Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[St. SteVen]

The sin is in the imagination - "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth"

If they nurture those thoughts, they will eventually manifest in that person's life... most likely when they become and adult and begin to make choices for themselves with less regard for what others may think.

What do you make of this?
At what point is it sin?

James 1:13-15 NIV
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.”
For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away
by their own evil desire and enticed.
15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin;
and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

I agree. With regards to homosexuality, the church has a distinct tendency to want to go "Old Testament." We need to put down our rocks.

But at the same time, the church should not receive into membership people (gay or straight!) whose core identity revolves around sex, particularly if they are engaged in habitual promiscuity.

Yes. Put down the rocks.

Do gays actually make their core identity revolve around sex?
Or is that something society does to them?
If they weren't hassled would they have to be upfront about it?

/

 

[Taken]

David, where is that "very clear and precise scripture" that states any sex outside of marriage of man with woman, is sin. You made the claim, now prove it. The best you can do is cobble together verses to make a theological construction, based on your fallible, human reasoning. That is the subject upon which I made comment.

@Arthur81 -

If you read and study Gen 1 /Gen 2 you should discover Gods Creation of Male-KIND of man and Female-KIND of man, Gods INTENDED USE and Gods Making thereof, which God established and called VERY GOOD.

When a Male-Kind of man, and a Female-Kind of man Deviate From, Very Good, “they are no longer”; “Very Good”.

Acts of behaviors OF; “Very Good”, have “consequences”.
Favorable “Consequences”, called:
“Positive Consequences”.

Acts of behaviors OF; “Deviating From Very Good”, have “consequences”, have Unfavorable “Consequences”, called:
“Negative Consequences”.

* You DID NOT come into THIS World; “BY an ACT” of your own choice.
* You DID NOT come into THIS World; “BY an ACT” of Two Males having SEX.
* You DID NOT come into THIS World; “BY an ACT” of Two Females having SEX.
* You May or May NOT have been introduced and taught “as a child” regarding “Gods Order and Way of Very Good”.
* As AN ADULT, you have Choices, to be introduced, taught, hear, learn, regarding “Gods Order and Way of Very Good”…
And Enjoy the Consequences…
OR Not…
And Suffer the Consequences…

“IF” you open your eyes and ears…you might discover the Rampet “Negative Consequences plaguing individuals and their Suffering, for Choosing “a Corrupt societies “ORDER and WAY”….Rather than;
“Gods Order and Way of VERY GOOD”.

* Learning comes from Hearing Knowledge.
* Wisdom comes from paying attention to “examples” and “the consequences thereof”.

The Human Body has many “parts” designed to “work together” to maintain it’s “natural Life”.

Open ears, open eyes… A mans IMMUNE system was designed to WARD OFF natural occuring diseases, viruses, bacterias, etc.

In the modern days of MAN-KIND, via mankinds Acts, Encouragement, Propoganda; What is Very Good, is Discouraged, What is Not Good, is Promoted 24-7 by parents, teachers, schools, medias, electronic devices, clerics, on and on.

Diseases run rampet, immune systems over taxed, even to the point, natural births are occuring with compromised immune systems, along with other unnatural defects.

God IS JUST. When Man-Kind himself encourages, promotes, demands that which IS “NOT Good”… God WILL give to Man-Kind what he desires…and the Consequence thereof shall follow.

* “STD’s,” (year after year INCREASE exponentially).
* “DRUG’s” use…(so called “approved” and “street” drugs and “concoctions”)…(year after year INCREASE exponentially).
* “New-born babes…with Compromised Health issues … (year after year INCREASE exponentially).

* The Knowledge thereof IS NOT Secret.
* The Wisdom IS NOT Following after man-KINDS Order and Way.
* The Beauty IS every individual has a Choice.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Real science WOULD be able to detect an aberration--"I observe this man is, contrary to design, inserting his penis into another man's anus! Something has gone terribly wrong with him!"

By design of the Human man…God called: Very Good.

