MedicBravo
Active
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2022
- Messages
- 1,810
It's sad but laughably moronic to see so many, Christians included, making excuses for sins especially the Alphabet perverts.
Seven approaches to the LGBT Community
- Thread starter Dylan569
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 11,757
Dear Dylan,
Yet I thought afterwards that it was a bit scatterbrained as well. lol
You may not have gone into the salvation aspect of it, but if you're going to talk about sin, don't you think excluding how to be saved from it is paramount to the discussion? All the while seeking "a Christian solution", is well and good, but only through the one who died on Cross is where the only valid Christian solution there is to sin. To try to come up with something that implies otherwise, is just plain wrong, because our Lord didn't ask us to clean them up before presenting the Gospel to them. However, part of that presentation is having them understand sin in its many nuances and repentance from it.
Anything else, whether it's trying to let them know that their behavior is not actually identified in the Bible as portrayed by many, will lead you back to the Biblical aspects of marriage no matter how you shake it and not the worldly one which you will have to address as well. Bottom line for them and the heterosexual and again why the marriage topic is integral to this discussion is that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and sorry for your luck you can't be married! Because Biblically marriage is between a man and a woman, and of course not what you identify yourself as, but as God made you. You think they'll be any happier when they find that out? Of course not or will that be another part of your argument.
That is why one must be about the making of disciples, and then Lord willing they will come to that repentance and change that we all struggle with in one way or another. Meanwhile you're not sleeping together in my house or are doing any canoodling in my house either and don't think sin is going to be whitewashed either. I will acknowledge that this rarely happens with sinful behavior, but that is no justification for allowing it to happen when you see it or know of it.
"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."
Yep, because the best you can say to them is "Just don't do it." then you'll be okay. Why can't I do it? You are then committing a sin if you do. Not just you but for the other one as well. When is it not a sin? Only when you don't do it. What if I get married? Sorry, marriage is only between a man and a woman. Hey, that's not fair.
And the beat goes on.
Hey, Dylan, I am willing to listen to your work around but thinking one can whitewash sin to accommodate/justify the sinful nature of humanity, will get you nowhere but to the point where you wind up excusing it.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
KingJ
Active
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 4,720
You quote a post you don't link and have likely purposely misquoted it just so you can create a thread pushing your pro LGBT view.
Expected nothing less from someone who also believes God cherry picks people for heaven and that many babies and children will go to hell. Now you also believe that people who go completely against the purpose for which they were created are fine with God. You need to learn to read more than the cherry-picked scriptures Google gives you when you type '''LGBT not mentioned in scripture, LGBT is holy and fine''.
Rom 1:26-28 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (AKA Lesbian). And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (AKA Gay) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (AKA Bisexual, transgender);
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (AKA @Dylan569).
In case you don't understand the above passage, let me summarise it for you. LGBT sins are mentioned, and God says these sins are worthy of death. Death for those who commit and also for those who approve of them.
Last edited:
Bill
Loyal
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Messages
- 4,620
Well for once I completely agree with you
Coming down so hard on those who are in some simple type of M-M friendship that includes a sexual element, they must end up bashing what is said about Jonathan and David:
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1-3 KJV)
When you read the commentaries, they are quick to point out that the Hebrew qashar translated "knit with" in the KJV is also used in the following of a father about his son:
"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up (qashar) in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 KJV)
There is a problem with that explanation. Some OT Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles give the gender indicated in the Hebrew. Not all of the OT interlinear Bibles show the gender in the inflection, but I have two that do.
"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" I put the words in proper English order.
The feminine gender "she" is assigned here to Jonathan, apparently in some nuance of the Hebrew language. The "she" is absent in the OT Interlinear of Gen. 44:30 where the Hebrew qashar is used of the father-son relationship.
In the Zondervan OT Hebrew-English Interlinear also, a 1987 Edition, it renders as literal 1 Sam 18:1 -
"then-spirit-of Jonathan she-became-one with-spirit-of David" Again the "she" is feminine about Jonathan; and in this Interlinear also, the word "she" is not used in Gen. 44:30.
