So are gays/lesbians nonelects? How do people become gays/lesbians?

  • 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.
Here's the real gospel of John and the rest of the Bible.
Bookmark it and use it. There's No copyright.
Blessings

I agree completely with your reference to the KJV online. I will add about this site:
The original 1611 KJV with old English spelling and including the apocrypha.


The site has so many resources. I'll add another good KJV web site with biographical about each of the translators, and they cannot be matched for scholarship by the modern scholars.


The KJV we read today is the 1769, so you MUST use the older 1828 Webster's to understand what those KJV translators meant by the words they used. https://webstersdictionary1828.com/

Because of the topic of this thread, in the 1828 Webster's, look up the word "abusers" from 1 Cor. 6:9 and then look up "defile" from 1 Tim. 1:10. You find the words amount to abuse, as the "sodomite".
 
That is a bad book that presents a false Jesus. I'll provide you an electronic Bible that will guide you and shows us all truth.

Jesus and John were best friends.
There was nothing effeminate about them. Jesus was perfectly masculine. That was John's best friend, Savior, Lord and brother.
He realized that he was forgiven much, just like the woman who went and wiped Christ's feet with her hair. Nothing sensual about those two actions. The Devil always twists that which is pure in order to attack the Lord's character. That's what the Sodomite aka LGBTPS community did with the sign of God's rainbow.
I also agree with this, especially your last sentence "That's what the Sodomite aka LGBTPS community did with the sign of God's rainbow." .... I am NOT in agreement with, nor use the perverted interpretations found with the LGBTQ+ types. Not all "gays" if we must use the term, fall in line with the LGBTQ activists. In addition, gay guys do not all practice the idea of the "passive" and "active" designation, nor do they identify as "husband" or "wife", which is absurd.
 
Looks like someone has NOT read Leviticus!

Apparently YOU have not read it all! The last verse of the book reads:

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, KJV)

The last verse of the previous book reads:

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, KJV)

So, Gentiles, the nations were never under the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Law! Believers covered by the New Covenant in Christ's blood are NOT subject to Leviticus.

Therefore, the dietary laws like that against eating lobsters was for Israel, NOT the Gentiles or the Christians in the New Covenant.
 
Well while I don't know this guy's heart, I do know that most of the time when people twist and/or explain away Scripture it's because they have already decided what they want to believe based on their feelings, then they go to the Bible looking for loopholes to help them get to where they have already decided they are going to land. And in this age of the Internet, there is no shortage of "teachers" out there who will offer them dazzling word salads that sound scholarly but are nothing but desperate attempts to explain away clear Scripture by offering "interpretations" that not a single bible scholar, translator or theologian ever entertained for almost 2,000 years until the Sexual Revolution came along.
Steve, have you studied hermeneutics, or interpretation by scholars; from recognized textbooks?

Have you read and studied –
Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton S. Terry? I have –
Biblical hermeneutics : a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments : Terry, Milton Spenser, 1840-1914 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Or have your read and studied –
Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart? I have –
Principles of Interpretation : Clinton Lockhart : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I have the books on my bookshelf and have studied them. I use proper, standard, rules of interpretation on any of my studies. You make a lot of biased charges or claim about my presentation, but show me specifics where I have denied proper rules of interpretation, giving us the verse, my statement and the rule you say I violated. Show me where I truly erred and I’ll be genuinely grateful. As the conclusion of my chosen Confession reads:
"Also we confess, that we know but in part, and that we are ignorant of many things which we desire and seek to know; and if any shall do us that friendly part to show us from the word of God that which we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and them; but if any man shall impose upon us anything that we see not to be commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, we should in His strength rather embrace all reproaches and tortures of men, to be stripped of all outward comforts, and if it were possible, to die a thousand deaths, rather than to do anything against the least tittle of the truth of God or against the light of our own consciences."

You are typical of most all of the modern Pastors and so-called Bible teachers of today. You can read writings of others about the Bible topics, and verses, but seldom do I find any that demonstrate knowledge of interpretation, or they intentionally disregard the rules of interpretation. Yes, many like to tell us what the church in the past believed, but they forget that the word and concept of homosexuality never came into English until 1900. So, they are forced to use labels, instead of doing proper Exegesis.
 
