Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites
- Thread starter Jon-E
- 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.
People will always be falling off a cliff or walking boldly down broadway and into the pit, whether they hear the gospel or not. Some of us are called to preach, many others are meant to mingle in with everyone else and be a light. Some lights speak while other lights don’t say anything. I have witnessed both reactions from people that have heard and from people that have not heard yet, they inquired.
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death”. And that can be true for believers who think that their way is the right way and yet be wrong. Even when following the Apostles steps, we can be wrong and that way is death. Why? Because that way for that person was entirely for them, not for us. Not death, as in loss of salvation, but realizing that God wasn’t in it even though we believed He was. Paul discourages us from emulating one another, but to be ourselves. Each Christian is totally 100% unique and where God takes us and gets us to do is unique, even when the rest of the body may scratch their head and wonder. If today, if God told us to do something that is against what we have believed to be the truth, would we do it? We’d fight tooth and nail first.
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death”. And that can be true for believers who think that their way is the right way and yet be wrong. Even when following the Apostles steps, we can be wrong and that way is death. Why? Because that way for that person was entirely for them, not for us. Not death, as in loss of salvation, but realizing that God wasn’t in it even though we believed He was. Paul discourages us from emulating one another, but to be ourselves. Each Christian is totally 100% unique and where God takes us and gets us to do is unique, even when the rest of the body may scratch their head and wonder. If today, if God told us to do something that is against what we have believed to be the truth, would we do it? We’d fight tooth and nail first.
Some people have tunnel vision, they don’t want to expand their mind and see the whole picture, they can’t. The tunnel vision that God has given me, is a wide angle lens that takes in a panoramic view, while others, the diameter of their vision is 2”. They can only see what is in front of them, not what’s around them. Some believers can only see verses, while others see the deeper truths that go beyond what is written. It’s just the way things are.
I wonder what you have in mind. I cannot think of anything along these lines in the Pauline epistles or in Acts. He talked about different gifts and different body parts. That is the closest thing I can think of. Paul wrote, 'Be imitators of me as I am of Christ." Peter said for elders to be examples to the flock. Paul told Timothy to be an example.
You took my words and twisted my meaning. We are certainly to imitate those who are more spiritual, but we are certainly not to be them because we are not them. Jesus is Jesus, Paul is Paul, Peter is Peter, we cannot be these men. When God speaks to my spirit, He calls me by my name, not by another name. I am not Jesus. When Jesus spoke to me in dreams and visions, He spoke to me directly, not to Himself and not to another. My soul is not the soul of Billy Graham, or Billy Sunday, or Franklin Walden, these men have their own personalities and I am certainly not these great men at all. I am a unique soul, as every person on the face of the earth, past present and future.
Very well spoken. I’ve met men like this. First, it was certainly myself 😆. I was grateful to the LORD to have tripped and fell and my face met the floor. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Far better to show mercy than to stand there like a proud peacock when someone is hungry we are standing there demanding they look like a Christian. I’ve seen it myself and was ashamed at my conduct. I was a judgemental person, I am grateful the Holy Ghost took me aside and slid that two edged sword up my spine and He wasn’t delicate let me tell you, but It was what the doctor ordered. I see so many people write their stuff on here and it’s the wrong spirit, but they can’t help themselves, I’ve been there. I just ask the LORD to see if they can fall flat on their face and touch dirt and see that we are absolutely nothing without Him.
Hello AworkinProgress! I have a couple comments I wish to make in reply. It is true that even words of Satan are in the Scriptures, it is true that Satan said it, but not true it is for us to follow. Yet, the story of Jonathan and David for centuries has been seen as the pinnacle of male to male friendship. I've seen it stated this was an example of the highest form of love as expressed by I believe, Aristotle, it is the highest love where it seems to be one soul inhabiting two bodies. What I find surprising is how Christians for centuries have lauded this love between Jonathan and David so highly, until it seems that there was an erotic element to it, then it became unacceptable. 
You were challenged about your comment that Paul taught that we are individuals, and I understand Paul that way as well. Often in Scripture, a truth, a biblical fact is stated that is basic in meaning, but Paul uses it in a particular context to make a point. I think of two:
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom 9:20-21, ERV)
"For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1Cor 4:7, ERV)
I heard one of my Pastors in the past state that the goal of Christianity was to make believers clones of each other patterned after Christ. I was then and still am horrified of such a thought that Christians are to be clones!
