the final nail in the is homosexuality sin debate..

[Drich]

This is only disputed when people want to pretend that the bible does not specifically state homosexuality is a sin

Old Testament:

• Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
• Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

New Testament

• Romans 1:26-27: The Apostle Paul writes that men and women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, describing these acts as "shameful" and "receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error."
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Paul includes "men who practice homosexuality" (or "abusers of themselves" depending on the translation, from the Greek word arsenokoitai) in a list of behaviors that will not inherit the kingdom of God.
• 1 Timothy 1:9-10: Paul again condemns those who are "the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality" (arsenokoitai), grouping them with other actions contrary to "sound doctrine."

So let's pretend these verses do not exist or the person you are talking to refuses to acknowledge they apply.

When people do this they are usually under the impression that all they need do is to take these verses away and the discussion is at an end. Here's the problem with that line of thought. ALL Sex outside of the boundaries of a sanctified marriage is a sin. This is proven in text every time the word fornication is used. From the Merrium Webster dictionary:

fornication​

noun​

for·ni·ca·tion ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən

Synonyms of fornication
: consensual (see consensual sense 2) sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other compare adultery

Again, the idea here is just because you take away the bible's "thou shalt not have gay sex." Does not give you/them permission to have gay sex. As ALL Sex outside of a God blessed marriage is a sin. So unless they can provide legal precedence in the Old or NT, gay sex is a sexual sin like all other sexual sin committed outside of the marriage bed.

 

[Dino246]

This is only disputed when people want to pretend that the bible does not specifically state homosexuality is a sin

Old Testament:

• Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
• Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

New Testament

• Romans 1:26-27: The Apostle Paul writes that men and women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, describing these acts as "shameful" and "receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error."
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Paul includes "men who practice homosexuality" (or "abusers of themselves" depending on the translation, from the Greek word arsenokoitai) in a list of behaviors that will not inherit the kingdom of God.
• 1 Timothy 1:9-10: Paul again condemns those who are "the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality" (arsenokoitai), grouping them with other actions contrary to "sound doctrine."

So let's pretend these verses do not exist or the person you are talking to refuses to acknowledge they apply.

When people do this they are usually under the impression that all they need do is to take these verses away and the discussion is at an end. Here's the problem with that line of thought. ALL Sex outside of the boundaries of a sanctified marriage is a sin. This is proven in text every time the word fornication is used. From the Merrium Webster dictionary:

fornication​

noun​

for·ni·ca·tion ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən

Synonyms of fornication
: consensual (see consensual sense 2) sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other compare adultery

Again, the idea here is just because you take away the bible's "thou shalt not have gay sex." Does not give you/them permission to have gay sex. As ALL Sex outside of a God blessed marriage is a sin. So unless they can provide legal precedence in the Old or NT, gay sex is a sexual sin like all other sexual sin committed outside of the marriage bed.

And so they redefine marriage.

 

[Drich]

And so they redefine marriage.

which is pointless because Not all marriages are blessed by God. This is the reason i Specifically point out that sex outside of a sanctified or God Blessed Marriage is a sin. God does not bless all heterosexual marriages, meaning not all marriages are acceptable to God. If you are going to claim your marriage is legitimate/blessed by God then the burden of proof is on you to show God blesses gay marriage. If scriptural precedent for gay marriage can not be found, then a gay marriage is no more legitimate before God than two divorced people marrying each other, or if someone decides to marry his mother, or sister. It's all sexual sin. Not unforgivable sexual sin, but sexual sin none the less. Like all sin these sin require repentance, and atonement from Christ. But one can not repent of said sin if one is pretending they are not sinning.

 

[Aaron56]

Because of Obergefell v. Hodges in the United States, all states must recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate. How might this impact believers in Christ in the U.S.?

 

[Drich]

Kinda already answered in post number 3:

which is pointless because Not all marriages are blessed by God. This is the reason i Specifically point out that sex outside of a sanctified or God Blessed Marriage is a sin. God does not bless all heterosexual marriages, meaning not all marriages are acceptable to God. If you are going to claim your marriage is legitimate/blessed by God then the burden of proof is on you to show God blesses gay marriage. If scriptural precedent for gay marriage can not be found, then a gay marriage is no more legitimate before God than two divorced people marrying each other, or if someone decides to marry his mother, or sister. It's all sexual sin. Not unforgivable sexual sin, but sexual sin none the less. Like all sin these sin require repentance, and atonement from Christ. But one can not repent of said sin if one is pretending they are not sinning.

 

[GWH]

Because of Obergefell v. Hodges in the United States, all states must recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate. How might this impact believers in Christ in the U.S.?

By forcing Christians to implement Acts 5:29.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Because of Obergefell v. Hodges in the United States, all states must recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate. How might this impact believers in Christ in the U.S.?

The gov't has agreed to and made laws about all kinds of things the Bible disagrees with. That's why who you put in office is important.

 

[Aaron56]

By forcing Christians to implement Acts 5:29.

Sure.

