Homosexual Church Dream

[Prayer Warrior]

Are you saying God doesn’t have children?

Is this a trick question??

Of course, as Christians, we are God's children. I was saying in the post above that Jesus did not impregnate and woman and have any babies.

 

[CharismaticLady]

this is one of the issues the Holy spirit should guide . to say in marriage sodomy is sin where is the scripture ?

Romans 1:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

27 men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Both of these types of acts, both a___ and o____ are very unsanitary and cannot be of God just by knowing His nature. God calls them "vile" "shameful" and "unclean." I don't need more than this to know what He's talking about.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Kama Sutra is really just a manual on different positions. You think might be getting a little too strict here. If anything but missionary is "unholy," this might be putting to high a restrictions on how "sacredness" in the marriage bed is defined myself.

Personally, I believe the sacredness of the marriage bed must not be defiled by acts that only homosexual men and women do.

 

[DNB]

Really? Perhaps the marriage rates are going up in your country then but here it accepted that people will live together without benefit of a marriage ceremony. And this is totally accepted even though it doesn't cause such a knee-jerk reaction as gay people might do.

Yes Pearl, it's acceptance is much more sinister than other sins, I would much more tolerate living together than homosexual activity. What about you?
Homosexuality is abominable in God's eyes, it followed the death penalty. Pot smoking and living together was not punishable by death. This is why it's acceptance has reached a different level of egregiousness!

 

[Hidden In Him]

You're really pushing it buddy. Don't think that your one liners are convincing anyone that you're an advocate of love.
You've offered no insight or correction in any of your posts, so you've proven to be nothing more than a hypocritical upstart.

Actually, this thread was meant to be a study in what scriptural passages to use in discussing matters with homosexual "Christians." But I kinda let that dream die several pages ago myself, LoL. At least it has aroused discussion, even if I wouldn't necessary now call this a discussion on Christian apologetics.

 

[shnarkle]

see there is the problem you twisted what i posted you took what i posted and made it imply something i never said . i have noticed on the internet forums you have judge jury and executioner . so let me HELP you understand i stated the word sodomy in line with married couples was not in scripture .

Yeah we caught that. We also noticed that there's no reason to bring this up other than to point out that it's a loophole. Of course the fact that we asked for clarification, which you spurned also indicates that you're engaged in some form of deceit.

its amazing when i reply back you call it trolling

When you refuse to answer a simple question, and instead choose to make blatantly ridiculous accusations; yes, that's trolling.

. this entire post reminds me of the political fight going on about pres trump. he. is unfit for command as president one because of his adulterous affairs his so called dealing with ukraine over a phone call .. gosh i wonder how many has had affairs and has dealt under the table to get a deal done? whats the term used alot solo scripture :cool:

Whatever, I don't have a dog in that fight either. Just more deflection from those who would rather troll than engage in an actual discussion. Until you clarify your position, we can safely assume that you condone sodomy. Fair enough. Again, why else bring it up? I really don't care one way or the other. I'm just pointing out some simple facts. Those who are supportive would point out that you're displaying your own latent homosexual tendencies, but again, that's neither here nor there. As you've been so vocal about pointing out; that's your business, and I'd prefer not to know anything about it to begin with. Ignored.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Personally, I believe the sacredness of the marriage bed must not be defiled by acts that only homosexual men and women do.

Yes. I would agree...

Oh, I see. I never studied the book except at a glance once. What I saw were various positions of intercourse, but if it includes positions that include sodomy then I get your point.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yes. I would agree...

Oh, I see. I never studied the book except at a glance once. What I saw were various positions of intercourse, but if it includes positions that include sodomy then I get your point.

I haven't seen the book, nor do I want to.

 

[shnarkle]

Actually, this thread was meant to be a study in what scriptural passages to use in discussing matters with homosexual "Christians." But I kinda let that dream die several pages ago myself, LoL. At least it has aroused discussion, even if I wouldn't necessary now call this a discussion on Christian apologetics.

