Seven approaches to the LGBT Community

[Dylan569]

The Christian Post has an article "7 ways to reach the LGBT community..." There are serious errors in that article.

1. Searching for LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual or gay in the Bible I find only two connections: in the KJV Jas 2:3 "gay clothing", and REB Eze 16:16 "gay colours". These have nothing to do with the article's topic. Speaking of "the LGBT community" is like speaking of "you people", not all are the same. There are many "gays" who shun the LGBT community. Then as usual, the article speaks of gays, lesbians, etc., as having chosen that nature; which is the usual ignorant statement on this topic.

2. The article assumes that each person LGBT is a lost soul, which can't be proven from scripture. The Bible does not speak in those terms, so that is an idea formed by religion, not by scripture.

3. The biblical sin of adultery is used in comparison to LGBT, which the Bible in no way condemns anyone individually or as a group for the labels. Describe the sinful act in the Bible that fits those labels of today. There are no acts described in the Bible that specifically fit those labels but adultery is even in the Ten Commandments.

4. The article speaks of "learning about the experiences of those in the LGBT community" and how do you do that when you call each of them a liar for stating the obvious fact, they did not choose their modern category or label. Or, calling them liars for stating that they cannot change their nature.

5. The article states: "Genesis 1:27 teaches that God created us male and female, and Genesis 2:24 shows that marriage is between a man and a woman." GOD also gave what seems to be the first commandment in Gen 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply", so we will call those single people not producing children, sinners. The article then states "Sexual relations outside of this covenant are considered sinful (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)" but that is to READ INTO the passage what is not said. The verses condemn fornication, adultery and the acts of the sodomites. That is far from a blanket condemnation of all sexual relations outside of marriage.

6. Reads that the church must be where the LGBT community "can encounter the love of Christ and experience the power of transformation.". That is just a sad joke!

7. Last, it states that it is the Holy Spirit who "can bring about the kind of heart change that leads to genuine repentance and transformation". Question: what sin does this author have in mind that needs repenting over, and what is the "transformation" he mentions. The transformation is becoming either asexual or heterosexual, which is a false hope; just like all the miracle healings of the religious frauds like the Kenneth Copeland ilk.

It is weird that the love between Jonathan and David is spoken of so highly, yet in modern terminology, that love also had a homoerotic element to it.

 

[Dylan569]

There are some problems with how the evangelical community pontificates on M-M relationships. Some thoughts from scripture -

Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness, to have dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, all wild animals on land, and everything that creeps on the earth.’ God created human beings in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, have dominion over the fish in the sea, the birds of the air, and every living thing that moves on the earth.’ (Gen 1:26-28 REB)

The underlined is basic, sexual complementarity, male & female created to procreate. Sex between M & F that is not procreative, violates the design and first command of God to mankind. Can you support companionship of M-F missing the procreative sexual element?

Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I shall make a partner suited to him.’ (Gen 2:18 REB)

If two males are in a situation and circumstance where M-F companionship is not an option, the M-F partnership is no longer "suited" or appropriate. Also, if a M for whatever reason, has zero interest in or attraction for a F , is he "suited" to a F? Is he therefore forced to a life of solitude? If the only sex, including M-F, is commanded to be procreative, omitting that does away with the sexual complementarity approach. The Bible does not speak of sexual orientation, just behavior or conduct in various circumstances.

Here again I saw futility under the sun: someone without a friend, without son or brother, toiling endlessly yet never satisfied with his wealth—‘For whom’, he asks, ‘am I toiling and denying myself the good things of life?’ This too is futile, a worthless task. Two are better than one, for their partnership yields this advantage: if one falls, the other can help his companion up again; but woe betide the solitary person who when down has no partner to help him up. And if two lie side by side they keep each other warm; but how can one keep warm by himself? If anyone is alone, an assailant may overpower him, but two can resist; and a cord of three strands is not quickly snapped. (Eccl 4:7-12 REB)

There is no reason given for the M to be alone, living a solitary life, so no negative is implied; yet, again, it is not good for a M to be alone. The genders in this passage give the advantage and advisability of one M having the companionship of another M, rather than be alone.

He answered, ‘It was because of your stubbornness that Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives; but it was not like that at the beginning. I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery’...For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’ (Matt 19:8-9; 12 REB)

Jesus Christ himself states that in a fallen world, things are not as they were in the perfection of creation; so he allowed accommodation to be made in a fallen world. Is a betrayed spouse forced to keep the marriage?

