Gay preaching on proper sexuality: Born Gay

Status
Not open for further replies.

David Brider

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2004
6,513
700
With the Lord
✟81,010.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Greens
Well, that is my challenge of your views and perspective. Now, in no way am I challenging your walk with Christ, but it seems quite clear that your perspective is tainted with humanist and leftist social political baggage. I am indeed correct that gay is behavior...

No, you're incorrect in that assumption. Being gay refers to one's sexual orientation. You're confusing being gay with having same-gender sexual intercourse. There is some overlap between the two - probably quite a considerable overlap - but the two are not the same thing.

...in relation to Christian reality. It is the goal of preaching the Gospel that people turn away from sin. In your position, one does not have to do so.

No, you've misunderstood my position if you think that's where I'm coming from.

They get to justify and excuse it away because they have a congenital condition oriented to sin.

Sexual orientation isn't an orientation to sin. It's an orientation to be romantically and physically attracted to people of a specific gender.

David.
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
This makes no more sense than saying "The left-handed way is antithetical to the Christian way. No matter how you try to present it."

Comparing sodomy to being a southpaw shows how far the distance your side of the schism is from that of the side presented by the writers of the New Testament. My point being that liberalism has crossed the boundaires of worhwhile apologia and into fanatical ideology. I'd rather you take the position of: Just wait and see, the gay Churches will show appropriate Christian fruit. Just as Jesus described the healthy condition of the solid believer and his/her Church body.

Though, what we see in liberalism is that Jesus was not raised from the dead, probably never said most of what he was quoted as saying, and was thrown into a shallow grave and dug up and eaten by dogs more than likely. Rather than coming back from the dead as a self resurrected God as positions John S. Spong and John D. Crossan have said.

How is the persecution of gays any different from the persection of southpaws?

Sexually inappropriate behavior is not the same as writing a letter with the hand opposite your right. Ceratinly history has stories of left-hended people being persecuted, but that is just as indefensible a position from bibilcal testimony, as is the inappropriateness of supporting gay marriage.

Redefining marriage is not comparable to supporting left-handedness. Celebrating homosexuality shows not one place of support in any single epistle in the New Testament. And even the only single place where gay rights advocates have tried, that of David and Jonathan, is so easily countered, as to show gay rights for dwelling in the exclusive worldliness that it is.

But, you can offer the only position that is available to the pro-gay perspective within a Christian definition, IF you do not want to hold to repentance and change. That being, an entirely different religious movement and identity from that of the historic Christian witness and testimony.

As our current culture proclaims, there are thousands of people and organizations identifying as Christian. And so be it.
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
No, you're incorrect in that assumption. Being gay refers to one's sexual orientation.

The word gay means sex in the Castro. I can assure you of that. In fact, in the gay pride parades, it means sexual behavior. Every single usage. Otherwise no one in that world view would have a problem with the "Ex-Gay" movement in Evangelical Christian Churches.

You're confusing being gay with having same-gender sexual intercourse.

My worldview does not come from the DSM IV. Nor does it come from HBO or MTV.

There is some overlap between the two - probably quite a considerable overlap - but the two are not the same thing.

If you don't rob a bank you don't get charge with the crime of bank robbery. No one calls says you have a larcenous orientation for just thoughts about it. In Christian life, not doing a sinful thing is considered the same as not being a sinner.

No, you've misunderstood my position if you think that's where I'm coming from.

I can only judge you by your words. You support and encourage gay behavior up to an including gay marriage. You have written that. But then again, I guess someone around your computer could have written for you when you were logge in. Is that the case?

Sexual orientation isn't an orientation to sin. It's an orientation to be romantically and physically attracted to people of a specific gender.

David.

Sexual orientation is a recent creation of pop psychology. Liberalism of that kind has zero worth in Christian reality. Peter makes it clear that we have left the world and its ways and the old pals that are still out there in it. Do you need the scripture references?
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Comparing sodomy to being a southpaw shows how far the distance your side of the schism is from that of the side presented by the writers of the New Testament.

"Sodomy" is an action. Eating with your left hand is an action, as is wiping yourself with your right hand. All of these actions have been seen as evil. As actions, it may or may not possible to defend them as evil.

People are born left-handed or right-handed or ambidextrous. People are born gay, straight, or bi. Lefties can be trained to use their right hands to eat and their left hands to wipe themselves. Gays can be "trained" to engage in cross-sex sexual acts. The degree of success depends on how strong the original orientation (or handedness) was. But even "complete" success does not make the southpaw a rightie or the gay straight. There is always an "unnatural" discomfort in doing things the "proper" way.

