Why are they gay?

[HisBelovedMelody]

Are you implying that liberal Christians do not have pure eyes?

I said nothing about liberal. I didn't single out a certain thing at all.

 

[127Rockledge]

did I say that? NO. Eyes not polluted with a feel good theology....I don't like what the Word says..so I will change it.

For one, it was a question, not a statement. Two, what eye's are you talking about, to whom do these eye's belong?

 

[GenemZ]

Ok. This is actually a rediculous premise, being a former LEO I can definitely tell you that only about 10% of laws on the books are actually known by the public and obeyed.

If I took every law out of the Florida Statutes for criminal law and motor vehicles (which is about 1600 pages) you wouldn't understand the majority. Such as statutes regarding aftermarket equipment on vehicles being a non-moving violation.

Was I seriously going to stop every high school kid with shiny wheels and a loud exhaust and issue him (a then) $71.50 citation?

I used a "Stop sign" illustration because we all know what that means. Now? Will you please "Stop" with your sidetrack?

Now, this is on the books...... some here deny it. Some accept what it says.

Leviticus 20:13 niv
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
​

Now that Law was created by our "King" who is now from another land. This King is our kin.

When you are visiting another land, and your objective is to please your King of whom you are kin? Even though the law of the land you find yourself might say different? You obey the law of your King-kin because you know its personally something he finds detestable. And, being kin, you are being constantly watched by secret service (angels) assigned to protect you in this foreign land.

Its a matter of pleasing your King to agree with what he says is wrong. Or, do you just want everyone to like you in this foreign land? And tell them its OK with what they do? I say to them.....

You do as you please as long as you do not try to tell me that my God/King approves of homosexuality. Once you try and tell me that my King approves? That's where we find our argument.

In other words? Someone wants to be gay? That's their business. When they try and tell me the Bible does not condemn it as sin? That's where they step over the line.

For what ever reason someone is gay? If they are a believer? God's power of grace is being offered to them, and they deny the power? Then its a matter of CHOOSING to remain gay. They love their pleasure rather than become a lover of God.

I have to also realize. If they can pervert their design to such a deep level? They can just as easily pervert the meaning of God's Word.

So, I really do not take it personally. Its a matter of remaining faithful to my King. Not a matter of persuading the one who wants to bear false witness about my King. For, in the end, all will answer to my King. All. Believer and unbeliever.

Its those who come from my kingdom that live in a foreign land and tell the foreiners that my King approves of their sins? That bothers me. Anyone with common sense can see through it. If God is who he says he is? Its delusion begging and seeking comforting.

I will try to reason up to a point. For someday this delussioned believer will be before the King's throne, with great personal loss. I know that the delussioned one will wish that they did not choose as they had. For the King will deny them great Eternal pleasures. Pleasures of simply being alive. All lost for pinpoint fleeting moments in time of sexual lust and release that they found themselves demanding.

Many ancient Jews who were commanded not to worship idols? Found themselves wanting to. Did God design them that way? If God did? Then he should have designed them not to, rather than give a command.

If that is truth? Why condemn homosexuality then? God should have simply not made them to not be that way, and there would be no need for a command. Its God's fault. That's what it comes down to with some.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

​

Many Christians believe that means that those believers who do such things will not be saved. It means (in the Greek) that such as these will not receive kingdom authority. They will have no part in the reigning of Christ in his Kingdom. They will be losers in Eternity.

They boast now that they are free. Proud of their sin. But, when they look at the Lord who saved them? They will realize how they failed miserably to please their true love. There will be great shame at their evaluation. They will be denied what others will joyously receive.

2 Timothy 2:12-13 (New American Standard Bible)
"If we endure, we will also reign with Him;

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. "
​

These who deny the King now, and cling to their sin? They will be denied their rewards. GREAT JOYOUS REWARDS. BETTER THAN SEX as we know it! AND CONSTANT! Why? They rejected their inheritance for a mess of pottage. Like Esau.

Hebrews 12:15-17 (New International Version)
"See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears."
​

That's how those believers who want to remain following their desires of sin become. Bitter towards God. They begin to find fault with God's Word and spread their bitterness around as to defile all (if they could).

Later on they will seek their Eternal rewards with tears. It will not change God's mind. For the grace they are now being freely offered to overcome their sin is being missed. They are proving now that they can not be trusted with power and authority. Kingdom authority.