I've already pointed out that the approach to apologetics is no different than it would be with heterosexual fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc. You just ignored it.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes Pearl, it's acceptance is much more sinister than other sins, I would much more tolerate living together than homosexual activity. What about you?

If by "living together" you mean heterosexual fornication, then the answer is "no". All fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. That being the case, there is no effective difference.

Homosexuality is abominable in God's eyes,

So is eating swine, shellfish, etc. If God can arbitrarily condone what was once an abomination, why stop there?

living together was not punishable by death.

It most certainly was. If the woman was married, the punishment was death by stoning. There are some other examples as well.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That's just plain false. You are missing my point completely. The dietary laws are not meant to distinguish anyone from anyone else. All of God's laws are for our benefit. They are sound doctrine.

Then sorry I misunderstood you.

Quite true, but then what difference does it make if one keep one law, but ignore the rest which are just as easily able to pollute and defile? All of it originates in a defiled and fallen heart. It is the most blatant and gross deception of the heart to think that it is made holy by keeping one law while ignoring those it deems irrelevant. This is why it is only when God changes the carnal mind for a new mind in Christ that one is then able to keep ALL of the law as God intended. If one is still cherry picking, then we're still working our way to salvation.

? This seems to go back on what you just said. If they are "not meant to distinguish anyone from anyone else," yet God gave "ALL the law" to the Israelites to distinguish them as a Holy people, separated unto Him... how are dietary laws not being included in what you would say constitutes holiness?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Let's look at what happened in Sodom. The condemning of the people of Sodom shows us something of the culture. Being gracious and helpful to strangers was seen as a great virtue. The people of Sodom were nasty towards strangers. All they cared about was money, it seems.

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Thus the two angels were seen as prey. We should not think that all the men and boys were gay. What Lot suggested tells us that wasn't true. He offered to let them have sex with his daughters. Why would he do that? In his eyes, it was better to show kindness to strangers even if that meant his daughters had to be raped. Obviously then these men were mostly straight. They wanted a thrill, and raping men would be a bigger thrill than raping women even if the women were virgins.

Some aspects of that culture still exist in some Arab countries. Thus when Qaddafi was overthrown and captured, one of his captors wanted to get a thrill out of degrading him. Call it toxic masculinity if you want. He didn't rape Qaddafi by having sex with him. He degraded him by sodomizing him with a bayonet.

That kind of toxic masculinity has been around for a long time. We see it in hazing rituals. It makes the news that young boys sodomize new members with various objects, etc. I've seen stories about the police doing things like that; and it is sometimes seen in the military as it was in the case of Qaddafi. Sometimes it's actual forced sex too.

The Jewish tradition says "sword" in Isaiah 14 is a nice word for "penis." The King of Tyre had built a temple for himself and ordered people to worship him as if he was some god or the covering cherub. Part of his predicted punishment was to be sodomized by the invading troops; and the Jews say he was.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Oh Lucifer! How the mighty have fallen, indeed.

Was Sodom destroyed because the men and boys wanted to rape the angels? Scarcely. God had decided to take action before that happened. Their sins were many; and their iniquity was great. It is a big mistake then to believe Sodom was destroyed because of "sodomy." They were a brutish people, lacking compassion towards others. The attempted rape is just one way that brutishness came out.

It may be worth repeating what Ezekiel wrote:

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

It seems to me that the church's first priority should be to show compassion to the poor and needy. My sister told me that there were some Christian missionaries visiting a refugee camp in some Arabic Muslim country. The law said they could help them with food and other aid, but they could try to convert them by talking about Jesus. So that's what they did. They did the good they were allowed to do; and it turned out that some of the Muslims were impressed that they converted to Christianity on their own without the missionaries saying a word about Jesus. I cannot verify that this story is true; but it sounds true to me.

Looks like a good apologetics post!
I'll get to this next. Kinda got buried in the course of 10 hours or so, Lol.

