# Homosexuality and the Bible



## chellero (Dec 6, 2008)

This is kind of a spin off from one of the Prop 8 threads in the political forum.  

Someone mentioned  interpretations of the Bible that allow homosexuality, instead of it being a sin.  I have never come across an interpretation like this that was not quite obviously flawed, but I was wondering if anyone here had.  If so please share.


----------



## apemay1969 (Dec 6, 2008)

chellero said:


> This is kind of a spin off from one of the Prop 8 threads in the political forum.
> 
> Someone mentioned  interpretations of the Bible that allow homosexuality, instead of it being a sin.  I have never come across an interpretation like this that was not quite obviously flawed, but I was wondering if anyone here had.  If so please share.



I did have a Lutheran pastor tell me that in the original languages, homosexuality was not mentioned specifically.  He said that it was added later once translated.  He performed commitment ceremonies and supported the couples.

He lost a lot of parishioners because of his beliefs that were supported by the ELCA.


----------



## discobiscuits (Dec 6, 2008)

If I find it I'll post the thread on this topic.

Meanwhile, all sexual immorality is a sin. The word homosexual(ity) may not be in the "original" texts but the concept of humans sexually involved with the same gender is discussed in the OT (as an abomination) & in the NT.


----------



## chellero (Dec 6, 2008)

apemay1969 said:


> I did have a Lutheran pastor tell me that in the original languages, homosexuality was not mentioned specifically.  He said that it was added later once translated.  He performed commitment ceremonies and supported the couples.
> 
> He lost a lot of parishioners because of his beliefs that were supported by the ELCA.



I know that the word homosexuality wasn't added until fairly recently.  I'm trying to find a sensible interpretation that says that the act is OK by God.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 6, 2008)

chellero said:


> This is kind of a spin off from one of the Prop 8 threads in the political forum.
> 
> Someone mentioned interpretations of the Bible that allow homosexuality, instead of it being a sin. I have never come across an interpretation like this that was not quite obviously flawed, but I was wondering if anyone here had. If so please share.


 
  Hi Chellero.   Blessing to you.

My answer is for those who want to believe, justify or push the lie mentioned above, about God's word.   

There isn't and there never will be any repeal in God's word, that homosexuality is accepted by God and considered not a sin.   People who support homosexuality will come up with anything to justify it; and yes even to the point of exploiting God's word.   

The gay churches have their own, self defined, Biblical 'twist' to justify their lifestyle, by stating that Jesus never 'addressed' homosexuality during His ministry here on earth; therefore, according to 'them' (homosexual supporters) it is considered that Jesus does not seen it as a sin.  

I can't help but wonder what other delusions they will come up with.  

But here's the bottomline:  God is not mocked. Homosexuality is a mockery of God's design, purpose and His creation of mankind and how sexual intercourse is to be enacted; which is only between a man and his wife.  All that He has said on the subject of homosexuality is not only clearly written, but clearly illustrated.  

If people want to engage in homosexuality, then so be it; but they do not have the right nor justification to lie and try to deceive others nor themselves, to say that God approves of it or that the Bible supports it. Just be gay and be gay with it. Don't add to the spin, more sin. A spade is a spade, no matter what; and the deuse is still wild.

It's one thing for gays to 'push' and whimper about 'cival rights' (which gay marriage does not qualify), but to 'push' into God's word, is an absurdity which is trully crossing the line; it's trespassing, and it's taking things way too far.  gays need to know where to back off or suffer the repercussions. 

Nothing in Heaven, nor here on earth, nor in God's word, supports homosexuality.  For even here on earth it is a sin against its self. 

Peace and blessings....


----------



## discobiscuits (Dec 6, 2008)

chellero said:


> I know that the word homosexuality wasn't added until fairly recently.  *I'm trying to find a sensible interpretation that says that the act is OK by God.*



You won't because there is none.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 6, 2008)

h.e.a.d.s.t.r.o.n.g. said:


> If I find it I'll post the thread on this topic.
> 
> Meanwhile, all sexual immorality is a sin. The word homosexual(ity) may not be in the "original" texts but the concept of humans sexually involved with the same gender is discussed in the OT (as an abomination) & in the NT.


  Headstrong for being among those who know God's truth and stand boldly upon it.  You are a Christian without compromise.  You KNOW the word and you stand on it. 

I can see that the enemy's (satan's) scheme now is to 'play' on the word 'homosexuality' not being mentioned in the Bible.   Ummmmmm, the definition of it is surely in God's word and it cannot be missed.  People are really 'stretching' their sins.   


homo = same

sex =    sex

same sex = man shall not lie with a man as if with a woman.!   How hard is that to comprehend.

God said that this would  happen.   People looking to 'justify' homosexuality .................by His word which is exactly what satan is feeding into their minds.    

* 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. 

Romans 1:

*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.*
* 
28 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; *

*29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, *

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 

31 *Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: *
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. 

If adulterers can stop committing adultery; and all other sins mentioned, then it is also expected the homosexuals stop being active in homosexuality, yet instead, they want to change God's word to fit their sexual agenda.   

It will NEVER be repealed.  The only repeal is to repent and to cease and to decist from their activities.   Period.  

So stop trying to research and re-write the Word of God; it's fruitless.  Accept homosexuality for what it is.... Sinning against God....Period.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 6, 2008)

chellero said:


> This is kind of a spin off from one of the Prop 8 threads in the political forum.
> 
> Someone mentioned  interpretations of the Bible that allow homosexuality, instead of it being a sin.  I have never come across an interpretation like this that was not quite obviously flawed, but I was wondering if anyone here had.  If so please share.



You can probably find tons of _interpretations_ that say that homosexuality are ok.  The problem will be finding a correct interpretation that says that, because there aren't any.  The devil knows scripture better than most of us lay people and can therefore spin the scripture to do what he wants it to do, which is to deceive people.  See how he deceived Eve in the garden and convinced her that something she knew was wrong was actually ok. . .That's how he gets off.  Don't even seek out the devils interpretations, instead ask God to show you His interpretation of His Word.  The truth is always the truth when you get it from God.


----------



## aribell (Dec 7, 2008)

apemay1969 said:


> I did have a Lutheran pastor tell me that *in the original languages, homosexuality was not mentioned specifically. He said that it was added later once translated.* He performed commitment ceremonies and supported the couples.
> 
> He lost a lot of parishioners because of his beliefs that were supported by the ELCA.


 
Hmm...I'm not sure what exactly that pastor was referring to, but that is suspect.  The word "homosexuality" may not have been there (though it certainly was a clearly defined part of the Greek culture which Paul knew well), that type of *act* and *relationship *are mentioned all the way from The Old Testament to the New.  (Levitical laws, Romans 1, etc.)

Don't want to be too contentious, I just hate it when people who are in authority give arguments that ultimately confuse and mislead the flock.

But, this idea of homosexuality as "sexual orientation" as an integral part of a person's identity is not a concept found in the Bible.  The Biblical writers were concerned with sexual acts, not people who were saying "God made me romantically inclined toward the same sex."


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

h.e.a.d.s.t.r.o.n.g. said:


> You won't because there is none.


     

_For I am the LORD, I *CHANGE NOT*;  (Malachi 3:6)_

Now if folks can't except this, how can they believe anything else that God says.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

Praise God!!!  Sisters in Christ let us not forget what the Word of God says:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12. 

If "our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

You unfaithful people! Don't you know that love for this [evil] world is hatred toward God? Whoever wants to be a friend of this world is an enemy of God. James 4:4


----------



## chellero (Dec 7, 2008)

SuperNova said:


> You can probably find tons of _interpretations_ that say that homosexuality are ok.  The problem will be finding a correct interpretation that says that, because there aren't any.  The devil knows scripture better than most of us lay people and can therefore spin the scripture to do what he wants it to do, which is to deceive people.  See how he deceived Eve in the garden and convinced her that something she knew was wrong was actually ok. . .That's how he gets off.*  Don't even seek out the devils interpretations,* instead ask God to show you His interpretation of His Word.  The truth is always the truth when you get it from God.



I have always been one who looks at the Bible with an open mind.  Meaning that I don't assume that my interpretation or the interpretation of most Bible scholars is automatically the right one.  I do believe in praying and asking God for wisdom guidance and understanding regarding His word and how I should apply that to my life, but intellectually I am also very interested in other people's interpretations of the Bible.  "What do you think? , how did you get that? where does it say that?" and fifty eleven other questions.   At the moment I am trying to figure out if some folks in the political forum came up with an interpretation of God's word that allows for homosexuality that isn't, "obviously flawed".  As I said there and here I have never seen one, and I don't think that there is such a thing.  But they aren't telling me what interpretation they speak of, so I figured that I would also ask the ladies over here if they have heard of such thing.   So far the answer is a resounding NO!


----------



## LayneJ (Dec 7, 2008)

What I was taught: 

Sexual immorality = sin

Homosexual sex, heterosexual sex, oral sex, etc. It's all wrong in God's eyes. 