They will be denied by God. But, they will be saved from the Lake of Fire. That is. If they truly believed in Christ. That, is between them and the LORD. We are simply told to avoid them.

2 Timothy 3:5 niv
"Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."
​

Will they be in Heaven? What's that to you? God knows if they believed, or not. In the mean time. We are told to have nothing to do with them.

1 Corinthians 5:11 niv
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
​

They demand acceptance and love in the Name of Christ? Then, they should choose what is acceptable to the God who is love.

Instead, they seek enablers who will be friendly and sympathetic by accepting them in their sin, as if their sin is fine with God. Avoid them. Like they avoid God.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

​

 

[127Rockledge]

Gene, I'm no more off track than you are. You should not post an opinion/argument/fact without honestly expecting the possibility of an argument against it or an expanding commentary.

Also Gene, every single verse (other than Hebrews) you listed has been argued over in this thread already. Both sides have already stated that there is not enough compelling evidence to sway decision.

As soon as you list leviticus somebody will bring up the wearing of gold jewelry, mixed fibers, eating shellfish, etc.

As soon as you list Corinthians the argument will be the definition of sexual immorality.

Romans, it's taken out of context.

And so on this goes.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Gene, I'm no more off track than you are. You should not post an opinion/argument/fact without honestly expecting the possibility of an argument against it or an expanding commentary.

Also Gene, every single verse (other than Hebrews) you listed has been argued over in this thread already. Both sides have already stated that there is not enough compelling evidence to sway decision.

As soon as you list leviticus somebody will bring up the wearing of gold jewelry, mixed fibers, eating shellfish, etc.

As soon as you list Corinthians the argument will be the definition of sexual immorality.

Romans, it's taken out of context.

And so on this goes.

Actually liberals claim that, conservatives know exactly what those verses mean. I don't see how liberals have ANY weight in their argument since their plataform isn't based on biblical principles in the first place...all they seek is doubt.

 

[127Rockledge]

NewGuy, as reflective of other threads, it seems that you just want to wage a liberal vs. conservative war. You claim so many people have agendas, but yet you fail to see that the agenda is yours.

May I ask, how it is that conservatives KNOW what exactly a scripture means?

Also, as I may educate you, I do not have a platform for biblical principle to be based upon. I truly am not liberal nor conservative, merely, scientific and open minded.

 

[ReformedChapin]

NewGuy, as reflective of other threads, it seems that you just want to wage a liberal vs. conservative war. You claim so many people have agendas, but yet you fail to see that the agenda is yours.

May I ask, how it is that conservatives KNOW what exactly a scripture means?

Also, as I may educate you, I do not have a platform for biblical principle to be based upon. I truly am not liberal nor conservative, merely, scientific and open minded.

Again, I didn't say anything about conservatives, I have just seen the post by liberals and their views aren't biblical. Like yours, they are "scientific" not Godly. And "open minded" is basically the liberal platform, label it however you want. I'm not open minded about the scriptures, I want accuracy, God's word isn't something you play around with.

What exactly is my agenda?...I really want to know what you think it is.

 

[imind]

I'm not open minded about the scriptures, I want accuracy,

so you're reading scripture in the original languages, then? or at least studying these languages vigorously to one day be able to read them?

 

[ReformedChapin]

so you're reading scripture in the original languages, then? or at least studying these languages vigorously to one day be able to read them?

Trying my friend

Not only that but the parts I don't understand I aquire from different study bibles to get different translations.

 

[relspace]

What does not exist are studies showing that sexual oriention or specifically homosexuality is the result of choice. Or the result of any sociological, familial, or psychological trait. And that is the point. Evidence for such claims does not exist despite decades of attempts to find such evidence. The only such evidence points to sexual oriention being an inborn trait.

Of course how could there be scientific evidence of sexual orientation being a choice? You can go on a hunting expedition searching for evidence of something that isn't there, discarding one idea after another as each proves false. But when you already believe that it isn't there how do you search something to prove it? If this were really science you could design a test to determine whether the hypothesis is true or false. Frankly, I think think this test has already been made by numerous people in their own lives (see www.queerbychoice.com) and the the test denies the hypothesis that homosexuality is prenatally determined. So you are only left with the possible claim that it is prenatally determined in some people which is an untestable hypothesis, for any test with a single person can only prove that he or she is not one of those people. But being untestable means that this is not science but personal belief only.