The entrance ‘hole’ called a ‘mouth’ is for “nourishment” to sustain the health of body’s Life.

The exit ‘hole’ called an ‘anus’ is for
“waste” to sustain the health of the body’s Life.

Deviate FROM “very good”…and who other than an IDIOT, would not comprehend a deviation FROM “very good”, results in “very bad” ?

 

[Arthur81]

@Arthur81 -

If you read and study Gen 1 /Gen 2 you should discover Gods Creation of Male-KIND of man and Female-KIND of man, Gods INTENDED USE and Gods Making thereof, which God established and called VERY GOOD.

When a Male-Kind of man, and a Female-Kind of man Deviate From, Very Good, “they are no longer”; “Very Good”.

Acts of behaviors OF; “Very Good”, have “consequences”.
Favorable “Consequences”, called:
“Positive Consequences”.

Acts of behaviors OF; “Deviating From Very Good”, have “consequences”, have Unfavorable “Consequences”, called:
“Negative Consequences”.

* You DID NOT come into THIS World; “BY an ACT” of your own choice.
* You DID NOT come into THIS World; “BY an ACT” of Two Males having SEX.
* You DID NOT come into THIS World; “BY an ACT” of Two Females having SEX.
* You May or May NOT have been introduced and taught “as a child” regarding “Gods Order and Way of Very Good”.
* As AN ADULT, you have Choices, to be introduced, taught, hear, learn, regarding “Gods Order and Way of Very Good”…
And Enjoy the Consequences…
OR Not…
And Suffer the Consequences…

“IF” you open your eyes and ears…you might discover the Rampet “Negative Consequences plaguing individuals and their Suffering, for Choosing “a Corrupt societies “ORDER and WAY”….Rather than;
“Gods Order and Way of VERY GOOD”.

* Learning comes from Hearing Knowledge.
* Wisdom comes from paying attention to “examples” and “the consequences thereof”.

The Human Body has many “parts” designed to “work together” to maintain it’s “natural Life”.

Open ears, open eyes… A mans IMMUNE system was designed to WARD OFF natural occuring diseases, viruses, bacterias, etc.

In the modern days of MAN-KIND, via mankinds Acts, Encouragement, Propoganda; What is Very Good, is Discouraged, What is Not Good, is Promoted 24-7 by parents, teachers, schools, medias, electronic devices, clerics, on and on.

Diseases run rampet, immune systems over taxed, even to the point, natural births are occuring with compromised immune systems, along with other unnatural defects.

God IS JUST. When Man-Kind himself encourages, promotes, demands that which IS “NOT Good”… God WILL give to Man-Kind what he desires…and the Consequence thereof shall follow.

* “STD’s,” (year after year INCREASE exponentially).
* “DRUG’s” use…(so called “approved” and “street” drugs and “concoctions”)…(year after year INCREASE exponentially).
* “New-born babes…with Compromised Health issues … (year after year INCREASE exponentially).

* The Knowledge thereof IS NOT Secret.
* The Wisdom IS NOT Following after man-KINDS Order and Way.
* The Beauty IS every individual has a Choice.

Glory to God,
Taken

Taken, thank you for so clearly proving my point. In your long post you did not quote one single verse that states that any and all sex outside of the marriage of man with woman is sin. Your argument is theological construction based on the perfection of the created order, similar to complementarianism. The problem is, many things in our fallen world do not match the "good" or the perfection of the creation, yet are NOT in anyway sinful. As I've pointed out many times, from Jesus own words discussing divorce:

"He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." (Matt 19:8-9 ASV)

Did Jesus allow an act that was not the "good" of the creation? Was Jesus permitting a sinful act? I would not accuse Jesus of such.

I believe it was Karl Barth who pointed out, color blindness and left-handedness are not the perfection of the creation but they are not sin. Again, your very long post shows the weakness of the argument you embrace.

 

[St. SteVen]

Taken, thank you for so clearly proving my point.

LOL
So funny, yet so true. Thanks.

Taken is the only staff member that has me on IGNORE.
The only one I know of anyway. Telling.