You will say, ‘Then why does God find fault, if no one can resist his will?’ Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use? (Rom 9:19-21 REB)

There are circumstances, including one's basic nature in a fallen world, that are outside his control, he did not choose it. It is clear it was of God's design and purpose, though the purpose may not be known to M.

I should like everyone to be as I myself am; but each person has the gift God has granted him, one this gift and another that. To the unmarried and to widows I say this: it is a good thing if like me they stay as they are; but if they do not have self-control, they should marry. It is better to be married than burn with desire. (1Cor 7:7-9 REB)

The Apostle Paul makes clear that sexual abstinence if a "GIFT" that not all have. Yet, marriage is not the answer, for not all M's are "suited" to a F as previously shown in Gn. 2:18: Eccl. 4:7-12 above gives the only consistent option.

Not only did the ex-gay organization "Exodus" get exposed as hypocritical, the same goes for major voices in the evangelical(?) community! Check the following, as just two examples; one formerly a president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

George A Rekers

George Rekers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ted A. Haggard

Ted Haggard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rxlx]

You can try excuse yourself all you want but the KJV specifically says all LGBS etc will be destroyed:
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

[Dylan569]

You can try excuse yourself all you want but the KJV specifically says all LGBS etc will be destroyed:
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

What are LGBS? Whatever that is, I do not see it in that verse.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." (Rev 21:8 RSV)

There is nothing in that verse about a M simply having a relationship with another M.

 

[Rxlx]

What are LGBS? Whatever that is, I do not see it in that verse.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." (Rev 21:8 RSV)

There is nothing in that verse about a M simply having a relationship with another M.

I'm sure Satan agrees with you but GOD says otherwise. He made that known at Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Dear @Dylan569
So, you don't believe that gay and lesbian individuals are immoral and sinners, in addition to the usual acts of lying, murdering, etc.?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[MedicBravo]

They chose to be "that".
In some rarer instances, hormones and other things can cause problems.
Ex1. Lack of empathy. By development or external variables a person can be born with or develop a lack of empathy. Serial killers tend to have this.
Ex2. Lack of fear. Their body/brain cannot produce the "fight or flight response".

When things go wrong, a person can have the inability to feel one or more emotions.
Here, the normal physiological responses are either damaged OR they've been exposed to a certain variable and that it is "normal" when it isn't.
This comes from a grooming parent who emphasises this abnormal behavior OR doesn't restrict it.
The fact that a male is NOT repulsed by another male finding him attractive or flirting is disgusting and a problem in God's natural order.
Same goes for a woman to another woman.

 

[Dylan569]

Dear @Dylan569
So, you don't believe that gay and lesbian individuals are immoral and sinners, in addition to the usual acts of lying, murdering, etc.?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

Since the labels 'gay' and 'lesbian' are not found anywhere in the Bible, I have no reason to have a view of those labels as to morality. On this topic, so complicated by modern labels and concepts, I avoid the translations starting with the 1946 RSV and following whether liberal or conservative. On this, I must research by the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, and stay with commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedias, etc., written before the modern concept of homosexuality. That is the only way to see what actual conduct is being condemned, rather than pasting a label on people that was never heard of in biblical times.

The Bible speaks of conduct, a person's behavior. I know of no scripture that condemns the sexually intimate relationship between women, and that idea must be read into the following:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" (Rom 1:26 KJV)

As the 18th century Baptist John Gill points out, one understanding is "prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". One thing is for certain, the verse says nothing about women being sexually intimate with women, and since it does not, there is not a single verse in the the entire Bible that specifically condemns it. Because of this, I do not think about F-F sex in my studies, and stay with the question of male with male conduct of companionship and intimacy;... or abusiveness as the negative.

Not a single verse in the Bible that I can find condemns a male for the simple act of his sexual intimacy with another male. Even if Leviticus 18:22 is appealed to, that is directed to Israelites at Mt. Sinai, not anyone today, as the last verse of Leviticus states:

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

One of the most distorted interpretations on the topic of male to male sexuality is the Sodom story.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;" (Gen 19:4 ASV)

The word for men is the Hebrew enosh, mankind, and the verse plainly states "young and old, all the people" so the story is not solely about M-M attempted rape. The story reads:

"And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:9 ASV)

That is violence, an attempt of sexual humiliation or rape which has absolutely nothing to do with two males in a sexually intimate encounter or relationship. The Jews in antiquity considered the Sodomites of being guilty of pride or arrogance:

"Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride." (Sirach 16:8 KJVA) *This of course is historical record, not inspired scripture.