The gay man can repeatedly engage in promiscuous sex, then repent, over and over; or, he can take the advice of Dr. Smedes and have an enduring, loving relationship with a mate. Isn’t the answer below the more sensible and biblically sound?
First of all, Dr. Smedes is not Scripture. It's interesting that all of your quotes to defend your position are quotes from men not the Bible. And it's also interesting that every sentence in your quote of Smedes starts out as "I think...". Yes, that's the problem, these are just the thoughts of a man, not words that can be found anywhere in the Bible. As I said in my earlier post, there is no shortage of teachers out there who will tickle the ears of people. Paul warned about that and said it would become increasingly common in the last days:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts" (2 Tim 4:3)

Moreover, you are grossly twisting the words of Brooks to make it sound like he would be an advocate for unrepentant homosexuality. Yes, as Brooks points out, believers can fall into sin, including the same sin over and over. But there is a difference between FALLING into sin and PRACTICING it. The life of a believer is marked by repentance. No it's not a perfect repentance. We stumble and fall in moments of weakness. But that is not the same thing as willfully practing sin. That's why Scripture teaches that those who PRACTICE sin willfully will not enter the kingdom of heaven:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality ;nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10)

"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God." (1 John 3:9)

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:26)


A person who enters a homosexual relationship with no desire or determination to repent from their sodomy is PRACTICING sin, not FALLING into it. Scripture says such a person will NOT inherit the kingdom of God. And as far as Dr. Smedes, all I can say is he better take a better look at Romans 1:32:

"Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them"

Here, after speaking about homosexuality (as well as a host of additional sins), Paul makes it clear that anyone who grants approval to the sins of others stand condemned also. Dr. Smedes is granting approval to the sins of others. His advice that gays who can't be celibate should enter monogamous gay sexual relationships is granting approval of sin. That advice can be found NOWHERE in the Bible. In fact, it contradicts the Bible. He is a false teacher leading souls to Hell. Sorry, but you have simply found someone who is tickling your ears with lies.
 
Yes, many like to tell us what the church in the past believed, but they forget that the word and concept of homosexuality never came into English until 1900. So, they are forced to use labels, instead of doing proper Exegesis.
That is simply FALSE. The word "homosexuality" may not be found in the Bible but the CONCEPT certainly is. The Bible condemns the sexual ACTS that take place between people of the same gender. You know that. Which is why you keep trying to reinterpret them to say they are only talking about abusive sex. But that is false. As I already pointed out, Romans 1:26-27 demolishes that idea. And despite 3 attempts you still refuse to answer my question as to why if "abuse" is the only complaint Paul had in Rom 1:26-27, why is he complaining that men abandoned women as sexual partners and chose men instead. If you had a gay friend and found out that he was engaging in an abusive sexual relationship with another man, and you decided to write him a letter to convince him what he was doing was wrong, would you bring up the fact he "had left the natural use of the woman". No you wouldn't. You wouldn't bring up women at all. You'd simply point out to him that abusive behavior is sinful. So if you wouldn't bring up women in such a letter why would you expect Paul to? Paul is arguing that men were doing things with other men that were only natural to do with women. "Abuse" can't be what he's talking about because that would not be natural to do with men or women. What Paul was complaining about was something that was natural to do with women but not other men, so it can't be "abuse". It's sexual intercourse itself.
 
While there may be demonic involvement in some homosexual practice, I believe it would be hard to prove biblically or otherwise, that this is always the case.
Blessings.
all sin is of the devil and of the flesh. And that has been from the fall of man until today.
 
Since the Bible has no words equivalent to “homosexual”, a word coined in the 19th century; it is best to let those who specialize in this psychological topic expound on it.

From:
From D. G. Myers, C. N. DeWall, & J. Gruber, EXPLORING PSYCHOLOGY, 13th ed., Worth Pubs., 2025

“Origins of Sexual Orientation
So, if we do not choose our sexual orientation and (especially for men) cannot change it, where do these feelings come from? In an early search for possible environmental influences on sexual orientation, Kinsey Institute investigators in the 1980s interviewed nearly 1000 gay and 500 heterosexual people. They assessed nearly every imaginable psychological “cause” of same-sex attraction — parental relationships, childhood sexual experiences, peer relationships, and dating experiences (Bell et al., 1981; Hammersmith, 1982). Their findings: Gay people were no more likely than straight people to have been smothered by maternal love or neglected by their father. And consider this: If “distant fathers” were more likely to produce gay sons, then shouldn’t boys growing up in father-absent homes more often be gay? (They are not.) And shouldn’t the rising num ber of such homes have led to a noticeable increase in the gay population? (It did not.) Most children raised by gay or lesbian parents display gender-typical behavior and are heterosexual (Farr et al., 2018; Gartrell & Bos, 2010). And they grow up with health and emotional well-being similar to children with straight parents (Bos et al., 2016; Farr, 2017). Environment likely contributes to sexual orientation — nature and nurture work together — but the inability to pin down specific environmental influences has led researchers to explore several lines of biological evidence. These include same-sex attraction in other species, brain differences, and genetic and prenatal influences.”

