time, just by what I had discovered, I was unable to understand why anyone would ever join the LC. You're proof I was wrong.

So I wasn't around to hear Witness Lee boasting of how they ran circles around the lawyers in the depositions.

Haha ... the cult label stuck anyway. Cuz it was/is like a tar baby ; the more touched the more stuck. It skips my mind right now, but I'm sure I could find it -- maybe something in Nigel Tomes contributions -- but I remember reading an article of how the term "cult" has followed Witness Lee's movement, and is hindering it's growth.

I've heard some exLCers complain about using that term cult when it comes to the LC. But turns out to be the right term because of its function ; it inhibits growth of Witness Lee's movement.

That, to me, is a good thing. I wish I knew it before I joined, back when I was DistantStar's age.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... let me get this right ... I am to be condemned because I said that Igzy appreciated a song written by a Christian singer who is sympathetic to the gay movement. That's guilt by association thrice removed!

Sounds to me like you have decided to no longer defend the indefensible teachings and deplorable actions of Lee and other LSM leaders, and have taken us on the gay tangent, where you can now condemn us all one by one for being too tolerant and almost "supportive" of gays. Straw man on a wild goose hunt.

You sure have learned well the ways of your leaders. They too are never accountable for their teachings or actions. Like the Pharisees of old, the self-righteous can only attack those who shine a light on the darkness.

Igzy did not just say they appreciated a song. They said that Bono is a true Christian when he is in fact a gay rights supporter as evidenced by his many interviews and videos. The fact that you are defending Igzy's views means you also share a part.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for your response. But I doubt very much that anyone on this forum ever promoted the redefinition of marriage. That was settled by the Supreme Court. So I'll just ask everyone, "Did any of you submit an amicus to the Supreme Court regarding samesex marriage.

And claiming that someone who likes Bono's "One" song is promoting redefining marriage is a red herring.

All I was doing, or trying to do, with my "homosexual post," was to point out how using the Bible as the law -- selectively using it, btw, aka, rejecting gays, but not whisperers -- may turn out to be wrong ; that God may have something else in mind that we're not privy to ; since we're privy to only a very little of what God thinks, is doing, or will do.

From reading the OP this thread has gone completely off the rails. But carry on brother. Let's hear more of what you have to say. I'm curious of what you are really driving at.

Now back to something ZNP presented ... that I think relates to the OP.

Again, this is not about the song, but about the rock star himself.

Post #248 Igzy said, Bono, the U2 singer, is a true Christian. That might be hard for some religionists to swallow, but his faith is genuine and passionate.

According to Igzy, Bono, a gays right supporter, is a genuine and true Christian.

Those who disagree that he is a true Christian (as I do, on the basis of his support of gay pride and gay marriage rights), are apparently religionists.

I don't see what this has to do with the Supreme Court. I think we should care if someone is upholding a gay rights supporter as an example of a true Christian. This amounts to affirming that Bono, as a "true Christian", was right in supporting gay rights.

Others have defended Bono by saying that his support of gay marriage rights is a "flaw". Well I don't think support of an anti-Christ movement for many years constitutes a character flaw. That is a deliberate action on his part to follow his flesh, the world, or an anti-Christ spirit into supporting gay marriage rights.

Your suggesting that we are privy to only part of God's plan... does this mean you believe gay marriage rights is part of God's plan?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well if this was true then I wouldn't have asked you to register, now would I? This forum is about whatever one wants to post regarding the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church movement, and the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee...

-

Your claim that human sexuality was not an issue brought forth by Lee/Nee, is perhaps too strong of a claim. Actually you are mistaken. He often emphasized sins such as fornication and their impact on the Christian life (such as losing ones birthright like Esau). Lee also taught against gay marriage rights.

For example, in Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom.
In chapter 53 Lee states that in Sodom marriage had become completely degraded.
In reference to today being the times of Noah, he states that Christians have become doped.
In chapter 96 Lee states that the USA, Sweden and France is a Sodom and that God hates it.

So you see you are mistaken about these matters not being an issue brought forth by Lee.

Now that I have found a reference where Lee is speaking about gay marriage rights, I feel I am at liberty to discuss such a topic, however perhaps in a different thread so as to be on topic.

In keeping with Lee's teaching on this matter, I also feel at liberty to claim that the USA is now Sodom, and those who agree with this legislation are Sodomites like Bono and U2. Now I feel that I have brought this topic back to the context of Lee/Nee's ministry. To claim that Bono/U2 are true Christians is to claim that Sodomites are true Christians. Please note that I do not use the slang word "sodomite" (lower case) to mean its vernacular and vulgar meaning, but as reference to a citizen of the ancient city of Sodom in a biblical and spiritual sense. Hence a Sodomite in a biblical and spiritual sense is one who is willing or happy to live in the city of Sodom and agrees with her practices and beliefs. Again, in reference to the Bible, a genuine Christian may live in or near Sodom, like Lot. However like Lot, they would not agree with her practices and beliefs. The fact that Bono agrees with Sodom's practices proves he is not a genuine follower of God like Abraham and Lot.

[Evangelical]

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book.

Now can a person be a Christian and live in Sodom?

Yes. The situation of today's Christians living in the USA is that of Lot.
Lot was a genuine follower of God who lived amidst a world of sin and depravity. Unfortunately he was afraid and complicit to his environment to the extent that he offered his daughters to be raped. This is equivalent to Christian parents who give their children over to the depraved situation in the environment out of fear or weakness.

If Sodom had legalized gay marriage, would Lot have supported it?
Of course he would not. God called Lot out of Sodom to flee, just as God rained his judgement upon them. Therefore if there is a Christian who supports Sodom, they are in fact no Christian at all.

This puts American Christians in a difficult situation. Unlike Chinese Christians, for example, who live under persecution, Americans are very proud of their nation, even going so far as to have American flags within church buildings. Unfortunately this is a hindrance if such a nation should become Sodom. The believer is torn between patriotism and the Bible. Only those with a steadfast and absolute heart will choose the Bible over their flag. The rest, who prefer to remain in Sodom, will perish, or be turned to a pillar of salt like Lot's wife who turned back.

Today, Christians who prefer to remain in Sodom characterizes the majority of Christians who consider America to be a great Christian nation or who attend denominations which support or bless homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, like Lot and his wife, their allegiance to their homeland clouds their judgement. In such a case, God raises up people like Abraham from outside Sodom, to rescue the "Lots" still living in the land of Sodom when time for God's judgement comes. We can consider Nee and Lee's ministry to be like Abraham's, coming to America from other lands, to rescue genuine Christians, the Lots, out of the depraved environment.

In summary,

Given that America is Sodom, American Christians should expect God to raise up some "Abrahams" from outside of her, to pray for and rescue the genuine "Lots" within her. In some sense Lee and Nee fulfilled this "Abraham" ministry.
Christians who are complicit to Sodom out of fear or weakness, are Lots that need prayer and rescuing by the "Abrahams". They are still considered righteous by God and God does not desire for them to perish. This characterizes Christians in gay marriage approving denominations.
Christians who support Sodom and are not affected by it in a negative way, and promote the continuing practices of Sodom, are not Lots or Christians at all.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

It seems your point is that this thread falls within a discussion of Witness Lee's teachings. I agree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book.

It seems your point is that the world is going to be judged by God. I agree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now can a person be a Christian and live in Sodom?

Yes. The situation of today's Christians living in the USA is that of Lot.
Lot was a genuine follower of God who lived amidst a world of sin and depravity. Unfortunately he was afraid and complicit to his environment to the extent that he offered his daughters to be raped. This is equivalent to Christian parents who give their children over to the depraved situation in the environment out of fear or weakness.

It seems to me that this should be a much more important topic, how should a Christian walk in this evil and adulterous age. I don't think we need to take Lot as our example, nor do I agree that living in the US now means we are destined to walk in Lot's shoes.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Sodom had legalized gay marriage, would Lot have supported it?
Of course he would not. God called Lot out of Sodom to flee, just as God rained his judgement upon them. Therefore if there is a Christian who supports Sodom, they are in fact no Christian at all.

I don't feel comfortable with you being the "judge" who "Passes judgement".

For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. (Jn 3:17)

I have no issue with you disagreeing with the legalization of homosexual marriage, nor do I have any issue with you as both a Christian and citizen exercising all of your rights to oppose these laws. But no one has made you judge, and surely not of eternal salvation.

I have much to say about you and to judge and condemn. But He Who sent Me is true (reliable), and I tell the world [only] the things that I have heard from Him. (Jn 8:26)

My thought is what has the Lord told me to say? What is the NT testament teaching? Your reference to Sodom and Lot are certainly relevant to a discussion about legalized gay marriage, but they do not address what will make a genuine Christian or disqualify a person from being a genuine Christian.

If anyone hears My teachings and fails to observe them [does not keep them, but disregards them], it is not I who judges him. For I have not come to judge and to condemn and to pass sentence and to inflict penalty on the world, but to save the world. (Jn 12:47)

I can teach the Lord's word. If someone doesn't observe those teachings I don't then become a judge to condemn them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This puts American Christians in a difficult situation.

No, it doesn't. The only reason you think this is because you have made yourself the judge. You knew from the moment you were baptized that the world was already judged and condemned. Your commission is to preach the gospel, so that some may be saved. You are not here to "inflict a penalty on the world" or to judge or to condemn.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Igzy did not just say they appreciated a song. They said that Bono is a true Christian when he is in fact a gay rights supporter as evidenced by his many interviews and videos. The fact that you are defending Igzy's views means you also share a part.

I have heard Bono testify of his faith in Jesus Christ, that He is risen from the dead, and that He died for his sins.

I used to be a supporter of Witness Lee, whose sons were known profligates, immoral adulterers and whore-mongers, adulterating the word of God, and making merchandise of God's people. So what does that make you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your suggesting that we are privy to only part of God's plan... does this mean you believe gay marriage rights is part of God's plan?