 

[shnarkle]

Then sorry I misunderstood you.


? This seems to go back on what you just said. If they are "not meant to distinguish anyone from anyone else," yet God gave "ALL the law" to the Israelites to distinguish them as a Holy people, separated unto Him...

You're conflating a holy people who keep the law BECAUSE THEY'RE HOLY with a carnal people who keep the law to distinguish, and establish their own righteousness.

how are dietary laws not being included in what you would say constitutes holiness?

Again, a holy people keep God's laws. They are created holy in order to keep God's commandments, not given laws to make them holy which is impossible. Keeping God's law will not ever make anyone holy. However, it is sound doctrine, and only a complete idiot would spurn such a blessing from God.

To say that sound doctrine isn't necessarily sound, but just an arbitrary command highlights that one believes in a capricious god, or that nothing is inherently wrong with transgressing arbitrary laws. There is nothing wrong with eating garbage. There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality because it is only wrong because God says so. If God says it's now okay, then it's okay. See how that works? That's the principle that Christianity is operating under now.

Christianity has taken an eager and firm grasp of that horn of Euthyphro's dilemma, and is running with it. They can only run right into their own destruction because there is no good reason to stop there. Each and every argument that is used to support one's annulment of any of God's laws can be used just as effectively with sodomy, homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.

I've shown this to be the case repeatedly already, but if you think you can come up with an exception to this irrefutable rule, go for it.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Actually, this thread was meant to be a study in what scriptural passages to use in discussing matters with homosexual "Christians." But I kinda let that dream die several pages ago myself, LoL. At least it has aroused discussion, even if I wouldn't necessary now call this a discussion on Christian apologetics.

Did you read my first post talking about God’s design? This could be used to talk to someone....

Something that I think we need to keep in mind is that homosexuality is a spiritual stronghold. We need to pray for those who are held captive by it. They CAN be set free!

 

[Waiting on him]

Is this a trick question??

Of course, as Christians, we are God's children. I was saying in the post above that Jesus did not impregnate and woman and have any babies.

Matthew 7:23 KJV
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This word knew is used in Genesis when Adam knew his wife.

Tecarta Bible

 

[Helen]

Actually, Helen (and I'm guessing someone may have pointed this out by now. This thread took off) the proper definition of the word sodomy does not limit it to same sex partners. It applies to committing the same sorts of acts that only same sex partners could do (trying to be tactful here), and thus can apply to heterosexuals as well if they engage in the same practices.

Well I learned something today then. :)
I had never searched it out or look deeply at it...thanks for the correcting...
Never too old to learn. lol

Like everything else it is now becoming 'the norm' and acceptable option even in marriages. ( maybe to has always been.)

But I agree with something @CharismaticLady said...I think it was her..

The marriage bed is a 'type' of Christ and His Bride. Therefore intimacy is a face to face thing...nothing else, or the 'type' is broken.

My two cents

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Matthew 7:23 KJV
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This word knew is used in Genesis when Adam knew his wife.

Tecarta Bible

Not sure what you’re insinuating, but words can be used in different ways in different contexts.

 

[Ezra]

Just more deflection from those who would rather troll than engage in an actual discussion

you should know what deflection is ..i didnt realize i owed you a explanation of what scripture says

 

[Waiting on him]

Not sure what you’re insinuating, but words can be used in different ways in different contexts.

By all means we need to keep scripture in its proper context, so His seed remains in us, especially in fellowship.

 

[Ezra]

Romans 1:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

27 men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Both of these types of acts, both a___ and o____ are very unsanitary and cannot be of God just by knowing His nature. God calls them "vile" "shameful" and "unclean." I don't need more than this to know what He's talking about.

psst this scripture deals with homosexualty not what goes on in the bed room between husband and wife . that is has been the point .i realize there is a lot of authority in scripture in here. even though the scripture does not say . so if the scripture does not say maybe just maybe we should keep our own slate clean and let God judge the secrets of man heart