What a pity that you didn't appreciate and comprehend Ollie's post in the spirit that it was written and instead responded with no less than a rant.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
- Status
What a pity that you didn't appreciate and comprehend Ollie's post in the spirit that it was written and instead responded with no less than a rant.
addo
Senior Member
How do you define "homosexuality"? What do you understand by it?
It is written in Galatians that the fruit of the Spirit is love and against love there is no Law (Galatians 5). If there is a law against something (referring to Laws of God) then that something isn't love. What you are describing is lust. And even if is were love, love of God should be above love of a woman. If you love a woman so much that you would disobey a commandment of God then you are going in the wrong direction.
Homosexual acts are not normal and are even a sin.
They are pretty clear actually.
Jesus mentions in Matthew 19 marriage, and He acknowledges marriage only as between man and woman. It is written in the beginning:"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24 KJV) Therefore, marriage is only between man and woman. When Jesus spoke about divorce He spoke about men leaving the wives (and perhaps viceversa) but not about men leaving men. The Law does not permit such a thing and if Jesus would have mentioned it, He would've probably got stoned. It is a fact that God in the beginning created man and a woman as a suitable helper for him, and they "become one" in marriage emotionally, physically (via sex and other things) and in other areas perhaps as well.
It is a known fact that sex is permitted by the Law only within marriage. If not, why did Paul tell them in 1 Corinthians 7 that they should marry if they are not strong enough to resist temptation? If sex is allowed outside marriage then there would have been no reason for Paul to tell them to marry in order to have sex. It is therefore logical to conclude the if they could not abstain, they should marry instead of burning or risk falling into sin (but there are other reasons to marry than that).
Therefore, since marriage is only between man and woman and sex is lawful only within marriage, it doesn't take much to realize homosexuals cannot have sex and neither practice things that lead to sex. Why would you want to go on a road that you know it'll reach a closed end?
Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 is clear to me. Is this such a big mystery which God hid somewhere in a codified message that no one could understand? Is it not clearly written?
Just for being found in nature does not mean it is good for humans to practice. Some animals, like lions, in certain situations eat their young. Just for being in nature does not mean it is good for us humans to practice. I mean, would anyone consider a man that eats his baby normal? No, he'd be committing a crime called murder and cannibalism, and would pay the price for breaking the law. And so happens as well to those that brake the Law of God which does not allow homosexual practices.
As far as I know and read, it is not yet known whether homosexuality is something with which you are born with genetically, or whether it is causes later by environmental factors. So I don't think taking homosexuality as a given genetic things a good idea. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. Taking either as a given fact is not good since we don't know yet.
And you are not going to Hell for being a homosexual but for acting on these homosexual temptations. A homosexual is open to other temptations that other people, just like when a man is tempted to drink alcohol or to smoke or to take drugs even though I don't have these temptations. But the temptations themselves are sin, but the way you act upon them. You may be addict to cocaine but being tempted to sniff some isn't the same as actually taking the drug. It's similar with homosexuality. What is important is what do you do in respect to the temptations you are open to, but remember that "blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him" (James 1:12 KJV) and to those that love Him, the love of God is the keeping of His commandments and walking after them (1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6)
Can you please provide the verses?
Also, one is a human being, the other one is about plants. What is more important?
By the way, it is written that homosexual acts (and bestiality, etc) were a sin for which the previous owners of the promised land were destroyed for. They were destroyed for burning children to their gods, committing adultery, murdering, committing bestiality and homosexual acts, etc., and not for planting crops in a certain way. Or do you say that they were destroyed for planting crops side by side?
And still, please provide the verse. It's easier to discuss it if I can read it personally.
________
"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things[homosexuality, bestiality, seeing your parents naked, etc. as seen preciously]: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God."
(Leviticus 18:24-30 KJV)
First of all, we ourselves are defiles, or made unclean, for practicing these things. Does it say that we defile ourselves if we plant crops side by side? I don't know for I don't have the verse, and this is why I ask. That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God."(Leviticus 18:24-30 KJV)
It is also stated that the previous were "vomited our of the land" because of the things they did (homosexual acts being one of them). Does it say these people were destroyed for planting crops side by side?