“BRAIN DIFFERENCES Might the structure and function of gay and straight brains dif fer? Neuroscientist Simon LeVay (1991) studied sections of the hypothalamus taken from deceased gay and straight people. He found a cell cluster that was indeed reliably larger in straight men than in straight women and gay men. It should not surprise us that brains differ with sexual orientation. Remember: Every thing psychological is simultaneously biological. But when did the brain difference begin? At conception? During childhood or adolescence? Did experience produce the difference? Or was it genes or prenatal hormones (or genes activating prenatal hormones)? LeVay does not view the hypothalamus cell network as a sexual orientation center. Rather, he sees it as an important part of a brain pathway linked to sexual behavior. He acknowledges that sexual behavior patterns could influence the brain’s anatomy. In fish, birds, rats, and humans, brain structures vary with experience — including sexual experience (Breedlove, 1997). But LeVay believes it more likely that brain anatomy influences sexual orientation. His hunch seems confirmed by the discovery of a similar hypothalamic difference between male sheep that do and don’t display same-sex attraction (Larkin et al., 2002; Roselli et al., 2002, 2004). Moreover, such differences seem to develop soon after birth, and perhaps even before birth (Rahman & Wilson, 2003).”
06_myersep13e_47276_ch05_165_193_2pp.indd

From the American Psychological Association
“What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
Understanding sexual orientation and homosexuality
The American Psychological Assertion has been LONG TIME support of the gay agenda and evolution. They are secular and many homosexuals in it. There have no sound science. Then they changed their position more than the LGBTQ. The truth is Homosexuality which was to be seen as two consented adults of the same sex in a relationship that was protected by the US Constitution, moved to an ideology that teaches children they were born in the wrong sex. Boys can play with girl in sports, and They were attack you if you disagree. So loving and tolerant people they have become. The truth it was all a lie. They are living in sin and the fire they started has consumed them. They have profaned God and Blasphemed his word. They have corrupted the house of God.

The main people who did this were pastors, parents of gay children, Teachers and Politics. God has not changed His position on SIN.

Just because you have a family member who is living in sin and the world wants to pervert Gods love at the expense of His holiness will bring the greater Judgement on you because you taught your children to fall. Pastors will answer. All who teach other to do such things. Saying that is not me judging. It is telling the truth. And if that offends you take up with the one who said it in His word.

I have gay family members and i will not perform a marriage ceremony for them. I will not go to their wedding even if I am not marrying Them if that is seen as unloving. Too bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Apparently YOU have not read it all! The last verse of the book reads:

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, KJV)

The last verse of the previous book reads:

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, KJV)

So, Gentiles, the nations were never under the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Law! Believers covered by the New Covenant in Christ's blood are NOT subject to Leviticus.

Therefore, the dietary laws like that against eating lobsters was for Israel, NOT the Gentiles or the Christians in the New Covenant.
I disagree. Israel was chosen by God to be a light to the nations, not to be the only people who could know Him or be saved. They were entrusted with God's law so that the surrounding nations would come to know the true God (Deuteronomy 4:5–8, Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:6).

Gentiles also absolutely worshiped God. Nineveh is a great example. God sent Jonah to call the capital of Assyria, a gentile nation, to repentance, and they repented. If God had no expectation of the nations, there would have been no reason to warn them of coming judgment. Not to mention judgement would make no sense because if they aren't under the law, what is God judging them about?

Jesus said He was sent first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel because Israel had failed in the role they were given. After Israel largely rejected the Messiah, the gospel was then given to the gentiles. That doesn't mean gentiles couldn't be saved before Christ, it means the message of salvation was now being proclaimed directly to all nations via the gentiles, which is what the Jews were supposed to do. Jesus illustrates this in the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where those originally invited refuse to come, so the invitation goes out to everyone else.

We also see people like Rahab, Ruth, Naaman the Syrian, the eunuch from Ethiopia and the people of Gibeon turning to the God of Israel. So clearly, salvation wasn't stuck with only Jews could be saved and the law was expected to be followed no matter the nation.
 