What might that look like? In practice.

 

[Dino246]

which is pointless because Not all marriages are blessed by God. This is the reason i Specifically point out that sex outside of a sanctified or God Blessed Marriage is a sin. God does not bless all heterosexual marriages, meaning not all marriages are acceptable to God. If you are going to claim your marriage is legitimate/blessed by God then the burden of proof is on you to show God blesses gay marriage. If scriptural precedent for gay marriage can not be found, then a gay marriage is no more legitimate before God than two divorced people marrying each other, or if someone decides to marry his mother, or sister. It's all sexual sin. Not unforgivable sexual sin, but sexual sin none the less. Like all sin these sin require repentance, and atonement from Christ. But one can not repent of said sin if one is pretending they are not sinning.

I agree with you.

 

[Drich]

Sure.

What might that look like? In practice.

in a bible based church:

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

”[<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 cor 5&amp;version=NIV#fen-NIV-28468d" title="See footnote d">d</a>]

 

[Aaron56]

in a bible based church:

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.

”[<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 cor 5&amp;version=NIV#fen-NIV-28468d" title="See footnote d">d</a>]

So, we have freedom to associate with the sexually immoral or greedy, idolaters or slanderers, drunkards or swindlers as long as they are not also claiming to be a brother or sister in Christ. Is that your understanding?

Do you think it is alright to vote for such a person as our representative in government?

 

[DeanM]

And so they redefine marriage.

Not only that. Ive seen gay bibles for sale on amazon.

 

[rogerg]

This is only disputed when people want to pretend that the bible does not specifically state homosexuality is a sin

Old Testament:

• Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
• Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

New Testament

• Romans 1:26-27: The Apostle Paul writes that men and women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones, describing these acts as "shameful" and "receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error."
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: Paul includes "men who practice homosexuality" (or "abusers of themselves" depending on the translation, from the Greek word arsenokoitai) in a list of behaviors that will not inherit the kingdom of God.
• 1 Timothy 1:9-10: Paul again condemns those who are "the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality" (arsenokoitai), grouping them with other actions contrary to "sound doctrine."

So let's pretend these verses do not exist or the person you are talking to refuses to acknowledge they apply.

When people do this they are usually under the impression that all they need do is to take these verses away and the discussion is at an end. Here's the problem with that line of thought. ALL Sex outside of the boundaries of a sanctified marriage is a sin. This is proven in text every time the word fornication is used. From the Merrium Webster dictionary:

fornication​

noun​

for·ni·ca·tion ˌfȯr-nə-ˈkā-shən

Synonyms of fornication
: consensual (see consensual sense 2) sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other compare adultery

Again, the idea here is just because you take away the bible's "thou shalt not have gay sex." Does not give you/them permission to have gay sex. As ALL Sex outside of a God blessed marriage is a sin. So unless they can provide legal precedence in the Old or NT, gay sex is a sexual sin like all other sexual sin committed outside of the marriage bed.

To clarify—and I did not necessarily understand you to mean otherwise, and at the risk of stating the obvious—no sin, including homosexuality nor any other sin, remains unforgiven for those who are in Christ Jesus. All of us are guilty of sin: some are visible and outward, while others are hidden, known only to ourselves—or even unknown to us—but known to God. Yet through God’s abundant mercy and grace in Jesus Christ the Savior, every one of them—past, present, and future—has been forgiven.

 

[Drich]

So, we have freedom to associate with the sexually immoral or greedy, idolaters or slanderers, drunkards or swindlers as long as they are not also claiming to be a brother or sister in Christ. Is that your understanding?

yup.

Do you think it is alright to vote for such a person as our representative in government?

Rights pertain to civil laws. So yes, in the US we have the right to vote for whom ever we want without fear of reprisal or compulsion.. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work.

Are you asking can a christian vote for someone who has pledged to implement policies that would be counter to God's expressed will as outlined in scripture? I would say it would depend on the opposing candidate. often times we are forced to pick the lessor of two evils. If the Dims candidate was muslim and vowed to institute sharia law and abolish Christianity (Which their mahadi has vowed to someday do) . verses a semi traditional christian-ish candidate who is gay and wants to mandate that female must get an abortion at least 3 times in their life (for 'reasons' that makes all of this sound reasonable to the average dim voter.)

Then I would say yes the lessor of two evils is our only real choice. If however it is the abortionist candidate against a bible based Christian candidate, then I would say no.

 

[Aaron56]

often times we are forced to pick the lessor of two evils.

Can you show me in scripture where a believer may choose evil?

 

[Drich]

Can you show me in scripture where a believer may choose evil?

Why woud I need to do that? are you not familiar with a :

colloquialism
/kəˈlōkwēəˌlizəm/
A colloquialism is a casual word, phrase, or expression commonly used in everyday, informal conversation but rarely found in formal speech, academic writing, or official documents.

Examples:

1. "Bite the bullet" – To endure a painful or difficult situation.

2."Piece of cake" – Something that is very easy to do.