And again, I actually need a quote.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Olliefranz and KCKID,
How would you describe Atheist Christians?
I am wondering whether you could describe anyone who called themselves that, or even whether you would accept they could exist.
You see I am having trouble understanding what you mean when you say homosexual christians or gay christians, you keep referring to them but if I dont think there is such a thing how can I address what you are talking about?
How would you describe Atheist Christians?
I am wondering whether you could describe anyone who called themselves that, or even whether you would accept they could exist.
You see I am having trouble understanding what you mean when you say homosexual christians or gay christians, you keep referring to them but if I dont think there is such a thing how can I address what you are talking about?
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Essentially as I posted earlier, several NT references to the reader and believer are about avoiding the wilfully sexually immoral and false teachers introducing heresies contrary to the NT message.
As explained for the reasons given. to me and others, this is those who promote and defend same sex relationships. The common response ‘do not judge’ is therefore also a misrepresentation of the scriptures that tell how Christians should judge in a godly way and on what godly grounds that should be.
The NT is therefore telling many Christians to avoid associating with liberal Christians here on account of the false teaching, indeed 1 Cor 5 says those who merely call themselves brothers, something Christian that CF doesn’t allow.
As explained for the reasons given. to me and others, this is those who promote and defend same sex relationships. The common response ‘do not judge’ is therefore also a misrepresentation of the scriptures that tell how Christians should judge in a godly way and on what godly grounds that should be.
The NT is therefore telling many Christians to avoid associating with liberal Christians here on account of the false teaching, indeed 1 Cor 5 says those who merely call themselves brothers, something Christian that CF doesn’t allow.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Olliefranz,
The deception you are using is to hold your concepts of homosexual and heterosexual as the benchmark in which to judge what the Biblical testimony of God says.
So therefore
you wont be able to see what the Bible really say, and certainly wont be able to tell us.
Your frequent arguments asking about where the Bible refers to your concept of homosexuality when of course it has already condemned such a concept, is illustrated by your reference to gay men, in Mathew 19. There is no mention of gay men, the only mention is faithfully married or celibate.
For believers, there are a dozen passages that clearly exclude and condemn same sex relationships, that you don’t acknowledge that is ok but you then reason the ‘lack of positive examples’ to us. What is the point of that, we have all the positive examples we need, your argument is of no benefit to us.
Firstly the Bible actually describes condemnation for men with men instead of the natural use with women, so if you wish to apply the word homosexuality or heterosexuality you would apply homosexuality to this.
The deception you are using is to hold your concepts of homosexual and heterosexual as the benchmark in which to judge what the Biblical testimony of God says.
So therefore
you wont be able to see what the Bible really say, and certainly wont be able to tell us.
Your frequent arguments asking about where the Bible refers to your concept of homosexuality when of course it has already condemned such a concept, is illustrated by your reference to gay men, in Mathew 19. There is no mention of gay men, the only mention is faithfully married or celibate.
For believers, there are a dozen passages that clearly exclude and condemn same sex relationships, that you don’t acknowledge that is ok but you then reason the ‘lack of positive examples’ to us. What is the point of that, we have all the positive examples we need, your argument is of no benefit to us.
Upvote
0
Is that what you get from Romans 14? Or are you ignoring that passage because it does not fit in with your "theology." And what about Matthew 7:1-5; Matthew 18; Matthew 25; John 8:7b; Romans 2:1-3ff; James 4:11-12? And those are just the passages that come right out and say it.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Olliefranz,
It seems to me he is illustrating the principle of your argument to other sins, to show how anyone could justfiy any sin if they wanted to the way your argument does for homosexuality.
Upvote
0
I am an atheist Christian. Per the Romans back almost 2000-years ago. I do not believe in ,or about, many, many, many gods. For example, Allah does not exist.
Hello? I am not a spam program typing these words. I am a real person and a real Christian.
Good points.