I have a close friend who came to North America from China. He was shocked at the wickedness he saw in the west because his idea of America was "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" imagery. Yet, he laughed telling me that even in China it was not at all strange for two male friends to walk down the street holding hands and it did not mean they were gay. As a side note, he was born again in a secret house church just prior to leaving China for America. He was over a thousand miles from me here, but God gave me the honor and privilege of helping him find a church where he could learn the faith. This is an example where a "Confessional Church" is important and I found him a newly forming Presbyterian Church (PCA) with a Pastor who was a man of God's love and it was almost within walking distance to him. If I'd have found a Baptist Church seriously embracing either the First or Second London Confession of Faith; convenient for him I'd have guided him there.
You were challenged about your comment that Paul taught that we are individuals, and I understand Paul that way as well. Often in Scripture, a truth, a biblical fact is stated that is basic in meaning, but Paul uses it in a particular context to make a point. I think of two:
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom 9:20-21, ERV)
"For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1Cor 4:7, ERV)
I heard one of my Pastors in the past state that the goal of Christianity was to make believers clones of each other patterned after Christ. I was then and still am horrified of such a thought that Christians are to be clones!
I have a close friend who came to North America from China. He was shocked at the wickedness he saw in the west because his idea of America was "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" imagery. Yet, he laughed telling me that even in China it was not at all strange for two male friends to walk down the street holding hands and it did not mean they were gay. As a side note, he was born again in a secret house church just prior to leaving China for America. He was over a thousand miles from me here, but God gave me the honor and privilege of helping him find a church where he could learn the faith. This is an example where a "Confessional Church" is important and I found him a newly forming Presbyterian Church (PCA) with a Pastor who was a man of God's love and it was almost within walking distance to him. If I'd have found a Baptist Church seriously embracing either the First or Second London Confession of Faith; convenient for him I'd have guided him there.
AworkinProgress, I do not know if you read all my posts or not, but the thrust of my argument goes as follows.
The Bible has no Hebrew or Greek words comparable to our "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Even the word "sodomy" is nowhere to be found in the English translations. The KJV & RV use "sodomites" to represent male cult prostitutes in the OT and the KJV margin note on Deut. 23:17 reads: "whore: or, sodomitess". Both are cult prostitutes. Many modern translations use "sodomite" to translate the Greek arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 and in the modern meaning of "sodomite", which is NOT synonymous with "homosexual", it is an accurate one word translation. That also happens to match the KJV translation phrasing, if you use the 1828 Webster's to define the words.
My initial post, the OP emphatically pointed out that since the Bible does not have our modern word and concept, you have to get off your backside and do some study to see exactly what the sinful act is that is being condemned in the few passages used by many to condemn any and all male to male sexual expression.
There is NO passage for the Christian believer, the New Covenant believer; that condemns simple sexual conduct between two male friends.
The idea of the whacky fundamentalists that we choose which gender we are attracted to is absurd. Who on earth would make that choice?
The other idea that it is not a sin to be a homosexual, just a sin to engage in a homosexual act is the sin. That contradicts the teaching of Jesus that to desire or lust for something sinful, is a sin also, not just the act.
The idea that total, lifetime abstinence from sex is demanded of a male who is solely attracted to other males violates 1 Cor. 7:7-9 where abstinence is a gift that not all men have. In addition, when you check v26 of this chapter you see Paul is not writing about a lifetime of abstinence, but for the temporary period of time they were in.
The argument from complementarianism, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve', is faulty because NO ONE in this day lives in the perfection of Eden before the fall. Whatever a man is, with all his faults and defects as compared to Eden; if they were not his choice, it was how God made him, Rom. 9:20,21. Who decided the exact birth defect that many of us have? If we did not choose it, God chose if for us in his wise purpose. I am color blind and I did not choose that and it does not match the perfection of Eden.
I have quoted from the IVP New Bible Dictionary to point out what I am getting at, as it reads:
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478
I do NOT support the LGBTQ activism and their agenda and I believe same-sex marriage is a perversion of marriage and placing orphans with gay couples is disgusting. Yet I will not tell a Christian brother that he sins for the simple act of a sexual expression with a willing male friend in private. Nor will I say any man is free from sin in his sex life whatever gender he is attracted to. I, in a previous post gave a sampling of commentary out of the past, on various texts used to condemn males who love males; and you find the comments fit what we call a "sodomite", not a "homosexual". I find the Roget's Thesaurus makes it clear a sodomite is different from a homosexual in our English language:
"75.16 sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf>, bugger; pederast; paraphiliac; zoophiliac..." Seen within the category of synonyms, the meaning of the word "sodomite" in this day is more clear, and it is not "homosexual".