I think I've already quoted the shocker by Jesus, that prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the high priest, as proof that we don't know everything about God's judgment.

I've also pointed out that "whisperers" are listed along with "without natural affection" in the opening chapter in Romans.

So, according to your apparent judgment so far, are whisperers also anti-Christ's?

There are, brother Evangelical, Christian homosexuals. I've personally known some. I've known some that have been born again .. and remained homosexuals. Say what you will but that it a far cry from being an antiChrist.

I personally know of homosexuals in the LSM local church ... deep in the closet, of course ... attending elder's conferences. Are they anti-Christ's?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Igzy did not just say they appreciated a song. They said that Bono is a true Christian when he is in fact a gay rights supporter as evidenced by his many interviews and videos. The fact that you are defending Igzy's views means you also share a part.

And by definition a gay-rights defender cannot be a true Christian?

I don't want to get into the theological issues surrounding gays in general. I believe the very conservative position myself. But I am humble enough to decide that, in this world, sinners are sinners doing all kinds of both immoral and sometimes moral things. And we are all sinners, even when saved. So I would expect that there will be some who might have issues coming to what I think is the correct stance on the issue. But salvation is based on belief in Christ, not the absolute cessation of sin and the agreement with everybody else what that is.

The commandment on me is to love God and love others. If there is judgment to come, it is God's job. If I were asked about it, I would counsel that it appears to be considered outside of God's norms. Will it disqualify you? Not my call. But for a true follower, seeking to be more and more like Christ, and to be more and more in line with his righteousness would seem to be a goal. I think that includes "sexual preference."

But punishment in this age for it is not mine to mete out.

When it comes to loving others, who is more loving, the one who does, or the one who does not, shout curses at those we think are sinners?

So no matter what you think of Bono's position with God, he exemplifies and bears the image that God would have us bear more nearly than many that I know are Christians. Yet you dismiss him over a position on something? So salvation is by grace, through faith, by those who agree on the homosexual issue with your position?

First its dirt. Now homosexuality. What about those who allow sexual predators to lead religious institutions?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And by definition a gay-rights defender cannot be a true Christian?

First its [the doctrine of] dirt. Now homosexuality. What about those who allow sexual predators to lead religious institutions?

What about abortion? The murder of the most innocent of the offspring of God? To me, abortion is far worse than the gay issues, not that there is good or bad sin, but even Jesus standing before Pilate spoke of those who had the "greater sin."

Here the hypocrisy and heterodoxy of Evangelical is continually on display. The same hypocrisy which is so manifest in LC/LSM leadership.

Evangelical condemns me for being a gay rights supporter ... my association is thrice removed thru Igzy and Bono ... while he refuses to address any hypocrisy, sin, and unrighteousness at LSM. To Evangelical, Lee and the Blendeds enjoy the same "immunity" from accountability as the Pope in Rome, the so-called Papal Infallibility.

[testallthings]

Both have four legs. You can sit on both of them. One is a horse and the other is a chair. Few similarities between two objects, matters, situations, etc., do not automatically equate them. Everybody knows this but not everybody seems to apply this simple principle when it comes to make a point.
U.S.A. is a new Sodom. Why? Because U.S. passed a law that allows same sex marriage. I don't see how anyone by any stretch of the imagination could fail to see the flaw of this kind of argument.
Allowing people to marry whom they want doesn't make the entire country a Sodom.

“An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States

We are talking about 3-4% of the population. In Sodom it was probably 99-100%.

"Christianity is the most adhered to religion in the United States, with 70% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2014.[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, lower than 81.6% in 2001,[2] and slightly lower than 78% in 2012.[3] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.[4] The United States has the largest Christian population in the world, with nearly 280 million Christians, although other countries have higher percentages of Christians among their populations.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ..._United_States

Again, there is a striking difference between U.S. and Sodom. There are millions of believers in the U.S. There was not 1 (except Lot) righteous man in Sodom.



“Today, Christians who prefer to remain in Sodom characterizes the majority of Christians who consider America to be a great Christian nation or who attend denominations which support or bless homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, like Lot and his wife, their allegiance to their homeland clouds their judgement. In such a case, God raises up people like Abraham from outside Sodom, to rescue the "Lots" still living in the land of Sodom when time for God's judgement comes. We can consider Nee and Lee's ministry to be like Abraham's, coming to America from other lands, to rescue genuine Christians, the Lots, out of the depraved environment.” (Evangelical)

Though I highly esteem Nee and his ministry ( I cannot say the same for Lee), why limiting the function of an Abraham only to Nee and Lee? Would not a Spurgeon do? Would not a Wesley do? Would not a Hudson Taylor do? Would not a Bonhoeffer do? Weren't they all non American citizens?
But in any case you are forgetting that Abraham did not set foot in Sodom. He only prayed for the city (or to save Lot?). It was God, trough angels that pulled Lot out of Sodom.

There is another question that you have to consider. W. Lee said that U.S. is going to be the wilderness spoken of in Revelation, a place were people will flee from the coming tribulation. Now, if the U.S. is Sodom, and Sodom was and is going to be destroyed by God, isn't that absurd and ironic that people fleeing from the frying pan will jump into the fire?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I've already quoted the shocker by Jesus, that prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the high priest, as proof that we don't know everything about God's judgment.

I've also pointed out that "whisperers" are listed along with "without natural affection" in the opening chapter in Romans.

So, according to your apparent judgment so far, are whisperers also anti-Christ's?

There are, brother Evangelical, Christian homosexuals. I've personally known some. I've known some that have been born again .. and remained homosexuals. Say what you will but that it a far cry from being an antiChrist.

I personally know of homosexuals in the LSM local church ... deep in the closet, of course ... attending elder's conferences. Are they anti-Christ's?

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda. That is what the bible calls the spirit or mystery of lawlessness, or anti-Christ spirit. A Christian helping to redefine marriage for the gay rights movement is equivalent to a Christian giving a drug user a drug or an alcoholic a glass of wine.

But for now I will comment on the topic of Christian homosexuals.
With prostitutes, please consider the context of Jesus's words. That prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the high priest, means that the prostitutes were repenting of their sins and turning to Christ before the high priests would. Did Jesus say a prostitute who did not repent and turn to Him would enter heaven? Of course not. I could quote the many verses stating homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Did Jesus say it is OK to redefine the meaning of marriage? Of course not, Jesus Himself said marriage is between a man and woman, He would not support a Christian to believe otherwise.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Both have four legs. You can sit on both of them. One is a horse and the other is a chair. Few similarities between two objects, matters, situations, etc., do not automatically equate them. Everybody knows this but not everybody seems to apply this simple principle when it comes to make a point.
U.S.A. is a new Sodom. Why? Because U.S. passed a law that allows same sex marriage. I don't see how anyone by any stretch of the imagination could fail to see the flaw of this kind of argument.
Allowing people to marry whom they want doesn't make the entire country a Sodom.

“An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States

We are talking about 3-4% of the population. In Sodom it was probably 99-100%.

"Christianity is the most adhered to religion in the United States, with 70% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2014.[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, lower than 81.6% in 2001,[2] and slightly lower than 78% in 2012.[3] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.[4] The United States has the largest Christian population in the world, with nearly 280 million Christians, although other countries have higher percentages of Christians among their populations.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ..._United_States

Again, there is a striking difference between U.S. and Sodom. There are millions of believers in the U.S. There was not 1 (except Lot) righteous man in Sodom.



“Today, Christians who prefer to remain in Sodom characterizes the majority of Christians who consider America to be a great Christian nation or who attend denominations which support or bless homosexual marriage. Unfortunately, like Lot and his wife, their allegiance to their homeland clouds their judgement. In such a case, God raises up people like Abraham from outside Sodom, to rescue the "Lots" still living in the land of Sodom when time for God's judgement comes. We can consider Nee and Lee's ministry to be like Abraham's, coming to America from other lands, to rescue genuine Christians, the Lots, out of the depraved environment.” (Evangelical)

Though I highly esteem Nee and his ministry ( I cannot say the same for Lee), why limiting the function of an Abraham only to Nee and Lee? Would not a Spurgeon do? Would not a Wesley do? Would not a Hudson Taylor do? Would not a Bonhoeffer do? Weren't they all non American citizens?
But in any case you are forgetting that Abraham did not set foot in Sodom. He only prayed for the city (or to save Lot?). It was God, trough angels that pulled Lot out of Sodom.

There is another question that you have to consider. W. Lee said that U.S. is going to be the wilderness spoken of in Revelation, a place were people will flee from the coming tribulation. Now, if the U.S. is Sodom, and Sodom was and is going to be destroyed by God, isn't that absurd and ironic that people fleeing from the frying pan will jump into the fire?

testallthings, this forum is supposed to be about Lee/Nee that is why I did not focus on others like Spurgeon etc. But I would say "all of the above" could be considered an "Abraham".

Regarding your percentages, you are forgetting that the majority of Americans believed in accepting the redefinition of marriage. On that basis America is more Sodom than not. We could say that democratically (i.e. majority wins), America is a "Sodom". America is not a Sodom because of the percentages of people engaged in evil behavior, but because of the beliefs of the people.

The Bible teaches that God will destroy the whole Earth, regardless of the percentage. That is going to happen at some point in the future whether it is 1% or 99% homosexual. So the percentages of actual homosexuals versus believers don't matter so much, what matters is peoples beliefs. God wants to know who stands with him and who stands against him, so his angels know which ones to take and which ones to leave behind.

When I speak of rescuing believers out of the environment, it means in a spiritual sense. To leave Sodom is to leave, spiritually, the beliefs and thoughts of that depraved culture.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

And by definition a gay-rights defender cannot be a true Christian?

I don't want to get into the theological issues surrounding gays in general. I believe the very conservative position myself. But I am humble enough to decide that, in this world, sinners are sinners doing all kinds of both immoral and sometimes moral things. And we are all sinners, even when saved. So I would expect that there will be some who might have issues coming to what I think is the correct stance on the issue. But salvation is based on belief in Christ, not the absolute cessation of sin and the agreement with everybody else what that is.