Upvote
0
Actually "planting" anything us unnatural. Unless you let the wind, bees and animal droppings do it. So it's safe to say that "planting" is a supernatural action as mankind probably couldn't have learned this on their own.
Yes, for sure. But it appears your defense is for the weed planters. Why on earth would you want to take that position?
The crop planters are already listed as the enemy. Go re-read the parable.
Per Jesus and Jude and Peter, yes indeed the bad guys can exist in the Church. It is John that says, if they leave, good riddance. They never were one of us anyway.
Do you need the scripture references?
That's deeply troubling then.
Parables are two things, insulting and contemplative.
The parable of the wheat and the weeds shows the crop planters as enemies of God. Enemies of the Church. They are not subject to the parable. In fact, you could reason out from the context of the Gospels, that the crop planters that sowed the weeds are demons, or at the least, are agents of Satan.
Upvote
0
Peripatetic
Restless mind, peaceful soul.
Actually, in many cases it is not. I don't hate my father, mother, brothers and sisters? Jesus told us to do that (Luke 14:26). I haven't sold all of my possessions? Jesus told us to do that (Matthew 19:21). I don't believe that another person can prevent my sins from being forgiven. Jesus said that they can (John 20:23). When I take the Eucharist, I don't believe that I am eating actual, flesh and blood (but rather we believe either in essence or symbolic but that isn't how Jesus said it)? Believing that the word of God is always explicit is a dangerous road to go down.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
VertigoAge,
but in this case of course it is as your explanation illustrates. Sure, in context, one understands hate one’s family is not to put them above Jesus because elsewhere we see one must love and honour them. In the case of same sex relationships they are only ever excluded and condemned, so it is explicit.
Upvote
0
OllieFranz,
You have just detailed why homosexuality as in religious Gay Rights has become a new religion and should be called Gayism. No differently than what the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have created whole cloth as a different Gospel.
That just flies in the face of reality. Even your "gay thoughts" theology finds no support for supporting.
And? And we are sent back to sexual holiness, whether thought OR deed is a man and a woman in a sanctified marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. PER Jesus, and followed as such by HIS disciples.
You cannot Reader's Digest your way through this subject. The Song of Songs is pure eroticism, as is all of the years Jacob worked for his hot looking Bride.
"Seem" to be any passages? There is only opposition in every voice in scripture to gay sex and gay culture. No matter what we call it today, the mechanics of it were not approved of.
As we have them? What kind of caveat is that dare say?
"Did God really say . . ."
yeah, we see where that line of reason comes from.
Only if common sense and intellectualism can be held as honesty in the same place at the same time.
You prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that "scripture twisting is the basis for your position and activism to change Christian truth into a new and alien concept altogether. Why would you want to do that?
Joseph and Potiphars wife come to mind. There is no shred of evidence to sanction and sanctify gay sex from a Biblical perspective.
How many heresies and how many false doctrines start the same way?
The Ten Commandments sound familiar? The condemn homosexuality as much as they do all kinds of bad sex.
Abraham and Sarah had lots of sex. Follow the context road. She was barren year after year after year. God in fact told them to keep at it. Even when they were oldies.
EH HEM!!!!!
David and Jonathan can be debated. A Mother In Law and her daughter In Law being lesbian lovers is pure disgusting insult. It is depravity well defined. And I notice with interest, that you didn't bring up the sex slave owner and his sex slave? Usually the Roman Commander and his "boy" (pais) are highlighted by gay theologians.
David was a roust-a-bout and a snotty littel kid. He could have indeed boffed Jonathan. David also REPENTED OF HIS SINS in Psalm 51 and declared that as a forgiven man, he would show other sinners the error of their ways.
End of gay theology at the Fifty First Psalm.
Oh and let's not forget that both David and Jonathan, married women.
Further nails in said gay theology coffin.
Only Biblical/historical reality. But who's counting?
You have demonstrated scripture twsiting so effectively, that all there is left is dried out text and the sweat and blood of the saints left on the floor, as you invent a new religion from their's.