First of all, Dr. Smedes is not Scripture. It's interesting that all of your quotes to defend your position are quotes from men not the Bible. And it's also interesting that every sentence in your quote of Smedes starts out as "I think...". Yes, that's the problem, these are just the thoughts of a man, not words that can be found anywhere in the Bible. As I said in my earlier post, there is no shortage of teachers out there who will tickle the ears of people. Paul warned about that and said it would become increasingly common in the last days:
You quote 2 Tim 4:3 as you remark about the last days, and we’ve been in “the last days” since Pentecost:
“But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh…” (Acts 2:16-17a, KJV)

Since the 1st Advent:
“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Heb 1:2, KJV)

You have quoted one of the modernist, revisionist translations on 1 Cor. 6:9. I know the modern evangelicals are revisionist by how they change their translations, such as:

The 1977 NASB:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.” (Ex. 21:22)

The 1995 NASB:
“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ex 21:22&amp;version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-2100b" title="See footnote b">b</a>]may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.” (Ex. 21:22)
*The change was made when the translators removed the key translation that did away with their “humans exist at conception” teaching.

You quote 1 John 3:9 and Heb. 10:26; but you have failed to show that a simple male to male relationship with intimacy is anywhere in scripture called sin!

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

From Clinton Lockhart’s Principles of Interpretation
“RULE :—If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be noted by the interpreter.” Principles of Interpretation : Clinton Lockhart : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The first appearance of the concept and word homosexuality came about in 1869 in Germany, and came into English about 1900. The first translation to use “homosexuals” was the 1946 RSV and in the 1972 Revised version the word was removed. The scholarly, academic translations today do not use any form of the word “homosexuals”.

“…have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,” (1Cor 6:9, Young’s Literal Translation) * ”sodomite” and “homosexual” are NOT synonymous.

I know who the late Lewis B. Smedes was in all of his writings and tenure at Fuller Theological Seminary; but I do not know who you are Steve. It takes time to actually study the scriptures and know what they teach; and it takes time to rebut the false teaching modernists have insisting, That the Bible condemns a male with male relationship with intimacy. I must begin restricting my responses to those who show some biblical scholarship.
 
I disagree. Israel was chosen by God to be a light to the nations, not to be the only people who could know Him or be saved. They were entrusted with God's law so that the surrounding nations would come to know the true God (Deuteronomy 4:5–8, Isaiah 42:6, Isaiah 49:6).

Gentiles also absolutely worshiped God. Nineveh is a great example. God sent Jonah to call the capital of Assyria, a gentile nation, to repentance, and they repented. If God had no expectation of the nations, there would have been no reason to warn them of coming judgment. Not to mention judgement would make no sense because if they aren't under the law, what is God judging them about?

Jesus said He was sent first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel because Israel had failed in the role they were given. After Israel largely rejected the Messiah, the gospel was then given to the gentiles. That doesn't mean gentiles couldn't be saved before Christ, it means the message of salvation was now being proclaimed directly to all nations via the gentiles, which is what the Jews were supposed to do. Jesus illustrates this in the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where those originally invited refuse to come, so the invitation goes out to everyone else.

We also see people like Rahab, Ruth, Naaman the Syrian, the eunuch from Ethiopia and the people of Gibeon turning to the God of Israel. So clearly, salvation wasn't stuck with only Jews could be saved and the law was expected to be followed no matter the nation.
If you are going to give a reference, make sure you know what it states:

“Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?” (Deut 4:5-8, RSV)See:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed— just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” (Deut 18:15-19, RSV)

See this applied to Jesus Christ:
“Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’” (Acts 3:22-23, RSV)

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20, RSV) *As Moses had already said that the people of God were to listen to the coming prophet. Jesus said to observe all that I have commanded, not what Moses commanded in the Old Covenant.



As to the Gentiles:

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom 2:14-16, RSV)
 
If you are going to give a reference, make sure you know what it states:

“Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?” (Deut 4:5-8, RSV)See:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed— just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” (Deut 18:15-19, RSV)

See this applied to Jesus Christ:
“Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’” (Acts 3:22-23, RSV)

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20, RSV) *As Moses had already said that the people of God were to listen to the coming prophet. Jesus said to observe all that I have commanded, not what Moses commanded in the Old Covenant.