Sexually inappropriate behavior is not the same as writing a letter with the hand opposite your right.

And yet "sinister" is the Latin word for "left-handed." A "left-handed compliment" is a disguised insult. And I could go on.

We tend to think of person who has done an evil deed as evil. A person who steals even once is forever after branded a thief, as if that defines his whole life. That is bad enough, but some people are branded as evil simply because they were born different. Not because what they have done is evil, but because when they will do things that everyone else does they will do them in an "evil" manner. This is why homosexuality is exactly like left-handedness.

Explain exactly why my gay friend who is also a life-long celibate is evil.
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
"Sodomy" is an action. Eating with your left hand is an action, as is wiping yourself with your right hand. All of these actions have been seen as evil. As actions, it may or may not possible to defend them as evil.

And same-gender sexual behavior is detailed as wrong. Left-handedness?

Judges 3:
15 Again the Israelites cried out to the LORD, and he gave them a deliverer—Ehud, a left-handed man, the son of Gera the Benjamite.

People are born left-handed or right-handed or ambidextrous. People are born gay, straight, or bi.

There is as yet no proof that anyone is born gay.

Lefties can be trained to use their right hands to eat and their left hands to wipe themselves.

Why would that be needed?

Gays can be "trained" to engage in cross-sex sexual acts.

"Gay" is a very recent invention.

The degree of success depends on how strong the original orientation (or handedness) was.

In Christian reality, trying not to sin is a lifelong endeavor. Not one Christian is given a congenital pass to sin in the New Testament.

But even "complete" success does not make the southpaw a rightie or the gay straight. There is always an "unnatural" discomfort in doing things the "proper" way.

That sounds like the message of the New Testament.

And yet "sinister" is the Latin word for "left-handed." A "left-handed compliment" is a disguised insult. And I could go on.

History is replete with lots of distasteful ways people have been treated. I'm a "Bible believing" Christian in the 21st century. I know all about that.

We tend to think of person who has done an evil deed as evil. A person who steals even once is forever after branded a thief, as if that defines his whole life.

The process of forgiveness takes away that mantle of guilt. Now, there is some behavior that has consequences, but sin is removable. As far as the east is from the west.

Psalm 51:
1 Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.

2 Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
4 Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge. 5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Seems a rather permanent situation. Until . . .:

6 Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.

7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
9 Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity
.

10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. 13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will turn back to you.

David shows that "being a sinner" is a curable situation. Sins remembered NO MORE.


That is bad enough, but some people are branded as evil simply because they were born different.

You are just learning about human nature now? Try being short in any kind of school.

Not because what they have done is evil, but because when they will do things that everyone else does they will do them in an "evil" manner. This is why homosexuality is exactly like left-handedness.

No one can be seduced into being left handed. Or doing things with their left hand. Sexual behavior is treated far differently than left handedness in the Bible.

Explain exactly why my gay friend who is also a life-long celibate is evil.

There is no such thing as a "gay" person in Christian reality. Just a person. 20th and 21st century pop culture and psychology has no bearing on Christian reality that stands throughout the ages that have been, and the ages to come. Why should any Christian allow themselves to be influenced to see behavior defined by the world and its ways?

Psalm 51 stands in stark contrast to today's pop psychology and the humanism that has so influenced social morality.
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Interesting occurence about preaching on this very subject. From The Catholic League and Bill Donohue:

February 25, 2010

TONY PERKINS CENSORED AT AIR FORCE BASE

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was scheduled to speak today at a National Prayer Luncheon at Andrews Air Force Base. But the invitation was recently withdrawn by the chaplain’s office because Perkins has spoken out in favor of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.”

Addressing this issue is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

The decision to silence Tony Perkins, an ordained minister and Marine veteran, represents political correctness at a dangerous level. There are legitimate reasons to accept and reject the current policy regarding gays in the military. No one, therefore, should be censored from speaking at any private or public forum—much less a military instillation—because of his or her views on this subject. While the most immediate issue is the blacklisting of Perkins, the larger issue is the “chilling effect” this decision will have on the free speech and religious liberty rights of all those who serve in the military, especially clergymen.