You have just detailed why homosexuality as in religious Gay Rights has become a new religion and should be called Gayism. No differently than what the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have created whole cloth as a different Gospel.
That just flies in the face of reality. Even your "gay thoughts" theology finds no support for supporting.
And? And we are sent back to sexual holiness, whether thought OR deed is a man and a woman in a sanctified marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. PER Jesus, and followed as such by HIS disciples.
You cannot Reader's Digest your way through this subject. The Song of Songs is pure eroticism, as is all of the years Jacob worked for his hot looking Bride.
"Seem" to be any passages? There is only opposition in every voice in scripture to gay sex and gay culture. No matter what we call it today, the mechanics of it were not approved of.
As we have them? What kind of caveat is that dare say?
"Did God really say . . ."
yeah, we see where that line of reason comes from.
Only if common sense and intellectualism can be held as honesty in the same place at the same time.
You prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that "scripture twisting is the basis for your position and activism to change Christian truth into a new and alien concept altogether. Why would you want to do that?
Joseph and Potiphars wife come to mind. There is no shred of evidence to sanction and sanctify gay sex from a Biblical perspective.
How many heresies and how many false doctrines start the same way?
The Ten Commandments sound familiar? The condemn homosexuality as much as they do all kinds of bad sex.
Abraham and Sarah had lots of sex. Follow the context road. She was barren year after year after year. God in fact told them to keep at it. Even when they were oldies.
EH HEM!!!!!
David and Jonathan can be debated. A Mother In Law and her daughter In Law being lesbian lovers is pure disgusting insult. It is depravity well defined. And I notice with interest, that you didn't bring up the sex slave owner and his sex slave? Usually the Roman Commander and his "boy" (pais) are highlighted by gay theologians.
David was a roust-a-bout and a snotty littel kid. He could have indeed boffed Jonathan. David also REPENTED OF HIS SINS in Psalm 51 and declared that as a forgiven man, he would show other sinners the error of their ways.
End of gay theology at the Fifty First Psalm.
Oh and let's not forget that both David and Jonathan, married women.
Further nails in said gay theology coffin.
Only Biblical/historical reality. But who's counting?
You have demonstrated scripture twsiting so effectively, that all there is left is dried out text and the sweat and blood of the saints left on the floor, as you invent a new religion from their's.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Olliefranz,
I fully agree with onemorequestion’s reply
That’s like saying although the Bible says theft is wrong, theft might not be wrong because it doesn’t give any options for thieves.
I fully agree with onemorequestion’s reponse.
Marriage is praised, not least when God instructs the man and woman He created to procreate… but that is of course the man and woman God created them for. Surely that fits in your gay theology as heterosexual rather than homosexual or bisexual?
yes I know but not homosexuality.
Paul as opposed to Matthew, Mark, Luke John, Peter, James, Jude and the writer of Hebrews. Is that who you mean?
Sorry where does it say anything about levels? If a believer is celibate but burns with passion they could get married.
I fully agree with onemorequestion’s reply
The doctrine summarises what the scripture says, which says homosexual acts in themselves are sin. You are saying this truth may not be truth because there seems to be nothing for same sex couples.
That’s like saying although the Bible says theft is wrong, theft might not be wrong because it doesn’t give any options for thieves.
I fully agree with onemorequestion’s reponse.
Upvote
0
THAT is a perfect example of scripture twisting.
The mind numbing absurdity of this position makes the sexuality of the Bible equal to animal husbandry, not a wife and her husband.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their God, praise heterosexual sex.
Adam and Eve were a celebration of heterosexual sex BY God.
The Ten Commandments are praise of heterosexual acts.
As it is written, so let it be.
One more bit of context and substance (though I'll paraphrarse) comes from Genesis 12:10-20, where Abram (Abraham) says to Sarai (Sarah):
"Ugh, I know how hot looking you are and so will the Egyptians when they see you. Say you're my sister so they won't kill me and take you."
And the Egpytians were duped by Abram's cowardice and knowing what a babe Sarai is they do take her. BUT!!!! God, had other plans for the sexuality of Sarai!!! The plot thickens . . .