My concern on this is because of the very proper, biblically sound opposition to "gay pride", "gay activism", "LGBTQ agitation" for gay marriage; the Christian male who for whatever reason is in or has been in a M-M relationship is condemned in such a blanket condemnation. Because of the cultural and political climate, the topic has been miserably complicated!

 

[Rxlx]

Since the labels 'gay' and 'lesbian' are not found anywhere in the Bible, I have no reason to have a view of those labels as to morality. On this topic, so complicated by modern labels and concepts, I avoid the translations starting with the 1946 RSV and following whether liberal or conservative. On this, I must research by the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, and stay with commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedias, etc., written before the modern concept of homosexuality. That is the only way to see what actual conduct is being condemned, rather than pasting a label on people that was never heard of in biblical times.

The Bible speaks of conduct, a person's behavior. I know of no scripture that condemns the sexually intimate relationship between women, and that idea must be read into the following:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" (Rom 1:26 KJV)

As the 18th century Baptist John Gill points out, one understanding is "prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". One thing is for certain, the verse says nothing about women being sexually intimate with women, and since it does not, there is not a single verse in the the entire Bible that specifically condemns it. Because of this, I do not think about F-F sex in my studies, and stay with the question of male with male conduct of companionship and intimacy;... or abusiveness as the negative.

Not a single verse in the Bible that I can find condemns a male for the simple act of his sexual intimacy with another male. Even if Leviticus 18:22 is appealed to, that is directed to Israelites at Mt. Sinai, not anyone today, as the last verse of Leviticus states:

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

One of the most distorted interpretations on the topic of male to male sexuality is the Sodom story.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;" (Gen 19:4 ASV)

The word for men is the Hebrew enosh, mankind, and the verse plainly states "young and old, all the people" so the story is not solely about M-M attempted rape. The story reads:

"And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:9 ASV)

That is violence, an attempt of sexual humiliation or rape which has absolutely nothing to do with two males in a sexually intimate encounter or relationship. The Jews in antiquity considered the Sodomites of being guilty of pride or arrogance:

"Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride." (Sirach 16:8 KJVA) *This of course is historical record, not inspired scripture.

My concern on this is because of the very proper, biblically sound opposition to "gay pride", "gay activism", "LGBTQ agitation" for gay marriage; the Christian male who for whatever reason is in or has been in a M-M relationship is condemned in such a blanket condemnation. Because of the cultural and political climate, the topic has been miserably complicated!

You choose to be deliberatly idiotic to try justify your perversion -

 

[Christ4Ever]

Since the labels 'gay' and 'lesbian' are not found anywhere in the Bible, I have no reason to have a view of those labels as to morality. On this topic, so complicated by modern labels and concepts, I avoid the translations starting with the 1946 RSV and following whether liberal or conservative. On this, I must research by the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, and stay with commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedias, etc., written before the modern concept of homosexuality. That is the only way to see what actual conduct is being condemned, rather than pasting a label on people that was never heard of in biblical times.

The Bible speaks of conduct, a person's behavior. I know of no scripture that condemns the sexually intimate relationship between women, and that idea must be read into the following:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" (Rom 1:26 KJV)

As the 18th century Baptist John Gill points out, one understanding is "prostituting themselves to, and complying with the "sodomitical" embraces of men, in a way that is against nature". One thing is for certain, the verse says nothing about women being sexually intimate with women, and since it does not, there is not a single verse in the the entire Bible that specifically condemns it. Because of this, I do not think about F-F sex in my studies, and stay with the question of male with male conduct of companionship and intimacy;... or abusiveness as the negative.