The experience of a long life, and studies in psychology and the research into such matters; causes me to be highly suspicious of the homophobic types, and whether they like the label or not, it does not take long to sense the hateful and nasty tone in some posts to realize the label 'homophobe' does fit! Few males are 100% solely opposite sex attracted in all times and circumstances of their life and men of integrity know it in their heart, yet few of us risk making that statement. I'm 80 so I don't care. LOL
The Bible has no Hebrew or Greek words comparable to our "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Even the word "sodomy" is nowhere to be found in the English translations. The KJV & RV use "sodomites" to represent male cult prostitutes in the OT and the KJV margin note on Deut. 23:17 reads: "whore: or, sodomitess". Both are cult prostitutes. Many modern translations use "sodomite" to translate the Greek arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 and in the modern meaning of "sodomite", which is NOT synonymous with "homosexual", it is an accurate one word translation. That also happens to match the KJV translation phrasing, if you use the 1828 Webster's to define the words.
My initial post, the OP emphatically pointed out that since the Bible does not have our modern word and concept, you have to get off your backside and do some study to see exactly what the sinful act is that is being condemned in the few passages used by many to condemn any and all male to male sexual expression.
There is NO passage for the Christian believer, the New Covenant believer; that condemns simple sexual conduct between two male friends.
The idea of the whacky fundamentalists that we choose which gender we are attracted to is absurd. Who on earth would make that choice?
The other idea that it is not a sin to be a homosexual, just a sin to engage in a homosexual act is the sin. That contradicts the teaching of Jesus that to desire or lust for something sinful, is a sin also, not just the act.
The idea that total, lifetime abstinence from sex is demanded of a male who is solely attracted to other males violates 1 Cor. 7:7-9 where abstinence is a gift that not all men have. In addition, when you check v26 of this chapter you see Paul is not writing about a lifetime of abstinence, but for the temporary period of time they were in.
The argument from complementarianism, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve', is faulty because NO ONE in this day lives in the perfection of Eden before the fall. Whatever a man is, with all his faults and defects as compared to Eden; if they were not his choice, it was how God made him, Rom. 9:20,21. Who decided the exact birth defect that many of us have? If we did not choose it, God chose if for us in his wise purpose. I am color blind and I did not choose that and it does not match the perfection of Eden.
I have quoted from the IVP New Bible Dictionary to point out what I am getting at, as it reads:
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478
I do NOT support the LGBTQ activism and their agenda and I believe same-sex marriage is a perversion of marriage and placing orphans with gay couples is disgusting. Yet I will not tell a Christian brother that he sins for the simple act of a sexual expression with a willing male friend in private. Nor will I say any man is free from sin in his sex life whatever gender he is attracted to. I, in a previous post gave a sampling of commentary out of the past, on various texts used to condemn males who love males; and you find the comments fit what we call a "sodomite", not a "homosexual". I find the Roget's Thesaurus makes it clear a sodomite is different from a homosexual in our English language:
"75.16 sexual pervert; pervert, perve <nf>, deviant, deviate, sex pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nf>, bugger; pederast; paraphiliac; zoophiliac..." Seen within the category of synonyms, the meaning of the word "sodomite" in this day is more clear, and it is not "homosexual".
The experience of a long life, and studies in psychology and the research into such matters; causes me to be highly suspicious of the homophobic types, and whether they like the label or not, it does not take long to sense the hateful and nasty tone in some posts to realize the label 'homophobe' does fit! Few males are 100% solely opposite sex attracted in all times and circumstances of their life and men of integrity know it in their heart, yet few of us risk making that statement. I'm 80 so I don't care. LOL
O
When I read the bible, I am looking into the mirror. It is God talking to me. He tells me to love my neighbor as myself. I know what the book says...I've read it for decades! I try to remember that if I got what I deserved...
Did you know that Adam thought Eve was bomb? B-one O-f M-y B-one...BOMB! Lol
Did you know that Adam thought Eve was bomb? B-one O-f M-y B-one...BOMB! Lol
K
I don't care if you call it hanging out the laundry. God has made clear what his intent was, sex is between and man and a woman. Period. If you care about a person, saved or not, you'd tell them the truth. I've talked to my cousins, some are saved, some are not. If I talk to them about sin I say "I am not perfect, and if you see me in sin, I hope you will point it out to me and give me the same speech I'm giving you now".