As to the Gentiles:

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom 2:14-16, RSV)
You literally completely bypassed my point. Let me highlight for you.

Look, I have taught you laws and rulings, just as Adonai my God ordered me, so that you can behave accordingly in the land where you are going in order to take possession of it. 6Therefore, observe them; and follow them; for then all peoples will see you as having wisdom and understanding. When they hear of all these laws, they will say, ‘This great nation is surely a wise and understanding people.’ 7For what great nation is there that has God as close to them as Adonai our God is, whenever we call on him?

Shows they were called to be a light to the world. Was Jesus walking around back then so the nations could see the peoples having wisdom and understanding which would influence everyone else?

You woefully lack understanding.
 
and it takes time to rebut the false teaching modernists have insisting, That the Bible condemns a male with male relationship with intimacy. I must begin restricting my responses to those who show some biblical scholarship.
Now you are completely gaslighting. The idea that homosexual acts of ALL kinds is some "modernist" invention is nonsense. Show us a single commentary written before the sexual revolution that argues the case that only "abusive" sex is being condemned but "intimate same sex relationships" are valid. If my position is some "modernist" invention you should be able to provide a wealth of historical "scholarship" that affirms your position. And by historical I mean BEFORE the Sexual Revolution. This idea that opposition to homosexuality is some modern idea is delusional. Until the Sexual Revolution of the 20th century, ALL homosexual acts were illegal in every nation of the world that was shaped by Christianity. You have completely turned reality on it's head by trying to convince yourself and everybody else that "scholarly" historical consensus is on YOUR side of this argument and that what I am proclaiming is some modern aberration that I've embraced because I'm listening to the rantings of some "conservative" pastors.

Your gaslighting also extends to your accusation that I am violating all the "scholarly" rules of biblical interpretation. Yet when I present specific arguments about a verse (like Rom 1:26-27) you don't even attempt to address the supposed flaws of my logic...you simply cut and paste some quote from somebody else that doesn't even address my argument. I have asked you over and over what "left the natural use of the woman" means in Rom 1 yet you refuse to offer a direct concise answer to that. You claim I am the one not engaged in "true scholarship" yet you refuse to subject yourself to any cross examination. You simply ignore my question and move on to regurgitating your talking points.

Clearly you are just fishing the Internet for ANY argument that will justify either your own sin or the sin of someone you care about. You don't even seem to care whether the arguments you offer are consistent. One minute you are telling me that non abusive sexual activity between people of the same gender is not sinful, the next minute you are conceding it might be sinful but God forgives "over and over" so nothing to worry about. You are just throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick.
 
Now you are completely gaslighting. The idea that homosexual acts of ALL kinds is some "modernist" invention is nonsense. Show us a single commentary written before the sexual revolution that argues the case that only "abusive" sex is being condemned but "intimate same sex relationships" are valid. If my position is some "modernist" invention you should be able to provide a wealth of historical "scholarship" that affirms your position. And by historical I mean BEFORE the Sexual Revolution. This idea that opposition to homosexuality is some modern idea is delusional. Until the Sexual Revolution of the 20th century, ALL homosexual acts were illegal in every nation of the world that was shaped by Christianity. You have completely turned reality on it's head by trying to convince yourself and everybody else that "scholarly" historical consensus is on YOUR side of this argument and that what I am proclaiming is some modern aberration that I've embraced because I'm listening to the rantings of some "conservative" pastors.

Your gaslighting also extends to your accusation that I am violating all the "scholarly" rules of biblical interpretation. Yet when I present specific arguments about a verse (like Rom 1:26-27) you don't even attempt to address the supposed flaws of my logic...you simply cut and paste some quote from somebody else that doesn't even address my argument. I have asked you over and over what "left the natural use of the woman" means in Rom 1 yet you refuse to offer a direct concise answer to that. You claim I am the one not engaged in "true scholarship" yet you refuse to subject yourself to any cross examination. You simply ignore my question and move on to regurgitating your talking points.