The use of "she" describing Jonathan would indicate he was, in our language of today, having some bisexual feelings and on the more submissive side. The entire story of Jonathan and David would seem to indicate this; yet they both married and we know that Jonathan had "sons" plural, and David had many wives and concubines as well as sons. It seems clear that there was an erotic overtone to the love between Jonathan and David even though they are what we'd call heterosexuals, straight.
H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. It includes the inflection "she" in only 3 verses, 2 speaking of females, and the one speaking of Jonathan.
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".
The qashar shows gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)
Context again shows here that these are referring to men, males; the pronouns being of the male gender.
So, why is Jonathan grouped with the other two occurrences which are clearly female?
In addition, the word for love, 'ahabah, H160 is found in 1 Sam. 18:3 and 2 Sam. 1:26 in reference to the love of Jonathan for David. The word, when used of human to human love, is overwhelmingly used of m-f love relationships. A survey shows Strong's H160 is used 37 times in the OT and 10 times are in Song of Solomon alone, 27% of the occurrences are in this one short book of 8 chapters.
Of course, David's lament upon the death of Jonathan is so clear that the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay English translation of that Latin, adds a completely spurious and fake sentence trying to lead a person away from the obvious "love of women", to a love of mother -
I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee. (2Sam 1:26 DRC)
The sentence underlined in bold is a total fabrication out of the mind of a man, trying to avoid the obvious meaning of the verse. The verse reads "love of women" plural and it does not read wife/wives, father, mother or brother... but "women". Reading how the plural "women" is used in 1 Samuel, it is clear what David was saying -
"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how that they lay with the women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting." (1Sam 2:22 ASV)
"And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey; how much more then to-day shall their vessels be holy?" (1Sam 21:4-5 ASV)
Only a person blinded with his bias can avoid seeing the obvious about the love of Jonathan for David, which is returned. They both married and had children, but still....
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1-3 KJV)
When you read the commentaries, they are quick to point out that the Hebrew qashar translated "knit with" in the KJV is also used in the following of a father about his son:
"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up (qashar) in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 KJV)
There is a problem with that explanation. Some OT Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles give the gender indicated in the Hebrew. Not all of the OT interlinear Bibles show the gender in the inflection, but I have two that do.
"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" I put the words in proper English order.
The feminine gender "she" is assigned here to Jonathan, apparently in some nuance of the Hebrew language. The "she" is absent in the OT Interlinear of Gen. 44:30 where the Hebrew qashar is used of the father-son relationship.
In the Zondervan OT Hebrew-English Interlinear also, a 1987 Edition, it renders as literal 1 Sam 18:1 -
"then-spirit-of Jonathan she-became-one with-spirit-of David" Again the "she" is feminine about Jonathan; and in this Interlinear also, the word "she" is not used in Gen. 44:30.
The use of "she" describing Jonathan would indicate he was, in our language of today, having some bisexual feelings and on the more submissive side. The entire story of Jonathan and David would seem to indicate this; yet they both married and we know that Jonathan had "sons" plural, and David had many wives and concubines as well as sons. It seems clear that there was an erotic overtone to the love between Jonathan and David even though they are what we'd call heterosexuals, straight.
H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. It includes the inflection "she" in only 3 verses, 2 speaking of females, and the one speaking of Jonathan.
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".
The qashar shows gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)
Context again shows here that these are referring to men, males; the pronouns being of the male gender.
So, why is Jonathan grouped with the other two occurrences which are clearly female?
In addition, the word for love, 'ahabah, H160 is found in 1 Sam. 18:3 and 2 Sam. 1:26 in reference to the love of Jonathan for David. The word, when used of human to human love, is overwhelmingly used of m-f love relationships. A survey shows Strong's H160 is used 37 times in the OT and 10 times are in Song of Solomon alone, 27% of the occurrences are in this one short book of 8 chapters.