However, it was taught that a male/female attracted to the same sex is not a sin. A male/female having a romantic interest in someone of the same sex is not a sin. A male/female attracted to the same sex and participating in intercourse, is a sin, as with heterosexuals. To support this theory, he pointed to *Lev. 18:22*, _"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a       female; it is an abomination."  _*Lev. 20:13*, _"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who       lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put       to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" _and *1 Cor. 6:9-10*,_ "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall       not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters,       nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the       covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of       God."  _

He emphasized the "lie" in the first 2 scriptures as evidence that it is the sex that is wrong, not the orientation. 

My parents were raised to believe homosexuality = sin, so they reject the aforementioned interpretation.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

chellero said:


> I have always been one who looks at the Bible with an open mind.  Meaning that I don't assume that my interpretation or the interpretation of most Bible scholars is automatically the right one.  I do believe in praying and asking God for wisdom guidance and understanding regarding His word and how I should apply that to my life, but intellectually I am also very interested in other people's interpretations of the Bible.  At the moment I am trying to figure out if some folks in the political forum came up with an interpretation of God's word that allows for homosexuality that isn't, "obviously flawed".  But they aren't telling, so I figured that I would also ask the ladies over here.




Oh, ok.  It is good to know what the world is saying about our God and his Word, however remember it is not our place to rationalize with the devil.  All we need to do is let him know that we know our scripture according to God's Word.  That is what Jesus did when the devil tried to tempt him.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

Minny said:


> What I was taught:
> 
> Sexual immorality = sin
> 
> ...



Homosexuality is defined as 


 Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
 Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
So it is both an emotional attraction as well as inclusive of the physical activities of persons of the same sex, which makes it a sin.  Now to cover the "feelings" part of it, God's Word says in 
Proverbs 4
23 Above all else, guard your heart, 
       for it is the wellspring of life.  24 Put away perversity from your mouth; 
       keep corrupt talk far from your lips. 
 25 Let your eyes look straight ahead, 
       fix your gaze directly before you. 
 26 Make level paths for your feet 
       and take only ways that are firm. 
 27 Do not swerve to the right or the left; 
       keep your foot from evil.


God is letting us know here that things that we keep in our hearts have a way of leaking into our lives, So to prevent the possibility of homosexual physical contact, one should avoid and try to purge themselves of homosexual "feelings/attractions" because they may end up in a physical situation.

"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death" (James 1:13-15)


----------



## firecracker (Dec 7, 2008)

Ya'll don't even want to know what I read in some foul mcnasty magazine called Nylon from a female gay rap group.  Tsk tsk tsk to think folks will say anything and try to change up stuff to work for them.   Nobody is perfect but too twist stuff to accommodate behavior is mind blowing.


----------



## discobiscuits (Dec 7, 2008)

There is a difference between intrepretation and translation. Humans have the free will to intrepret any translation as he or she wishes. That does not make that interpretation correct. Additionally some people make a conscious decision to omit. That too does not make something or someone correct.


----------



## firecracker (Dec 7, 2008)

*God is letting us know here that things that we keep in our hearts have a way of leaking into our lives, So to prevent the possibility of homosexual physical contact, one should avoid and try to purge themselves of homosexual "feelings/attractions" because they may end up in a physical situation.*


The same goes for all the other sins too.  Let us not forget that also.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

h.e.a.d.s.t.r.o.n.g. said:


> *There is a difference between intrepretation and translation*. Humans have the free will to intrepret any translation as he or she wishes. That does not make that interpretation correct. Additionally some people make a conscious decision to omit. That too does not make something or someone correct.



I agree with you here in bold, but the issue isn't about what we "think" is right or wrong. God has the final interpretation of his Word.  Free will is a gift that we were given to use in full submission to God and whenever we utilize our free will outside of the will of God, we put ourselves in danger of straying from God's Word.  The bible says, in Proverbs 3
5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 
7Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

firecracker said:


> *God is letting us know here that things that we keep in our hearts have a way of leaking into our lives, So to prevent the possibility of homosexual physical contact, one should avoid and try to purge themselves of homosexual "feelings/attractions" because they may end up in a physical situation.*
> 
> 
> The same goes for all the other sins too.  Let us not forget that also.



True, you're right.  We could change the title of this thread to include any other sin and the same would apply.  A sin is a sin no matter what you call it.  The problem comes in calling a sin something else and justifying it as ok.


----------



## firecracker (Dec 7, 2008)

SuperNova said:


> True, you're right. We could change the title of this thread to include any other sin and the same would apply. A sin is a sin no matter what you call it. The problem comes in calling a sin something else and justifying it as ok.


 ita but you know folks lurking and think that others think they are perfectly without sin.  I just had to put that out there for their clarification.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

chellero said:


> I have always been one who looks at the Bible with an open mind. Meaning that I don't assume that my interpretation or the interpretation of most Bible scholars is automatically the right one. I do believe in praying and asking God for wisdom guidance and understanding regarding His word and how I should apply that to my life, but intellectually I am also very interested in other people's interpretations of the Bible. "What do you think? , how did you get that? where does it say that?" and fifty eleven other questions.
> 
> *At the moment I am trying to figure out if some folks in the political forum came up with an interpretation of God's word that allows for homosexuality that isn't, "obviously flawed".*
> 
> ...


I tried to pull this 'trickery' on my parents when I wanted to stay out past my curfew....  "ummmmmmmmmm, it never worked".... It wasn't supposed to, for when my parents layed down the law, that's the way it was and it wasn't changing just because I wanted it to.   

God is not ''appeaseing' the confused mindset of those who want to misuse His word to 'fit' their homosexual agenda.    The only thing God is going to do is leave them 'hanging'.   He's not in it.  God is not 'confused' about sexuality, He does not hav any 'duh-ah'  moments.  God does not lie and He will not say that homosexuality is okay just because folks want Him to.    It's just not an option.    It is was it is, period.   

They can't tell you of an Interpretation of God's word, because they do not have one, neither will they ever have one.  God blinded and destroyed an entire City because it was filled with homosexuality.   If that's not an answer than I don't know what else there is to say.  That's about as final as one can get.  

My concern is for Christians who would even 'question' God's word like this, for it indicates 'doubt' of what God says.   If we can't believe what God calls sin, than how can we believe in what He calls blessings.

The word of God says, "Choose"  Choose you this day, whom you will serve, as for me and my house (my family) we will serve the Lord!  

How long will 'we' halt (hesitate, straddle the fence) between two opinions.  If God be God, serve Him; if Baal be god, serve baal.   It's one or the other, for no man can serve two masters.  He'll serve one and hate the other.    

We cannot defend homosexuality and look for God's acceptance of it, and in turn claim to serve and love God.   It's either / or.   For if we lean towards the other, we'll end up falling on the wrong side.  The enemy's wall cannot sustain us, nor keep us from falling.

Choose God; homosexuals cannot save us nor themselves.  But we can help them by praying for them and seeking God's word to restore them from their sin instead of seeking God's word to keep them in sin.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

firecracker said:


> ita but you know folks lurking and think that others think they are perfectly without sin.  I just had to put that out there for their clarification.




True.  True.  for the record. I am a sinner, saved only by grace and covered by the blood of Jesus Christ.  I have been delivered from fornication, adultery, stealing, and a host of other sins and I know that there are homosexuals(perhaps even on this board) who get confused in the midst of these discussions and wonder if they may be condemned forever.  NO.  Repent and turn from your sin, ask for forgiveness and you too will be free to converse with God on a level where you will be able to see the truth of his Word and even if you never tell a single soul what you and God spoke/speak about, you will begin to recognize the truth in interpretation when you see it.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 7, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> Choose God; homosexuals cannot save us nor themselves.  But we can help them by praying for them and seeking God's word to restore them from their sin instead of seeking God's word to keep them in sin.




Amen to that


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 7, 2008)

I'm just waiting on the drive by posts 

You know the ones that go, "I know which ones but I won't subject myself to you alls scrutiny so I won't even bother to post it here because it wouldn't be appropriate" 

Translation: " I just came over here to say that and not show any real evidence just incase y'all will prove that I'm wrong so I'm gonna speed on up out of here real quick"

Drive by


----------



## Liberianmami26 (Dec 7, 2008)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...thats how i see it.

i think if a pastor has a problem marrying homosexuals its the same thing as those unwed mothers no need to offend anyone who had a child out of wedlock my own mother is guilty of it. but i also see that all under the same sin as homosexuality sex outside of the purpose for which it was meant with a man and a woman in marriage. any kind of sex other than married man with woman is a sin straight or gay right correct me if im wrong but that is how i was taught to interpret the scripture and i just went back to my bible and checked those verses and read the footnotes that went with them and it just verified my point.

no one is perfect we all have our own sins and shortcomings. only God determines who goes to heaven that means a faithful gay man and an adulterous straight married man are both on the same ticket for a spot in heaven...just my two cents lets try not to stone me...

i have no problem with gay people they can have all the marital rights as straights just as long as it is not called marriage cuz by my christian definition its not. like my mother says just let the gays do as they please people are doing far worse than having sex lets look at the big picture here and stop crucifying some good people.

plus i go to school with a lot of lesbians they dont bother me cuz they know im straight and comfortable with my sexuality however the bicurious ones do get caught up in that and its there buisness i just hate them being hypocrites later and fronting when the biggest lesbian in the school is saying they hooked up.


