Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[Arthur81]

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

Paul uses the word between "fornicators" and "men stealers". So here you have the word associated not only with frequenting prostitutes in fornication; but it is associated with "men stealers", an act of violence and abusiveness. You do NOT need to go back to Leviticus to get Paul's meaning, Paul himself uses the key word several times; and, in Rom. 13:13 we get the key that matches exactly what was seen in Rom. 1:27. The KJV uses two phrases to translate arsenokoites, "abusers" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and for men who "defile" in 1 Tim. 1:10. The 1828 Webster's gives the meaning used in centuries past for those two words:

"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
"DEFILE, v.t.... 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."

The KJV, RV & ASV use the similar phrasing which means a "sodomite"; and then the YLT translates as the one word "sodomite". I'll trust the KJV Bible scholars on these two verses of Paul, over modern translations that have become obsessed with LGBTQ+!

It is clear that Paul uses arsenokoites to represent violence, abusiveness and rape of male to male. There is not a hint that the sin is the simple act of sex between two consenting males. Just as Gen. 19:9 proves that in Sodom it was attempted rape that was the sexual/violent sin, not simple sex between males.

In spite of how many wish to twist the English language, "sodomite" is not synonymous with "homosexual", use your English dictionaries!

Now, how about that word "effeminate" in 1 Cor. 6:9? The word was the traditional translation of malakos. No English dictionary that I have found defines "effeminate" as in any way sexual conduct between persons. That Greek malakos is used in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25 for luxurious clothing as kings wear. The word is also used in the Septuagint in Pro. 25:15 for "soft tongue" and in Pro. 26:22 for "words...soft". Nowhere in the Bible is malakos used for sexual conduct between persons. The claim that malakos means "catamite" has no support that I can find other than the statements in theological Greek-English Lexicons of NT words. But, if you go to the Lidell-Scott-Jones Greek-English lexicon which gives great detail, you do not find "catamite" as a meaning for malakos:

μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

That page gives a huge amount of meanings for malakos but NOT catamite or male prostitute. The Greek actually had the exact word for catamite that Paul could have used if he meant catamite or male prostitute:

κίναιδος - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

The 19th century Greek scholar Heinrich Meyer writes that to translate malakos as a catamite or cinaedus is wrong, in spite of what the BDAG gives:

"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."

1 Corinthians 6 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 Corinthians 6, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Meyer's New Testament Commentary provides critical insights through original text analysis, essential for Christian comprehension.

www.studylight.org

The evangelical obsession about male sex with another male started after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, which started the modern LGBTQ+ movement. There is certainly gross sin seen in so many outward expressions in the LGBTQ+, but to use that to condemn simple male to male sex between consenting adults is unfounded in the Bible or in any scholarly references I can find. I've given links to the arguments I make, so I can be checked. The New Covenant certainly does not condemn simple sex relationships between consenting males. The actual practice of sex between man and wife in private, is just that, PRIVATE. In like manner sex between two adult consenting males in private is also just that, PRIVATE. It is between those persons involved in private to answer to God how they relate to each other.

I'll not take my time to try answering all the sarcastic, mocking and ignorant replies to my post. If I see someone actually try to go into a detailed exegesis and exposition of the verses involved, I'll reply. By the way, I did not include Jude 6, 7 because that is about men attempting the rape of ANGELS,

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7 REB) See Gen. 6:1-4

 

[GracePeace]

I learned in the past few days of an additional extended family member who is gay, and the following is the biblical presentation I am sending to both families involved. I only address the New Covenant verses that apply to the New Covenant believers, Christians. My notes are not new, but trying to assemble them in a reasonable size document took time, and I give them here for all in the thread to read, not just Barney.

Paul's date of writing the 3 books where he speaks of the sin of men going after men sexually:

1 Timothy, 64 AD; 1 Corinthians, 53-57 AD; Romans, 56 AD

Paul was not writing in a vacuum, his writings have a context of culture and history. The philosopher below was a young man when Paul was writing, and we see his observations in the times in which they lived. We NEVER use culture or history to contradict scripture, but it can give clarification and more detail to the biblical writings. No doubt Paul in all 3 books was referring to the same sort of men, and Dio Chrysostom living in Paul's day wrote of these same men as follows.

Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD)
Sentences lifted from text numbered 133 through 152
"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."

Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-20 [Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta]

demonax.info

"...and likewise also the men, leaving(RSV 'gave up'; YLT 'having left'; 'have forsaken' Williams NT) the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust(RSV/NRSV 'were consumed with passion') one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27 ASV)*The Greek reads "males" in place of "men" in all 3 places, with emphasis on sex.

Notice, where Paul said these males were "consumed in lust", Dio Chrysostom said their "appetite is insatiate"; and where Paul wrote that these males were "leaving" and "forsaking" the females, the philosopher said he "turns his assault against the male quarters", turning from females to males. The two Greek words Paul used in this verse for "burned" and "lust", are found only here in the NT. That indicates just how extreme these males were in their lust. How has the church historically understood this verse, when presented in detailed study:

St. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) in his homily on this wrote on leaving "For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, They changed the truth of God for a lie. And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, Leaving the natural use of the woman." and again on that particular lust - "For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, they burned in their lust one toward another. You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy which endures not to abide within its proper limits."

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Romans (Chrysostom)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

St. John C. here points out the fact they were in man-woman relationships engaging in the 'created order' sexual conduct, and then because of the lust here described as "an exorbitancy" they left the females. It is clear that the wickedness here is the extreme lust that caused these males to leave women to go to men. This verse cannot be twisted to condemn simple sexual relations between two males; there has to be more to the story for it to be a sin.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary published in 1871 reads on this verse with similar understanding: "Observe how, in the retributive judgment of God, vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."

Romans 1 - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Romans 1, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Unabridged Commentary is a comprehensive resource, offering critical and explanatory insights into the entire Bible.

www.studylight.org

Here the JFB again emphasizes the extreme nature of their lust, "passions, scourged", then they left the females, and resorted to sex with other males instead of females. Their extreme lust is the sin in this passage and it is not about simple male to male sex. Paul writes again of these very same males, in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. There we find further description of the sin described, and the study will look at the word used in both verses, arsenokoites. The word "effeminate(malakos) found in 1 Cor. 6:9 will be examined after arsenokoites.

"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)," (1Cor 6:9 ASV)

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

Continued in next reply/post -

Any man who lies with another man is committing an abomination.

There is no configuration of male-male sexual relationships (bc you and others claim some of these relationships are terrible, but some of them are acceptable) that does not result in a man lying with another man; therefore, it's all abominable.

 

[GracePeace]

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

Paul uses the word between "fornicators" and "men stealers". So here you have the word associated not only with frequenting prostitutes in fornication; but it is associated with "men stealers", an act of violence and abusiveness. You do NOT need to go back to Leviticus to get Paul's meaning, Paul himself uses the key word several times; and, in Rom. 13:13 we get the key that matches exactly what was seen in Rom. 1:27. The KJV uses two phrases to translate arsenokoites, "abusers" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and for men who "defile" in 1 Tim. 1:10. The 1828 Webster's gives the meaning used in centuries past for those two words:

"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
"DEFILE, v.t.... 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."

The KJV, RV & ASV use the similar phrasing which means a "sodomite"; and then the YLT translates as the one word "sodomite". I'll trust the KJV Bible scholars on these two verses of Paul, over modern translations that have become obsessed with LGBTQ+!

It is clear that Paul uses arsenokoites to represent violence, abusiveness and rape of male to male. There is not a hint that the sin is the simple act of sex between two consenting males. Just as Gen. 19:9 proves that in Sodom it was attempted rape that was the sexual/violent sin, not simple sex between males.

In spite of how many wish to twist the English language, "sodomite" is not synonymous with "homosexual", use your English dictionaries!

Now, how about that word "effeminate" in 1 Cor. 6:9? The word was the traditional translation of malakos. No English dictionary that I have found defines "effeminate" as in any way sexual conduct between persons. That Greek malakos is used in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25 for luxurious clothing as kings wear. The word is also used in the Septuagint in Pro. 25:15 for "soft tongue" and in Pro. 26:22 for "words...soft". Nowhere in the Bible is malakos used for sexual conduct between persons. The claim that malakos means "catamite" has no support that I can find other than the statements in theological Greek-English Lexicons of NT words. But, if you go to the Lidell-Scott-Jones Greek-English lexicon which gives great detail, you do not find "catamite" as a meaning for malakos:

μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

That page gives a huge amount of meanings for malakos but NOT catamite or male prostitute. The Greek actually had the exact word for catamite that Paul could have used if he meant catamite or male prostitute:

κίναιδος - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

The 19th century Greek scholar Heinrich Meyer writes that to translate malakos as a catamite or cinaedus is wrong, in spite of what the BDAG gives:

"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."