The commandment on me is to love God and love others. If there is judgment to come, it is God's job. If I were asked about it, I would counsel that it appears to be considered outside of God's norms. Will it disqualify you? Not my call. But for a true follower, seeking to be more and more like Christ, and to be more and more in line with his righteousness would seem to be a goal. I think that includes "sexual preference."

But punishment in this age for it is not mine to mete out.

When it comes to loving others, who is more loving, the one who does, or the one who does not, shout curses at those we think are sinners?

So no matter what you think of Bono's position with God, he exemplifies and bears the image that God would have us bear more nearly than many that I know are Christians. Yet you dismiss him over a position on something? So salvation is by grace, through faith, by those who agree on the homosexual issue with your position?

First its dirt. Now homosexuality. What about those who allow sexual predators to lead religious institutions?

As we discussed when we discussed the book of James, a Christian is someone who has faith AND works to show his faith.
A Christian is someone led by the Spirit. The Spirit would not lead someone to support gay marriage rights. This is because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and Christ already told us the meaning of marriage in the gospels. Jesus would not contradict himself.
I recall a discussion I had on here a little while ago about the fruit showing the nature of the person. A good tree does not bear bad fruit, it was said. Someone bearing the image of God would not roll out a rainbow gay pride flag on a stage and declare their support for gay marriage as the video shows. A person does not "accidentally" do such a thing because it was all pre-planned and pre determined for him to do so from the start. So his action was a deliberate action against God and not something a Spirit led Christian would do. It is compromise with the world in one of the most public displays possible - instead of preaching the gospel as a real Christian rock star would have, he decided to declare his support for an anti-Christ movement.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by testallthings

[SIZE="4"]Again, there is a striking difference between U.S. and Sodom. There are millions of believers in the U.S. There was not 1 (except Lot) righteous man in Sodom.

This is a great point, what really caused God's judgement to fall on Sodom was the lack of any righteous men. God had said that if there had been 10 he wouldn't have destroyed it.

Equating the US with Sodom could only be done if you could argue that in any given city we had less than 10 righteous people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda. That is what the bible calls the spirit or mystery of lawlessness, or anti-Christ spirit. A Christian helping to redefine marriage for the gay rights movement is equivalent to a Christian giving a drug user a drug or an alcoholic a glass of wine.

Just so I am clear, redefining marriage is the "spirit of lawlessness" or "anti-Christ spirit". A Christian who redefines marriage is equivalent to "giving a drug user a drug, or an alcoholic a glass of wine".

But, redefining the term "deification" that is perfectly fine? Not idolatrous because you redefined the term. Not the spirit of Jezebel because you redefined the term. Not like giving a pagan a drug or glass of wine because you redefined the term.

Is this correct? Is this your position?

(BTW what Christian are you referring to who "redefined marriage"?)

[PS -- have you noticed how many times you and Witness Lee condemn others for "redefining terms" like Christmas and marriage, yet justify yourselves when you do that?]

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

testallthings, this forum is supposed to be about Lee/Nee that is why I did not focus on others like Spurgeon etc. But I would say "all of the above" could be considered an "Abraham".

Sorry, I don't get this. Witness Lee taught that the US would become Sodom if they legalized gay marriage. You quoted that. TestAllThings points out that the reason for God's judgement on Sodom was that He couldn't find 10 righteous men. Witness Lee missed this. If you want to equate the US to Sodom saying that it will call down God's judgement on us (this is what you did, quoting Witness Lee) you have to point out that there are not 10 righteous men in a city.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Regarding your percentages, you are forgetting that the majority of Americans believed in accepting the redefinition of marriage. On that basis America is more Sodom than not. We could say that democratically (i.e. majority wins), America is a "Sodom". America is not a Sodom because of the percentages of people engaged in evil behavior, but because of the beliefs of the people.

That is not true at all.

The majority of Americans do not accept the redefinition of marriage, in fact just the opposite. Americans, along with congress, enacted the defense of marriage act, i.e. DOMA. Look it up.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Christian is someone led by the Spirit.

By your own definition, you disqualify yourself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is a great point, what really caused God's judgement to fall on Sodom was the lack of any righteous men. God had said that if there had been 10 he wouldn't have destroyed it.

It is my personal feeling that Sodom was judged in order to protect Abraham's promised seed, Isaac, a notable type of Christ.

Note that the announcement for both events occurred at the same time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As we discussed when we discussed the book of James, a Christian is someone who has faith AND works to show his faith.
A Christian is someone led by the Spirit. The Spirit would not lead someone to support gay marriage rights. This is because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and Christ already told us the meaning of marriage in the gospels. Jesus would not contradict himself.
I recall a discussion I had on here a little while ago about the fruit showing the nature of the person. A good tree does not bear bad fruit, it was said. Someone bearing the image of God would not roll out a rainbow gay pride flag on a stage and declare their support for gay marriage as the video shows. A person does not "accidentally" do such a thing because it was all pre-planned and pre determined for him to do so from the start. So his action was a deliberate action against God and not something a Spirit led Christian would do. It is compromise with the world in one of the most public displays possible - instead of preaching the gospel as a real Christian rock star would have, he decided to declare his support for an anti-Christ movement.

When we discussed James earlier you said "The fact remains if we try to follow parts of the Bible that were not meant for us, we will fall into error. Whether that is building the temple, offering sacrifices, calling for judgement on our enemies or appealing to our own righteousness. This is all that Lee was pointing out. I find it nothing more than that. He did not call James an "epistle of straw", rather he indicated that was wrong by stating that the brethren did accept James. Neither did he try to remove it from the Canon."

The context was that you were referring to the book of James and explaining to us Witness Lee's exposition of this book. Are you now saying that James is meant for us?

Also, you called down judgement on the US as a result of different States legalizing gay marriage. Are you now saying that calling down judgement on sinners is meant for Christians?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is my personal feeling that Sodom was judged in order to protect Abraham's promised seed, Isaac, a notable type of Christ.

Note that the announcement for both events occurred at the same time.

We are the promised seed, so this example of God's judgement, like the Red Sea, like Noah's flood, can certainly be for us.

Again, in this example Abraham is not the one condemning or judging Sodom but rather the one praying for their salvation. He is not praying for sin not to be judged, but rather that God would not destroy the righteous with the sinful.

Gen 18:23 And Abraham came close and said, Will You destroy the righteous (those upright and in right standing with God) together with the wicked?
24 Suppose there are in the city fifty righteous; will You destroy the place and not spare it for [the sake of] the fifty righteous in it?
25 Far be it from You to do such a thing—to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as do the wicked! Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth execute judgment and do righteously?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We are the promised seed, so this example of God's judgement, like the Red Sea, like Noah's flood, can certainly be for us.

Christ is the promised seed. Isaac, the promised son, who was sacrificed, is an incredible type of Christ.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anyone who knows Lee's ministry knows he was against the gay marriage rights movement in the USA, stating in Life Study of Genesis, that legalization of gay marriage is equivalent to the USA becoming Sodom. In this respect he was no different to many other church leaders.

Now that this has occurred, the USA is essentially Sodom and shall be treated as such by God, according to Lee's book...

Evangelical,

You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical,

You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

Although not what Evangelical quoted, this quote is interesting:

"Do you think that God will allow His people to dwell in such a wicked city? Certainly not. Thus, under God's sovereignty, Chedorlaomer led the attack against Sodom. God allowed that war to take place. Four kings fought against five kings. Humanly speaking, the five kings should have been victorious since their number was greater. But the four kings defeated the five kings, and the city of Sodom was taken. The Bible stresses the taking of Sodom because Lot dwelt there. This fighting was not merely a matter of four kings against five kings; it was a fighting for one of God's people. Lot might have been peaceful as he dwelt in Sodom, but God was not peaceful. God would never allow Lot to stay there in peace. God might have said, "Lot, you may have peace within, but I will stir up some disturbance from without. I will send the four kings to defeat the five kings and capture your city. They will capture you, your family, and all that you have." This is in fact what happened to Lot. Lot suffered defeat after defeat. Eventually, as the last step of his defeat, he fell into the hands of the enemy. He was captured, and the king of Sodom could not help him." (WL, Life Study of Genesis, Chapter 43, Section 1).

Based on this theory you might feel that 9/11 and the various wars in the Middle East were a result of God not allowing the US to dwell as Sodom in peace.

It seems to me this might have been a more interesting discussion than the one about Gay Pride.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Although not what Evangelical quoted, this quote is interesting:

"Do you think that God will allow His people to dwell in such a wicked city? Certainly not. Thus, under God's sovereignty, Chedorlaomer led the attack against Sodom. God allowed that war to take place. Four kings fought against five kings. Humanly speaking, the five kings should have been victorious since their number was greater. But the four kings defeated the five kings, and the city of Sodom was taken. The Bible stresses the taking of Sodom because Lot dwelt there. This fighting was not merely a matter of four kings against five kings; it was a fighting for one of God's people. Lot might have been peaceful as he dwelt in Sodom, but God was not peaceful. God would never allow Lot to stay there in peace. God might have said, "Lot, you may have peace within, but I will stir up some disturbance from without. I will send the four kings to defeat the five kings and capture your city. They will capture you, your family, and all that you have." This is in fact what happened to Lot. Lot suffered defeat after defeat. Eventually, as the last step of his defeat, he fell into the hands of the enemy. He was captured, and the king of Sodom could not help him." (WL, Life Study of Genesis, Chapter 43, Section 1).

Based on this theory you might feel that 9/11 and the various wars in the Middle East were a result of God not allowing the US to dwell as Sodom in peace.

It seems to me this might have been a more interesting discussion than the one about Gay Pride.

Witness Lee could spew his venomous hatred and condemnation upon any one he wished, especially upon those of the household of faith. In the Genesis Life-Study on Lot (#54 or so), he likened every American "free group," essentially all those genuine believers outside of the Recovery or the denominations, to the incestuous children of Lot born in that cave. It was perhaps the most pathetic teaching I ever read.