----------



## star (Dec 7, 2008)

chellero said:


> I know that the word homosexuality wasn't added until fairly recently.  I'm trying to find a sensible interpretation that says that the act is OK by God.



This is not true as a Bible student that word and term has been used from the beginning. The only "lately" interpreation is from the company of the Bible your are reading and who knows what company that is. Men were having sex with men way back then and some even tried to have sex with angels. It is abominaton then and abomination now. No matter what lanuage you use or what country you are from it *makes God vomit*. He made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. If God ordianed same sex then why would he say be fruitful and multiply most of us would not even exist? There are no same sex couples having children unless adopted or donation of sperm. It takes a man and woman to have a baby. Any body who says the act of homosexuailty by God is OK is lying on God.  He uses yay or nay NOT OK.


----------



## star (Dec 7, 2008)

chellero said:


> I have always been one who looks at the Bible with an open mind.  Meaning that I don't assume that my interpretation or the interpretation of most Bible scholars is automatically the right one.  I do believe in praying and asking God for wisdom guidance and understanding regarding His word and how I should apply that to my life, but intellectually I am also very interested in other people's interpretations of the Bible.  "What do you think? , how did you get that? where does it say that?" and fifty eleven other questions.   At the moment I am trying to figure out if some folks in the political forum came up with an interpretation of God's word that allows for homosexuality that isn't, "obviously flawed".  As I said there and here I have never seen one, and I don't think that there is such a thing.  But they aren't telling me what interpretation they speak of, so I figured that I would also ask the ladies over here if they have heard of such thing.   So far the answer is a resounding NO!



Seeking others interpreation will caused alot of confusion so just be careful. I think if you had stated you already asked GOD first for understanding this may have helped but since this is a Christian forum nobody views surpases God's and the Bible is clear on this subject and has been over thousands of years. This topic would do better in another forum since is not the place for debate and what people think but to exhort, uplift and stir each other up unto good works as it pleases God.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

Liberianmami26 said:


> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...thats how i see it.
> 
> i think if a pastor has a problem marrying homosexuals its the same thing as those unwed mothers no need to offend anyone who had a child out of wedlock my own mother is guilty of it. but i also see that all under the same sin as homosexuality sex outside of the purpose for which it was meant with a man and a woman in marriage. any kind of sex other than married man with woman is a sin straight or gay right correct me if im wrong but that is how i was taught to interpret the scripture and i just went back to my bible and checked those verses and read the footnotes that went with them and it just verified my point.
> 
> ...


 
No one has denied that the other sins and sexual sins were not sins.  Isn't it hypocritical to speak of the hetrosexual sins in sex and then defend gay sexual sin with the, "they don't bother me' pass?  

Many an unwed mother has turned away from her sins and they are living  righteous before God. 

Many men who have made babies with several women has fully repented and are living righteous before God.

And there are homosexuals who have also repented and are no longer living a homosexual lifestyle.   I can go as far as to say they have given total yield to the Holy Spirit.   Donnie McClurkin, Dennis Jernigan are two who have powerful testimonies and are beautiful living examples of God's deliverance.

No one is crucifying homosexuals;  yet it is they who have taken far too many liberties, in our schools, our children, 'our' Marriage definement, and in our Churches to literally overthrow and PUSH their agenda over those who are living right for God.   

Since when do they have the right to step into our schools and Churches to re-write the Truth according to their lies.    What's truly hypocrital is that this country has taken God and prayer out of schools and the courthouses, and off of the Dollar coin (In God We Trust), and has allowed the gay agenda to move in instead.    

*Look, I'm not 'attacking' you personally.*    Instead, it's the mindset that has been filtered in and is trying to rule to make this a gay nation, even to the point of overruling the Churches and to mess with the minds of innocent children, in order for gays to raise up a new generation which will support them.    

satan is a mighty deceiver, a master at it.   Do you know that physically there is an underground 'master-mind' behind all that we've been seeing and hearing about pushing the gay agenda?    CNN did a report on this.  This person has kept a very low profile and he has been strategically placing people in positions to vote/pass issues for their cause.   

But no matter what, God still rules and as Christians we cannot 'punk' out on God and fall into satan's whims and traps of deception.    the one thing satan is messing with is 'Christians' who wimp out.    I am truly not one of them,  And I do not care how anyone 'sees' me.   I'm a fighter for God's cause, not the enemy's.  

Never feel sorry for the enemy (satan).  What we see in people, we have to allow God to show us the spiritual forces behind it.   

Those who support homosexuality are inviting this spirit to visit them, for they have placed out the 'welcome mat' for it.   Instead of husbands cheating with another woman, they will cheat with a man and women with women.   Why?  Their views on sexual sanctity have been intertwined with that of unsanctity.   They see no wrong in homosexual sex, hence when they yield to 'temptation'.... It's already happening.  Couples are swinging left and left, not to the right of God's Grace and His Will.

Folks have to stop and see the entire picture and what lies ahead.  There's a reason why God has set a standard. There's a reason He says to 'seek' Him first.  It's up to us to follow Him and not man.

In all honesty, it is an unwholesome compromise for Christians to even support 'Civil Unions' for gays; for we have still given legality to sinful sex.   Civil Unions still equate sin. I am no longer stating that I opt 'gay civil unions', for it is a sinful compromise.  I will not support neither gay marriage nor gay civil unions.  Both are wrong.  Civil Unions puts all relationships outside of Marriage on the equality of Marriage and somewhere the line must be drawn.   

Jesus said the path to destruction is wide, yet the path to righteousness is straight and narrow; it allows no room for error.  When God's gives a pure blessing, then pure it is, He seals off all entries of contamination.  Who wants a compromised blessing as opposed to pure strength?   I choose the straight and narrow, no matter who gets offended.   There's a Godly reason for it.   We are not to compromise. No shortcuts.


----------



## Liberianmami26 (Dec 7, 2008)

i have my own Christian values and dont feel the need to push them onto other people i agree with what you say that people are using sex in many ways that God does not. approve of. but i will not disassociate myself with someone because they are a homosexual because for some it is indeed there nature and they cannot just decide the next day, maybe im not gay anymore especially if you could tell from a very young age that lil boy was going to be fruity. with that said i do agree many women and men do find their way back to God after all their ho-ing but there are a lot of wolves in sheep clothing doing the same thing they did before they were saved.

as far as supporting homosexuals I was the first person my cousin came out to because if you think african americans see it as taboo Africans is a whole different situation. he told me first cuz he knew i was the most understanding one and that i wouldnt judge him, he also knew that was not my preference for him as a member of our Christian family to be a gay man but he is who he is and i will not disown him. his sister and mother were told years later and it took them a complete year i think to be ok with his situation and so is the rest of our extended family, we all know he is gay dont approve of homosexuality but we do have that welcome mat for him anytime because he is always welcome... like i said before there are far worse sins then being gay just my opinion and i do take offense when i see people trying to in a way "tell them they are going to hell." because being in the arts i have been surrounded by a lot of gay males and i know their struggle and no one should have to go through wat they do. just my two cents.


----------



## chicacanella (Dec 7, 2008)

SuperNova said:


> True. True. for the record. I am a sinner, saved only by grace and covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. I have been delivered from fornication, adultery, stealing, and a host of other sins and I know that there are homosexuals(perhaps even on this board) who get confused in the midst of these discussions and wonder if they may be condemned forever. NO. Repent and turn from your sin, ask for forgiveness and you too will be free to converse with God on a level where you will be able to see the truth of his Word and *even if you never tell a single soul what you and God spoke/speak about, you will begin to recognize the truth in interpretation when you see it*.


 

*You know you are right about this!  I had some problems with something before so I just stop taking in what anyone said about it. You know, everyone's interpretation of certain sins that aren't explicitly outlined saying, "You should not eat after 10 p.m. on Wednesdays in the month of Janurary." Okay, this is just an example. But I was finding all of these conflicting interpretations, some pastors were saying it was okay, some were saying it wasn't. I was confused. *

*So, I mean one night I just prayed and asked God. And guess what? He told me boldly and I had to accept it. But also, I must remind you that I had an open heart and was neutral. I didn't have any mindset in my head from man's interpretation that it was right or wrong. I just went and asked God.  Then after that, I knew that if I loved God as much as I said I did, I couldn't willfully participate in this sin. I atleast had to try and then God would help me with the rest.  It wasn't by my strength, nor power but by God's spirit that I was able to be set free.*


----------



## firecracker (Dec 7, 2008)

Liberianmami26 said:


> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...thats how i see it.
> 
> no one is perfect we all have our own sins and shortcomings. only God determines who goes to heaven that means a faithful gay man and an adulterous straight married man are both on the same ticket for a spot in heaven...just my two cents lets try not to stone me...
> 
> ...