3."Wanna" / "Gonna" – Casual, spoken contractions for "want to" / "going to".

4."To choose the lessor of two evils" - To be force to choose between two less than idea options.

What I can do is give you three examples where famous people in the bible had to choose between the lessor of two evils:

1. Queen Esther (Esther 4-5): Esther had to choose between staying quietly hidden in the palace while her Jewish community faced an empire-wide massacre, or approaching the king uninvited—a choice that carried the penalty of death. She chose the riskier path of obedience to save her people.

2. King David (2 Samuel 24:11-14): After a census sin, the prophet Gad gave David three brutal options: three years of famine, three months of fleeing from his enemies, or three days of a severe plague across the land. David had to choose a punishment, opting for "the hand of the Lord" over human hands.

3. The Four Lepers (2 Kings 7:3-4): During the brutal siege of Samaria, four men with leprosy sat outside the city gates. Facing the stark reality of starving to death in the city or walking into the Syrian enemy camp to likely be killed, they chose to approach the camp and miraculously discovered the enemy had fled.

 

[Aaron56]

Why woud I need to do that? are you not familiar with a :

colloquialism
/kəˈlōkwēəˌlizəm/
A colloquialism is a casual word, phrase, or expression commonly used in everyday, informal conversation but rarely found in formal speech, academic writing, or official documents.

Examples:

1. "Bite the bullet" – To endure a painful or difficult situation.

2."Piece of cake" – Something that is very easy to do.

3."Wanna" / "Gonna" – Casual, spoken contractions for "want to" / "going to".

4."To choose the lessor of two evils" - To be force to choose between two less than idea options.

What I can do is give you three examples where famous people in the bible had to choose between the lessor of two evils:

1. Queen Esther (Esther 4-5): Esther had to choose between staying quietly hidden in the palace while her Jewish community faced an empire-wide massacre, or approaching the king uninvited—a choice that carried the penalty of death. She chose the riskier path of obedience to save her people.

2. King David (2 Samuel 24:11-14): After a census sin, the prophet Gad gave David three brutal options: three years of famine, three months of fleeing from his enemies, or three days of a severe plague across the land. David had to choose a punishment, opting for "the hand of the Lord" over human hands.

3. The Four Lepers (2 Kings 7:3-4): During the brutal siege of Samaria, four men with leprosy sat outside the city gates. Facing the stark reality of starving to death in the city or walking into the Syrian enemy camp to likely be killed, they chose to approach the camp and miraculously discovered the enemy had fled.

A bit laughable.

ChatGPT Ai scanner claimed "We are highly confident this text was AI generated" with a score of 100%.

Nevertheless...

Esther example: It's never evil to appeal for the lives of your family. Risky? Maybe. Evil? Never. Even if a choice is against the law it may be the righteous choice.

King David example: The punishment, from God, was just. David was given the right to choose his own punishment, not evil.

Four lepers example: the scripture is this: "So let’s go over to the camp of the Arameans and surrender. If they spare us, we live; if they kill us, then we die." For them, death was assured if they stayed put. A chance at life was possible if they appealed to the Arameans. They chose the less risky option, not evil.

 

[tourist]

Because of Obergefell v. Hodges in the United States, all states must recognize homosexual marriages as legitimate. How might this impact believers in Christ in the U.S.?

It should have no impact whatsoever. To each his own. Who really cares anyway?

 

[Drich]

A bit laughable.

This is known as an appeal to stone. It is when someone tries to discredit or trivialize the individual inorder to not have to address the argument provided topically.

ChatGPT Ai scanner claimed "We are highly confident this text was AI generated" with a score of 100%.

Any time you make a bullet point argument it is attributed to AI. I simply googled the definition of colloquialism and then googled examples of them, then added the one I used at the bottom of my list to define and describe the lessor of two evils as being a valid example of a colloquialism.

Then I looked up examples of biblical figures having to pick the lessor of two evils. Next I cut and pasted those examples and added my own personal commentary to tie it all together. If this is AI quality work, then I thank you for pointing that out. However for people of my generation, constructing a bullet point out line was the basis of every paper we had to do.

Nevertheless...

Esther example: It's never evil to appeal for the lives of your family. Risky? Maybe. Evil? Never. Even if a choice is against the law it may be the righteous choice.

King David example: The punishment, from God, was just. David was given the right to choose his own punishment, not evil.

Four lepers example: the scripture is this: "So let’s go over to the camp of the Arameans and surrender. If they spare us, we live; if they kill us, then we die." For them, death was assured if they stayed put. A chance at life was possible if they appealed to the Arameans. They chose the less risky option, not evil.

Look at the definition of colloquialism again... To pick the lessor of two evils means to choose between two unfavorable options. The choices do not have to be evil. To call both choices evil is just a turn of phrase. AGAIN It does not mean both choices have to be evil.

Is english a second language?

 

[lrs68]

Not only that. Ive seen gay bibles for sale on amazon.

Is it the translation of existing Bibles or have they changed the wording which God warned about as being lost forever if committed?