Some of these recent posts by Evangelical, condemning all Americans and American Christians are right up there with it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda. That is what the bible calls the spirit or mystery of lawlessness, or anti-Christ spirit. A Christian helping to redefine marriage for the gay rights movement is equivalent to a Christian giving a drug user a drug or an alcoholic a glass of wine.

But for now I will comment on the topic of Christian homosexuals.
With prostitutes, please consider the context of Jesus's words. That prostitutes would enter the kingdom before the high priest, means that the prostitutes were repenting of their sins and turning to Christ before the high priests would. Did Jesus say a prostitute who did not repent and turn to Him would enter heaven? Of course not. I could quote the many verses stating homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Did Jesus say it is OK to redefine the meaning of marriage? Of course not, Jesus Himself said marriage is between a man and woman, He would not support a Christian to believe otherwise.

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

And by the way, I've loved my homosexual local church brothers and sisters, and likely would you if I knew you, gay or not.

And while I'm thinking of it. This may sound funny, but I wish the later addition to John, of the adulterous woman (cast the first stone), were a lesbian woman. Then we wouldn't have all these concerns with gayness for fear of being considered one to cast the first stone. Aren't you casting stones brother Evangelical?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Again you are missing the point completely. This topic is not about Christian homosexuals, but Christians who would redefine the meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and who would support non-Christians in pursuing their anti-God agenda.

You miss that the definition of marriage in question is not the one that Christians must use for their purpose of defining marriage. Only what the state will use for its purpose.

I will admit that supporting the allowance of gay marriage is beyond what I would call a Christian's calling in terms of loving others. But fighting it might arguably be contrary to loving others.

So while I don't quite get supporting it, I can't find anything in that to suggest that they are not Christian. Just that they don't see their part the way I see mine.

I find this to be a little like declaring that we know what is wheat and what is tares. Outside of actual sin being practiced openly in the church in a way that Paul would have charged to put them out, our place is not to be the definer of God's rules on sin. There will be tares within the wheat. Jesus said to leave them until the harvest. If it turns out that Bono is actually a tare, then you will be justified in your opinion. But not in your manner of declaring him to be not Christian. That is not yours to determine.

You, and the group you hail from, is very keen on defining everyone's status before God. And your status is always the one that comes out on top. And the least hiccup by someone else and they are out.

You need to go pray read the passages where the great commandment is proclaimed. Drop your preconceived concepts. Consider that the one place that Jesus gave an example, the "neighbor" was a Jew. And the one considering who was his neighbor was a Samaritan — someone rejected by all Jews. In other words, the one to whom the command was directed wasn't someone the "insiders" even thought should be addressed by God.

So do you say that for someone like Bono, you should pass on the other side of the road? Avoid at all costs (other than to preach the gospel to)? Seems to be applying your other rules to negate the primary rule.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee could spew his venomous hatred and condemnation upon any one he wished, especially upon those of the household of faith. In the Genesis Life-Study on Lot (#54 or so), he likened every American "free group," essentially all those genuine believers outside of the Recovery or the denominations, to the incestuous children of Lot born in that cave. It was perhaps the most pathetic teaching I ever read.

Some of these recent posts by Evangelical, condemning all Americans and American Christians are right up there with it.

“You can always judge a man not by his friends, but by the quality of his enemies. A good man will never have enemies who are anything but petty and childish. A bad man will have enemies that are legion. Who it is that dislikes a man reveals much about the man himself.” ~ Wicasta Lovelace

Free groups, Christians, all Christian congregations other than his very small group, etc.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

Incredibly interesting observation.

Goes along with the comments Jesus Himself makes concerning judging others.

It sure seems like Evangelical got all of a sudden fixated on homosexuality.

Reminds me of another of Bono's songs, "Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of," about another guy who couldn't face real life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Free groups, Christians, all Christian congregations other than his very small group, etc.

Very small and shrinking quickly, I might add.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

And by the way, I've loved my homosexual local church brothers and sisters, and likely would you if I knew you, gay or not.

And while I'm thinking of it. This may sound funny, but I wish the later addition to John, of the adulterous woman (cast the first stone), were a lesbian woman. Then we wouldn't have all these concerns with gayness for fear of being considered one to cast the first stone. Aren't you casting stones brother Evangelical?

Reminds me of Paul's word about this. Homosexual sex is condemned by Paul for being against nature. Sex is for propagation, since homosexual sex does not result in propagation it is against nature.

But by that reasoning everyone who has used contraceptives would also be condemned. In fact, any sex at all that is not for the purpose of propagation would be condemned.

This is probably why Paul concludes saying:

Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse or defense or justification, O man, whoever you are who judges and condemns another. For in posing as judge and passing sentence on another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things [that you censure and denounce].

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What about abortion? The murder of the most innocent of the offspring of God? To me, abortion is far worse than the gay issues, not that there is good or bad sin, but even Jesus standing before Pilate spoke of those who had the "greater sin."

Here the hypocrisy and heterodoxy of Evangelical is continually on display. The same hypocrisy which is so manifest in LC/LSM leadership.

Evangelical condemns me for being a gay rights supporter ... my association is thrice removed thru Igzy and Bono ... while he refuses to address any hypocrisy, sin, and unrighteousness at LSM. To Evangelical, Lee and the Blendeds enjoy the same "immunity" from accountability as the Pope in Rome, the so-called Papal Infallibility.

You are exaggerating things, I have not condemned you for being a gay rights supporter, because I know you and Igzy are not, but for supporting a gay rights supporter.

In case you think that supporting a gay-rights supporter is harmless, consider this - if a person supports an abortionist and an abortionist is a murderer, what does that make the supporter of the abortionist?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Reminds me of Paul's word about this. Homosexual sex is condemned by Paul for being against nature. Sex is for propagation, since homosexual sex does not result in propagation it is against nature.

But by that reasoning everyone who has used contraceptives would also be condemned. In fact, any sex at all that is not for the purpose of propagation would be condemned.

This is probably why Paul concludes saying:

Romans 2:1 Therefore you have no excuse or defense or justification, O man, whoever you are who judges and condemns another. For in posing as judge and passing sentence on another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge are habitually practicing the very same things [that you censure and denounce].

ZNPaaneah, actually it is not just against nature but nature and God. For example, God no where says not having children is an abomination. But God says homosexuality is an abomination.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

By your own definition, you disqualify yourself.

A Spirit-led person would not support a gay rights supporter or say they are a true Christian. Just as a Spirit-led person would not support an abortionist or say they are a true Christian. Unless you believe a person can be a Christian and an abortionist?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNPaaneah, actually it is not just against nature but nature and God. For example, God no where says not having children is an abomination. But God says homosexuality is an abomination.

Please respond to posts 547, 548 and 552.

Abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. Paul's explanation of homosexual sex being sex that is done outside of the purpose for which it was created is sufficient to explain why God would view it as an abomination. If there are other New Testament verses relevant to the discussion I am open, but using an OT reference that it is "an abomination" as though this is a second aspect of why it is a sin is merely your spin.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That is not true at all.

The majority of Americans do not accept the redefinition of marriage, in fact just the opposite. Americans, along with congress, enacted the defense of marriage act, i.e. DOMA. Look it up.

OK let's look this up and consider the facts.

You could just look at the map towards the bottom here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public..._United_States


Or see the second last table from the bottom.

Consider the % support by State column, the average of that column is 52% (I worked it out). 52% is a majority.

Consider the % opposition column, the average of that column is 39%. If we consider that those with no opinion are for it, then 100-39 = 61% are in favor or don't care about it. 61% is a majority.

The numbers don't lie, what I said is true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are exaggerating things, I have not condemned you for being a gay rights supporter, because I know you and Igzy are not, but for supporting a gay rights supporter.

In case you think that supporting a gay-rights supporter is harmless, consider this - if a person supports an abortionist and an abortionist is a murderer, what does that make the supporter of the abortionist?

It is not me who is exaggerating, but you!

Which you purposely have done to dodge the relevant issues at hand.

It all depends on what "support" and "supporter" means?

To you, they can mean anything.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Please respond to posts 547, 548 and 552.

Abomination is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. Paul's explanation of homosexual sex being sex that is done outside of the purpose for which it was created is sufficient to explain why God would view it as an abomination. If there are other New Testament verses relevant to the discussion I am open, but using an OT reference that it is "an abomination" as though this is a second aspect of why it is a sin is merely your spin.

ZNPaaneah, I have been going through the posts slowly (will get to those posts in a minute).

Firstly, you seem to be downplaying the seriousness of homosexuality by appealing to other lesser sins. Unfortunately for you it does not work that way. As Ohio ( I think it was) pointed out before, there are different degrees of sin (he used in the context of abortion over homosexuality, so it must also apply to this context of homosexuality over contraception).

Secondly, your argument that contraception is against nature in the same way that homosexuality is, is not logical at all.

Is it not against nature to not get married or not have children, ie contraception.
It is against nature for a man to marry a man.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just so I am clear, redefining marriage is the "spirit of lawlessness" or "anti-Christ spirit". A Christian who redefines marriage is equivalent to "giving a drug user a drug, or an alcoholic a glass of wine".

But, redefining the term "deification" that is perfectly fine? Not idolatrous because you redefined the term. Not the spirit of Jezebel because you redefined the term. Not like giving a pagan a drug or glass of wine because you redefined the term.

Is this correct? Is this your position?

(BTW what Christian are you referring to who "redefined marriage"?)

[PS -- have you noticed how many times you and Witness Lee condemn others for "redefining terms" like Christmas and marriage, yet justify yourselves when you do that?]

ZNPaaneah,

redefinition of marriage is not about the terminology but about the meaning of marriage. So using your argument about the terminology of deification does not really apply to this context.