  Nobody has a heaven or hell to put anyone in.  That won't stop folk from stating the truth about Gods word on all sins including homosexuality, abortion, fornication and the loads of other sins.  The issue comes when folks try to justify their actions and live in the sin in a constant state.   Folk gon speak on what we do or don't do weather we like it or not.    A fellow Christian will call you out with a quickness and your more than welcome to do the same but with the truth not made up wordly laws and rules that don't count in Gods eyes.  

Sorry I may not agree with everything the Bible or Bible beaters say but what is real and true is simply that REAL & TRUE.  If I'm a believer and follower of Christ I have to make a concentrated effort at change.  I don't think anyone in here or anywhere else claims to be perfect or without sin.  Here they are saying you have to try to change the behavior not waddle/marinate in the behavior then try to say oh its ok by God.  Yes God loves us but he ask they we repent aka change that behavior.  
My cursing, vengeful violence, lying to save my behind ain't right nor will you hear me annoucing that it is.  I do attempt to curb that behavior.  Limiting your exposure to certain actions and environments trying to live by Gods law is the key.  The world has its own laws and rules but their justification and ok sho aint gone get that ticket to heaven if thats where your trying to go.  You can be in this world and not of it.  

I don't think anyone is saying disassociate yourself with people or push your views on others but if your prone to certain attractions be it a man or a woman, stealing, drunkardness, gluttony etc try to limit your exposure for your own sake and salvation.  

My ticket ain't revoked just yet!    Well unless the world ends before someone says or does the wrong thing in 2n2.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

firecracker said:


> Nobody has a heaven or hell to put anyone in. That won't stop folk from stating the truth about Gods word on all sins including homosexuality, abortion, fornication and the loads of other sins. The issue comes when folks try to justify their actions and live in the sin in a constant state. Folk gon speak on what we do or don't do weather we like it or not.  A fellow Christian will call you out with a quickness and your more than welcome to do the same but with the truth not made up wordly laws and rules that don't count in Gods eyes.
> 
> *Sorry I may not agree with everything the Bible or Bible beaters say but what is real and true is simply that REAL & TRUE. If I'm a believer and follower of Christ I have to make a concentrated effort at change. I don't think anyone in here or anywhere else claims to be perfect or without sin. Here they are saying you have to try to change the behavior not waddle/marinate in the behavior then try to say oh its ok by God. Yes God loves us but he ask they we repent aka change that behavior. *
> 
> ...


 

There are several things in the Bible that I wish were not; but God says what He says and that's the way it is.   Who am I or anyone else to try and change it.    If we disagree, the only thing to do is move on....... we do have that choice. People can still choose what they want to do.  But it's without God's approval.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

chicacanella said:


> *You know you are right about this! I had some problems with something before so I just stop taking in what anyone said about it. You know, everyone's interpretation of certain sins that aren't explicitly outlined saying, "You should not eat after 10 p.m. on Wednesdays in the month of Janurary." Okay, this is just an example. But I was finding all of these conflicting interpretations, some pastors were saying it was okay, some were saying it wasn't. I was confused. *
> 
> 
> *So, I mean one night I just prayed and asked God. And guess what? He told me boldly and I had to accept it. But also, I must remind you that I had an open heart and was neutral. I didn't have any mindset in my head from man's interpretation that it was right or wrong. I just went and asked God. Then after that, I knew that if I loved God as much as I said I did, I couldn't willfully participate in this sin. I at least had to try and then God would help me with the rest. *
> ...


 
What you wrote is beautiful... 

_"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of Hosts..."_ 

---- Zachariah 4:6


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

Liberianmami26 said:


> i have my own Christian values and dont feel the need to push them onto other people i agree with what you say that people are using sex in many ways that God does not. approve of. but i will not disassociate myself with someone because they are a homosexual because for some it is indeed there nature and they cannot just decide the next day, maybe im not gay anymore especially if you could tell from a very young age that lil boy was going to be fruity. with that said i do agree many women and men do find their way back to God after all their ho-ing but there are a lot of wolves in sheep clothing doing the same thing they did before they were saved.
> 
> as far as supporting homosexuals I was the first person my cousin came out to because if you think african americans see it as taboo Africans is a whole different situation. he told me first cuz he knew i was the most understanding one and that i wouldnt judge him, he also knew that was not my preference for him as a member of our Christian family to be a gay man but he is who he is and i will not disown him. his sister and mother were told years later and it took them a complete year i think to be ok with his situation and so is the rest of our extended family, we all know he is gay dont approve of homosexuality but we do have that welcome mat for him anytime because he is always welcome... like i said before there are far worse sins then being gay just my opinion and i do take offense when i see people trying to in a way "tell them they are going to hell." because being in the arts i have been surrounded by a lot of gay males and i know their struggle and no one should have to go through wat they do. just my two cents.


 
My response is without contention and it is not (in total) addressed to you, personally.   I address the following in love.  

*Christian Values:*

None of us can have 'our own' Christian values.   It's God's or nothing; for as humans we will make our values out of either emotion, 'the moment', to gain / give favor, or to appease.   This doesn't make us 'bad' individuals, we're human, and we are 'all' subject to error.   Which is why God says that there is a way that looks right to man, but the end thereof is destruction...therefore seek/follow God.

*Isolation from Gay Family/Friends:*

I have four female cousins and several friends who are gay.  They are my family and they are my friends and I love them.  But I will not support their lifestyle. 

It is the gay agenda and the mindset which we, as Christians, are not to support, adhere to.  No one is saying to isolate ourselves from loved ones who are gay.   But we cannot embrace their lifestyles and bring it into Christianity as acceptable.   God accepts them all as precious, beloved individuals, 'whosoever will, let them come and drink freely of the waters of Life."   But He does not embrace the lifestyle.     

Too many Christians have become wet noodles; they are/have fallen into the traps of satan and have compromised the Faith, by giving a 'free pass' to the gay agenda, which has come too far with it's mindset and agenda. We have become entirely, too 'gay sensitive'.

It's one thing that they fight for 'civil rights', but to move into the Church and our schools to confuse the minds of our children and try to change the order of God's word, that's gone way too far.   And too many Christians are afraid to speak up and step to put a stop to it.  

We need to see what's really going with all of our 'love and support'.   We can love them and guard them, but not so much as to drop our guard.   The truth being is that in gaydum, they're not stopping their agenda neither are they stopping to push it where it does not belong.   Therefore, why should I stop standing strong as a Christian?  When my parents said no, it meant just that, 'No'.   And it was for my better good.  They didn't love me any less; if anything all the more and they did not alienate themsleves from me, nor I from them.  There are just some things that will never be acceptable.  And I learned/practiced this with my own children.

*The Arts:*

I'm also in the ARTS, quite extensively.  I'm a student, teacher, performer and show coordinator.   I've been a part of this Life in the Arts since I was 3 years old.  I have to admit that I didn't understand 'the difference' as a child, as my grandparents and my parents somehow kept me 'sheltered' from it.  I thought the guys were just 'acting' and that their effeminient ways were just a part of the 'program.'     It was my ex-husband who finally 'explained' it to me.  

However coming up to date, I've observed that Gays are not invisable in the world of Arts; not by a long shot. The entire world knows that.  From fashion, to make-up, haircare, and design, and theater sets and productions.   Many non-gays are fearful of speaking up for fear of being 'isolated' by those who are gay and gay supporters.     

Ummmmmm, not I.      They all know who I am and I am respected for it.   Because of my strong stand in Christian values, they have no oughts or second thoughts to come to me for prayer and to just plain share their hearts.  I have many friends in the 'Dance' community who 'know' the difference in my views and they literally express their appreciation that I'm not wishy-washy; I maintain what I stand for. 

*Embracing the gay mindset/agenda:* 

Embracing the human being is one thing, but to embrace their sin is another. You become an accessory / an enabler to the sin.  

This is what sets the 'welcome mat' for that spirit of homosexuality to visit.   Whatever spirits we 'embrace' we welcome.  If a person sees no problem with the gay lifestyle, then of course that spirit sees that they are welcome to visit where they are accepted.  Once you 'feed' a stray cat, it keeps coming back.  If you feed a spirit, you embrace that spirit.  Plain and simple.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 7, 2008)

See ladies the issue is that the CHURCH doesn't believe that God delivers folks from sin. That's why you have some that always want to say," Well they were born that way and can't help how they feel so it must be a misinterpretation of God's Word". 

Where is your faith? When did God stop being all powerful? When did the scripture change that EVERYTHING must submit to the Word of God? When did God stop being able to defeat every ungodly, unscriptural thing in us EXCEPT for homosexuality.  The CHURCH has become a hinderance to the homosexual, boldface lying on God and will be punished for it. The Lord is purging His church and for those who are luke warm(politically correct) He will spew you out.