God tells the Egytian that had sexual plans for Sarai, that he was as good as dead if he touched her in any sexual way. The Egyptian screams out his innocence in the matter and luckily for him, he hadn't touched her.
Now that is praise of heterosexuality if every there was.
________________________________________________________________________________
And more:
Rebekah and Isaac, now this is an odd story. Isaac sent a servant to find hima suitable wife. That servant was having a hard time of it. He prayed to God to help him find "a woman" for Isaac. God sent Rebekah and she was a gorgeous virgin. (In praise of heterosexual sex.)
Heterosexuality praised by God and Isaac's servant.
And of course, one the greatest praises of heterosexuality of all time is that of Jacob and Rachel.
How many women are so hot looking that a man would work 14-years waiting to marry her?
Rachel was.
That is the greatest praise from God of heterosexuality there is.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Three men, the Patriarchs of Biblical truth, ALL married hotties (in praise of heterosexuality).
May God forgive me if I have insulted the beauty of His truth by my analogies. In context, I don't think I did.
Upvote
0
P2, please, I am only agreeing with the context of scripture. The real and blatant context of scripture.
Like I said before, if you stay calm and don't let liberalism preached at you get you flustered, it is effortless to defend the reality of Biblical truth against it. Just let scripture on this subject do that for itself.
Upvote
0
Phinehas2,
Let's expound on Paul's perspective about sex. That is yet again, praise for heterosexuality only . . . in very graphic terms. Paul literally tells the man and woman that there body is not their own and not to play games around sexuality. Um, er, um, you know what I mean. Obviously Paul, living in Greek culture, knew what goes on behind closed doors.
(Notice I put the emoticons before the period?)
That's pretty hubba-hubba from a guy that was celeibate huh?
Looks like his mind and body were still well in order if you know what I mean.
More direct praise of heterosexuality placed well within context.
Let's expound on Paul's perspective about sex. That is yet again, praise for heterosexuality only . . . in very graphic terms. Paul literally tells the man and woman that there body is not their own and not to play games around sexuality. Um, er, um, you know what I mean. Obviously Paul, living in Greek culture, knew what goes on behind closed doors
. (Notice I put the emoticons before the period?)
That's pretty hubba-hubba from a guy that was celeibate huh?
Looks like his mind and body were still well in order if you know what I mean.
More direct praise of heterosexuality placed well within context.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
And of course this liberal idea of Paul, as opposed to Jesus, and who didnt understand, is laughable.
Paul was a Roman citizen and knew Roman law and culture, he grew up in Tarsus a hotbed of Greek thinking, learning and debate, and was an expert in Jewish law.
Jewish law of course was that homosexual acts were detestable to God, so it is no surprise he speaks to the churches in cultures where homosexuality was rampant.
Apart from Paul having received what he preached, not from man but the risen Lord, he was as a man in a somewhat better position to know cultures of the day than modern liberalism.
Paul was a Roman citizen and knew Roman law and culture, he grew up in Tarsus a hotbed of Greek thinking, learning and debate, and was an expert in Jewish law.
Jewish law of course was that homosexual acts were detestable to God, so it is no surprise he speaks to the churches in cultures where homosexuality was rampant.
Apart from Paul having received what he preached, not from man but the risen Lord, he was as a man in a somewhat better position to know cultures of the day than modern liberalism.
Upvote
0
Avniel
Doing my part each day by being the best me
- Jun 11, 2010
- 7,219
- 438
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
These are passages of about judging. If some says "I kill people" "or I like to steal" "or can you be a liar and a christian" I'm going to say that is a sin and you should renounce and repent. Thats not judging thats just telling the truth. How does that not fit my "theology?" I believe in everything in the Bible, if the Bible says something is wrong then its wrong and I'm not judging anyone by saying this is wrong and a sin because the Bible says it is.
Now if someone is struggling with homosexuality in the church thats one thing but to openly accept and to tell people its ok, is not whats in the bible.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
