David wrote > Bill, that is a
cop-out of the perverts. Their agenda is to claim that their civil
rights are being violated by not allowing them free reign and protection
for their lustful perversions.
BT: How do you know that this is what John had
in mind when he made his statement?
David wrote > Please agree with me
that a homosexual who has only had tendencies but has not
acted upon them is NOT a homosexual.
BT: Perhaps if you could restate this, I will have
a better idea of whether I agree with you or not. As it appears in its current
state, your statement seems to me to be self-referentially incoherent; i.e., a
homosexual is not a homosexual.
David wrote > Would you consider a man who
has experienced promiscuous tendencies but has never acted upon them
a fornicator?
BT: No, but this is not the point I understood John
to be making. Thatnotwithstanding, this point remains: Terry read John's post and immediately thought the worst of the whole
group, as demonstrated by the explosiveness of his response; I read
John's post and thought the best of those who were that "type" but were not
engaging in the sinful activity of their volitions. Only John knows for sure
what he meant to insinuate. But the fact remains, it could be read either way,
as demonstrated by Terry and myself. Tell me please, What makes Terry's the
preferred response for Christians to make? The truth is that there are some
who have these tendencies who have not or are no longer acting upon
their sexual desires. Whether they have stopped that which was once their
lifestyle, or they have never acted upon their desires in the first
place, the question remains: Why must they necessarily be filthy,
disgusting perverts? I think Paul thought they did not have to be; hence his
statement: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were
sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the
Spirit of our God."
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:30
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street
Preachers
> > ... he said that he was also speaking of
> > people who have those tendencies but
> > are not acting on them.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, I also will point out that 1 Cor. 6:9 condemns the effeminate
> right along with adulterers and homosexuals. Would you consider the
> effeminate to be perverts?
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>