1 Corinthians 6 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 Corinthians 6, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Meyer's New Testament Commentary provides critical insights through original text analysis, essential for Christian comprehension.

www.studylight.org

The evangelical obsession about male sex with another male started after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, which started the modern LGBTQ+ movement. There is certainly gross sin seen in so many outward expressions in the LGBTQ+, but to use that to condemn simple male to male sex between consenting adults is unfounded in the Bible or in any scholarly references I can find. I've given links to the arguments I make, so I can be checked. The New Covenant certainly does not condemn simple sex relationships between consenting males. The actual practice of sex between man and wife in private, is just that, PRIVATE. In like manner sex between two adult consenting males in private is also just that, PRIVATE. It is between those persons involved in private to answer to God how they relate to each other.

I'll not take my time to try answering all the sarcastic, mocking and ignorant replies to my post. If I see someone actually try to go into a detailed exegesis and exposition of the verses involved, I'll reply. By the way, I did not include Jude 6, 7 because that is about men attempting the rape of ANGELS,

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7 REB) See Gen. 6:1-4

You concede that homosexuality is condemned in Scripture (I mean, you have to to have any semblance of dignity on a Bible forum), but you want to then inject and introduce this foreign idea that NOT ALL homosexuality is condemned, but only some sorts...

Again, IF THIS WERE THE CASE, we would find these ostensible homosexual relationships being celebrated throughout Scripture; what we find is that every time the topic of homosexuality is raised, it is ONLY to CONDEMN it!
Is that supposed to be a COINCIDENCE!? Why, it's almost as if God our Father wanted the takeaway to be the understanding that HE DOES NOT ACCEPT THESE RELATIONSHIPS AND HE DOESN'T WANT US TO ACCEPT THEM EITHER!

 

[GracePeace]

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

Paul uses the word between "fornicators" and "men stealers". So here you have the word associated not only with frequenting prostitutes in fornication; but it is associated with "men stealers", an act of violence and abusiveness. You do NOT need to go back to Leviticus to get Paul's meaning, Paul himself uses the key word several times; and, in Rom. 13:13 we get the key that matches exactly what was seen in Rom. 1:27. The KJV uses two phrases to translate arsenokoites, "abusers" in 1 Cor. 6:9 and for men who "defile" in 1 Tim. 1:10. The 1828 Webster's gives the meaning used in centuries past for those two words:

"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
"DEFILE, v.t.... 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34."

The KJV, RV & ASV use the similar phrasing which means a "sodomite"; and then the YLT translates as the one word "sodomite". I'll trust the KJV Bible scholars on these two verses of Paul, over modern translations that have become obsessed with LGBTQ+!

It is clear that Paul uses arsenokoites to represent violence, abusiveness and rape of male to male. There is not a hint that the sin is the simple act of sex between two consenting males. Just as Gen. 19:9 proves that in Sodom it was attempted rape that was the sexual/violent sin, not simple sex between males.

In spite of how many wish to twist the English language, "sodomite" is not synonymous with "homosexual", use your English dictionaries!

Now, how about that word "effeminate" in 1 Cor. 6:9? The word was the traditional translation of malakos. No English dictionary that I have found defines "effeminate" as in any way sexual conduct between persons. That Greek malakos is used in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25 for luxurious clothing as kings wear. The word is also used in the Septuagint in Pro. 25:15 for "soft tongue" and in Pro. 26:22 for "words...soft". Nowhere in the Bible is malakos used for sexual conduct between persons. The claim that malakos means "catamite" has no support that I can find other than the statements in theological Greek-English Lexicons of NT words. But, if you go to the Lidell-Scott-Jones Greek-English lexicon which gives great detail, you do not find "catamite" as a meaning for malakos:

μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

That page gives a huge amount of meanings for malakos but NOT catamite or male prostitute. The Greek actually had the exact word for catamite that Paul could have used if he meant catamite or male prostitute:

κίναιδος - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

lsj.gr

The 19th century Greek scholar Heinrich Meyer writes that to translate malakos as a catamite or cinaedus is wrong, in spite of what the BDAG gives:

"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as qui muliebria patiuntur , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."