----------



## chicacanella (Dec 7, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> See ladies the issue is that the CHURCH doesn't believe that God delivers folks from sin. That's why you have some that always want to say," Well they were born that way and can't help how they feel so it must be a misinterpretation of God's Word".
> 
> Where is your faith? When did God stop being all powerful? When did the scripture change that EVERYTHING must submit to the Word of God? When did God stop being able to defeat every ungodly, unscriptural thing in us EXCEPT for homosexuality. The CHURCH has become a hinderance to the homosexual, boldface lying on God and will be punished for it. The Lord is purging His church and for those who are luke warm(politically correct) He will spew you out.


 

*My friend use to be gay for a longgg time; she's not anymore because of God. She gave me a lot of insight to me and I've literally seen with my own eyes that God can change anyone.*


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

I share this without judgment or contention.  There is much deliverence for all sin, especially homosexuality:  

*Pastor Donnie McClurkin's Deliverence.* 

Donnie's own story was first told in his book _Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor_ where he chose to go on record and tell the truth about some of the dysfunction in his family, the abuse he received and his own honest struggles with homosexuality. 

The book was a raw, bare account of some experiences that were taboo subjects amongst Christians and yet Pastor McClurkin chose to go on record. He remembers, "It was quite difficult because in America, I'm not sure about outside of America but we have a very strong gay activist community. They took offence at the book in many ways. 

Then we've got a lot of people who in the church, are worried about it because it's such a taboo issue and we sweep these things under the table. So from both ends, I was getting flak." 

*Pastor Donnie McClurkin's Testimony:*  (An interview with him in part -- link provided)

Donnie McClurkin was sexually abused as a child. He was raped by a male relative and then raped again by that relative's son. Donnie struggled for 20 years with homosexuality and then God delivered him. But how did that deliverance take place?   The answer is simple and he explains, "The deliverance took place by finally realising that I'm not who my desires say that I am. 

Let me put this down for the record, you're about one of the first ones that I'm saying this to; the struggle's still not over, you know? Just because God delivers you doesn't mean that the temptations don't come back and people need to realise that. 

It is not odd or strange for the very thing God has delivered you from to come back to see if everything's still cool, you know? I still have to fight and it seems like the more I preach about it, the more people try to test it. But you've still got to remain and you got to keep yourself surrounded with people who will keep you accountable. 

Those things are part of the ongoing healing and deliverance. And just like everyone has to deal with whatever dark secrets and demons that they have to deal with, I'm just more and more vocal and a little more transparent with it."

He continues to share about the stages of deliverance. 

"It came about because first of all I admitted it and took off all of the masks, opened up every closet and said 'This is the truth of what happened.'  My mom was totally amazed, my family was totally shocked. 

But then I wanted to deal with it because this is what I went through. This is what I struggled with and still have to struggle with. I told them I was going to be needing support, or they could get out of the way; one of the two. Because I'm not stopping, I'm going forward. And they've been there. So every attack, they've been there. 

They've understood everything and THAT helped in my deliverance. Having the 'base' behind me to keep me strong. Then, the more you see people delivered, that strengthens you in your deliverance. The more you testify and see the few respond, that enables you to realise what I'm here for!"

For years there have been rumours of homosexuality amongst American gospel artists and the prevailing cover-up culture that does not expose the sin within the industry. 

Gospel artist Carlton Pearson recently went on record with his comments on the gay issue which contradicted the generally held evangelical perspective that homosexual activity goes against basic Bible truth. 

Donnie believes that gospel musicians have a responsibility to the public. He explains, "The general public see us as 'the ministers'. They see us as the authorities. They know that we should not be singing about anything that we don't believe. We shouldn't be espousing anything that we're not ready to live. So they're believing that what we're saying, we live. Sometimes unfortunately, it is just the opposite."

He continues, "You spoke about Carlton Pearson, it's a shame that these things take place. A man who once preached the truth now turns around and denounces the things that he once preached so fervently, to become popular. And thus hurts and damages people in the interim. But I know my calling and I have to keep strong. 

The bottom line is, if I mess up tomorrow and if I'm out in the lifestyle and I'm totally bankrupt of all my morality.I would be the first one to tell them 'Don't follow me. I'm wrong, God is right.' But that's not going to happen!" he laughs.

McClurkin shares honestly about his feelings, "You can't talk about the redeeming and saving power of Jesus Christ when you're still living in the abominable. I know I may get into trouble with some who may think that I am a little too strong saying that homosexuality is abominable but there's a Bible that I have got to concur with. I've got to agree with it. 

Not to the slighting of those that are involved but to the pulling down and destroying of the thing that they're involved in. We can't kill the people, the people are too precious to God. Everyone is too important to God and God does not dispose of people!" 

The compassion of a pastor is revealed as McClurkin shares his thoughts about those caught up in a gay lifestyle. He refuses to be condemning of those who are homosexual but rather seeks to separate the sinner from the sin. "We make our own choices," he says. "Heaven or hell is our choice but God is ever extending his hand and he's ever-loving. 

More...

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/A_Pastors_Heart/9781/p1/

I have one more testimony to share by Dennis Jernigan, another annointed man of God in song and Ministry.   

Be blessed everyone, I'm tired of fighting with this issue.  It's never going away, but Star has shared something extremely important and I wish to share as she has advised, which is to share the truth, scriptures and encouragement.   Arguing won't solve this problem.     But sharing and encouraging will.    

I will not however, sit down and allow the enemy to take over.  Ummmmm, No!    That will never happen.


----------



## chellero (Dec 7, 2008)

star said:


> Seeking others interpreation will caused alot of confusion so just be careful. I think if you had stated you already asked GOD first for understanding this may have helped but since this is a Christian forum nobody views surpases God's and the Bible is clear on this subject and has been over thousands of years. This topic would do better in another forum since is not the place for debate and what people think but to exhort, uplift and stir each other up unto good works as it pleases God.



I don't see how asking "how did you interpret this" could cause a lot of confusion.  I didn't ask for debate, I asked for answer to a simple question.  You cold have said, "I have not heard of such an interpretation" and left it at that.  This is a place for discussion of topics relating to Christianity, and that was the point of this thread.  If someone cannot come to the Christianity forum and ask a question about the Bible without you getting offended and starting a thread basically saying that people shouldn't bother to answer my question then you have a problem.  You don't own this forum and I will certainly ask whatever question I have about the Bible here if I want to.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question without the rudeness and dramatics because I dared to ask.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 7, 2008)

chellero said:


> I don't see how asking "how did you interpret this" could cause a lot of confusion. I didn't ask for debate, I asked for answer to a simple question. You cold have said, "I have not heard of such an interpretation" and left it at that. This is a place for discussion of topics relating to Christianity, and that was the point of this thread. If someone cannot come to the Christianity forum and ask a question about the Bible without you getting offended and starting a thread basically saying that people shouldn't bother to answer my question then you have a problem. You don't own this forum and I will certainly ask whatever question I have about the Bible here if I want to.
> 
> Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question without the rudeness and dramatics because I dared to ask.


 
Chellero, I want to make peace between you and Star.   I understand where both of you are coming from so I can agree with both of you. 

I've been in the Political Forum almost since it started; I've witnessed and have taken part in so many of the threads there before and after the election, so I truly know why you felt the need to ask this question.   

There are way too many opposers of God's word when it comes to homosexuality and there are several posters in the Political Forum who say (lie) they are Christian and that they know of or have heard Bibilical (lies) translations which support homosexuality.  Of course none were posted there and there never will be, as there are none.    Your question is quite valid.

At the same time, I 'know' Star.  She is a strong person of prayer, fasting and intercesion and she is very aware of the spirits which 'follow' threads such as this; she has a spiritual gift that cannot be denied.  For years Star has been the prayer overseer of this forum and she battles in prayer daily for each of us.   Star is simply 'speaking' to the spirits which are attempting to overrule in this forum.  She wasn't addressing you, directly.   She was basically warning the devil who was literally watching and waiting to bring his 'followers' and supporters into this thread and distract the readers of the Christianity Forum and get them off focus from prayer and Ministry.   Anyway in this forum, if a member sees the word homosexual/ity.... the popcorn pops.    

Threads such as these are at the very TOP of Controversy; no matter how innocent the intent of the OP (such as your innocense), this topic almost /always brings in the oppossers and the 'battle' begins.   

Many opposers will say they are Christians, but they are not, at least not in true spirit.  For no Christian with the true spirit of God will deny the sin of homosexuality and give it a free pass.  

I hope that you and Star will come to peace with each other.   Both of you are right.   As Christians, we need to be 'aware' and able to discuss these issues Biblically.   And we also need to not allow them to distract us from the most important things that Christians must be a part of, which is not distracted from prayer, fasting, hearing from God, that which we seek from one another. 

Blessings to everyone...


----------



## firecracker (Dec 7, 2008)

Well good for Star and Chellero for being themselves and believers of Christ.  Now back to the discussion.


----------



## chellero (Dec 7, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> Chellero, I want to make peace between you and Star.   I understand where both of you are coming from so I can agree with both of you.
> 
> I've been in the Political Forum almost since it started; I've witnessed and have taken part in so many of the threads there before and after the election, so I truly know why you felt the need to ask this question.
> 
> ...