We can't put staff members on IGNORE, or I would gladly return the favor. - LOL

/

 

[Arthur81]

Tell that to the young teen that realizes they have always had a same-sex attraction.
They know they don't dare tell anyone or it will be trouble.

Where's the sin?

And adult Christians that come out of a gay lifestyle say that the same-sex attraction never goes away.

Transgender preferences become apparent in children between 3 to 5 years old.

Where's the sin?

What does the church do to help? We protest gay pride parades. Big help!

Where's the sin? (in the church)

So, from that perspective, I agree.
The way the church handles homosexuality is first and foremost a spiritual problem, like all sins.

/

Steven, you made a good point with "Christians that come out of a gay lifestyle say that the same-sex attraction never goes away." The claims you read about the ex-gays who went from gay orientation to being straight are very misleading. As you point out, they came out of a "gay lifestyle" but did not change their sex/love orientation. I do mean to add "love" because it is wrong to make this all about sex. The misleading nature of the ex-gay claims are it ignores that sexual orientation is a continuum, not a neat straight/bi/gay distinction of categories. I had communication in the past with an man who became a Christian and claimed to be ex-gay. Upon discussions with him, I learned that he rebelled and left home as a teenager, then supported himself by prostituting himself to males, and then one particular man who was a wealthy sugar-daddy to him. Later he met a girl and flipped head over heels for her and left his "gay lifestyle". He was NEVER a gay male! He was a prostitute who may have had some degree of bisexual feelings, but he was never a gay male.

 

[TheOneHeLoves]

Luke 20 One day, as Yeshua was teaching the people at the Temple, making known the Good News, the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers, along with the elders, came up to him 2 and said, “Tell us, what s’mikhah do you have that authorizes you to do these things? Who gave you this s’mikhah?” 3 He answered, “I too will ask you a question. Tell me, 4 the immersion of Yochanan — was it from Heaven or from a human source?” 5 They discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From Heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From a human source,’ all the people will stone us, because they’re convinced that Yochanan was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it came from.” 8 Yeshua said to them, “Then I won’t tell you by what s’mikhah I do these things.”

Jesus doesn't answer those who have their own interest/agenda against Him. So neither will I.

 

[Arthur81]

Yeah, there's even a word for it : "fornication".
Under the Law of Moses, fornicators were put to death.

Why not take the time to study fornication in the scriptures and see if there is any way you can apply that to homosexuality. The scriptures disprove your point clearly.

The Greek the many translations translate as some form of homosexual, arsenokoites, is without question distinguished from the fornicator or adulterer:

"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men(arsenokoites or sodomites)," (1Cor 6:9 ASV)

"...for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men(arsenokoites or sodomites), for menstealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; (1Tim 1:10 ASV)

The Greek arsenokoites, which is accurately translated as "sodomites" rather than "homosexuals" is both the verses above is distinguished from adulterers and fornicators. You may find some Greek-English Lexicon that classes homosexuality with fornication, but that is meaningless if you can't show it in the word of God. Any passage I can find with fornication mentioned that shows the sexes involved, it is never male with male.

GracePeace, when you make a bold statement as "Yeah, there's even a word for it : 'fornication', be prepared to show it in scripture, rather than in the writings of men, who just might be a little bit homophobic.

 

[Arthur81]

Luke 20 One day, as Yeshua was teaching the people at the Temple, making known the Good News, the head cohanim and the Torah-teachers, along with the elders, came up to him 2 and said, “Tell us, what s’mikhah do you have that authorizes you to do these things? Who gave you this s’mikhah?” 3 He answered, “I too will ask you a question. Tell me, 4 the immersion of Yochanan — was it from Heaven or from a human source?” 5 They discussed it among themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From Heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From a human source,’ all the people will stone us, because they’re convinced that Yochanan was a prophet.” 7 So they answered, “We don’t know where it came from.” 8 Yeshua said to them, “Then I won’t tell you by what s’mikhah I do these things.”

