Ok to be lesbian?
- Thread starter Kawaii
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Bible, is a document created to teach the word of GOD. It is also the record of the teachings and lives of the apostles. It also teaches the folly's of mankind, and teaches not to repeat mistakes. It also gives laws to be followed. The Bible is a lot of things. I believe it is intended to inspire people to see what is good and know what is sin, but it's more than that. I'm not sure if I can convey it all properly with words...
I use to strugle with sexual desire and drug adiction but i seeked forgiveness confessing sin by sin then after that i started forgiving all that offended me finally it was forgiveness towards myself then christ came and i heard chains fall literall chains i have not desired drugs or been overwelmed with sexual desire i been freed from sexual impurities and all drug desire ceased my whole being has been transformed the first thing i asked God was for Him to clean my mind but he did thank you Jesus and He can free those to homo or lesbian tendencies believe that Jesus is all you need
The thing about this quote, is that it is specifically designating men who practice homosexuality in a section of it's own, apart from the other's listed. This suggests that it doesn't fall into the other categories to such a degree that it needed to be specified. It also says "men who", suggesting it is referring to men in particular.
The lack of mention of lesbianism in cases like this is very consistent as well.
The lack of mention of lesbianism in cases like this is very consistent as well.
A
Exactly, homosexuality between men is a section of it's own, which means that sexual immorality must be referring to something else. It is not referring to adultery because adultery is also mentioned. What is left? The Bible doesn't need to mention lesbianism, because all of the sexual actions of lesbianism are sexually immoral. If not those actions, than what actions do you believe are meant by "sexual immorality"?
Ok. Perhaps we need to look at what the "more" is. The Bible is exclusively a representational document. What it represents is the mind of God. Man was strictly incidental to the formation of the text. What this means is that you first have to understand what it means for the Bible to be an inspired document. If you would like, perhaps we could spend some time talking about this tomorrow.
I didn't want to do this, but I will mention it after all. To be honest, I don't believe Paul was a false apostle, but I can't say for certain he's not either.
What is the word of God
This is the link from earlier. Read the whole thing, once or maybe twice. Paul made enough mistakes to create logical discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. That said, and considering the fact that Paul is the only apostle I am aware had ever done so, I believe it is possible that he made a mistake in the quote as well.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Paul was false, but he made enough assumptions and mistakes to put himself in a position of accusation by people who believe he is. That said, the quote from romans you all mentioned is less credible with this. However, I believe that alone shouldn't be used to clear that debate, so I refrained from mentioning it. Unfortunately, you kept using the thing Paul said to prove your point. This became a necessity. I apologize.
What is the word of God
This is the link from earlier. Read the whole thing, once or maybe twice. Paul made enough mistakes to create logical discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible. That said, and considering the fact that Paul is the only apostle I am aware had ever done so, I believe it is possible that he made a mistake in the quote as well.
I wouldn't go as far as to say Paul was false, but he made enough assumptions and mistakes to put himself in a position of accusation by people who believe he is. That said, the quote from romans you all mentioned is less credible with this. However, I believe that alone shouldn't be used to clear that debate, so I refrained from mentioning it. Unfortunately, you kept using the thing Paul said to prove your point. This became a necessity. I apologize.
You should be careful, you are tredding on very dangerous grounds for your own sake.
First, revert yourself to Psalms 12:6-7 where God will preserve his word.
What that means is, his word will always exist and wont be destroyed.
With that being said, I wouldn't say what Paul did was wrong. Thats almost like saying John's views in Revelation about the number of the beast being six hundred three-score and six could really be 12. I would not assume that some parts of the Bible are true and some are fales especially with Psalms 12:6-7 and also with the fact as to where do you draw the line?
You could say Noah only saved 12 animals not every animal, etc. etc. you get my point. What Im saying is, don't descredit Paul. If Jesus made him an apostle and Jesus knew himself that Judas would betray him, he would know if Paul was going to teach falsely or write something in the Bible that wasnt true and warn us about it.
First, revert yourself to Psalms 12:6-7 where God will preserve his word.
What that means is, his word will always exist and wont be destroyed.
With that being said, I wouldn't say what Paul did was wrong. Thats almost like saying John's views in Revelation about the number of the beast being six hundred three-score and six could really be 12. I would not assume that some parts of the Bible are true and some are fales especially with Psalms 12:6-7 and also with the fact as to where do you draw the line?
You could say Noah only saved 12 animals not every animal, etc. etc. you get my point. What Im saying is, don't descredit Paul. If Jesus made him an apostle and Jesus knew himself that Judas would betray him, he would know if Paul was going to teach falsely or write something in the Bible that wasnt true and warn us about it.
I'm not trying to discredit Paul. I was trying to avoid even mentioning this.
However, when it comes to something Paul said as Paul, ambiguously, in his own words while relaying what he was seeing...
combined with the mistakes Paul was known to make, is it really so credible to believe lesbianism is wrong because of it, when Paul doesn't even outright say it's a sin?