Homophobe is a term made up to silence anyone that disagrees with their POV.
Whether it be few or not, God made His intent clear. Sex is between a man and a woman. Monogamous, between a man and a woman. Anything else is sin.
Homophobe is a term made up to silence anyone that disagrees with their POV.
Whether it be few or not, God made His intent clear. Sex is between a man and a woman. Monogamous, between a man and a woman. Anything else is sin.
-
1
- Show all
Hello AworkinProgress! I have a couple comments I wish to make in reply. It is true that even words of Satan are in the Scriptures, it is true that Satan said it, but not true it is for us to follow. Yet, the story of Jonathan and David for centuries has been seen as the pinnacle of male to male friendship. I've seen it stated this was an example of the highest form of love as expressed by I believe, Aristotle, it is the highest love where it seems to be one soul inhabiting two bodies. What I find surprising is how Christians for centuries have lauded this love between Jonathan and David so highly, until it seems that there was an erotic element to it, then it became unacceptable.
Paul had just talked about how God had raised up Pharaoh. Pharaoh had refused to let God's people go. God had hardened his heart. Paul had said God will have mercy on whom He will, and whom He wills, He hardens. So are you saying God made you gay like he made Pharoah a hard-hearted person opposed to God's people?
Having spent many years of my life in Asia, I can tell you I was rather uncomfortable with Korean men taking my hand to cross the street. They didn't mean anything 'gay' about it. But cultural differences like this are not an endorsement of a man lying with a man as one does with a woman. Did your Chinese friend know that you are in favor of such behavior? Even secular Chinese and Buddhists seem to be against it for the most part from what I understand. How much more Christians.
If PCAs and confessional Baptists have it together in your opinion, then why do you think such people oppose same-sex sexual relationships? I am not familiar with one overarching confessional Baptist group that covers them all, but my understanding is that the PCA did not join the libertine iniquity LGBT movement.
On the idiolect (individual's vocabulary) Koine Greek does, at least the Biblical version of it. Some people use 'homosexual' to mean someone who has sex with the same sex. Greek has arsenokoites. If that means the giver and not the taker, though, then homosexual includes arsenokoite if used in the sense of someone who performs a homosexual act.
The problem is homosexual is a psychological word and its historical roots and technical usage has to do with men who are attracted to other men. That topic is addressed as something which is against nature in Romans 1.
There are many, many words that do not have an exact one-to-one correspondence with Greek or some other language. That is the nature of langauges.
And later in your post, you think two homosexual men performing sodomite activities, of the I Corinthians 6:9 variety, are okay? Linguistically 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 are related to the Leviticus 20 passage against two men engaging in sexual acts with one another.
And you have showed quote after quote condemning homosex, and act as if they do not.
First of all, that's sick. 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 do. A masculine word that means male *&%$ers as the sources you site say.
Do you think it is okay for a man and a woman to have sex outside of marriage, too, or do you just want gay sex to be allowed? What about adultery? Are you okay with that? What about sex with animals, condemned in the same context as male homo sex in Leviticus 18? Are you okay with having sex with an animal you are not married to?
Btw, in the Old Testament, two single unbethrothed young people having sex was not a death penalty crime (at least if they fessed up and did the right thing), but two men having sex was a death penalty crime. You are getting things backwards trying to make two men having sex not a sin at all. Btw, do you stop at two men? If three or four men had sex, is that all okay to you? Do you think God smiles on sex orgies, but only if they are gay? Are you familiar with that verse about calling good evil and evil good?
You choose whether or not to act on attraction.. to yield to lust. Paul said to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. If you have lusts, that doesn't make the lusts 'natural' for you. Lust does not justify sin.
God created male and female and said be fruitful and multiply. He looked at what He had made and it was good. But you realize on some level men wanting sex with other men is not good, or you would not have made that comment.
You seem double-minded on this. If lust is wrong, why are you justifying it elsewhere in your post?
Besides, homosexuality is supposed to be about 'orientation.' I someone engaging in lust by being 'heterosexual.' 'Heterosexual' just means one can be attracted to the opposite sex. If I see a man, a movie star, a weight lifter, etc., I am not going to feel attraction. But if I see a beautiful woman her looks might be attractive to me. But that doesn't mean I sin. A woman being pretty doesn't make me sin. My interacting with her or seeing her in my field of vision does not make me sin. Jesus said that if someone looks at a woman in order to (πρὸς) lust after her has committed adultery with her already in her heart. There is an action of the will involved. Paul says not to yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.