I am extremely self-aware, and make a deliberate point of examining myself and my life as much as I can. Everything in my life seems to indicate that I was born that way. I am certainly willing to consider the idea that I am wrong, however. Can you show me where I am mistaken? Show me something in myself or my life which I am misinterpretting?

Easiest thing in the world. If someone claimed to isolate the so called biological condition of "homosexuality" and found a way to "cure" it. Would you go for the cure or choose to remain as you are.

I know it is a choice you made whether you believe it or not by one simple fact and that is that expect others to respect you as you are, rather than looking for a cure. I am different from other people in many many ways and even if I do not remember consciously choosing those differences, but I do not for a second try to blame them on any biological condition, I choose to be who I am.

You tell me. Was the first homosexual relationship you participated in a matter of falling in love or was it merely a biological urge over which you had no control?

Yeah, but there are those of us who understand that the Bible was written by semi nomadic desert dwellers 5000 years ago, and that modern population, social, and technological pressures require a degree of relative contemporary interpretation.

The questions at issue here are far more recent that 5000 years ago. The issue concerns the writings of Paul which are since the comming of Jesus.

See, this is where people lose me. God, and God alone decides who enters heaven. God did not hand the keys to heaven to any human being, including Paul. No person on the face of the planet has the wisdom to make a statement concerning another's salvation.

In principle I would agree with you. But considering what Judahsprase just quoted from 1 Cor 6:9 I think you are throwing out a red herring. The fact is that Judahspraise is NOT making any such judement. And Paul's writing is in the recognized Christian canon. Christianity recognizes his words as authoritative. Sure it may be a bit presumptive to use it to decide who will or will not go into heaven. Paul himself warns against this in Rom 10:6. But the writing of Paul does indicate that homosexuality should be considered a sin. Since Paul's teachings are critical in todays consensus about what it means to be Christian I think that few Christians can support your outright dismissal of his words.

It is impossible to have pure eyes. I am 22 years old, and have spent almost that entire time in America. I have learned certain definitions for certain words, and I have learned that certain ideas are "good" and should be embraced. I have had a certain set of experiences, which have given me a particular education. These are the eyes I read through. I cannot just forget that I am a 21st century woman, and newly graduated student.

No, I do not read through "pure eyes" because it is impossible to do so. What I try to do is read through honest eyes. I learn as much as I can about a culture and language, and try to understand what was originally said. I do not simply listen to the end results of a 2000 year-long game of "telephone" and call myself "pure," because I accept that without question.

Now in this you absolutely have the right of it. And it is an important reason why everyone must be free to pursue their own understanding of Christianity and the scriptures. Most likely we are wrong in what we understand and imposing that wrong understanding on other people would be very wrong.

I'm sorry I am not intending to enter this particular debate but I have to ask. It seems from what you have written that you do not believe in objective truth. Is this true?

She sure implied it

What she wrote did not even imply any such thing. What she explained instead was that our understanding of God's word cannot be an objective understanding, our understanding is necessarily subjective because we are finite human beings not God Himself.

 

[GenemZ]

Actually liberals claim that, conservatives know exactly what those verses mean. I don't see how liberals have ANY weight in their argument since their plataform isn't based on biblical principles in the first place...all they seek is doubt.

No doubt about it!

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

​

 

[GenemZ]

so you're reading scripture in the original languages, then? or at least studying these languages vigorously to one day be able to read them?

You're truly interested in that?

Try here, then.....

http://www.rbthieme.org/r_b_.htm
​

Then read what is charges for his materials...

http://www.rbthieme.org/Financial Policy.htm

​

The way he could dig things out of the Greek and Hebrew when it was there, made legalistic pastors blush and fearful to see that the Holy Spirit would use with such language at times. You'd be surprise how "down to earth" God can be when dealing with man.

God does not blush. He tells it like it is. Some men try to cover it up out of timidity and fear. You want to be taught from the original languages? Try the 1969 basic series for starters. You may be in for a pleasant surprise. Might happen.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[zaire]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10​

9Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

 

[artybloke]

male prostitutes, homosexuals

malakoi = softies (possibly boys), arsenokoites = (literally) men-bedders, and could refer to procurers, customers of prostitutes ("john's"), or to exploiters of boys.

There is no word in the Greek for "homosexual."

This is a bad translation with a homophobic agenda.