I see your point.  But star's comments in this thread and in the thread she started about my thread,  remind me of those Christians who claim to be oh so holy and loving but instead of helping to bring people to Christ and bearing good witness actually drive people away from God and their church.  If you can't answer a simple question without resorting to veiled hostility and a questioning of motives because you don't like the question then there is a problem.  Christians and non Christians will have questions, sometimes about controversial subjects and they will need to seek wise counsel.  If you can't be that counsel because you find the question too "controversial" then you should in the very least not try to stop other people from being so.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

I have to post them tomorrow but some of the examples I saw used were Jonathan and somebody I think, David when Saul accused them of being gay, (it was the one were David skipped the banquet I think) Ruth and Naomi (IDK)

I think part of the misinterpretation is that living in a oversexed supersexualized nation, we as Americans can't see the deep love and affection for one another as anything other than sexual. I believe this is also a reason why some folks think they are gay. Other cultures, men kiss men on the cheeks in greeting, give big bear hugs etc. Here, that NEEDED affection is construed as homosexuality when it's just something that we need from the same sex as a form of bonding lifelong relationships. Fathers even stop kissing and hugging their sons past a certain age here and men really need that affection from their dads and role models no matter how old they are.

My best friend and I jokingly call each other our life partner and actually we are but not in a sexual sense. I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her and she feels the same way. We have other girlfriends but we don't feel the same about them as we do about each other. It's like a Gail/Oprah thing(unless they come out of the closet) We ain't NEVER EVER EVER gonna want to do each other but we can be affectionate (not making out, let's get that straight) but I can see myself living with her( on my own floor) for the rest of my life even moreso than my DH. We're *always* going to be together(18 years and counting) but DH may go crazy and decide he wants a divorce one day


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> I have to post them tomorrow but some of the examples I saw used were *Jonathan *and somebody I think, *David *when Saul accused them of being gay, (it was the one were David skipped the banquet I think) Ruth and Naomi (IDK)



I'll regret this tomorrow. I'm sure. 



1 Samuel 18:1,3

"And it came to pass, when he [David] 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 Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."



And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:



1 Samuel 18:4  



"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.



*Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David.  This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.



1 Samuel 20:30

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"



*Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship.  Jonathan had chosen David as his lover.  And in the same conversations Saul says:



1 Samuel 20:31

Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!



This clarifies Saul's problem.  One of the most important duties of being a king was producing an heir.  Obviously, Jonathan had no intention of producing an heir, and therefore could not provide the final step needed to make good his claim to the kingship.  He loved David and *only* David.

 



2 Samuel 1:26

[*After Jonathan's death, David said*] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: t*hy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.*"


​
Ruth & Naomi 

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall *cleave *unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24 KJV).

Ruth 1: 8-9 Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. * May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.*"(Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi.)

Ruth 1:14
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth *clave *unto her.

*For some reason, what Ruth did is distinctly different that Orpahs show of affection for her mother in law. For some reason. 



Interestingly enough Naomi is the great grandmother of David. Hereditary, perhaps? 


(I tried to remembered the 2 place rule Ms.H)


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I'll regret this tomorrow. I'm sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'll go over it tomorrow but that's not what that means. He disrobed not to have sex with him but by giving his garments, his princely attire(sign of his power as the next inline to be king and authority) to him represents the prophetic act of God the Father giving His power and authority to Jesus on earth. David became king and Jonathan had to give up his rightful place as king of Israel(handing over the mantle). Saul was possessed remember? He also accused David of trying to kill him(something else he said that wasn't true) he was mad because as he said Jonathan chose to be loyal to David over him.

The daughter in laws gave up their culture and I believe religion to become the wives of her sons. When all of their husbands suddenly died Naomi had to and her daughter in laws had to make some decisions on where to go because of the famine in the land. Orpah(who Oprah is named after) chose to go back to her people and Ruth chose to stay with  Naomi who was returning to Bethelehem with her mother in law and continue worship Yahweh. Ruth obeyed her mother in laws instructions on how to marry a good man and soon married Boaz. She became one of the ancestors of Jesus.

These are not sexual instances.

Yes you did use two witness hon, very good but the stories don't refer to homosexual sex.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> I'll go over it tomorrow but that's not what that means. He disrobed not to have sex with him but by giving his garments, his princely attire(sign of his power as the next inline to be king and authority) to him represents the prophetic act of God the Father giving His power and authority to Jesus on earth. David became king and Jonathan had to give up his rightful place as king of Israel(handing over the mantle). Saul was possessed remember? He also accused David of trying to kill him(something else he said that wasn't true) he was mad because as he said Jonathan chose to be loyal to David over him.
> 
> The daughter in laws gave up their culture and I believe religion to become the wives of her sons. When all of their husbands suddenly died Naomi had to and her daughter in laws had to make some decisions on where to go because of the famine in the land. Orpah(who Oprah is named after) chose to go back to her people and Ruth chose to stay with  Naomi who was returning to Bethelehem with her mother in law and continue worship Yahweh. Ruth obeyed her mother in laws instructions on how to marry a good man and soon married Boaz. She became one of the ancestors of Jesus.
> 
> ...



I was not trying to denote sexual instances, although the "nakedness of the parents" may. Every couple in the Bible is not noted to have explicitly had sex in the verses for us to know that they are indeed a couple. 

Ruth and Naomi are weaker example as far as text goes cause there isn't much, although it does say something that the word cleave was used here, and cleaving was something stressed that we are to do with God and our spouses. 

David saying "Thy love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." To me that says enough. The story looks very much like a love story. 
“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."- _Fell in love with one another._ _That is an extremely strong notation of affection for one another._ (1 Samuel 18:1-4)


_"_And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so." (1 Samuel 20:2) -_Saul is indeed aware of the relationship between Johnathan and David. He usually discusses his plans with his sons. Why not now? Because he knew Johnathan was going to tell his boo. _

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” (1 Samuel 20:30)- _David accused by Johnathan's father Saul. Seeing someones nakedness in the old Purity codes in Leviticus 20:11ish talks about uncovering someones nakedness or sex. Why can it not be the same case here that Saul is speaking of? This fits. 

_2  And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain?  what hath he done?       33  And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David. 

     34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.- _OK let me try to set the scene I see. Dinner table. David and Johnathan are in love. Saul knows this. Saul boils over. Saul threatens to kill David. Johnathan, understandably upset, demands to know why. Saul, in a rage at the situation, throws a spear at his own son. Johnathan now gets it and understands that his father means to kill David. He is also ashamed of his fathers actions in front of his lover. 

TBC..........



_


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

39 But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter.       40  And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry _them_ to the city. 

     41  ¶ _And_ as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of _a place_ toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 

     42  And aJonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever.  And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.- _Johnathan and David understand that David must go away for his safety. Johnathan sends the kid away, David arises from his hiding place, and the weep and kiss. Upset. They are in love but now must separate for the greater good. _


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

23:15 And David saw that Saul was come out to seek his life: and  David [was] in the wilderness of Ziph in a wood.    
23:16 And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the  wood, and strengthened his hand in God.    
23:17 And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my  father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel,  and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father  knoweth.    
23:18 And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David  abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house. - _Johnathan and David make the covenant before the Lord. Johnathan understands that he will come second to David, David will be king. Sounds very much like Johnathan submitted to the will of the Lord and submitted to David. Submission much like a wife would do to her husband. 
_
2 Samuel 1_
25:_ How  are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O  Jonathan, thou was slain in thine high places.  
_26:_ 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.- _ David is married to Johnathan's sister. Michal. I have not seen mention of David loving Michal, ever. Hmm. And now here David is expressing that his love for Johnathan, his wifes brother, surpassed the love of women and David has wives. That to me says true love like nothing else. 

Recapping: Johnathan and David meet. Fall in love. Saul finds out and is enraged. Threatens to kill David. Johnathan finds out of this plan and stands up for David. Saul attempts to kill his own son. Johnathan runs away and is immediately thinking of David, after nearly being wiped out by his father for standing up for David. Johnathan tells David to go that night and be safe, and he will come to him later. Johnathan goes that next day to Davids hid out and does the secret code (throwing the arrows for a boy to fetch 3 times). David comes from his hiding place and he and Johnathan kiss and weep on one another, extensively. They both understand that David must go away. David leaves. They meet one another again in the desert. David and Johnathan make the covenant, David will be the King, and Johnathan second to him, submitting to the Lords will and submitting to David. Marriage like. Johnathan dies in battle. David laments over his slain lover in battle, and expresses that Johnathan's love for him surpassed the love of women. He did not have to make that kind of statement. 

This is a true love story if I have ever heard of one. 
_


----------



## Joyful1 (Dec 8, 2008)

Wow...


----------



## chicacanella (Dec 8, 2008)

Joyful1 said:


> Wow...


 
*I know right...I'ma leave this one alone.*

*What's that saying, "some people plant, some water but God gives the growth/increase."*

*1 Corinthians 3:5-9 *



 5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 
 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 
 7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 
 8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.  9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.


----------



## chellero (Dec 8, 2008)

Thanks heatseeker for answering my question. I don't think that was a homosexual relationship, for several reasons but even if it were where is the evidence that God approved of it?   There is plenty in the Bible to suggest that it is wrong.