Jesus doesn't answer those who have their own interest/agenda against Him. So neither will I.

I find it amusing that some think using Jewish words is somehow more spiritually attuned to God, contrasted with English speaking people. It makes me think of the Jehovah's Witnesses who are superstitious about the name "Jehovah". I am an American English speaker, and not a Jew, and I will use the English translations rather than the Complete Jewish Bible. I find using the Hebrew is somewhat pretentious when the New Covenant is given to us in Greek and translated for English speakers, in English.

 

[Arthur81]

To those who like to use Hebrew or Jewish words, how will you react when I show that in the Hebrew the love between Jonathan and David had a homoerotic content? The various verses are clear enough in the English, but undeniable in the Hebrew. I admit, I just learned about this recently. To give a hint, check out that Hebrew word qashar, used in 1 Sam. 18:1.

 

[Wick Stick]

What do you make of this?
At what point is it sin?

James 1:13-15 NIV
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.”
For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away
by their own evil desire and enticed.
15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin;
and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

/

I'd like to avoid the word sin, because it's archaic, and it's loaded. It may not mean the same thing to everyone.

The point at which homosexuality becomes a problem-of-the-mind is when the person says, "I know better than God." Repentance is a decision to agree with God. If a person decides to order their life in contradiction to what they believe God has said, that's a problem.

---

There's also an aspect of this that has to do with society-at-large, rather than individuals. I think that it can be established from history that the legalization, toleration, and normalization of homosexuality has a deleterious effect on society. In particular, it leads to declining birthrates and the marginalization of women.

If that's true, then I think that it's better for a society to keep homosexuality taboo, and perhaps illegal if only by the letter-of-the-law. Caveat? I don't really want any government actually enforcing laws regulating what goes on in people's private bedrooms. That would be a huge overreach of government. But if one decides to "do it" on a street-corner, then they've made it public, and the government would have jurisdiction.

 

[Wick Stick]

To those who like to use Hebrew or Jewish words, how will you react when I show that in the Hebrew the love between Jonathan and David had a homoerotic content? The various verses are clear enough in the English, but undeniable in the Hebrew. I admit, I just learned about this recently. To give a hint, check out that Hebrew word qashar, used in 1 Sam. 18:1.

I've heard this before, but I don't really find it when I look at the Hebrew. קָשַׁר means "bound together" and when I look at the usage of the word throughout the Bible, there are no instances where it refers to love between man and wife, or man and gay lover. I find it used of a father and son, though.

It looks to me like David and Jonathan's relationship was defined by the covenant they cut (next verse - 18:2).

Will you let me take a critical approach? This whole story only exists to legitimize David as king. The Bible spends significant space making apology for David's overthrow of Saul's monarchy. If David had a blood-covenant with Saul's heir, and that heir died... then David is legitimate as Saul's heir-to-the-throne.

 

[Arthur81]

To those who like to use Hebrew or Jewish words, how will you react when I show that in the Hebrew the love between Jonathan and David had a homoerotic content? The various verses are clear enough in the English, but undeniable in the Hebrew. I admit, I just learned about this recently. To give a hint, check out that Hebrew word qashar, used in 1 Sam. 18:1.

I will expand on what I have first mentioned earlier:

Examining the love of Jonathan for David, starting in 1 Sam. 18:3 the Hebrew word is 'ahabah and you find that word is first used of Jacob's love for Rachel, a female/male romantic love. When following the word, when used of creaturely love, the next 3 times refer to Jonathan's love for David. Following 1 Sam. 1:26 the word is next applied to the sexual act of Amnon on Tamar, 2 Sam. 13:15. The word tends to refer to the romantic love dimension in humans.

Then you have the following: "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 KJV) .... It does NOT say a love of wife or the love of wives; those English words are used over and over from Genesis onward. The attempt to interpret "love of women" as having to do with wives is without support here, and is a clear evasion of the language used. Claiming it means wife or wives is such a shallow evasion of the obvious.