Deification is a term which Lee used to mean we become god in life and nature but not to be worshiped. You may argue that the term is pagan, and perhaps he could have or should have used another word like sanctification, or theosis to define it, but the doctrine he taught is not pagan.

Redefinition of marriage on the other hand, uses the correct terminology, marriage, to mean something else. The terminology is not important here, but the meaning of what that term represents.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Spirit-led person would not support a gay rights supporter or say they are a true Christian. Just as a Spirit-led person would not support an abortionist or say they are a true Christian. Unless you believe a person can be a Christian and an abortionist?

That's your opinion.

There is no such definitions in the scriptures.

Look at Corinth. A Real Christian slept with his stepmother. A Real Christian sued his brother. A Real Christian committed fornication. A Real Christian worshiped at the idol temple. A Real Christian came to the Lord's Supper drunk. A Real Christian said there is no resurrection.

This list could go on and on. Read your Bible again. You really should get out more. Do some research concerning young Christian girls. You would be amazed at how many have had abortions.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is not me who is exaggerating, but you!

Which you purposely have done to dodge the relevant issues at hand.

It all depends on what "support" and "supporter" means?

To you, they can mean anything.

I guess I have to spell it out for you then, to show you and everyone that you have exaggerated my statements.

In post number #523 I said:

This is not because he appreciates a song, but because he states that a gay-rights supporter is a true Christian. - the context is about supporting a gay-rights supporter as being a true Christian.


I also said (in reference to yourself):

Now to add to his folly, you also explain away Bono's commitment to gay rights as a "flaw", for which you ought be condemned. - I said you should be condemned for supporting a view that Bono, as a gay-rights supporter, is a true Christian.

In a previous post you said:
"Evangelical condemns me for being a gay rights supporter ..."

You can notice that I said nothing about you or Igzy supporting gay rights or homosexuality, I did not say that at all. Igzy had already said it is unfortunate that Bono supports gay marriage. I am well aware that Igzy does not support gay marriage or homosexuality.

What you are doing which I disagree with, is promoting (or supporting) a public supporter of gay rights - Bono, as a true Christian. To me it's no different as if he supported Buddha or Mohammed, to support anything against Christ is to be anti-Christ and a Christian cannot be anti-Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's your opinion.

There is no such definitions in the scriptures.

Look at Corinth. A Real Christian slept with his stepmother. A Real Christian sued his brother. A Real Christian committed fornication. A Real Christian worshiped at the idol temple. A Real Christian came to the Lord's Supper drunk. A Real Christian said there is no resurrection.

This list could go on and on. Read your Bible again. You really should get out more. Do some research concerning young Christian girls. You would be amazed at how many have had abortions.

The context of this thread (now), is about the promotion (or support of that promotion) of sinful things. All of those examples you gave are about people's personal issues.

You are correct that they are real Christians (perhaps) - Judas Iscariot was not a real Christian. But if any of those people promoted the sins they committed, they cannot be true Christians.

Suppose the person worshiping at the idol temple started promoting the goddess Athena (I can't remember if it was Athena, but lets go with Athena for the sake argument). Obviously this person is no longer a true Christian, they have essentially become part of another religion.

I could go on and say:

A Real Christian slept with his stepmother - but did not promote changing the laws around incest.
etc.

A real Christian does not promote or encourage sin, they are aware that what they do is wrong.

What did Bono do? He was not a homosexual struggling with his sin of homosexuality. He was on the public stage promoting changing the laws around marriage. On that basis he cannot be a true Christian, any more than a promoter of a certain idol or false religion can be a true Christian. He may as well have been proclaiming from the stage that Allah is the true God.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sorry, I don't get this. Witness Lee taught that the US would become Sodom if they legalized gay marriage. You quoted that. TestAllThings points out that the reason for God's judgement on Sodom was that He couldn't find 10 righteous men. Witness Lee missed this. If you want to equate the US to Sodom saying that it will call down God's judgement on us (this is what you did, quoting Witness Lee) you have to point out that there are not 10 righteous men in a city.

TestAllThings is correct, but his interpretation is old testament. Today we are in the New Testament age. In the New Testament age, the righteous are believers in Christ, and the unrighteous are unbelievers.

So today it is about belief. A Sodomite is someone who believes in or supports homosexuality. They don't have to be a homosexual to be a Sodomite. By faith, they only have to support or agree with that spirit of marriage redefinition, or spirit of lawlessness.

On the basis of belief, the US is Sodom because they legalized gay marriage and the majority support it by faith. This has been because of the spirit of lawlessness. The spirit of lawlessness is not just about the deeds but about the laws and beliefs.

Today God judges on the basis of our faith.

Jesus taught that a hater is a murderer, and a luster is an adultery. We can see that God considers the heart belief and not the action itself. So a claim that only 1% of America is actually homosexual is beside the point. We have to consider all of the majority that believe that homosexuality is OK. We have to consider that laws were changed by a spirit of lawlessness (against God's laws). Today when God looks at a country He looks at the faith of that country - do they believe in my Son? Do they believe in my laws? Are they against me in their hearts? He is not counting the number of practicing homosexuals as he seems to have done in the old testament.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When we discussed James earlier you said "The fact remains if we try to follow parts of the Bible that were not meant for us, we will fall into error. Whether that is building the temple, offering sacrifices, calling for judgement on our enemies or appealing to our own righteousness. This is all that Lee was pointing out. I find it nothing more than that. He did not call James an "epistle of straw", rather he indicated that was wrong by stating that the brethren did accept James. Neither did he try to remove it from the Canon."

The context was that you were referring to the book of James and explaining to us Witness Lee's exposition of this book. Are you now saying that James is meant for us?

Also, you called down judgement on the US as a result of different States legalizing gay marriage. Are you now saying that calling down judgement on sinners is meant for Christians?

I believe James is meant for us, and Lee did also, he did a life study on it remember. He treated it better and gave it more attention than many evangelicals and Lutherans would care to. I disagreed that salvation is by faith and works as James teaches. I showed that James perhaps was not up to date with his revelation about salvation by grace through faith alone, as Paul was. But I agree that works shows our faith, fruit is evidence of heart belief - this is from the gospels not just James. Apparently you don't really believe in fruit showing our faith, because if you did, you would not accept Bono as a true Christian. His bad fruit of supporting gay pride disqualifies him as a Christian.

Regarding judgement for Christians - no, in my initial post I explained how Christians can live in Sodom but not be part of it. In other words, they are ones that do not believe in marriage redefinition or homosexuality, in an environment where the majority do believe in it. Bono for example, believes in marriage redefinition, so he is part of Sodom because of that belief, and no different to an atheist or a hindu who would hold the same belief. If he repents and stands against it, then he would be a genuine Christian and not fall under judgement.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Evangelical, I've personally witnessed in the closet gay local churcher's express anger toward open homosexuals. Their anger is a mask to cover anger at themselves. I'm not saying that this applies to you, but your obsession with this issue of homosexuality, certainly makes me wonder.

And by the way, I've loved my homosexual local church brothers and sisters, and likely would you if I knew you, gay or not.

And while I'm thinking of it. This may sound funny, but I wish the later addition to John, of the adulterous woman (cast the first stone), were a lesbian woman. Then we wouldn't have all these concerns with gayness for fear of being considered one to cast the first stone. Aren't you casting stones brother Evangelical?

Awareness, I am not angry at homosexuals in the church. This is not about individual brothers or sisters in the Lord who struggle with or are overtaken in this matter. I am not even angry at homosexuals outside of the church. This really is their personal issue and affects them and no one else really (unless they are married of course). This comes under the realm of flaws in the human nature, things we are born with, that perhaps we cannot change. They will not come under judgement because they belong to Christ.

This matter I speak of is about something worse - the redefinition of marriage and support of homosexual relationships on a national or worldwide scale. The fact that our children's children may be born into a society that does not know that marriage is between a man and a woman. This affects our children and children's children to the such and such generation.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Evangelical, You are assuming we accept Lee's equation about Sodom and the U.S.A. As you have noticed on this forum we don't blindly believe something because brother Lee said so. I personally don't have any problems acknowledging he was right about a particular teaching providing enough evidence. First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?

I provided reference to his quotations in a (much) earlier post:
In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. In chapter 53 Lee states that in Sodom marriage had become completely degraded. In reference to today being the times of Noah, he states that Christians have become doped. In chapter 96 Lee states that the USA, Sweden and France is a Sodom and that God hates it.

I understand this to mean not because the majority of people in those countries are practicing homosexuals, but because those countries believe it is okay. Lee often tries to get at the heart or spirit of the matter. It may be true as you say that in a practical sense, the USA is not like Sodom at all. But in a spiritual sense, it is more like Sodom than not. In the old testament God seemed to judge cities based on their actions. Now I believe he judges based upon their belief. Now, God judges the heart and spirit of the matter that is the root cause of the sinful actions.

I think we could proceed with a discussion about whether God judges a city because of its heart and belief, or because of its actions alone? (ignoring for a moment, that legalizing redefinition of marriage is itself a sinful action). If it is actions alone, then USA is not a Sodom, for the reasons you stated. But if it is the heart and belief of the nation that God considers, then I believe Lee is right, USA (and other countries) is Sodom.

A heart that is on the one hand for God, and on the other hand is for homosexuality and gay marriage, is not a pure heart.

Now some biblical support that God cares about the heart of the nation:
1 Samuel 16:7 "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Romans 12:9 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I provided reference to his quotations in a (much) earlier post:
In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. In chapter 53 Lee states that in Sodom marriage had become completely degraded. In reference to today being the times of Noah, he states that Christians have become doped. In chapter 96 Lee states that the USA, Sweden and France is a Sodom and that God hates it.

I understand this to mean not because the majority of people in those countries are practicing homosexuals, but because those countries believe it is okay. Lee often tries to get at the heart or spirit of the matter. It may be true as you say that in a practical sense, the USA is not like Sodom at all. But in a spiritual sense, it is more like Sodom than not. In the old testament God seemed to judge cities based on their actions. Now I believe he judges based upon their belief. Now, God judges the heart and spirit of the matter that is the root cause of the sinful actions.