Of course, David's lament upon the death of Jonathan is so clear that the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay English translation of that Latin, adds a completely spurious and fake sentence trying to lead a person away from the obvious "love of women", to a love of mother -
I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee. (2Sam 1:26 DRC)
The sentence underlined in bold is a total fabrication out of the mind of a man, trying to avoid the obvious meaning of the verse. The verse reads "love of women" plural and it does not read wife/wives, father, mother or brother... but "women". Reading how the plural "women" is used in 1 Samuel, it is clear what David was saying -
"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how that they lay with the women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting." (1Sam 2:22 ASV)
"And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey; how much more then to-day shall their vessels be holy?" (1Sam 21:4-5 ASV)
Only a person blinded with his bias can avoid seeing the obvious about the love of Jonathan for David, which is returned. They both married and had children, but still....
KingJ
Active
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 4,720
This is such a cringe synopsis of the passages; no wonder you are a 5-point Calvinist.
This an easy debunk - What was the relationship between David and Jonathan? | GotQuestions.org
There does not seem to be anyone willing to put up a verse that condemns a simple M-M intimate relationship. All I see in opposition are theological constructions of inferences. Yet, if the M-M relationship is clearly sinful, shouldn't it be easily be seen in God's law?
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4 KJV)
Charles H Spurgeon on Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Some have but feeble desires concerning marriage, and they were so born. They will find it good to remain as they are. Others subdue the desires of nature, for holy and laudable reasons, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but this is not for all, nor for many. It is optional with individuals to marry or not: if they marry, nature commends, but grace is silent; if they forbear for Christ’s sake, grace commends, and nature does not forbid. Enforced celibacy is the seed-bed of sins. “Marriage is honorable in all” Violations of purity are abominable in the sight of the Lord. In this matter we need guidance and grace if we follow the usual way; and if we elect the less frequented road, we shall need grace and guidance even more. As to a resolve to persevere in a single life: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Though the literal Greek is eunuch, that is not seen to be the controlling factor in the translation -
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 19:12 REB)
There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12 Weymouth)
So far, all I am seeing in opposition to my understanding, are reasoning of man rather than clear "thus says the Lord" in a verse in its context. In response to the conservative, evangelical teaching on this topic, the liberal religious people are tearing you up as can be seen in two movies based on true events. "Prayers for Bobby" and "Boy Erased" and they can be viewed on Netflix and Amazon Prime at this time.
Is it any wonder that some who may be of God's elect, leave fundamentalism, evangelicalism and go to apostate churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, or Presbyterian Church in the USA, etc.
I'll close my participation in this thread at the risk of being seen as a cynical misogynist. Considering the rank feminism, the turning upside down the God-given roles of man to woman, and how divorce laws have made men defenseless even when the wife is unfaithful; I wonder why any sane man in this day risks marriage or even palimony by 'shacking up'! To be even more cynical, I've wondered at the sanity of the LGBTQ crowd in their drive for marriage, and the lousy legal entanglements that brings to them. How is this for putting the proverbial 2 by 4 in the hands of those disagreeing with me!
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4 KJV)
Charles H Spurgeon on Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Some have but feeble desires concerning marriage, and they were so born. They will find it good to remain as they are. Others subdue the desires of nature, for holy and laudable reasons, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but this is not for all, nor for many. It is optional with individuals to marry or not: if they marry, nature commends, but grace is silent; if they forbear for Christ’s sake, grace commends, and nature does not forbid. Enforced celibacy is the seed-bed of sins. “Marriage is honorable in all” Violations of purity are abominable in the sight of the Lord. In this matter we need guidance and grace if we follow the usual way; and if we elect the less frequented road, we shall need grace and guidance even more. As to a resolve to persevere in a single life: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Though the literal Greek is eunuch, that is not seen to be the controlling factor in the translation -
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 19:12 REB)
There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12 Weymouth)
So far, all I am seeing in opposition to my understanding, are reasoning of man rather than clear "thus says the Lord" in a verse in its context. In response to the conservative, evangelical teaching on this topic, the liberal religious people are tearing you up as can be seen in two movies based on true events. "Prayers for Bobby" and "Boy Erased" and they can be viewed on Netflix and Amazon Prime at this time.