1 Corinthians 6 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 Corinthians 6, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Meyer's New Testament Commentary provides critical insights through original text analysis, essential for Christian comprehension.

www.studylight.org

The evangelical obsession about male sex with another male started after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, which started the modern LGBTQ+ movement. There is certainly gross sin seen in so many outward expressions in the LGBTQ+, but to use that to condemn simple male to male sex between consenting adults is unfounded in the Bible or in any scholarly references I can find. I've given links to the arguments I make, so I can be checked. The New Covenant certainly does not condemn simple sex relationships between consenting males. The actual practice of sex between man and wife in private, is just that, PRIVATE. In like manner sex between two adult consenting males in private is also just that, PRIVATE. It is between those persons involved in private to answer to God how they relate to each other.

I'll not take my time to try answering all the sarcastic, mocking and ignorant replies to my post. If I see someone actually try to go into a detailed exegesis and exposition of the verses involved, I'll reply. By the way, I did not include Jude 6, 7 because that is about men attempting the rape of ANGELS,

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7 REB) See Gen. 6:1-4

"Obsession"? No, YOU are a false accuser.

Evangelicals preach against all kinds of sins. You act like you don't know this. When Evangelicals preach against homosexuality, it is only to affirm what Christians have affirmed for millennia--and if there is a little more preaching and teaching against the sin of homosexuality now, it is because people are not admitting the thing is a sin, so there is a controversy over even the idea that it is a sin, and the sin is destroying many more lives.

 

[BarneyFife]

The evangelical obsession about male sex with another male started after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, which started the modern LGBTQ+ movement.

I don't know, Brother. Aren't you forgetting about the Lavender Scare of '53? And that's just off the top of my head.

Naturally, you're going to see backlash in proportion to offense. But I think it wouldn't take much effort to show that in places where religion is closely tied to protecting the procreative family unit, the world has kept sexual perversion on a pretty tight leash for most if not all of documented history.

I'll grant you that the French Deconstructionist philosophers of the early '60s really ratcheted up the postmodern philosophy of despair that gave birth to the huge explosion of the oppressor vs the oppressed movement, but that's just a by-product of the human spirit of rebellion that is waxing greater and greater per Mathew 24 and other eschatological culmination discourses in Scripture.

:)

.

 

[Gottservant]

That's an absurd juncture.
Homosexual sodomy is defilement.

It isn't love,it is sex.

Defiled homosexual sex is wrong. Period.

Sodomy is wrong, the homosexuality is not. Fellatio is wrong, heterosexuality is not.

You have to learn to distinguish the relationship, from acts done in the name of a relationship.

 

[BlessedPeace]

Sodomy is wrong, the homosexuality is not. Fellatio is wrong, heterosexuality is not.

You have to learn to distinguish the relationship, from acts done in the name of a relationship.

You have to learn to read what people have written,rather than await your opportunity to speak in a way that demonstrates you do not do that.

 

[BarneyFife]

Sodomy is wrong, the homosexuality is not. Fellatio is wrong, heterosexuality is not.

You have to learn to distinguish the relationship, from acts done in the name of a relationship.

Backward reasoning

"Acts done in the name of relationship" swings wide open the door that admits all manner of heart-sickening "acts."

The fact that perversion can exist within the intimacy of the procreative family unit does not sterilize impure union, whether in the mind or in the bedchamber.

What is "homosexuality?"
Practically, an oxymoron

Sexuality once had no such subsets as it seems to have today.

It is a sin for a man to lie with a man as with a woman.

If adultery is committed by a man looking upon a woman to lust after her, why do we insist on using ambiguous terms like "homosexuality" and "orientation?"

It is to soft-sell sin, by complicating things that are easy to understand.

Some are guilty by ignorance, others by active advocacy. Not all are equally culpable.

But God is watching.

.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Sodomy is wrong, the homosexuality is not. Fellatio is wrong, heterosexuality is not.

You have to learn to distinguish the relationship, from acts done in the name of a relationship.

That's NOT biblical at all dude! Whassup with all dat???

You should stick with God's Word!

 

[Gottservant]

That's NOT biblical at all dude! Whassup with all dat???

You should stick with God's Word!