I think we could proceed with a discussion about whether God judges a city because of its heart and belief, or because of its actions alone? (ignoring for a moment, that legalizing redefinition of marriage is itself a sinful action). If it is actions alone, then USA is not a Sodom, for the reasons you stated. But if it is the heart and belief of the nation that God considers, then I believe Lee is right, USA (and other countries) is Sodom.

A heart that is on the one hand for God, and on the other hand is for homosexuality and gay marriage, is not a pure heart.

Now some biblical support that God cares about the heart of the nation:
1 Samuel 16:7 "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
Romans 12:9 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God

Brother Evangelical,


Thanks for the quotations. As I said in a previous post, without evidence I am not going to believe whatever W. Lee, Nee, Darby, Evangelical, OBW, Ohio, aron, testallthigs, etc., said. From your quotations Lee was just stating what he believed was true. I might use his argument and change it to prove the opposite (actually, it is not the opposite, but you get my point). When Constantine “legalized” Christianity the Roman Empire became Christian (in that case that was a real Holy Roman Empire). You see the absurdity of this kind of logic. this would give the legislators the power to turn a nation in one way or the other just by legalizing something (aren't Buddhism, JW's, New Age, Islam and so on legalized?)

You said that now you believe God judges based upon what people believe, not only based upon their actions. Would you mind providing some proof for your statement? Thanks.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Brother Evangelical,


Thanks for the quotations. As I said in a previous post, without evidence I am not going to believe whatever W. Lee, Nee, Darby, Evangelical, OBW, Ohio, aron, testallthigs, etc., said. From your quotations Lee was just stating what he believed was true. I might use his argument and change it to prove the opposite (actually, it is not the opposite, but you get my point). When Constantine “legalized” Christianity the Roman Empire became Christian (in that case that was a real Holy Roman Empire). You see the absurdity of this kind of logic. this would give the legislators the power to turn a nation in one way or the other just by legalizing something (aren't Buddhism, JW's, New Age, Islam and so on legalized?)

You said that now you believe God judges based upon what people believe, not only based upon their actions. Would you mind providing some proof for your statement? Thanks.

Compared to the Roman Empire, in the USA the situation was different, the majority of the nation wished it to be so.

Christianity is based upon the view that God judges on the basis of belief.
John 3:16 or any other verse about belief in Christ proves that God judges us based upon our belief.
We never tell someone they can be saved by doing something as many other religions do, but by believing.


Further proof is found here:

Jeremiah 17:10 ""I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.""

The heart is more important to God than the actions, although all are considered in his judgement.

In 1 Samuel 16:7 God said he rejected Saul because He can see the heart.

Similarly God rejects the USA because he sees the heart of the nation, majority in favor of things He does not approve.

Sodom is not about homosexuality alone, but moral depravity in general. It is indisputable that the USA is one of the most morally depraved nations on Earth today. So it can be considered Sodom for more than just the reason of accepting homosexual marriage. Divorce rate, pornography production (about 89% of the worlds pornography is produced in the USA), let's throw in the abortion rate as well (some here may prefer to use abortion as an example). Whatever way we look at it is not helping the argument that USA is not Sodom. I think we can show either by belief or actions, that USA is Sodom.

By the way, what some here may not understand, is that when the Bible talks about mystery of lawlessness, it does not mean lawlessness against the laws of America or any other nation, but lawlessness against God's laws. A person promoting gay marriage is a lawless person, even if they are abiding by the laws of America, and even if they are not homosexual themselves.

[Evangelical]

In the use of human reasoning, relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

It is a common tactic by liberals to try to lessen the true value (or seriousness) of something by appealing to the acceptance of things with less value (or seriousness).

For example, if I was selling fruit and sold apples at $10 each, I might advertise saying, this apple is $10 but it is only $2 more than an orange which is $8. To the buyer this makes it sound reasonable, despite the fact that they are still paying a silly amount for one piece of fruit. By focusing on the orange, I might convince someone to buy the apple because it is only $2 more.

But it doesn't work that way with the Bible. For example ZNPaaneah has tried to compare homosexuality with contraception.

It doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is an abomination, and that choosing not to procreate is much less of a sin (and probably not a sin at all).

Homosexuality is the abuse of nature. This is what "against nature" means to Paul. Choosing not to have children is the choice not to use a natural ability. The choice not to use a natural ability is not "against nature". It is the way that we use it that matters, not the way that we don't use it.

It does not matter what we compare homosexuality to, it is still the same value. We cannot "sell" it in a nicer way by comparing it to something else.

The main scriptural reasons why homosexuality is wrong, are:

1. It is against God's law (rebellion)
2. It is against nature.
3. It is against God's definition of marriage (as between a man and a woman) Genesis 2:24

There are six primary passages of Scripture that reference homosexuality: Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

The moment I see someone comparing homosexuality to something else, that's when I know they prefer to compromise with God's Word than just accept what is plainly written.

[Evangelical]

The following is inspired by Genesis 22:2-5.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham is about to make a sacrifice to God. But Abraham tells the servants in verse 5 that they are going to worship.

So worship is about sacrifice.

The concept of worship today is to express some sort of love and devotion to God, by singing worship songs. Many churches today prioritize the music and worship over the Lord's table. Worship happens every service but Lord's table once a month or so. They can hold a service without communion but they cannot have a service without music and singing.

For all of the importance of singing songs and providing entertaining performances that churches give today, there is surprisingly little said about it in the New Testament.

This is because singing songs is not what worship is about. Worship is not even about telling God how much we love Him and adore Him. Worship is not about expressing our-self to God.

What is worship? Worship is giving worth to God for who He is. Who is God? God is love, yes, God is loving, yes, God is kind yes. But this is not who He really is. Who He really is, is God - God is God. God does what He likes. No one can tell Him what to do. Genuine worship is saying "you are God, I am not, here is my Isaac, do what you want with my Isaac".

Genuine worship is when Abraham offered up Isaac on the Altar, and basically said "God, do want you want". Worship involves offering up our Isaacs to God.Worship is saying to God "God, you are God, you do what you want, not my will but yours be done". This is what real worship is.

Every Sunday millions of people go to churches and sing songs of love and devotion to God. But unless they offer up their Isaacs, they have not worshiped God at all. A person who has never offered up an Isaac to God has actually not truly worshiped God. This is not saying that what they do has no value. It has value, but it is not biblical worship, it is expressing love and devotion to God through song.

Today many equate worship with music and music styles. The majority of churches that use rock music in worship do so to cater to the likes and dislikes of the congregation. At one point they may have used classical hymns, then someone came along and said "we want to attract young people, the music is too old fashioned". So they change the music to suit the people. This is based on the wrong concept that worship is about expressing ourselves in a way that we like.

When Abraham worshiped God, did he sing God a song? No, did he ask others to come and play music that he liked? No. If we realize that the real meaning of worship is sacrifice and submission, then the style of music is irrelevant, and even the concept of different methods and ways of self-expression is irrelevant.

Knowing the true meaning of worship puts Jesus's words in better context:

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.""

-in Spirit - God does not want us to grab our children and try to kill them on some mountain here or mountain there. Spiritual worship is to offer up to God those things that we hold dear in our hearts, and we can do that anywhere we are and any time of the day.

"in truth" - in truth means God wants sincerity. God does not want lip service, but something genuine from the heart.

When I was in the denominations, Jesus's words in John 4:24 did not make much sense, because I had the wrong concept that worship is about singing and expressing myself to God.

Now that we have seen what worship is, we should consider what the purpose of worship is.

Why does God need us to tell Him that He is God? He knows who He is. Does God have such an ego? Of course not.

The purpose of worship is for God's economy which is to be filled with God. God sometimes cannot fill us with Himself until we empty ourselves of our Isaac through genuine worship. Worship is also related to obedience. Abraham obeyed God (verse 16), so worship and obedience go hand in hand. Worship is obeying God by submitting to Him and offering our Isaac. The result of genuine worship is blessing. Most bible expositors consider the story of Abraham and Isaac to be a test. It is indeed a test, but it is a test to see if Abraham would truly worship God for just being God, or because God did good things for him by giving him Isaac.

[least]

excerpt of Life study of Genesis Message 58

"Isaac typified Christ. We have seen that Abraham answered God's call to go to Mount Moriah to offer Isaac. This is history. However, if we view this matter from the perspective of God's revelation, we shall see that what Abraham did to Isaac is a vivid picture of what the Father did to His beloved Son. "

[testallthings]

In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. (Evangelical)

Evangelical,
I have been arguing against this point from the beginning of my posts. W. Lee, in your quotations, was not talking about numbers, majority, etc.. He only mentioned the governments (or actually the legislators). If he is correct, then governments (or legislators) can turn a country into Sodom or the New Jerusalem at will. I am not interested in discussing other issues until this point is cleared up.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The following is inspired by Genesis 22:2-5. 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham is about to make a sacrifice to God. But Abraham tells the servants in verse 5 that they are going to worship. So worship is about sacrifice...

I agree with you to some extent:-
1) Sacrifice can be part of worship (see also Romans 12:1).
2) It is possible for people to get carried away by the music tunes/melody and be detracted from focusing on God.

However, singing can be a form of worship too. See Rev 5 v 8 to 14.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now that we have seen what worship is, we should consider what the purpose of worship is.
Why does God need us to tell Him that He is God? He knows who He is. Does God have such an ego? Of course not.

I like to share this which I found thought-provoking
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...mmation-of-joy

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I like to share this which I found thought-provoking
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...mmation-of-joy

Thanks for the article, I think it is good.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I agree with you to some extent:-
1) Sacrifice can be part of worship (see also Romans 12:1).
2) It is possible for people to get carried away by the music tunes/melody and be detracted from focusing on God.

However, singing can be a form of worship too. See Rev 5 v 8 to 14.