Is it any wonder that some who may be of God's elect, leave fundamentalism, evangelicalism and go to apostate churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, or Presbyterian Church in the USA, etc.
I'll close my participation in this thread at the risk of being seen as a cynical misogynist. Considering the rank feminism, the turning upside down the God-given roles of man to woman, and how divorce laws have made men defenseless even when the wife is unfaithful; I wonder why any sane man in this day risks marriage or even palimony by 'shacking up'! To be even more cynical, I've wondered at the sanity of the LGBTQ crowd in their drive for marriage, and the lousy legal entanglements that brings to them. How is this for putting the proverbial 2 by 4 in the hands of those disagreeing with me!
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 11,757
This proposition has been made by the community of sinners, both within and outside the church, to justify their actions. It is also biased towards seeking acceptance for behaviors that are clearly contrary to what God desires for humanity and is nothing new.
Your attempt to equate the possibility of David's actions as being homosexual/acceptable or not sinful because of how David is viewed in the Bible, and by God as I said is not new. However, I do not believe it to be true, but saying you are right, it still makes David no less a sinner for his actions. And now you understand why I mentioned marriage, as it is integral to this discussion, and why there is a global effort to make it acceptable. When God had no intention of making it so.
Oh, and I ask you to please don't go next to the example route of the disciple John that Jesus loved which many attempt to do as well. That would truly be anathema!!!
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
MedicBravo
Active
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2022
- Messages
- 1,810
Untrue. You're cherry picking.
God set the human standard with Adam and Eve. He performed the first marriage. Nowhere does He or the the Bible suggest anything other than this is a marriage.
Homosexuality, cross dressing, and transgenderism are also sins in this.
I'm no mod but in pushing pro Alphabet pervert sins you and they will NEVER win.
Feel free to cherry pick any verse that you think condemns all M-M relationships in the Christian era. As to appealing to the perfection of the created order, as what defines sin, you'd certainly have a very long list of supposed sins! Furthermore, Jesus himself stated:
"He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt 19:8-9 NRSV)
Yet, Jesus allowed the sad fact of divorce for the offense of unchastity by a spouse, even though it was not the perfection of the created order. Jesus made allowance for us living in a fallen world. Are those born with a birth defect sinful because they are not the perfection of the created order? Did Jesus permit a sin of divorce in the case of unchastity?
The only reason the topic of marriage keeps popping up is the assumption of many that somewhere God said only sex within marriage was okay, all sex outside of marriage is sinful. You might read that into some verses, but nowhere does the Bible state such. As far as that goes, can you find anywhere that King David was condemned as sinning for having 10 wives and many concubines? The created order was one man with one woman.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 11,757
It continues to be brought up because I keep posing it to you!
And you follow that up with "somewhere God said only sex within marriage was okay, all sex outside of marriage is sinful." If you are right and you are not, then what is adultery and fornication?
[Heb 13:4 NKJV] 4 Marriage [is] honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Stop being disingenuous and stop with your eisegesis of Scripture.
I state this because I'm sure you would say it says "honorable among all" that it must include homosexuality & lesbianism.
[Rom 1:24-27 KJV] 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 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: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And you could go on to finish the chapter as well.
Again, to bring up King David, and you might as well include Solomon too (but I'm sure you didn't add him because his wives turned him against God and that won't fit your argument), that they had wives, and many concubines and God said nothing. Yep, they were sinning against what God had set for them. How many times does God have to say something for it to be valid?
Don't think that because God in every instance doesn't say "THIS IS A SIN", that He hasn't provided you with enough knowledge as His Creation, to know what is wrong without being told ad nauseum, because everyone knows that humanity is going to do what they want to do regardless!
I did not realize that you felt so strongly about this. You are welcome to PM to discuss it, and I will keep it private between us, and God. I ask this because your age reflects a different time period during which many mores including sexual ones were being broken down and cast aside. Things that were considered dirty, and not to be spoken of, were starting to come out to the light of day as topics of discussion, and sadly acceptability.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