Not a single verse in the Bible that I can find condemns a male for the simple act of his sexual intimacy with another male. Even if Leviticus 18:22 is appealed to, that is directed to Israelites at Mt. Sinai, not anyone today, as the last verse of Leviticus states:

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

One of the most distorted interpretations on the topic of male to male sexuality is the Sodom story.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;" (Gen 19:4 ASV)

The word for men is the Hebrew enosh, mankind, and the verse plainly states "young and old, all the people" so the story is not solely about M-M attempted rape. The story reads:

"And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:9 ASV)

That is violence, an attempt of sexual humiliation or rape which has absolutely nothing to do with two males in a sexually intimate encounter or relationship. The Jews in antiquity considered the Sodomites of being guilty of pride or arrogance:

"Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride." (Sirach 16:8 KJVA) *This of course is historical record, not inspired scripture.

My concern on this is because of the very proper, biblically sound opposition to "gay pride", "gay activism", "LGBTQ agitation" for gay marriage; the Christian male who for whatever reason is in or has been in a M-M relationship is condemned in such a blanket condemnation. Because of the cultural and political climate, the topic has been miserably complicated!

A rose by any other name is still a rose brother.

There are a lot of terms used in these days that are not seen precisely as seen in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the category of sin. So, use sodomite or any other term instead to explain it to a modern audience, but do so in the context of scripture and not the cultural mores of any age. To cut to the chase. Sex outside of marriage is forbitten and unacceptable and so sin.

Do your best word gymnastics with scripture, and its foundation in the Bible has a man and woman Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Which is the foundation of marriage in Scripture.

Let's keep it according to Scripture, right. Outside of Jesus you are damned no matter what the World says whether you are married or not. Without repentance and the forgiveness of sin a person is lost. No matter how you slice and dice it.

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:22-23 KJV

So, no matter how perfect your behavior is, you are condemned, without Jesus. However, we also know that one does not continue to sin in Jesus. It doesn't mean that one does not sin or hasn't.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10 KJV

Now we know that there is nothing wrong with having sexual relations, but within the context of marriage and not outside of it.

Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 KJV

So, you would state "*****" for its meaning, but then regardless of its meaning, you still wind up in immorality, because you know that the Bible only allows for the unity/pairing of man & woman in marriage and nowhere are there examples of it being otherwise which would allow for the pairing of men/men, or woman/woman is seen as acceptable. Don't forget it's not about the culture of the days, but what we find or do not find in Scripture.

Take a look at Genesis 2:18 in whatever version you would like. The fit helper was not another man, but a woman. Add to that the following:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:3-6 KJV

Sadly, in these days, there is an attempt to try to bring everyone under the umbrella of Christendom, without Repentance or even the acknowledgement of sin! Doesn't work that way, does it? Like God, we desire the salvation of all. However, just as God does not compel anyone to be saved, we must also refrain from deceiving anyone into believing falsehoods under the pretense they will be saved regardless.

Take a look at these 10 Commandments:

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
Exodus 20:12, 14, 17 KJV

God was pretty clear, and understood the sciences of the past, present, future and what they would bring. Stop trying to make the Word of God malleable to allow for sin, because once you start, there is no end to what then becomes acceptable. We all want them to be saved brother, but in truth we know this won't happen. Yet, the choice is theirs to make and not ours to make for them.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rxlx]

I grew up in Mirfield, UK, which has an Anglican theology college and did have a Catholic training school.
The Anglican one had a reputation as a hotbed of homosexuality and here is confirmation of that and how trainees twist scripture:

Thought for the Week - Theology college: an unexpectedly Queer experience - SJP

Lucy reflects on Maytime traditions, the politics of being English and the origins of the Spring Show in west London that has become RHS Chelsea

www.sjp.org.uk

The former archbishop Rowan atkinson trained there but claims he never saw any indication of homosexuality. When he used to be on television or in media his speeches were always very bland as he clearly preferred not to rock any boats.

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Dr Rowan Williams, 104th Archbishop of Canterbury

A biography of Dr Rowan Williams, who became the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury in December 2002.

www.bbc.co.uk

Quote: 'Rowan Williams is regarded as a liberal, even a radical. But in general, his theology is orthodox. It's been nurtured by Anglo-Catholicism, Russian mysticism, and scores of encounters with other traditions.
Homosexuality has been the cause of recent criticism by fellow priests. Several years ago he employed a priest he knew to be living in a homosexual relationship. It is this, coupled with his conviction that the Church should reassess its approach to faithful gay partnerships, that has alarmed conservative evangelicals.'
I don't know just what Russian mysticism is - does anyone?
Catholicism is a pagan religion based on worship of Ishtar and Tammuz of Babylon and also for its constant praise of Satan's success in having Jesus die in agony on his cross as shown the the awful crucifixes showing Jesus raging in agony and anger that adorns so many churches, and by the offering of breadcakes to the sun.