Clearly you are just fishing the Internet for ANY argument that will justify either your own sin or the sin of someone you care about. You don't even seem to care whether the arguments you offer are consistent. One minute you are telling me that non abusive sexual activity between people of the same gender is not sinful, the next minute you are conceding it might be sinful but God forgives "over and over" so nothing to worry about. You are just throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick.
I find it interesting that all the people that have arrogance problems about their degree's, always come from the protestants. And somehow, a degree is proof that they are correct. "Scholarly rules" of biblical interpretation are man-made anyway. Who cares if you're violating some random rule some random person made up when they can't even follow a logical debate consistently regardless if there's disagreements. To me, it just proves there's a serious lack of understanding because everyone else has done the understanding part and they are just parroting what someone else says. Case in point, your complaints about them just copy/pasting someone elses quote. Personally, I would just call it with them, because it doesn't seem like you can have a genuine debate and if they want to dig their heels into the sand claiming homosexuality isn't a sin, let God sort them out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve63
Case in point, your complaints about them just copy/pasting someone elses quote. Personally, I would just call it with them, because it doesn't seem like you can have a genuine debate and if they want to dig their heels into the sand claiming homosexuality isn't a sin, let God sort them out.
Yes, he cuts and pastes quotes from "scholars", then when I disagree with them he says I'm not "scholarly" enough to be worthy of his replies. As if posting what some self professed "scholar" says makes one a scholar themself. Of course, the irony is that for every 1 scholar he can find to support his view, I could find 10 to support what I believe. I could do the same thing as him....cut and paste their quotes and then accuse him of not being "scholarly" for rejecting them. But I'm not going to play "battle of the scholars" with him even though the weight of scholarly opinion throughout 2,000 years of Church history is on my side not his. And no, I am under no delusion that I am going to change his mind. He has found enough teachers to tell him what he wants to hear so he's not going to budge. I get it. The only reason I bother responding to him is so that others who are reading this thread are not misled by his false interpretations. He is merely echoing the common pro-homosexual talking points that are out there and misleading souls by peddling false teaching under the guise of "scholarship".
 
Beware of those who demean RECOGNIZED scholars who I quote, here is an example of one that some belittle, yet they don’t offer references to what source their ideas come from.

Fuller Theological Seminary… what was/is there view on homosexuality
Sexual Standards
The seminary has expelled students and fired staff who have not agreed to or maintained the seminary’s required community standard of abstinence from homosexual forms of conduct. In 2023 and 2024, the senior director Ruth Schmidt, a long-time employee and student, met with leadership to request "a legal rider that would allow her to respect, but not personally affirm, the standards regarding gay marriage.” The seminary leadership refused to agree to this compromise. As a result, Schmidt chose not to sign the statement of faith and Fuller Seminary fired this employee via Zoom.

In 2021, three LGBTQ former Fuller students joined the class-action lawsuit Elizabeth Hunter et al. vs. U.S. Department of Education, arguing that religious exemptions that allow religious institutions of higher education to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violate the Constitution. In 2025, Fuller Theological Seminary re-affirmed its policy requiring employees and students to abstain from homosexual conduct as a requirement of their employment and enrollment.
hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuller_Theological_Seminary?utm_source=copilot.com

Who was Lewis B. Smedes, whom I quoted?
Lewis Benedictus Smedes (August 20, 1921 – December 19, 2002) was a renowned Christian author, ethicist, and theologian in the Reformed tradition. He was a professor of theology and ethics for twenty-five years at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. His 15 books, including the popular Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve, covered some important issues including sexuality and forgiveness.

Smedes graduated from Calvin College (B.A.), Calvin Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the Free University of Amsterdam (Th.D). He pursued other graduate studies at Oxford University in United Kingdom and the University of Basel in Switzerland.

Smedes began his teaching career at Fuller Theological Seminary as a visiting professor in 1968. He joined the faculty as full professor in 1970. He retired in 1995
Lewis B. Smedes - Wikipedia
 
Beware of those who demean RECOGNIZED scholars who I quote, here is an example of one that some belittle, yet they don’t offer references to what source their ideas come from.

Fuller Theological Seminary… what was/is there view on homosexuality
Sexual Standards
The seminary has expelled students and fired staff who have not agreed to or maintained the seminary’s required community standard of abstinence from homosexual forms of conduct. In 2023 and 2024, the senior director Ruth Schmidt, a long-time employee and student, met with leadership to request "a legal rider that would allow her to respect, but not personally affirm, the standards regarding gay marriage.” The seminary leadership refused to agree to this compromise. As a result, Schmidt chose not to sign the statement of faith and Fuller Seminary fired this employee via Zoom.