Having the propensity, inclination, or possibility of being attracted to the same sex is not sin. Yielding one's members-- whether eyes or other parts--to it is. A Christian tempted in this way should not embrace homosexuality as his identity because the scripture says to reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God. Christians should not make their identity 'fornicator Christian' if they happen to be attracted to women. Or if they think there is a chance they could overeat or steal, they shouldn't call themselves 'glutton Christians' or 'thief Christians'.
Read earlier in the passage. Paul says to prevent fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband. Wives are female and husbands are male, and is clear which sex gets each.
Jesus referred back to a quote from the Adam and Eve passage when teaching in marriage. Paul referred to it about marriage as it reflects Christ and the church. Your commentary on this is no excuse.
Huh? The passage deals with God hardening Pharaoh's heart and how He has mercy on whom he wills and whom He wills He hardens. Paul's imaginary interlocutor then asks why does He yet find fault for who has resisted his will... then these verses about the pot not saying to the potter, why hast thou made me thus? So are you saying that God made those engaged in homosex wicked and rebellious? This passage is not meant to be an excuse not to repent. Paul said that God is calling all men to repent. That is kind of like saying not to pray for unbelieving relatives because if God wants to save them he will, and not to get out of bed in the morning to work, because if God wants to feed you, He will. that is no the proper attitude.
If you think people are born with kleptomania or an inclination to murder, do you think they should steal your stuff and kill you? Should sinners stay in their sin because of the potter and the clay verse? That type of interpretation does not align with Paul's preaching on repentance elsewhere in scripture.
The Bible also says to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. You would have us believe it is okay to fulfill this shameful lust because you believe God made you with the propensity to lust in that way.
What is so disgusting about gay couples that you do not want orphans living with them. You seem conflicted on the issue.
Are you afraid he will not participate if you do?
Not particularly relevant to what the scripture passages actually say, especially since 'sodomite' is not used in most translations.
The problem is homosexual is a psychological word and its historical roots and technical usage has to do with men who are attracted to other men. That topic is addressed as something which is against nature in Romans 1.
There are many, many words that do not have an exact one-to-one correspondence with Greek or some other language. That is the nature of langauges.
And later in your post, you think two homosexual men performing sodomite activities, of the I Corinthians 6:9 variety, are okay? Linguistically 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 are related to the Leviticus 20 passage against two men engaging in sexual acts with one another.
And you have showed quote after quote condemning homosex, and act as if they do not.
First of all, that's sick. 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 do. A masculine word that means male *&%$ers as the sources you site say.
Do you think it is okay for a man and a woman to have sex outside of marriage, too, or do you just want gay sex to be allowed? What about adultery? Are you okay with that? What about sex with animals, condemned in the same context as male homo sex in Leviticus 18? Are you okay with having sex with an animal you are not married to?
Btw, in the Old Testament, two single unbethrothed young people having sex was not a death penalty crime (at least if they fessed up and did the right thing), but two men having sex was a death penalty crime. You are getting things backwards trying to make two men having sex not a sin at all. Btw, do you stop at two men? If three or four men had sex, is that all okay to you? Do you think God smiles on sex orgies, but only if they are gay? Are you familiar with that verse about calling good evil and evil good?
You choose whether or not to act on attraction.. to yield to lust. Paul said to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. If you have lusts, that doesn't make the lusts 'natural' for you. Lust does not justify sin.
God created male and female and said be fruitful and multiply. He looked at what He had made and it was good. But you realize on some level men wanting sex with other men is not good, or you would not have made that comment.
You seem double-minded on this. If lust is wrong, why are you justifying it elsewhere in your post?
Besides, homosexuality is supposed to be about 'orientation.' I someone engaging in lust by being 'heterosexual.' 'Heterosexual' just means one can be attracted to the opposite sex. If I see a man, a movie star, a weight lifter, etc., I am not going to feel attraction. But if I see a beautiful woman her looks might be attractive to me. But that doesn't mean I sin. A woman being pretty doesn't make me sin. My interacting with her or seeing her in my field of vision does not make me sin. Jesus said that if someone looks at a woman in order to (πρὸς) lust after her has committed adultery with her already in her heart. There is an action of the will involved. Paul says not to yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.