----------



## chellero (Dec 8, 2008)

Here is a quick cut and paste that explains (for the most part) the problem that I have with that interpretation. I am saving my self some typing.  For starters:

*Were Jonathan and David lovers or were they just the best of friends?
*
A. It’s unfortunate that many people equate sex with love. Any two people can indulge in sex, but they don’t necessarily love each other. Such people are the ones who promote the idea of homosexuality between Jonathan and David.

Now comes a problem. These same people have an ally in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word for love (âhab, Strong's Concordance #H157) in 1 Samuel 18:1,3; 20:17, refers to having affection for, sexually or otherwise. Naturally those who see David and Jonathan as lovers conveniently overlook the otherwise.

They also overlook the fact that âhab is used elsewhere in the old testament for non-sexual love. In Genesis 22:2 God told Abraham to offer his son Isaac, whom he loved [âhab], as a sacrifice. With Abraham more than a hundred years of age, and Isaac being a young adult, this was not likely sexual love.

Isaac was old and blind when he called for his son, Esau, to shoot a deer and "make me savory meat, such as I love [âhab] ." (Genesis 27:1-4). Certainly nothing sexual in this.

Joseph was his father’s favorite son, and when his brothers saw their father loved [âhab] him more than the rest, they hated him (Genesis 37:3-4).

Possibly the most important consideration of the word love is in the ten commandments. God said,

    "You shall make no graven images…you shall not bow down to them…for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children…and showing mercy to thousands of them that love [âhab] me." (Exodus 20:4-6; Deuteronomy 5:8-10) 

In speaking to the Israelites, God said, ". . . you shall love [âhab] your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18). If this sounds familiar it’s because Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 5:43 and other new testament scriptures. The Greek, in these scriptures, is agapaõ (agape), Strong's Concordance #G25 referring to loving in a social sense, or having benevolence toward a person.

In Deuteronomy 6:4-5 the nation of Israel was commanded to love [âhab] the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and might.

So far the love has been between humans, or between humans and God. Now it’s the other way around: God says he will love [âhab] his people (Deuteronomy 7:13).

Other examples of âhab include Solomon, who loved the Lord (1 Kings 3:3); Uzziah loved animal farming (2 Chronicles 26:9-10); The king loved Esther more than all the women (Esther 2:17); David wondered how long the sons of men will love vanity (Psalm 4:2); Later he said, ". . . let them that love your name be joyful . . ." (Psalm 5:11); many people love violence (Psalm 11:5); but God loves righteousness (vs 7); There are those who love foolishness (Proverbs 1:22), and scorners don’t love anyone who corrects them (Proverbs 15:12); Those who are wise love their own lives (Proverbs 19:8); We’re also told not to love sleep lest we come to poverty (Proverbs 20:13).

There are examples of sexual love in the old testament, but generally other Hebrew words are used. I think, however, these examples are sufficient to indicate a deep friendship between Jonathan and David, and nothing more.


----------



## chellero (Dec 8, 2008)

*Q. While *** gives many great examples of how âhab can be used to describe love that has no base in sexuality, he forgets to discuss why David and Jonathan's relationship could not have been sexual. He also hasn't addressed the scriptures which suggest that there was more going on here than simply best friends (1Samuel 20:30, 41).

Perhaps there's not enough evidence here to prove that they were in love and attracted to each other separately, but I've seen no evidence to the contrary either. Would it not be intellectually honest to simply say that, instead of proclaiming it the way that fits your ideals better and not offering any biblical evidence to back it up?*

A. You likely know the Biblical accounts mentioned quite well. It is important, however, to review them as a lead-in to the response to your questions.

God commanded King Saul to get rid of the Amalekites, killing man, woman, child, and even the livestock (1 Samuel 15:1-3). But Saul had other ideas. He killed the people, but spared the Amalekite king, and some of the animals (verse 9).

When Saul met Samuel, he said, "I have done what the lord commanded" (1 Samuel 15:13). Samuel wasn’t buying it, and asked about the animal sounds he heard (verse 14). Saul wasn’t about to take the blame. He said, "They….The people spared the best animals to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we destroyed the rest (verse 15)."

Saul not only rejected the commandment of God, but rejected the Lord as his God. He said the people wanted to sacrifice the animals to "your" God.

Samuel countered, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? . . . Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you from being king." (1 Samuel 15:22-23)

As Samuel left, Saul grabbed his robe, and it ripped. Samuel said, "[In the same way my robe has been torn], the Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you, and given it to a neighbour of yours who is better than you." (verses 27-28).

What an insult! Not only would Saul lose his kingship, his successor would be someone who, God said, was a better man than Saul.

It didn’t take place that day. In fact Saul remained king until his death. You likely know the story about David coming to Saul’s palace, killing Goliath, and being honoured by the women more than Saul (1 Samuel 18:7). Saul was a violent and angry man and, several times, tried to kill David out of insane jealousy.

Jonathan should have been the heir to the throne, but Saul’s disobedience changed that. When Saul realized David would be his successor, he hated the idea that Jonathan would have him as his best friend. Using today’s vernacular Saul said, "You son of a *****." "I know you've chosen to be loyal to that son of Jesse. You should be ashamed of yourself! And your own mother should be ashamed that you were ever born (1 Samuel 20:30 Contemporary English Version)" *Saul spoke of a matter of loyalty, not of a sexual relationship.*

Then there’s the archery scene which told David whether it would be safe to stay in the city. The outcome was David would have to leave, and perhaps never see Jonathan again.

Despite knowing he would, one day, wear the crown, David was honourable to the king as long as he lived. In one instance, while Saul was sleeping in a cave, David crept in and cut off the hem of his robe, when he could just as easily have killed him. Why didn’t he? After all, Saul was out to kill him. Yet shortly after, David bowed to Saul, and called him "My lord the king." (1 Samuel 24:8). He recognized Saul as still being God’s anointed (1 Samuel 24:6).

David was also honourable to Jonathan as the apparent heir to the throne. That’s why he bowed himself three times in reverence as he approached his friend.

Yes, they kissed each other. Maybe they kissed on the lips, but they more likely kissed the cheeks as has been the custom with men through many centuries, and in many cultures. It’s interesting that people who would think of their kiss as a sexual thing, would never consider the same of the kiss Judas gave to Jesus.

Four times the apostle Paul wrote we are to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). Scholars have wrestled with this for years, without coming to a conclusion as to what a holy kiss is. Man to man? Woman to woman? Man to woman, and vice versa? Cheek, forehead, lips? One thing is certain, it would not be a sexual kiss, else it would lead Christians to break the adultery commandment (Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:27-28).

David and Jonathan were in a field, and the treachery that awaited David made it vital that he leave quickly (1 Samuel 20:31). It certainly wasn’t the time for a lengthy encounter.

It’s easy to take one verse of scripture and say, "Aha!" But for those who claim the kiss in 1 Samuel 20:41 was homosexual in nature, haven’t read far enough. In verse 42 Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace. The Lord [watch] between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring forever." Children are not the result of homosexual relationships.

You’re right in saying, "Even if their relationship held no sexual relations whatsoever, their connection must have been intimate indeed if parting could cause this much distress." When you’ve lived seventy years you will have experienced the pain of a loved one leaving. But, even then, it really won’t be as distressful as the parting of David and Jonathan. They couldn’t pick up a telephone and contact each other, as we can. We can travel farther in a day to visit our friends, than they could in weeks,. Only through death might our parting be as distressful as David and Jonathan’s. Even so, we have photographs and other keepsakes to keep our loved one’s memory alive.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I was not trying to denote sexual instances, although the "nakedness of the parents" may. Every couple in the Bible is not noted to have explicitly had sex in the verses for us to know that they are indeed a couple.
> 
> Ruth and Naomi are weaker example as far as text goes cause there isn't much, although it does say something that the word cleave was used here, and cleaving was something stressed that we are to do with God and our spouses.
> 
> ...


 
Heat, you are going to have to read the story of Saul and David from the beginning in ALL of the bible references about the story. God made Saul king over Israel because they didn't want Him to be their Lord(rule over them) but they wanted a king like everybody else had (listen to that single ladies) Saul was disobedient so God rent the kingdom from his hands. The Lord stepped back from Saul because Saul REFUSED to be obedient which caused Saul to go insane. Saul heard that David was a musician and hired him to play for him to calm him. David did not get along with his big brothers (read the whole David and Goliath story)  Jonathan became like a big brother to him, they were best friends. David mourned Jonathan AND Saul (2Sam.1:17-27) and said they were BOTH lovely and pleasant in their LIVES. He said in vs. 26, I am distressed for thee my BROTHER Jonathan... Brother means affinity or resemblance, another brother, kindred, like, other (Hebrew-ach) They were friends not sex partners. Also listen to the accusation that Saul made. He called him the son of perverse rebellion and that he had chose David to his own confusion and to the confusion of his mother nakedness. Saul said that Jonathan chose a stranger(David) over his own family when he knew(in Saul's own mind) that David was trying to kill his own father. He thought Jonathan was going to help David kill him.