In 2021, three LGBTQ former Fuller students joined the class-action lawsuit Elizabeth Hunter et al. vs. U.S. Department of Education, arguing that religious exemptions that allow religious institutions of higher education to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violate the Constitution. In 2025, Fuller Theological Seminary re-affirmed its policy requiring employees and students to abstain from homosexual conduct as a requirement of their employment and enrollment.
hhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuller_Theological_Seminary?utm_source=copilot.com

Who was Lewis B. Smedes, whom I quoted?
Lewis Benedictus Smedes (August 20, 1921 – December 19, 2002) was a renowned Christian author, ethicist, and theologian in the Reformed tradition. He was a professor of theology and ethics for twenty-five years at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. His 15 books, including the popular Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don't Deserve, covered some important issues including sexuality and forgiveness.

Smedes graduated from Calvin College (B.A.), Calvin Theological Seminary (B.D.), and the Free University of Amsterdam (Th.D). He pursued other graduate studies at Oxford University in United Kingdom and the University of Basel in Switzerland.

Smedes began his teaching career at Fuller Theological Seminary as a visiting professor in 1968. He joined the faculty as full professor in 1970. He retired in 1995
Lewis B. Smedes - Wikipedia
Genuine question, are you unable to think for yourself? Or do you just trust other people to think for you? Using other peoples arguments, doesn't make your argument good by any standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve63
Beware of those who demean RECOGNIZED scholars who I quote, here is an example of one that some belittle, yet they don’t offer references to what source their ideas come from.
Pointing out false teaching is not demonizing. Paul as well as Jesus himself called out false teachers frequently. There are "recognized" scholars out there who would deny every point of traditional Christian doctrine including Christ's divinity, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection. Scholars are not off limits for being called out for their heresy. And this idea of yours that the Bible is not good enough as a "source of ideas" and that every position one takes must be backed up by a "scholar" says a lot about your belief (or lack thereof) in the perspicuity of Scripture. Of course, as I said in my prior post, even if I were to play that game with you I could find far more scholars who agree with me than with you, but I'm not going to play that game. There is nothing wrong with quoting a scholar to reinforce an argument now and then, but a good student of the Bible should be able to defend their position IN THEIR OWN WORDS and willingly submit to cross examination of them WITHOUT resorting to the continuous quoting of other people including "scholars".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Delvianna
Yes, he cuts and pastes quotes from "scholars", then when I disagree with them he says I'm not "scholarly" enough to be worthy of his replies. As if posting what some self professed "scholar" says makes one a scholar themself. Of course, the irony is that for every 1 scholar he can find to support his view, I could find 10 to support what I believe. I could do the same thing as him....cut and paste their quotes and then accuse him of not being "scholarly" for rejecting them. But I'm not going to play "battle of the scholars" with him even though the weight of scholarly opinion throughout 2,000 years of Church history is on my side not his. And no, I am under no delusion that I am going to change his mind. He has found enough teachers to tell him what he wants to hear so he's not going to budge. I get it. The only reason I bother responding to him is so that others who are reading this thread are not misled by his false interpretations. He is merely echoing the common pro-homosexual talking points that are out there and misleading souls by peddling false teaching under the guise of "scholarship".
the issue is those whose minds have been seared. Which prevent them from hearing the truth. Roman chapter one is very clear. All know they are doing wrong. Yet they hold the truth hostage so they can do what the flesh desires and is never satisfied. Also, they are no able to just stay with one person in a same sex relationship. The homosexual platform is not even what it was in the 1980's when the Church voted to allow gay to work openly and display their perversion. From that compromise they went after marriage, teaching homosexuality as a norm in public school and collages. They used term like Homophobe, intolerant, and unloving to those who Showed them the word of God. Then phase two was to openly come out and say one was gay as a Pastor, senator, Sport player etc...

What have they done snice 1980's? They accepted drag queens as educational props in school Libraries, and daycares1784225807771.png


. They went after children through adoption.

1784225700170.png

They aggressively taught transgenderism and abused children. This Sin as greatly overreached more than many other types of sin. That is why God said it is an Abomination. Those who say homosexuality is just like any other sin is not decerning as a Christian. Adultery is a sin but it did not produce Homosexuality then Transgenderism or created a Letter salad like LGBTQ+1 This sin continue to go into more depravity. The only sin that does this is the addiction of pornography which many gay men were introduced too and it took hold as it could not be satisfied with natural desire from the opposite sex. Today Homosexuality has a spirit of murder, violence and chaos. Long removed from two consenting adults of the same sex in a relationship. This is Demonic. The fruits over 36 years have not gotten more loving.
1784226325662.png1784226342477.png1784226381872.png