As a religious leader, and as a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, I am doubly troubled by this outrageous decision. Accordingly, we will call for an investigation of this matter. The damage to Perkins cannot be undone, but steps can certainly be taken to ensure that something like this never happens again. I will now contact Major General Darrell D. Jones, Commander of the Air Force District of Washington, at Andrews Air Force Base asking for a probe into this matter. It is important that the Public Affairs Office at Andrews hear from Catholic League members about this very disturbing issue.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Interesting occurence about preaching on this very subject. From The Catholic League and Bill Donohue:

A speaking engagement is not a "free speech" venue. It is a paid program at the invitation of the organizers of the event and/or the owners of the facilities. Tony Donahue has no "right" to be present at the event, and it is not censorship not to invite him. This would not be an issue -- it would not be anything -- if he were simply not invited in the first place.

Since he was invited, and, presumably, rearranged his schedule and turned down other engagements, there may be breach-of-contract and monetary concerns, depending on how late the "un-invite" came. But there is no censorship issue.

BTW, I take pretty much the same position with respect to the oft-cited wedding photographer case. In this case, it was the photagrapher who "un-invited" herself. If she waited too late for the couple to find a replacement, then she let herself open to breach-of-contract lawsuits. How hard would it have been to simply say at the first contact that she would not be able to photograph the wedding?
 
Upvote 0

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
A speaking engagement is not a "free speech" venue. It is a paid program at the invitation of the organizers of the event and/or the owners of the facilities. Tony Donahue has no "right" to be present at the event, and it is not censorship not to invite him. This would not be an issue -- it would not be anything -- if he were simply not invited in the first place.

You seem to be ignoring the reality that gay rights advocates are exercising a secular gay worldview over and against the Christian worldview. It seems the case wherever Christians that oppose gay behavior dare to show their faces or voices outside their Churches. Boy that sure sounds 20th century Germany familiar.

Since he was invited, and, presumably, rearranged his schedule and turned down other engagements, there may be breach-of-contract and monetary concerns, depending on how late the "un-invite" came. But there is no censorship issue.

That is your opinion and worldview. One would expect that that would be your perspective. Christians are admonished to not yoke themselves with worldy behaviors.

BTW, I take pretty much the same position with respect to the oft-cited wedding photographer case.

The case where the Christian photographer did not want to photograph a gay wedding/union. That one?

In this case, it was the photagrapher who "un-invited" herself.

That would be the right thing to do even on the day of the gay union for a Christian that holds to the entire testimony of scripture. I have already UN invited myself to a gay event on several occasions. Two of which were being held at a "Christian" Church.

If she waited too late for the couple to find a replacement, then she let herself open to breach-of-contract lawsuits.

And your saying that a Christian should stay involved in what they know is evil because of a "business" deal? That's a fascinating theological position. One of which I dare say you will find utterly no support for in the New Testament.

How hard would it have been to simply say at the first contact that she would not be able to photograph the wedding?

Obviously it is now a hate crime.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You seem to be ignoring the reality that gay rights advocates are exercising a secular gay worldview over and against the Christian worldview. It seems the case wherever Christians that oppose gay behavior dare to show their faces or voices outside their Churches. Boy that sure sounds 20th century Germany familiar.

Other than the false witness of calling me a Nazi, Does this paragraph have a point? It has nothing to do with the fact that whether or not I choose to pay someone to perform a service in my event on my property I am in no way censoring his right to free speech.

That is your opinion and worldview. One would expect that that would be your perspective. Christians are admonished to not yoke themselves with worldy behaviors.

???

I said that if there was a contract signed, Donahue might be entitled to be paid even if they "un-invited" him. It sounds like you are saying Donahue should not have accepted the invitation in the first place. If that is what you are saying, then your problem would be with Donahue, not me.

And he could have turned down the invitation as you suggested. But then you wouldn't have this example of "injustice" and "censorship."

The case where the Christian photographer did not want to photograph a gay wedding/union. That one?

Yes, the one where the professional photographer accepted money and signed a contract, leading the couple to believe that the issue was settled and they did not have to look for another photographer, and then canceled at the last minute because she had "religious objections." Did she never take pictures of weddings and other occasions for Jewish clients, or muslim ones? If she had not fraudulently signed the contract and taken their money, I would have no objection to her turning them down.

That would be the right thing to do even on the day of the gay union for a Christian that holds to the entire testimony of scripture.

So you would encourage business people to take their clients' money and then refuse to provide the service contracted for? That's called theft.

I have already UN invited myself to a gay event on several occasions. Two of which were being held at a "Christian" Church.