View attachment 39735View attachment 39736

"Not what goes into a man, defiles a man, but what comes out of a man, defiles a man" (Matthew 15:11)

Allowing someone to defile you, defiles you, but letting someone have a relationship to you, does not (letting someone have a relationship to you does not bring defilement out of you)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

"Not what goes into a man, defiles a man, but what comes out of a man, defiles a man" (Matthew 15:11)

And joining ones self to a harlot... or a gay person... defiles one as well.

Look it up homie, go ahead!

Only the gnostics thought they never sinned but their body did go out and do sin.

 

[Gottservant]

And joining ones self to a harlot... or a gay person... defiles one as well.

Look it up homie, go ahead!

Only the gnostics thought they never sinned but their body did go out and do sin.

You introduced the concept of "joining", there's something wrong with you?

A relationship without joining is pure in God's sight.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

A relationship without joining is pure in God's sight.

Oh I see so it's OK for gay people to lust after one another and think about doing the dirty Shirley but it's all good as long as they don't touch one another and actually do the deed?

That's another gnostic belief as the lusts of other things choke the Word of God causing one to become unfruitful (Mark 4:13-20)... even though the funny people all claim to be fruity.

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So we see Jesus saying here that normal people (hetro) lusting after the opposite sex is a sin... then we know for sure that same sex attraction is a sin as well.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

No matter how you slice it... same sex attraction as well as normal people lusting is all sinful behavior.

You should REPENT and quit wallering around in this filth!

 

[Gottservant]

Oh I see so it's OK for gay people to lust after one another and think about doing the dirty Shirley but it's all good as long as they don't touch one another and actually do the deed?

[...]

You should REPENT and quit wallering around in this filth!

And if I marry and do not join with my wife, is that a sin?

If there is a plank in my eye, it is wanting people to be closer; if there is a speck in your eye, it is wanting people to be under your control?

Seriously, who said a relationship with any sex, is necessarily based on lust?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

And if I marry and do not join with my wife, is that a sin?

Are you a guy and your wife... was born originally as a woman?

I wouldn't think if a marriage between normal people isn't made to be one it's a sin.

But, this is NOT what is being talked about. Sex is only not a sin before the Lord if it's a man (born as a man) and a woman (born as a woman) doing it after having been married.

Sex as well as lust, thoughts, imaginations to do sex outside of marriage... is a sin

Same sex anything sexual related... is a sin before the Lord!

But, if you wanna roll the dice and go in to eternity lusting after sinful desires... well, you'll be going south when you die, not north!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Seriously, who said a relationship with any sex, is necessarily based on lust?

Sure there are people of the same gender that are friends... but they don't think sexual thoughts about one another

The thread topic is whether being funny is right or wrong and it's wrong before the Lord!

Now if you join up with one of those false jesus churches, I'm sure they'll be happy to affirm... well, most anything as long as yo tithe check clears!

 

[Gottservant]

Are you a guy and your wife... was born originally as a woman?

[...]

Same sex anything... is a sin!

But, if you wanna roll the dice and go in to eternity lusting after sinful desires... well, you'll be going south when you die, not north!

The Holy Spirit is telling me to leave it at that (no offence).

I feel like I've learned some people are more forgiving than others - if you wanted me to learn more than that: sorry!

 

[BlessedPeace]

And if I marry and do not join with my wife, is that a sin?

If there is a plank in my eye, it is wanting people to be closer; if there is a speck in your eye, it is wanting people to be under your control?

Seriously, who said a relationship with any sex, is necessarily based on lust?

Your posts aren't making a lot of sense.

Are you OK?

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

The Holy Spirit is telling me to leave it at that (no offence).

I feel like I've learned some people are more forgiving than others - if you wanted me to learn more than that: sorry!

It's not a matter of forgiveness on this topic... it's the matter that the Lord created sex to be between men and women within marriage.... and all other sex including thoughts, desires, imaginations are not accepted by the Lord.

If the "Holy Spirit" is not leading you to accept what God says in His Word about homosexuality being a sin before Him... then you're hearing the wrong "Holy Spirit"

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

Romans 8:14
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

 

[Gottservant]

You're posts aren't making a lot of sense.

Are you OK?

There's a spelling error in your post?

Maybe prove you are trying to understand and quote something I said?

Am I okay? Meaning "do you have dysintellexia (mixed thoughts)?"