That is true.

But I think worship means sacrifice. What many people think of as worship (singing songs and expressing joy to God) I think is more correctly called praise.

So "praise and worship" together means sacrifice and expression to God at the same time.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

In Life Study of Genesis, page 1249, Lee says it is a shame that governments want to legalize homosexuality, to do so would be to turn the country into Sodom. (Evangelical)

Evangelical,
I have been arguing against this point from the beginning of my posts. W. Lee, in your quotations, was not talking about numbers, majority, etc.. He only mentioned the governments (or actually the legislators). If he is correct, then governments (or legislators) can turn a country into Sodom or the New Jerusalem at will. I am not interested in discussing other issues until this point is cleared up.

testallthings,

I think this point can be cleared up by plain common sense.

In a dictatorship, if 99% of the people are against it and the government decided to legislate it, then I would agree with you that this does not turn the country into Sodom.

But the USA is not a dictatorship. Governments legalized homosexuality because the majority of the people want it. I already provided facts before that the majority are for homosexual marriage, that's what the statistics show.

The fact that the government legislated for it is because the majority of the people wanted it.

It is on the basis of the majority wanting it and the government legislating it, that indicates USA is Sodom in a spiritual sense.

It does not make sense for you to argue that the governments legislating it does not turn it into Sodom, if you are talking about a democratic country like the USA.

"Public opinion in the United States shows majority support for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This support has remained above 50% consistently in opinion polls since 2010,[1] after having increased steadily for more than a decade"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public..._United_States

I would suggest that America was Sodom in God's eyes long before the government legislated it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

testallthings,

I think this point can be cleared up by plain common sense.

In a dictatorship, if 99% of the people are against it and the government decided to legislate it, then I would agree with you that this does not turn the country into Sodom.

But the USA is not a dictatorship. Governments want to legalize homosexuality because the majority of the people want it. I already provided facts before that the majority are for homosexual marriage.

The fact that the government legislated for it is because the majority of the people wanted it.

It is on the basis of the majority wanting it and the government legislating it, that indicates USA is Sodom in a spiritual sense.

I told you it was not legislated.

Liberal activist courts decided the matter.

It was never voted on, just like the legalization of abortion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I told you it was not legislated.

Liberal activist courts decided the matter.

It was never voted on, just like the legalization of abortion.

You are talking about legal technicalities. Doesn't change the reality that the majority want it and that homosexuality is rampant in the USA.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

testallthings, I think this point can be cleared up by plain common sense...

Let's use common sense then (what have we been using so far?). If U.S.A. is Sodom why W. Lee said that U.S.A. would be the wilderness described in Revelation? Why people fleeing Antichrist and his persecution will end up in Sodom? a place cursed by God? I am using common sense, and common sense tells me that this is absurd. Don't you agree?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are talking about legal technicalities. Doesn't change the reality that the majority want it and that homosexuality is rampant in the USA.

Three times you said the government legislated homosexuality, a democratic process, then you say it was only a "technicality."

I don't know what country you live in, but this same technicality is coming your way too. You seem to love taking pot shots at the usa, and I'm not defending it, but why not tell us where you are at, just in case some posters have issues with your country.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Three times you said the government legislated homosexuality, a democratic process, then you say it was only a "technicality."

I don't know what country you live in, but this same technicality is coming your way too. You seem to love taking pot shots at the usa, and I'm not defending it, but why not tell us where you are at, just in case some posters have issues with your country.

I don't see the relevance whether it was the federal government or the state governments to this matter of USA being Sodom. The fact is it has majority acceptance by public opinion and by law.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Let's use common sense then (what have we been using so far?). If U.S.A. is Sodom why W. Lee said that U.S.A. would be the wilderness described in Revelation? Why people fleeing Antichrist and his persecution will end up in Sodom? a place cursed by God? I am using common sense, and common sense tells me that this is absurd. Don't you agree?

I tried to find your reference to Revelation and wilderness but can't, can you please provide the reference (book or bible verse footnote)?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I told you it was not legislated.

Liberal activist courts decided the matter.

It was never voted on, just like the legalization of abortion.

It is like hitting your head against a brick wall.

[testallthings]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I tried to find your reference to Revelation and wilderness but can't, can you please provide the reference (book or bible verse footnote)?

After hearing about the earlier overcomers and about the later, quicker overcomers, you may think that all the believers will be overcomers, and you may wonder who will be included in the harvest. Recently I heard that in the United States there are fifty million regenerated Christians. Thus in the United States alone there will be tens of millions for the Lord Jesus to reap...
One proof of this is in Revelation 18, which shows that Antichrist's capital, Rome, will be a center of capitalism. The record of that chapter, which even speaks of selling souls, or people, is a record not of communism, but of capitalism. The whole earth is under God's sovereign control. I believe that the United States will be fully preserved by God until the Lord comes back. As I have already mentioned, I believe that the United States will be the wilderness spoken of in Revelation 12. It will be a place of safety and shelter for so many refugees. Out of the tens of millions of Christians in the United States, not many will be overcomers. Certainly they will not be killed by Antichrist, because the United States will not be in Antichrist's territory. Since the United States will be a place of safety and refuge, the Christians in this country will not become the quick overcomers. Instead, they will be in the harvest....

Now I am living in the country of the great eagle. Although there are many sinful things in the United States, nevertheless, with the exception of the nation of Israel, there is no other country that has been formed according to God's Word. I have a copy of the first Constitution of the United States. It is composed of verses from the book of Exodus. Furthermore, each session of Congress opens with a prayer. I was present for such an opening prayer in 1958. Although that prayer was formal, it was still quite good. Moreover, the words, In God we trust, are engraved upon our coins. In the Bible, all the other nations are symbolized by beasts. But there is one country, the United States, that is symbolized by an eagle, not by a beast...

Two matters are sovereign of the Lord. The first is that He has prepared the United States to be a great eagle, and the second is that He has sent His recovery to this country. During the great tribulation Christians certainly will no longer pay attention to the Catholic Church, to the denominations, or to the free groups. Rather, they will say, “There is no time to waste. Let us take God's way.” God's way is the local churches. Hallelujah, we are in the local churches! Hallelujah, we are in the United States! We are in the genuine church life and we are in the country of the great eagle. I was deeply saddened by the loss of mainland China. I truly loved the work there. But how I praise the Lord that He has brought me to the country of the great eagle and that I am in the genuine church life here. Praise Him for sending His recovery to this country!
(Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 48, Section 2 [emphasis added])

This is only a little quotations. You can dig for more and meditate some more.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I tried to find your reference to Revelation and wilderness but can't

There are these things called search engines. Google is well-known by most, but there's also yahoo, Bing, etc.

I put in "Witness Lee wilderness eagle persecution" in Google, and the first hit read, "European Christians will flee to the United States to escape the persecution of Antichrist. The wings of the great eagle will fly them into the wilderness." It was from "ministrybooks.org" web site.

As testallthings said, you can also search for yourself and find more. It's really not that difficult.

[micah6v8]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That is true.

But I think worship means sacrifice. What many people think of as worship (singing songs and expressing joy to God) I think is more correctly called praise.

So "praise and worship" together means sacrifice and expression to God at the same time.

The Lord's Recovery's hymnal's hymns 10-55 fall under the section "Worship of the Father"

In the local church I am at, (and I think this is characteristic of LSM churches), we close the Lord's Table meeting by "worshiping the Father", whereby we sing hymns that are usually in this section.

Do you then consider the singing of such hymns as "not worshipping"?

I believe in the adage "Talk is cheap; action speaks louder than words". But I would consider singing hymns acknowledging God's supremacy as a form of worship.

Take another context:- Love

Suppose I was asked to comment on whether my friend Jack loves his girlfriend Jill.

There could be different kinds of evidence
1) A love letter Jack wrote to Jill
2) Jack always offering a lending ear to Jill when she has problems
3) Jack visiting Jill everyday when Jill was hospitalised for one month for a disease
4) Jack donating his kidney to Jill when her kidney failed.

True, I would place greater weight on Evidence 4 since there is a greater element of sacrifice involved by Jack. The love letter would have less weight since anyone can write a love letter.

But it would not be right to say that the love letter is not an evidence of love.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

There are these things called search engines. Google is well-known by most, but there's also yahoo, Bing, etc.

I put in "Witness Lee wilderness eagle persecution" in Google, and the first hit read, "European Christians will flee to the United States to escape the persecution of Antichrist. The wings of the great eagle will fly them into the wilderness." It was from "ministrybooks.org" web site.

As testallthings said, you can also search for yourself and find more. It's really not that difficult.

Perhaps you should give the same dose of sarcasm to testallthings first? Because in post #555 testallthings said " First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?" which he could have found using Google.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by micah6v8

The Lord's Recovery's hymnal's hymns 10-55 fall under the section "Worship of the Father"

In the local church I am at, (and I think this is characteristic of LSM churches), we close the Lord's Table meeting by "worshiping the Father", whereby we sing hymns that are usually in this section.

Do you then consider the singing of such hymns as "not worshipping"?

I believe in the adage "Talk is cheap; action speaks louder than words". But I would consider singing hymns acknowledging God's supremacy as a form of worship.

Take another context:- Love

Suppose I was asked to comment on whether my friend Jack loves his girlfriend Jill.

There could be different kinds of evidence
1) A love letter Jack wrote to Jill
2) Jack always offering a lending ear to Jill when she has problems
3) Jack visiting Jill everyday when Jill was hospitalised for one month for a disease
4) Jack donating his kidney to Jill when her kidney failed.

True, I would place greater weight on Evidence 4 since there is a greater element of sacrifice involved by Jack. The love letter would have less weight since anyone can write a love letter.

But it would not be right to say that the love letter is not an evidence of love.

If you see "The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John,by Witness Lee", section called "WORSHIP THAT SATISFIES THE FATHER", Lee would say that this way of worship you described is a traditional way, but is not satisfying to the Father. Lee would say that the worship the Father desires is the exercise of our spirit with Christ as the reality.