Now what about the Hebrew word qashar translated "knit" in 1 Sam. 18:1? Most cross references and some commentaries go to Gen. 44:30 where the word qashar is translated "is bound up" and applied to a father for his son. Therefore it is concluded that the same word in 1 sam. 18:1 does NOT have any sexual or romantic dimension. That argument disappears using some Hebrew-English Interlinear OTs that include the gender indicators of the words used. One of these Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles you can see for yourself, online. Look at 1 Sam. 18:1 as it is written of Jonathan:

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" with the words put in English order. Notice the pronoun "she" modifying "soul-of-Jonathan".

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa18.pdf

Now go to Gen. 44:30 where the word is used of the love of father to son and you see the gender modifier "she" is not there, but "him" is used. Male father to male son.

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen44.pdf

H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. There are 3 where "she" is the modifier, this one of Jonathan, and the other 2 are of women, females -
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".

When you trace that Hebrew word through the OT, you'll find it used many times in a male context and the gender indicators agree, a male. For example,, several are -

The 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)

That does NOT mean Jonathan or David were of what we call a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Yet the homoerotic content of the references cannot be ignored, whether it was acted upon or not. Yet, all three passages together could easily support some 'behavior'.

Many very normal men would admit in secret that they have had such close male friends where there was the homoerotic element in the friendship. Guys, be careful how forcefully you deny this, for that can be telling also. Homophobic men do tend to have homosexual inclinations to some degree -

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

For the Christian of average intelligence, you can study this for yourself, and I'll not debate it. I know what it says to me, so check to see what it says to you. I already know ahead of time how the posters on here will decide.

 

[David in NJ]

I will expand on what I have first mentioned earlier:

Examining the love of Jonathan for David, starting in 1 Sam. 18:3 the Hebrew word is 'ahabah and you find that word is first used of Jacob's love for Rachel, a female/male romantic love. When following the word, when used of creaturely love, the next 3 times refer to Jonathan's love for David. Following 1 Sam. 1:26 the word is next applied to the sexual act of Amnon on Tamar, 2 Sam. 13:15. The word tends to refer to the romantic love dimension in humans.

Then you have the following: "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 KJV) .... It does NOT say a love of wife or the love of wives; those English words are used over and over from Genesis onward. The attempt to interpret "love of women" as having to do with wives is without support here, and is a clear evasion of the language used. Claiming it means wife or wives is such a shallow evasion of the obvious.

Now what about the Hebrew word qashar translated "knit" in 1 Sam. 18:1? Most cross references and some commentaries go to Gen. 44:30 where the word qashar is translated "is bound up" and applied to a father for his son. Therefore it is concluded that the same word in 1 sam. 18:1 does NOT have any sexual or romantic dimension. That argument disappears using some Hebrew-English Interlinear OTs that include the gender indicators of the words used. One of these Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles you can see for yourself, online. Look at 1 Sam. 18:1 as it is written of Jonathan:

"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" with the words put in English order. Notice the pronoun "she" modifying "soul-of-Jonathan".

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/1sa18.pdf

Now go to Gen. 44:30 where the word is used of the love of father to son and you see the gender modifier "she" is not there, but "him" is used. Male father to male son.

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen44.pdf

H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. There are 3 where "she" is the modifier, this one of Jonathan, and the other 2 are of women, females -
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".

When you trace that Hebrew word through the OT, you'll find it used many times in a male context and the gender indicators agree, a male. For example,, several are -

The 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)

That does NOT mean Jonathan or David were of what we call a homosexual or bisexual orientation. Yet the homoerotic content of the references cannot be ignored, whether it was acted upon or not. Yet, all three passages together could easily support some 'behavior'.

Many very normal men would admit in secret that they have had such close male friends where there was the homoerotic element in the friendship. Guys, be careful how forcefully you deny this, for that can be telling also. Homophobic men do tend to have homosexual inclinations to some degree -

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

For the Christian of average intelligence, you can study this for yourself, and I'll not debate it. I know what it says to me, so check to see what it says to you. I already know ahead of time how the posters on here will decide.