That's all i'm trying to convey. You shouldn't use what Paul said and how Paul said it to declare lesbianism a sin when it wasn't even included in the specific list of sexual immoralities declared directly by GOD.
However, when it comes to something Paul said as Paul, ambiguously, in his own words while relaying what he was seeing...
combined with the mistakes Paul was known to make, is it really so credible to believe lesbianism is wrong because of it, when Paul doesn't even outright say it's a sin?
That's all i'm trying to convey. You shouldn't use what Paul said and how Paul said it to declare lesbianism a sin when it wasn't even included in the specific list of sexual immoralities declared directly by GOD.
I would like to reiterate my point that Jesus knew everything that would happen now and in the future. He would of known if Paul would teach something wrong and adress it. Just like he warned of false teachings, false prophets, etc. If Jesus said nothing bad about Paul, then there is no reason to think that there is problems with his teachings.
Also, I have a question for you then. Does that make the song of solomon irrelivant because it wasnt declared directly from God that it happened? Or for example, does it discredit that Ruth is actually in bloodline with King David because God himself did not say it? No, because God said to preserve his word. Meaning, he is in control of what is in the Bible. It's that simple.
Do you think God, who knows everything, can create such complicated things as gravity and physics, would not foresee or protect the Bible from someone writting something he disagreed with?
Also, I have a question for you then. Does that make the song of solomon irrelivant because it wasnt declared directly from God that it happened? Or for example, does it discredit that Ruth is actually in bloodline with King David because God himself did not say it? No, because God said to preserve his word. Meaning, he is in control of what is in the Bible. It's that simple.
Do you think God, who knows everything, can create such complicated things as gravity and physics, would not foresee or protect the Bible from someone writting something he disagreed with?
Paul made no mistakes, and if you are going to look at Judaism websites to prove your points then you have more issues that just not approving of Paul....
OF course now I see why you support lesbianism. According to the Torah, lesbianism isn't mentioned because is does not include the spilling of seed. Yet, it is still forbidden by Rabbis
OF course now I see why you support lesbianism. According to the Torah, lesbianism isn't mentioned because is does not include the spilling of seed. Yet, it is still forbidden by Rabbis
A
It also didn't mention pedophilia, bestiality, rape, masochism or sadism. Sexual perversions are vast, and I'm not even sure Paul would have been familiar with every different kind, but he makes it clear that they are all wrong. If you are doing a sum there is only one right answer, it would be nonsense to list every single wrong answer. Paul talks about lesbianism in the verse you reject, so we can't say that he doesn't consider it sexual immorality. Even though you reject that verse, you know that what he considers to be sexually immoral is clear, so when he refers to sexual immorality here, it is just that sort of thing he is referring to. The Bible doesn't mention masturbation, or porn either, but most Christians acknowledge that it is a sin because it is lustful, and clearly not what God would want. God is looking for people of a certain character, not people that are examining the law, looking for ways to try and cheat it. You can try and pick apart his words all day, but don't be surprised if at the end of the day he says, "I never knew you".
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what verses in the Bible mean, yes?
So it's possible we are misunderstanding what Paul said also. I know he does not declare it as a sin. I know it is the only time it was ever mentioned. I know it is not worded in the same way as the rule against men doing it in the list of sexual immoralities made by GOD who would not fail to include lesbianism in the list if that was intended. I know Paul did not say "Being lesbian is a sin.".
So it's possible we are misunderstanding what Paul said also. I know he does not declare it as a sin. I know it is the only time it was ever mentioned. I know it is not worded in the same way as the rule against men doing it in the list of sexual immoralities made by GOD who would not fail to include lesbianism in the list if that was intended. I know Paul did not say "Being lesbian is a sin.".
J
It is important that you mentioned that you thought about the possibility of Paul being wrong though. THIS is where your doubt comes from.
If you have any doubt regarding the author of a book of the Bible, it is not a large leap then to discredit something he says that you may not like.
homosexuality, in all its forms, is becoming extremely popular today. This is why there are many people who are trying to legitimize it and even trying to make Paul's words come into doubt. I have heard similar arguments for gay men.
Just because something may FEEL or SEEM right, does not mean that it is. Remember, Scripture says that if it were not for Christ returning that even the elect could be deceived. It is things like homosexuality and lesbianism that the church is getting confused about and it is very dangerous to allow room for thinking that parts of the Bible are in error.
May the truth of Christ settle on your heart.
If you have any doubt regarding the author of a book of the Bible, it is not a large leap then to discredit something he says that you may not like.
homosexuality, in all its forms, is becoming extremely popular today. This is why there are many people who are trying to legitimize it and even trying to make Paul's words come into doubt. I have heard similar arguments for gay men.
Just because something may FEEL or SEEM right, does not mean that it is. Remember, Scripture says that if it were not for Christ returning that even the elect could be deceived. It is things like homosexuality and lesbianism that the church is getting confused about and it is very dangerous to allow room for thinking that parts of the Bible are in error.
May the truth of Christ settle on your heart.