Barely a mile from that college the Italian Catholic 'Verona Fathers' had a seminary and while checking why it closed I did find some of the former trainee priests gloating about the mutual sex they had indulged in.
and now I just found this about predatory pedophile: Comboni Missionaries which makes depressing reading about the Vatican cover ups.
And a eulogy for a former student: .'i just want to let you know my brother frank mcginnis passed away today june 7 2019 he died suddenly …he never forgot hiis time at mirfield or his friends….he kept the secrets of mirfield only admitting that bad things happened there….please remember him in your thoughts and at your reunions he was my brother and my best friend ….he never really talked about what happened there but i know he suffered while he was there.'

Barely a mile from both these establishments the police one night raided a Methodist church and caught the minister and a gang of men in a homosexual orgy!
That was in thee early fifties when I was a child.
So in the 1950 there were three sites of homosexual/pedophilic perversions in one small town.

Extrapolate that out and Sodom and Gomorrah is worldwide?

 

[Bill]

The Christian Post has an article "7 ways to reach the LGBT community..." There are serious errors in that article.

1. Searching for LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual or gay in the Bible I find only two connections: in the KJV Jas 2:3 "gay clothing", and REB Eze 16:16 "gay colours". These have nothing to do with the article's topic. Speaking of "the LGBT community" is like speaking of "you people", not all are the same. There are many "gays" who shun the LGBT community. Then as usual, the article speaks of gays, lesbians, etc., as having chosen that nature; which is the usual ignorant statement on this topic.

2. The article assumes that each person LGBT is a lost soul, which can't be proven from scripture. The Bible does not speak in those terms, so that is an idea formed by religion, not by scripture.

3. The biblical sin of adultery is used in comparison to LGBT, which the Bible in no way condemns anyone individually or as a group for the labels. Describe the sinful act in the Bible that fits those labels of today. There are no acts described in the Bible that specifically fit those labels but adultery is even in the Ten Commandments.

4. The article speaks of "learning about the experiences of those in the LGBT community" and how do you do that when you call each of them a liar for stating the obvious fact, they did not choose their modern category or label. Or, calling them liars for stating that they cannot change their nature.

5. The article states: "Genesis 1:27 teaches that God created us male and female, and Genesis 2:24 shows that marriage is between a man and a woman." GOD also gave what seems to be the first commandment in Gen 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply", so we will call those single people not producing children, sinners. The article then states "Sexual relations outside of this covenant are considered sinful (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)" but that is to READ INTO the passage what is not said. The verses condemn fornication, adultery and the acts of the sodomites. That is far from a blanket condemnation of all sexual relations outside of marriage.

6. Reads that the church must be where the LGBT community "can encounter the love of Christ and experience the power of transformation.". That is just a sad joke!

7. Last, it states that it is the Holy Spirit who "can bring about the kind of heart change that leads to genuine repentance and transformation". Question: what sin does this author have in mind that needs repenting over, and what is the "transformation" he mentions. The transformation is becoming either asexual or heterosexual, which is a false hope; just like all the miracle healings of the religious frauds like the Kenneth Copeland ilk.

It is weird that the love between Jonathan and David is spoken of so highly, yet in modern terminology, that love also had a homoerotic element to it.

After noticing there are two general types of people who are in the gay community, there are some who genuinely seem to be loving and others that are just blatantly nuts. I made a comment to the Lord about these two groups and his response was quite solid. He said that He made men and women to become one in Him, and that marriage was something that is Holy.

Homosexuality is a blasphemy against Him, and there is no middle ground.

What is worse with homosexuality, and the transgender ideology, is that people who are well aware that this is against God's design do it anyways. And it becomes a mockery to God.

 

[Dylan569]

A rose by any other name is still a rose brother.

There are a lot of terms used in these days that are not seen precisely as seen in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the category of sin. So, use sodomite or any other term instead to explain it to a modern audience, but do so in the context of scripture and not the cultural mores of any age. To cut to the chase. Sex outside of marriage is forbitten and unacceptable and so sin.

Do your best word gymnastics with scripture, and its foundation in the Bible has a man and woman Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Which is the foundation of marriage in Scripture.