It's always best to default to the clear boundaries and commandments set forth by the LORD Jesus Christ.

We all make the mistake of trying to circumvent God's clear boundaries so that we can have our way.

 

[Taken]

Taken, thank you for so clearly proving my point. In your long post you did not quote one single verse that states that any and all sex outside of the marriage of man with woman is sin. Your argument is theological construction based on the perfection of the created order, similar to complementarianism. The problem is, many things in our fallen world do not match the "good" or the perfection of the creation, yet are NOT in anyway sinful. As I've pointed out many times, from Jesus own words discussing divorce:

"He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." (Matt 19:8-9 ASV)

Did Jesus allow an act that was not the "good" of the creation? Was Jesus permitting a sinful act? I would not accuse Jesus of such.

I believe it was Karl Barth who pointed out, color blindness and left-handedness are not the perfection of the creation but they are not sin. Again, your very long post shows the weakness of the argument you embrace.

I probably have a different perspective from others of WHAT SIN IS.
I believe SIN IS “heartful disbelief In the Lord God Almighty”. Thus I believe SINNING IS being AGAINST God. And ONLY God Forgives SIN.

I believe men “TRESPASS” against each other (intentionally and unintentionally), and DO have the power and authority to FORGIVE one another.

Regarding, cheating, lying, stealing, ie adultery, theft, sneaking, etc. IS NOT, WILL NOT be tolerated, condoned, without negative consequences, PER an individuals “one on one” relationship WITH God.
And WILL NOT be Forgiven, under certain circumstances…ie.
Lying TO the Holy Spirit.
Without ASKING, “before” bodily death.

Forgiveness of trespasses between men, asked for, is to be given repetitively, but does not mean, without negative consequences.

I view “natural” life, our choices, our consequences, as a PRACTICE, a preparation for “eternal” life WITH God, in which Deceiving, cheating, lying, etc. does not exist.

Practicing “good”, “right”, like Practicing “anything” is to achieve a “goal”, and of course the positive, rewarding, favorable, “consequence”.

Not a big secret, this World is full of People “OF” this World whose “practicing” is goal orientated in achieving “a goal”, of underhandedness, deception, oppression, suffering and elimination.

Everyone has the conundrum of figuring out who’s who’s, day to day, while deciding and choosing their own standing WITH or WITHOUT the Lord God, despite the massive Corruption everywhere.

Freewill applies to every individual.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[St. SteVen]

It's always best to default to the clear boundaries and commandments set forth by the LORD Jesus Christ.

We all make the mistake of trying to circumvent God's clear boundaries so that we can have our way.

I think @Arthur81 is making some valid points that need to be heard.
He's not promoting homosexuality, but explaining some deep things about human sexuality and the Bible.
We need to pay attention. IMHO

/

 

[St. SteVen]

For the Christian of average intelligence, you can study this for yourself...

Far too few... - LOL
Thanks for your post.

/

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

1620 replies to the OP which was

"Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?"​

I have never seen so much side stepping of answers on this one subject to find a work-around from what God declared was an abomination as there is one this. But at least it is not a sin because it is not fornication berwen 2 men.

It is positively laughable those that seemingly say it isn't wrong because the specific words that society uses for describing an act because those words are no where applied in the Holy bible.

And evidently if the word is not there, simple statements that lie with another man the same as a woman
just are a bit of fluff.

The homosexual does not fornicate. They may sodomize but at least it is not fornication ergo not actually a sin??? Cow puckeys !!!

Well, let me tell you something.... Y'all can use whatever workarounds you want to but God will not be second guessed on this one.


IT IS WRONG. PERIOD>

 

[St. SteVen]

1620 replies to the OP which was

"Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?"​

I have never seen so much side stepping of answers on this one subject to find a work-around from what God declared was an abomination as there is one this. But at least it is not a sin because it is not fornication berwen 2 men.

It's the WRONG question from my perspective.
An attempt to oversimplify a VERY complex subject. IMHO

/