But did you take money and make promises before "uninviting" yourself?

And your saying that a Christian should stay involved in what they know is evil because of a "business" deal? That's a fascinating theological position. One of which I dare say you will find utterly no support for in the New Testament.

I'm saying she shouldn't make the deal in the first place if she has no intention of providing the service she was paid for.

Obviously it is now a hate crime.

No. It is not a hate crime, but it is a crime. It's called Fraud, and is a form of theft.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AlAyeti

Just a guy
Jan 14, 2010
991
40
✟16,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Will anyone from the pro-gay position show any scriptures supporting their view that a "marriage" can be a same-gender coupling?

David and Jonathan doesn't support it, Ruth and Naomi doesn't support it and the Roman and his ill servant doesn't support it.

So, where is the biblical support for altering marriage in the Christian Church as the world and its secular views wants redefine it?
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Will anyone from the pro-gay position show any scriptures supporting their view that a "marriage" can be a same-gender coupling?

David and Jonathan doesn't support it, Ruth and Naomi doesn't support it and the Roman and his ill servant doesn't support it.

So, where is the biblical support for altering marriage in the Christian Church as the world and its secular views wants redefine it?

Although to be fair I don't think that the current discussion in the US involves "altering marriage in the Christian Church." The laws that have been passed in five US states plus the Federal District of Columbia deal with civil marriage.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Will anyone from the pro-gay position show any scriptures supporting their view that a "marriage" can be a same-gender coupling?

David and Jonathan doesn't support it, Ruth and Naomi doesn't support it and the Roman and his ill servant doesn't support it.

So, where is the biblical support for altering marriage in the Christian Church as the world and its secular views wants redefine it?

1 Corinthians.

In Chapter 10, verse 13, Paul writes:
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].
God promises to always provide "a way to escape" from any temptation to sin.

In Chapter 7, he writes:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1 Corinthians 7:1-9
So, Paul suggests that one of the purposes of marriage is to provide a "way to escape" from sexual temptations. As with all "ways of escape" the sinner is free to ignore it and sin anyway. Paul says that in this case, there is a partner helping you to escape the temptation, and that it is each partner's obligation to provide all of the "escape" the other needs, so that your "incontinency" in fulfilling what are sometimes called your "marital duties" does not lead to the very temptation you are supposed to be helping your partner to escape from.

He also says that he has been given a gift -- a different "way to escape," and that he wishes everyone had the same gift, but they don't. Different people are given different gifts, according to the parts they have been chosen to play in the outworking of God's plan. (He goes into more detail on this in chapter 12.) He advises everyone that does not have the gift and who is not yet married to marry rather than burn.

But what do you tell a gay man? You tell him he must remain celibate or marry a woman. As a lifelong celibate, I can tell you that celibacy is not easy. Paul had a reason for saying that those who are not called to a life of celibacy -- and given the gift to live that life should marry. Even with the gift for celibacy it is a constant struggle to avoid sexual temptation. Without the gift it would be impossible.

Telling someone who does not have the gift for it that he must face a lifetime of celibacy is handing him over to temptation just as surely -- no even more surely -- than a spouse that does not fulfill his/her "marital duties."

And for many gay men, telling them to marry a woman is no better. It is not a woman's body that tempts them. You have recently mentioned that you struggle with the temptation of inappropriate contentography. I would imagine that your struggle is not confined to the pages of smutty magazines and videos, though, and that the way a woman fills out a swimsuit is just as distracting to you, and results in you looking at her with less than noble thoughts in your head. I assume, though, that the thought of the shape of a male body does not tempt you in the same way.

Imagine for a moment a society in which the "gay indoctrination" that you go on about has won and then take it further. Same-sex marriage is not only legal, it is the only form of marriage recognized. Would you be able to marry another man? Even if you could, since the male body does not tempt you, but the female body is nothing but temptation, how could a husband fulfill your needs and help you to escape the temptations of the female body? Maybe now you can understand why marriage to a woman would not provide a "way to escape" for a gay man with no sexual interest in women.

So God has promised a "way to escape" from every temptation, but you deny the only viable "way to escape" that gays have. Holding out false solutions.

Unless you are willing to live a life of celibacy whether or not you have been called to it, or gifted for it, do not call for imposing it on others. If you can't imagine marriage to someone whose sexual attributes are the opposite to your temptaions fulfilling you so that you can escape those temptation, you can't expect others to not only imagine it but live by it.