 

[ReformedChapin]

malakoi = softies (possibly boys), arsenokoites = (literally) men-bedders, and could refer to procurers, customers of prostitutes ("john's"), or to exploiters of boys.

There is no word in the Greek for "homosexual."

This is a bad translation with a homophobic agenda.

It's the correct translation in the proper context since there is no word for homosexual.

Liberal logic behind this topic..."since there is no word for homosexual, it can't be homosexual so lets take this verse out of context to push our agenda."

 

[artybloke]

since there is no word for homosexual, it must be homosexual so lets take this verse out of context to push our agenda."

Corrected for the fundamentalist/pharisee agenda.

 

[GenemZ]

malakoi = softies (possibly boys), arsenokoites = (literally) men-bedders, and could refer to procurers, customers of prostitutes ("john's"), or to exploiters of boys.

There is no word in the Greek for "homosexual."

Because many of them were bisexual. A study of the pagan temple worship would reveal that in their culture they could view sex with an animal, child, same sex, or opposite, to be "mood of the day."

They had no word for someone being a homosexual because they could not understand someone desiring same sex -sex, exclusively. Yet, they definitely had terms for homosexual expression. Yet, some did follow after homosexual expression exclusively.

This is a bad translation with a homophobic agenda.

These words refer to homosexual activity. Not a homosexual, as we now know it.

Homosexuals are the result of having evolved in practice over the years. Today it has reached the stage of competing with heterosexual marriage. The only reason this can happen is because of the sexual revolution of the sixties which made sexual love into a common thing. Not sacred.

We are, in a sense, reverting back to the ways of ancient Rome. Not, progressing. Yet, those who revert, ironically, think of themselves as progressive.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

malakoi = softies (possibly boys), arsenokoites = (literally) men-bedders, and could refer to procurers, customers of prostitutes ("john's"), or to exploiters of boys.

It could mean one who has sex with what ever is convenient at the moment. Not fussy. Just wants sexual release as he can find it.

There is no word in the Greek for "homosexual."

Most were bisexual, that's why.

The Holy Spirit's transforming of men has divided up men into camps over the centuries of change. God is bringing men who are willing, to be brought out of Satan's domain and influence, and to be made to function closer to what God intended man to be.

This is a bad translation with a homophobic agenda.

Homophobic is a derogatory term used for leverage by the gays who desire to dominate and make society bend over to their will.

Its not "phobic." Its resistance.

Resistence to the taking over of demonic influence on a culture that God has influenced beautifully in the past.

Its unrepentent homosexuals who are theophobic.

Romans 1:30 niv
"...slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents."
​

No wonder some of the most studied attacks on the Bible comes from the gay front which wants to dismantle the authority of the Bible over society.

Daniel 11:37 (New American Standard Bible)
"He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all. "
​

That, by the way, speaks of the Antichrist. Right now the pro gay movement is to his appearing, what John the Baptist was to Christ.

Mark 1:2-4 (New International Version)
"It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way"—
"a voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' " And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

​

The pro-gay movement is making clear the path for the Antichrist. Because by time that he appears, the world will have been made readily to be accepting homosexuality as a norm.

"He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all. "

Grace and truth, GeneZ
​

 

[thenewageriseth]

Alrighty, I would like to say this. Even though I don't particularly care for that lifestyle (homosexuality), I would like to extend a big ol' olive branch of compassion to them folks. I know most gays have been through H on wheels when they were children, (some even feel that their body is wrong for them) so it's unfair for religious people (in general) to basically try to convert them. They may not want to convert and change their feelings towards the same-sex to feelings of the opposite sex. I'm usually neutral, when it comes to this lifestyle I don't love it nor do I hate it, my parents hate it intensely...but I'm just trying to find some common ground here, instead of judging the socks off of ppl...
and I would like to add that not every woman need a man (or another woman) for that matter-we women can be independent until it is time for us.

"...For everyone a time, for everyone a place, slow down and take it easy, patience wins the race..."-lyrics from a song of an ol kid's show called Rimba's Island, btw loved that show )

I'm a feminist and I don't rely on ANY man. Women and men both should be independent at times. The only reason I would do so is that I can TRUST a man, close to my heart-so far I haven't found one and therefore I don't NEED a man for happiness or whatever. Just my two cents

 

[GenemZ]

Just my two cents

Here's three more.

Now, go buy yourself a candy bar.

Grace and peace, GeneZ