So in this sense no, singing songs to the Father at the end of the meeting is not worshiping the Father. Both Lee and Nee did not believe that worship is just about singing songs.

So if you are singing songs to the Father thinking that your singing is the worship, then you have missed the point and true purpose of this part of the meeting. In fact genuine worship of the Father may take place before the meeting as your drive there, or during any other part of the meeting or after the meeting. We don't need to wait for a particular part of the meeting in order to "worship the Father".

[testallthings]

To Evangelical,

I am glad you're back. I was going to apologise for something I have said that had offended you.
It seems that with you here there is a lot going on.
God bless you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Evangelical,

I am glad you're back. I was going to apologise for something I have said that had offended you.
It seems that with you here there is a lot going on.
God bless you.

Hi testallthings, no, nothing you have said offended me - all good bro.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

After hearing about the earlier overcomers and about the later, quicker overcomers, you may think that all the believers will be overcomers, and you may wonder who will be included in the harvest. Recently I heard that in the United States there are fifty million regenerated Christians. Thus in the United States alone there will be tens of millions for the Lord Jesus to reap...
One proof of this is in Revelation 18, which shows that Antichrist's capital, Rome, will be a center of capitalism. The record of that chapter, which even speaks of selling souls, or people, is a record not of communism, but of capitalism. The whole earth is under God's sovereign control. I believe that the United States will be fully preserved by God until the Lord comes back. As I have already mentioned, I believe that the United States will be the wilderness spoken of in Revelation 12. It will be a place of safety and shelter for so many refugees. Out of the tens of millions of Christians in the United States, not many will be overcomers. Certainly they will not be killed by Antichrist, because the United States will not be in Antichrist's territory. Since the United States will be a place of safety and refuge, the Christians in this country will not become the quick overcomers. Instead, they will be in the harvest....

Now I am living in the country of the great eagle. Although there are many sinful things in the United States, nevertheless, with the exception of the nation of Israel, there is no other country that has been formed according to God's Word. I have a copy of the first Constitution of the United States. It is composed of verses from the book of Exodus. Furthermore, each session of Congress opens with a prayer. I was present for such an opening prayer in 1958. Although that prayer was formal, it was still quite good. Moreover, the words, In God we trust, are engraved upon our coins. In the Bible, all the other nations are symbolized by beasts. But there is one country, the United States, that is symbolized by an eagle, not by a beast...

Two matters are sovereign of the Lord. The first is that He has prepared the United States to be a great eagle, and the second is that He has sent His recovery to this country. During the great tribulation Christians certainly will no longer pay attention to the Catholic Church, to the denominations, or to the free groups. Rather, they will say, “There is no time to waste. Let us take God's way.” God's way is the local churches. Hallelujah, we are in the local churches! Hallelujah, we are in the United States! We are in the genuine church life and we are in the country of the great eagle. I was deeply saddened by the loss of mainland China. I truly loved the work there. But how I praise the Lord that He has brought me to the country of the great eagle and that I am in the genuine church life here. Praise Him for sending His recovery to this country!
(Life-Study of Revelation, Chapter 48, Section 2 [emphasis added])

This is only a little quotations. You can dig for more and meditate some more.

testallthings,
it is hard to reconcile this view of USA in 1958 with how things have turned out decades later and his views later on when Life study of Genesis was written.

One reconciling view could be that to me he seems to speak about the practical matters. USA has traditionally been a place of safety for those fleeing persecution.

But in a spiritual sense if we were to compare the USA to some city in the Bible as a metaphor, maybe it would be Tyre (commercial), or Sodom (immorality).

[testallthings]

To Evangelical,

what I was trying to say is that to take Lee's words without any critical analysis the risk is that they might be considered as precise and infallible as the Word of God.

By the way, there is one city called Sodom and Egypt in the book of Revelation, and certainly it is not US.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

To Evangelical,

what I was trying to say is that to take Lee's words without any critical analysis the risk is that they might be considered as precise and infallible as the Word of God.

By the way, there is one city called Sodom and Egypt in the book of Revelation, and certainly it is not US.

Not just Lee, but Billy Graham and many others can see the plain similarity between USA and Sodom/Gomorrah. But I take your point that it is not the Word of God. But I somehow think that it is acceptable to infer about the USA, even if there is no clear teaching about it in biblical prophecy. Surely the concepts of God not showing partiality and being respecter of persons applies (that is, if God in the Bible would condemn one country for being Sodom, God would not excuse other countries for the same things today).

[testallthings]

to Evangelical,

there is one question you did not answer. Do you think that U.S.A. will be the wilderness (as taught by W. Lee) during the great tribulation?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by testallthings

to Evangelical,

there is one question you did not answer. Do you think that U.S.A. will be the wilderness (as taught by W. Lee) during the great tribulation?

Alaska? Sure.

Seriously, in the face of communism, that might have been Lee's view at the time. But I can see China becoming the old America sometime in the future so maybe Asia is a safer place to be. Anywhere not in the middle east I would say. I am just speculating however.

Does the Bible teach any sort of safe hiding place during the tribulation? I don't think it does. The safest place to be is in Christ.

[Evangelical]

Witness Lee stated numerous times that the religion of Christianity was degraded. From a purely historical and factual point of view, was he right? History shows that he was.

The major denominations which make up the religion called Christianity today consist of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran. In many countries in the world, even in countries which are predominantly Buddhist or Muslim, we can find at least one of these kinds of churches. All of these major ones are characterized by the same hierarchical leadership structure, liturgical worship etc. Many other denominations in Pentecostalism or Evangelicalism have generally copied the practices and styles of these traditional mainstream churches.

However the problem is that much of their beliefs and practices are in fact pagan in origin and not to be found in the New Testament. Rather they originated from the Roman Empire when Constantine adopted Christianity.

The book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola Author and George Barna says:

As with other pagan customs that were absorbed into the Christian
faith (such as the liturgy, the sermon , clerical vestments, and hierarchical
leadership structure), third- and fourth-century Christians incorrectly attributed the origin of the church building to the Old Testament."

They write
The first-century Christians were opposed to the world's systems
and avoided any contact with paganism. This all changed during
the fourth century when the church emerged as a public institution
in the world and began to "absorb and Christianize pagan religious
ideas and practices."' As one historian put it, "Church buildings took
the place of temples; church endowments replaced temple lands and
funds."' Under Constantine, tax exempt status was granted for all
church property.'"

What was the nature of the New Testament church?:
They were fully united and did not denominate themselves into
separate organizations in the same city (Acts 8:1, 13:1, 18:22; Romans 16:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1). They did not use honorific tides (Matthew 23:8-12). They did not organize themselves hierarchically (Matthew 20:25-28; Luke 22:25-26).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps you should give the same dose of sarcasm to testallthings first? Because in post #555 testallthings said " First things first, can you provide a quotation or a link to what you affirm in your initial statement?" which he could have found using Google.

Had testallthings showed half the deliberate obtuseness you did, I might have been tempted to do just that. It seemed to me on a number of occasions that you said, "I never heard anything like that", when it was common thru the LSM of my several years' experience.

But my assessment of your feigned ignorance vis-a-vis that of testallthings is of course a subjective one, and I may indeed have suffered from the same selection bias that I felt you were displaying. If so, I apologize for putting you up for harsh treatment, relatively speaking. And I know words can sting - I have been on the wrong side of unpleasant characterizations and it doesn't feel good. So please forgive me if I'm somewhat caustic in my writings, occasionally.

Speaking of which, you know what is interesting? A lot of Lee's more inflammatory statements got santized by his editors. But you know where you can find the real speaking? In the Supplemental Hymns. Because the local church saints would take Lee's messages and make songs of them.

"It may be that you will find with us a better way." What is the better way? Christ? No, the "local church life". Etc. There is some pretty interesting theology in the supplemental hymns. You can really hear what Lee was speaking, thru the songs the LSM-affiliated saints were putting out.

Anyway, just an interesting thought.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Speaking of which, you know what is interesting? A lot of Lee's more inflammatory statements got santized by his editors. But you know where you can find the real speaking? In the Supplemental Hymns. Because the local church saints would take Lee's messages and make songs of them.

"It may be that you will find with us a better way." What is the better way? Christ? No, the "local church life". Etc. There is some pretty interesting theology in the supplemental hymns. You can really hear what Lee was speaking, thru the songs the LSM-affiliated saints were putting out.

Anyway, just an interesting thought.

Interesting observation!

Back in the late 70's, Max and Company used the supplement regularly to lambaste LC elders as old, dead, and religious. Songs were being regularly added to the supplement by all the LC's following conferences. The young people could then be maneuvered into doing all sorts of crazy things while "rip, roaring drunk in the spirit." Following the expulsion of Max, LSM editorial staff decided to "edit" the supplement, bringing it up to Recovery "standards."

Were you around during those wild Berkeley days?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I wanted a picture next to Witness Lee's impeccably arranged sock drawer.

How can I ever forget that citation I received in Taipei for not aligning my paired socks in a tidy row in my underwear drawer?

Just think how that photo with me next to his sock drawer would help me be transformed. Isn't orderliness next to godliness?

I have sent my personal condolences to the former First Lady who, like me, has also had her underwear drawers searched and ransacked yesterday by over zealous "inspectors."

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have sent my personal condolences to the former First Lady who, like me, has also had her underwear drawers searched and ransacked yesterday by over zealous "inspectors."

I think we’ve gone to another place in this country where Perfect fear casts out all love.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Nell

I think we’ve gone to another place in this country where Perfect fear casts out all love.

That's poignant and sad . . . when I watch too closely the details of what is happening in the world a wave of fear tries to come over me. But then we I turn to look at Him, love returns!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have sent my personal condolences to the former First Lady who, like me, has also had her underwear drawers searched and ransacked yesterday by over zealous "inspectors."

Ohio!


Breaking news! Possible nuclear secrets in Melania's underwear drawer!