So then, if same-sex marriage is not implied in Chapter 7, then 10:13 is a lie. I don't believe that 10:13 is a lie, do you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
To Archivist,
No scripture given. Can you read the question properly please.

Maybe you should try reading the post to which I was replying or what I actually said in my reply. I don't need to supply scripture when I am addressing current events.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To OllieFranz,

In Chapter 10, verse 13, Paul writes:
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].
God promises to always provide "a way to escape" from any temptation to sin.
that’s right, the Holy Spirit helps. But that dosnt show any scriptures supporting the view that a "marriage" can be a same-gender coupling?

In Chapter 7, he writes:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
that supports man and woman marriage, it doesn’t support a same sex coupling, it excludes a same sex coupling.

But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Again that supports marriage or celibacy.


So, Paul suggests that one of the purposes of marriage is to provide a "way to escape" from sexual temptations.
No it doesn’t say that, it says marriage is offers marriage as preferable to sexual immorality. But that doesn’t support same sex coupling, it excludes it as the texts only gives celibacy or man/woman marriage


Have you understood the question?
As with all "ways of escape" the sinner is free to ignore it and sin anyway.
Where does it say that? The believer isn’t though, this is written to believers to avoid sexual immorality, remain celibate or marry faithfully.


Paul says that in this case, there is a partner helping you to escape the temptation, and that it is each partner's obligation to provide all of the "escape" the other needs, so that your "incontinency" in fulfilling what are sometimes called your "marital duties" does not lead to the very temptation you are supposed to be helping your partner to escape from.
No mention of partner as such, the two are man and woman. The question was what scriptures support same sex coupling, these passages exclude it. You would need to show scripturally where marriage is other than man/woman before you could suggest it is other than that.


He also says that he has been given a gift -- a different "way to escape," and that he wishes everyone had the same gift, but they don't. Different people are given different gifts, according to the parts they have been chosen to play in the outworking of God's plan. (He goes into more detail on this in chapter 12.) He advises everyone that does not have the gift and who is not yet married to marry rather than burn.
Ok and you see the text describes that marriage as faithful man and woman.

But what do you tell a gay man?
No mention of gay man. 1 Corinthians was written to believers, if you read 1 Corinthians 6 you see that homosexual offenders was what they once were. The question asked what scriptures have you got to support same gender coupling.


You tell him he must remain celibate or marry a woman.
Not sure I would tell him that as you see in 1 Corinthians 6 this is written to believers who once were homosexual offenders and are now no longer but washed and sanctified by Christ.

As a lifelong celibate, I can tell you that celibacy is not easy.
In Christ the old self is dead the new life is in the Spirit.

Even with the gift for celibacy it is a constant struggle to avoid sexual temptation. Without the gift it would be impossible.
Sexual temptation along with all other temptations are real but they don’t support sin, you haven’t given any scripture that supports same gender coupling.

And for many gay men, telling them to marry a woman is no better.
The question asks what scripture is there to support same gender coupling, not only are you not giving that but you are introducing another concept for which there is no scripture, a gay man. God created male and female; it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.


So then, if same-sex marriage is not implied in Chapter 7, then 10:13 is a lie. I don't believe that 10:13 is a lie, do you?
The question to you is what scripture supports same sex coupling, 1 Corinthians 7 excludes it. You are dreaming and imagining things.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Archivist,
Maybe you should try reading the post to which I was replying or what I actually said in my reply. I don't need to supply scripture when I am addressing current events.
the discussion has moved on back to its origical OP.
The question is where are the scriptures that support same gender coupling. When the scripture mentions men and woman you realise that is opposite sex.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
To Archivist, the discussion has moved on back to its origical OP.

About time.

The question is where are the scriptures that support same gender coupling.

Correct.

When the scripture mentions men and woman you realise that is opposite sex.

Yes, I do realise that. However, that isn't what I was addressing.

AlAyeti stated "where is the biblical support for altering marriage in the Christian Church as the world and its secular views wants redefine it?." My reply was that " I don't think that the current discussion in the US involves "altering marriage in the Christian Church." The laws that have been passed in five US states plus the Federal District of Columbia deal with civil marriage."

I wasn't addressing the question of scripture references to same gender coupling, I was addressing a different point that AlAyeti raised in his post.

I don't need scripture to support the point taht I was making because it wasn't addressing a matter of scripture.

When people raise points that are not specifically on topic, they may be addressed.

Please take the time to read what is actually being said.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.