Let's keep it according to Scripture, right. Outside of Jesus you are damned no matter what the World says whether you are married or not. Without repentance and the forgiveness of sin a person is lost. No matter how you slice and dice it.

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:22-23 KJV

So, no matter how perfect your behavior is, you are condemned, without Jesus. However, we also know that one does not continue to sin in Jesus. It doesn't mean that one does not sin or hasn't.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10 KJV

Now we know that there is nothing wrong with having sexual relations, but within the context of marriage and not outside of it.

Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 KJV

So, you would state "*****" for its meaning, but then regardless of its meaning, you still wind up in immorality, because you know that the Bible only allows for the unity/pairing of man & woman in marriage and nowhere are there examples of it being otherwise which would allow for the pairing of men/men, or woman/woman is seen as acceptable. Don't forget it's not about the culture of the days, but what we find or do not find in Scripture.

Take a look at Genesis 2:18 in whatever version you would like. The fit helper was not another man, but a woman. Add to that the following:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:3-6 KJV

Sadly, in these days, there is an attempt to try to bring everyone under the umbrella of Christendom, without Repentance or even the acknowledgement of sin! Doesn't work that way, does it? Like God, we desire the salvation of all. However, just as God does not compel anyone to be saved, we must also refrain from deceiving anyone into believing falsehoods under the pretense they will be saved regardless.

Take a look at these 10 Commandments:

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
Exodus 20:12, 14, 17 KJV

God was pretty clear, and understood the sciences of the past, present, future and what they would bring. Stop trying to make the Word of God malleable to allow for sin, because once you start, there is no end to what then becomes acceptable. We all want them to be saved brother, but in truth we know this won't happen. Yet, the choice is theirs to make and not ours to make for them.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

My friend, that is a very emotional sounding, scatter-shot, reply to my posts, sounding almost like sound bites in the political world. I've never supported same-sex marriage and in fact I oppose that as unbiblical and not a Christian solution to any M-M situation. I did not discuss God's plan of salvation in his Son, Jesus Christ so I'm not sure why you went into that. But your first remark is what really surprised me though, "A rose by any other name is still a rose".

Suppose you come visit my home and after inviting you in, I ask, "Did you see my prize-winning rose out front?" I have a variety of flowering bushes out front, so how do you know what flower or bush I am talking about? It is because you know what a rose bush looks and smells like. In other words, you picture a sort of woody stemmed, shrub, probably with thorns and the blooms having multiple sets of petals. You would know I was not speaking of the beautiful hydrangea bush because you know the difference between the two flowering bushes. Names or labels have meaning according to their definition or various attributes. So, I hear you saying: "I know any and all M-M sexual behavior is sin, no regardless of the name you use, sodomite or gay or homosexual."

But what I hear you saying is, "I believe all M-M sexual behavior is sin; no matter what name you call it." But is what you believe what the scriptures state? Can you give a verse and explain why you believe that? Can you use exegesis to support your belief on any verse?

In 1 Cor. 6:9, the Greek words malakos and arsenokoites are translated the same in the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, and even the 1958 Literal Greek translation by Alfred Marshall that is used KJV, RSV & NIV Interlinear NTs. The KJV: "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind". To understand that older English, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary is appropriate.

"EFFEMINATE, 1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor."
(Alfred Marshall's 1958 Literal Greek renders malakos as "voluptuous") and no dictionary I know of defines "effeminate" as any sexual conduct. Nowhere that malakos is used in the NT, or Septuagint, or any writings of antiquity can I find the word used as sexual conduct, even checking the references in the Thayer and the BDAG.

"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6." *A sodomite is one who abuses, deceives, and he is a ravisher, which is:
RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace. 3. One that transports with delight.

Those definitions of "abusers of themselves with mankind" can in no way refer to simple, M-M sexual intimacy, or homosexuality as commonly understood today. You do not read in the newspaper about the criminal being charged with homosexuality, he is charged with sodomy for he is a sodomizer. Homosexual and sodomite are NOT synonymous!

I can do a word study in the Greek, consult scholars from the past and support my belief that the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT are correct. The modern conservative translations work some form of "homosexual" into 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10; but I can only find an appeal made to various lexicons by men to support it, but they show no use of the words in antiquity to prove their view.