Having the propensity, inclination, or possibility of being attracted to the same sex is not sin. Yielding one's members-- whether eyes or other parts--to it is. A Christian tempted in this way should not embrace homosexuality as his identity because the scripture says to reckon yourselves dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God. Christians should not make their identity 'fornicator Christian' if they happen to be attracted to women. Or if they think there is a chance they could overeat or steal, they shouldn't call themselves 'glutton Christians' or 'thief Christians'.
Read earlier in the passage. Paul says to prevent fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband. Wives are female and husbands are male, and is clear which sex gets each.
Jesus referred back to a quote from the Adam and Eve passage when teaching in marriage. Paul referred to it about marriage as it reflects Christ and the church. Your commentary on this is no excuse.
Huh? The passage deals with God hardening Pharaoh's heart and how He has mercy on whom he wills and whom He wills He hardens. Paul's imaginary interlocutor then asks why does He yet find fault for who has resisted his will... then these verses about the pot not saying to the potter, why hast thou made me thus? So are you saying that God made those engaged in homosex wicked and rebellious? This passage is not meant to be an excuse not to repent. Paul said that God is calling all men to repent. That is kind of like saying not to pray for unbelieving relatives because if God wants to save them he will, and not to get out of bed in the morning to work, because if God wants to feed you, He will. that is no the proper attitude.
If you think people are born with kleptomania or an inclination to murder, do you think they should steal your stuff and kill you? Should sinners stay in their sin because of the potter and the clay verse? That type of interpretation does not align with Paul's preaching on repentance elsewhere in scripture.
The Bible also says to make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. You would have us believe it is okay to fulfill this shameful lust because you believe God made you with the propensity to lust in that way.
What is so disgusting about gay couples that you do not want orphans living with them. You seem conflicted on the issue.
Are you afraid he will not participate if you do?
Not particularly relevant to what the scripture passages actually say, especially since 'sodomite' is not used in most translations.
@Jon-E
The psychological literature I have read asserts that there is no actual evidence in the literature for 'homphobia' being an actual phobia.
We all know it is just rhetoric LGBT activists use to try to shame and cajole people into agreeing with them, same with 'transphobe'. George Orwell understood a little about the manipulative political use of language.
It is probably off topic of this thread, but I'd be interested in seeing a poll about this. Some years ago, a friend of mine expressed his irritation that he'd heard someone in a movie say, "you mean you've never had a homosexual thought?" as if it were normal for men to have homosexual thoughts. He had never experienced anything attractive about another man. He said there was nothing attractive about another man's butt. He lived in California, and at the time, there was a lot more of that junk out there, but now it has spread all over. I've never once seen a man and thought he was attractive to me or wanted to have sex with a man. The idea is disgusting, somewhere around the idea of sex with animals.
I suspect it is still fairly widespread for men to be repulsed by the idea. In the past, teens and men would express that sentiment, but the LGBT movement has brainwashed men and boys. Exposure to porn, lust, and perversion has probably opened more men up to the lust of the flesh and possibly demonic influence so that now there may be fewer men in the west who find it abominable.
And if one is not disgusted by it, one should be. God instructed the Israelites that such a thing should be an abomination.
The psychological literature I have read asserts that there is no actual evidence in the literature for 'homphobia' being an actual phobia.
We all know it is just rhetoric LGBT activists use to try to shame and cajole people into agreeing with them, same with 'transphobe'. George Orwell understood a little about the manipulative political use of language.
It is probably off topic of this thread, but I'd be interested in seeing a poll about this. Some years ago, a friend of mine expressed his irritation that he'd heard someone in a movie say, "you mean you've never had a homosexual thought?" as if it were normal for men to have homosexual thoughts. He had never experienced anything attractive about another man. He said there was nothing attractive about another man's butt. He lived in California, and at the time, there was a lot more of that junk out there, but now it has spread all over. I've never once seen a man and thought he was attractive to me or wanted to have sex with a man. The idea is disgusting, somewhere around the idea of sex with animals.
I suspect it is still fairly widespread for men to be repulsed by the idea. In the past, teens and men would express that sentiment, but the LGBT movement has brainwashed men and boys. Exposure to porn, lust, and perversion has probably opened more men up to the lust of the flesh and possibly demonic influence so that now there may be fewer men in the west who find it abominable.
And if one is not disgusted by it, one should be. God instructed the Israelites that such a thing should be an abomination.
-
1
- Show all