You can call that linguistic gymnastics if you wish, but it is basic exegesis. I have found it the most difficult thing in life, to recognize where I believe a verse means one thing, but to study and find it actually states something different from what I've been taught to think it means. It is a very difficult task, so I am trying to not sound or be combative over my understanding of this.

 

[Dylan569]

After noticing there are two general types of people who are in the gay community, there are some who genuinely seem to be loving and others that are just blatantly nuts. I made a comment to the Lord about these two groups and his response was quite solid. He said that He made men and women to become one in Him, and that marriage was something that is Holy.

Homosexuality is a blasphemy against Him, and there is no middle ground.

What is worse with homosexuality, and the transgender ideology, is that people who are well aware that this is against God's design do it anyways. And it becomes a mockery to God.

When God whispers in my ear what you say He said to you, I'll pay attention to your words, but until then I'll just skip your ideas and stay with the written word.

 

[Rxlx]

When God whispers in my ear what you say He said to you, I'll pay attention to your words, but until then I'll just skip your ideas and stay with the written word.

It's not GOD's words you hear - it's Satan's!

 

[Dylan569]

I grew up in Mirfield, UK, which has an Anglican theology college and did have a Catholic training school.
The Anglican one had a reputation as a hotbed of homosexuality and here is confirmation of that and how trainees twist scripture:

Thought for the Week - Theology college: an unexpectedly Queer experience - SJP

Lucy reflects on Maytime traditions, the politics of being English and the origins of the Spring Show in west London that has become RHS Chelsea

www.sjp.org.uk

The former archbishop Rowan atkinson trained there but claims he never saw any indication of homosexuality. When he used to be on television or in media his speeches were always very bland as he clearly preferred not to rock any boats.

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Dr Rowan Williams, 104th Archbishop of Canterbury

A biography of Dr Rowan Williams, who became the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury in December 2002.

www.bbc.co.uk

Quote: 'Rowan Williams is regarded as a liberal, even a radical. But in general, his theology is orthodox. It's been nurtured by Anglo-Catholicism, Russian mysticism, and scores of encounters with other traditions.
Homosexuality has been the cause of recent criticism by fellow priests. Several years ago he employed a priest he knew to be living in a homosexual relationship. It is this, coupled with his conviction that the Church should reassess its approach to faithful gay partnerships, that has alarmed conservative evangelicals.'
I don't know just what Russian mysticism is - does anyone?
Catholicism is a pagan religion based on worship of Ishtar and Tammuz of Babylon and also for its constant praise of Satan's success in having Jesus die in agony on his cross as shown the the awful crucifixes showing Jesus raging in agony and anger that adorns so many churches, and by the offering of breadcakes to the sun.

Barely a mile from that college the Italian Catholic 'Verona Fathers' had a seminary and while checking why it closed I did find some of the former trainee priests gloating about the mutual sex they had indulged in.
and now I just found this about predatory pedophile: Comboni Missionaries which makes depressing reading about the Vatican cover ups.
And a eulogy for a former student: .'i just want to let you know my brother frank mcginnis passed away today june 7 2019 he died suddenly …he never forgot hiis time at mirfield or his friends….he kept the secrets of mirfield only admitting that bad things happened there….please remember him in your thoughts and at your reunions he was my brother and my best friend ….he never really talked about what happened there but i know he suffered while he was there.'

Barely a mile from both these establishments the police one night raided a Methodist church and caught the minister and a gang of men in a homosexual orgy!
That was in thee early fifties when I was a child.
So in the 1950 there were three sites of homosexual/pedophilic perversions in one small town.

Extrapolate that out and Sodom and Gomorrah is worldwide?

Since you are writing of what you have read, I'll share what I not only read and heard in the news, but what I observed personally that brought me to have such a negative view of evangelicals.

Before I retired, in the company where I worked, there was a young man who maybe was in his 30s and he was a well-liked guy and to appearances he was actually a rather red-neck appearing guy; but, it was quietly known that he was gay and he owned the label. One day a woman was observed placing a gospel tract on his desk, and it turned out to be a tract aimed at the 'sin of homosexuality' and how to be saved. That became a great joke among the workers because this woman had been in an adulterous relationship with a married co-worker for many years and remained openly brassy about it. On occasion some Christians would gather to pray over something, and as they got in a circle and held hands, there she was in the circle. HYPOCRISY!

Then along came the scandal of Ted Haggard which made the national news, and I previously gave a wikipedia link to the article about him. Another evangelical hypocrite who was even president of the National Associations of Evangelicals at one time. From that time, after reading the denominations in the NAE, I began to reject identifying myself in any way with evangelicals.

Before retirement and moving to Florida, I followed the legal fight over gay adoptions in Florida; something which I did and still do oppose. The lead expert opposing gay adoption was Dr. George A. Rekers and he was truly qualified so I was impressed. It was less than a year after coming to Florida after retirement, that Dr. Rekers was exposed as another hypocrite. He was spotted returning at Miami Int'l Airport returning from a vacation where he took a "rent boy" as his companion. A rent boy, for those who are not aware, is a male prostitute. Dr. Rekers gave some of the most ridiculous excuses and evasions to hide his deceit, but he was clearly exposed.

It became clear to me just how vile this sort of 'religion' is, and it truly earns the label "homophobic". From my youth in an independent, fundamentalist, dispensationalist Baptist church; I've spent a lifetime of deep study and have changed to be more historically orthodox as a Baptist and it is not an easy task to study oneself out of errors previously taught over many years. I do take my spiritual life quite seriously, and see eternity as involved as well as life in the here and now. Over the past 20 years or so, on the topic of males being intimate with another male has been a serious study for me and I've had to change some of my past beliefs on it.

 

[Dylan569]

The Baker's Dictionary of Evangelical Theology in its article on homosexuality lists 5 causes of homosexuality, and it is obvious that one size does not fit all, so to speak. To be brief, the article states the 5 -

1. The normal puberty phase of same-sex interest
2. An unhappy, very negative heterosexual experience when one may return to a previous, even puberty based relationship of M-M
3. The environmental causes in artificial all-male society as in schools, military, prison, etc.
4. The constitutional causes that are not chosen, they are involuntary
5. Vicious causes like unbridled sensuality, flagrant exhibitionism, desire to shock, exploitation, etc.

It is clear that #5 seems to be what is condemned in the Holy Bible. That Dictionary of Theology can be read on archive.org

Evangelical dictionary of theology : Elwell, Walter A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Includes bibliographies

archive.org

 

[Garee]

Looking to the end of the spiritual "unseen matter".

Dying mankind having no born-again eternal living faith (belief) that could please God as it is written

Revealing the faithless, powerless, unredeemed that must trust in "reincarnation" as if the resurrection on the last day under the Sun has come .

They perform that error by the lying power of the identity thief the father of lies the king of lying signs to wonder, wonder, marvel after as if true prophecy. . the god of racism and hater of freedom of speech. (gospel)

Judging using one's imagination by looking at the temporal dying and not the eternal not seen things of Christ the Husband

Catholic still waiting to reincarnate the dying flesh and blood of the queen of heaven mother. They must call Mary. . . along with the 3500 and rising what they must call patron saints his and hers goods

2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Rxlx]

The Baker's Dictionary of Evangelical Theology in its article on homosexuality lists 5 causes of homosexuality, and it is obvious that one size does not fit all, so to speak. To be brief, the article states the 5 -

1. The normal puberty phase of same-sex interest
2. An unhappy, very negative heterosexual experience when one may return to a previous, even puberty based relationship of M-M
3. The environmental causes in artificial all-male society as in schools, military, prison, etc.
4. The constitutional causes that are not chosen, they are involuntary
5. Vicious causes like unbridled sensuality, flagrant exhibitionism, desire to shock, exploitation, etc.

It is clear that #5 seems to be what is condemned in the Holy Bible. That Dictionary of Theology can be read on archive.org

Evangelical dictionary of theology : Elwell, Walter A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Includes bibliographies

archive.org

The Bible still clearly condemns homosexuals.

 

[MedicBravo]

God spoke on all sins end of discussion. Your opinion otherwise is irrelevant.
I've NO desire to have a "insert unrepentant sin here" friend, family member, co-worker, etc.
I will NEVER support them in their sins and anything that is to stop and decrease sins I will promote.
Most of the LGB+ are too far gone. Their entire lives and identity is in that. They have flooded Deviantart, Tumblr, Reddit, and Quora with all kinds of disgusting pictures including transgender who have mutilated their bodies.
The odds of getting through to them are astronomically low. You won't change ANYONE online.