God said that HUSBANDS are to leave their parents and cleave to their wives. That means that HUSBANDS are not to *leave* their wives. It has nothing to do with intimacy. That would be where the Lord said the two become one flesh. Cleave does not mean to be intimate it means to stick with, follow close after(Hebrew-dabaq). That is what she did, she followed close after her mother in law and followed her(cleaved after her) to Bethlehem.  Naomi found her a husband so that Ruth's first son, eventhough by a relative and not her son, became her son's child to carry on their family name. She didn't have a sexual relationship with her. They were not lesbians. There is nothing that even remotely suggests it.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I'll regret this tomorrow. I'm sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please don't play games with God's word.  This is not a joke, neither is it a 'play' on words.     

Let God's word say what He says, not what satan says via those who disrespect the very existance of God.   David and Jonathan were as 'brothers'.  There was nothing sexual about their relationship.   Ruth regarded Naomi as her own mother, she 'clave' , meaning to stand by her and not leave her alone; something that any loving daughter would do.

Let me add this for those who still wish to make a mockery of God's word.  Even if these persons were as homosexuals, it still would not be approved of by God.  So let's not be foolish.   HeatSeeker, you know better than this.  You KNOW better.   As one who professes to be Christian, as you say you are, you KNOW better.  God would never dishonor you, so why are you following those who do not love Him, with such rhetoric?   

Now, if you want to dishonor the word of God, that's your choice.  But please show respect to the God who has given you life and has never ceased to love you, no matter what measure of sin you are in.   He loved you enough to place you not only on His heart, but in it.   And for you or anyone else to 'lower' His love is truly sad.

Angel, no one despises you for being gay.   You have a heart and God sees what's in it.  He knows your deepest hurts and greatest dissappointments which have brought you to where you are.   And He is right there with you, extending all of the love that you have been crying for; all of the love which you well deserve, and with a heart that breaks when your heart breaks, God is right there, as your Father with open arms to embrace you and to heal you and protect you.   He loves you just that much and more.

So don't do this.  Not to Him.  God is not your enemy.   I know Christians have hurt you, as well as non-Christians.   Those whom you've trusted have betrayed you; but in this life, we still have the love of Jesus which 'overrules', 'trumps' it all.  

Loving God, as you say you do, doesn't sling mud in His face.  It instead, says Lord, I bow my heart to you and ask you to forgive me for taking my hurts out on you.  

You are a beautiful , precious child of God.   Instead of mocking Him, honor Him, and let Him cover you with His *Mantle* of Love forever. 

God's heart says to you, "He will like you forever, love you for always, as long as you're living, His baby girl, you will always be.  With Him, that means, Eternally. 

Heat Seeker, don't ever do this again.  satan is using you as one of his pawns to get back at God; Little one, you're too good for that.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

Shimmie she is not playing games this is an interpretation that she found that she believes supports homosexuality in the bible. We can't say ," Be holy and just do what the bible says" if people are being influenced by incorrect interpretations of God's Word. How is she or anyone else going to know the proper interpretation without explaining to us what she believes and why she believes it. Iron sharpens iron, saints strengthen each other through correction and support having each others best interests at heart. I admit that I made assumptions about what her level of biblical knowledge was instead of asking her, which I eventually did. She doesn't have a broad knowledge of the Word and is a babe in Christ. We know what the scripture means and know to read other versions of the bible and use Strong's Concordance to trace the original meanings of words to put the scripture in proper context. She didn't.

I want to publicaly apologize to you heat for assuming that just because you are a Christian that you already knew how to rightly divide the Word of God according to the instructions that He gave us. I'm sorry hon and I ask for you forgiveness.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> Heat, you are going to have to read the story of Saul and David from the beginning in ALL of the bible references about the story. God made Saul king over Israel because they didn't want Him to be their Lord(rule over them) but they wanted a king like everybody else had (listen to that single ladies) Saul was disobedient so God rent the kingdom from his hands. The Lord stepped back from Saul because Saul REFUSED to be obedient which caused Saul to go insane. Saul heard that David was a musician and hired him to play for him to calm him. David did not get along with his big brothers (read the whole David and Goliath story)  Jonathan became like a big brother to him, they were best friends. David mourned Jonathan AND Saul (2Sam.1:17-27) and said they were BOTH lovely and pleasant in their LIVES. He said in vs. 26, I am distressed for thee my BROTHER Jonathan... Brother means affinity or resemblance, another brother, kindred, like, other (Hebrew-ach) They were friends not sex partners. Also listen to the accusation that Saul made. He called him the son of perverse rebellion and that he had chose David to his own confusion and to the confusion of his mother nakedness. Saul said that Jonathan chose a stranger(David) over his own family when he knew(in Saul's own mind) that David was trying to kill his own father. He thought Jonathan was going to help David kill him.
> 
> God said that HUSBANDS are to leave their parents and cleave to their wives. That means that HUSBANDS are not to *leave* their wives. It has nothing to do with intimacy. That would be where the Lord said the two become one flesh. Cleave does not mean to be intimate it means to stick with, follow close after(Hebrew-dabaq). That is what she did, she followed close after her mother in law and followed her(cleaved after her) to Bethlehem.  Naomi found her a husband so that Ruth's first son, even though by a relative and not her son, became her son's child to carry on their family name. She didn't have a sexual relationship with her. They were not lesbians. There is nothing that even remotely suggests it.




I'm not saying that it stated anything about sexual intimacy. Again, there does not have to be sexual reference for someone to be a couple. Sexual intimacy is not the one and only standard for determining a homosexual from a heterosexual. Thats like saying someone is not really a couple until they have sex. The relationship itself must do that. The leave and cleave reference was used because the only other times that I saw cleave exactly was used in a husband and wife reference and to God. I thought of this verse because it is used all the time in sermons I here dealing with marriage. 

The second red: Lesbians do this quite often. Of course they can not bear one another's children (without medical intervention nowadays). Ruth bears a child to Naomi through a relative and it carries on the family name. The child is related to both Naomi and Ruth.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> Shimmie she is not playing games this is an interpretation that she found that she believes supports homosexuality in the bible. We can't say ," Be holy and just do what the bible says" if people are being influenced by incorrect interpretations of God's Word. How is she or anyone else going to know the proper interpretation without explaining to us what she believes and why she believes it. Iron sharpens iron, saints strengthen each other through correction and support having each others best interests at heart. I admit that I made assumptions about what her level of biblical knowledge was instead of asking her, which I eventually did. She doesn't have a broad knowledge of the Word and is a babe in Christ. We know what the scripture means and know to read other versions of the bible and use Strong's Concordance to trace the original meanings of words to put the scripture in proper context. She didn't.
> 
> I want to publicaly apologize to you heat for assuming that just because you are a Christian that you already knew how to rightly divide the Word of God according to the instructions that He gave us. I'm sorry hon and I ask for you forgiveness.



 You are right, I stick to King James version. As does my lady pastor and preacher. I'm going to ask her about Strong's Concordance today after I am done with my work for finals .

I am open to what you all have to say as it deals with the verses


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I'm not saying that it stated anything about sexual intimacy. Again, there does not have to be sexual reference for someone to be a couple. Sexual intimacy is not the one and only standard for determining a homosexual from a heterosexual. Thats like saying someone is not really a couple until they have sex. The relationship itself must do that. The leave and cleave reference was used because the only other times that I saw cleave exactly was used in a husband and wife reference and to God. I thought of this verse because it is used all the time in sermons I here dealing with marriage.
> 
> The second red: Lesbians do this quite often. Of course they can not bear one another's children (without medical intervention nowadays). Ruth bears a child to Naomi through a relative and it carries on the family name. The child is related to both Naomi and Ruth.


 

Sexual relations IS a standard to denote couples in the bible though and that's what we're studying. It states in the O.T. whether or not the couples were fertile and able to bear children. Use other bible translations from crosswalk.com and biblegateway.com for free if you don't have any others yet. Read the story from the very beginning though and also read it in Kings. Close friendship and love does not mean they were a couple. Christian men love Jesus more than they do their wives. My DH loves Jesus more than he loves me. Jesus is everything to Him and he wants to be with him forever. That does not mean that DH has homosexual feelings towards Christ. They love God with all of the heart all of their minds and all of their souls. Jesus loves them the same and He proved it by dying on the cross for them. The story of David and Jonathan represents not only the passing of power from the Father to Jesus, it also represents the Love Jesus has for the church. Jesus calls us his brothers and friends, his kin. 

I understand what you're saying about cleave but cleave is also used to describe, "to break apart and separate or to get a hold of, grasp onto" in the bible not just in reference of couples. You really need Strong's Concordance to show you all of the other instances the word is used and what the definition meant in the original Hebrew. You would need to have two or more witnesses that says that Naomi and Ruth were a couple and just the word cleave doesn't even give you one. Cleave does not mean they were a couple it means that she chose to stay with her and she followed her to Bethelehem.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> *Sexual relations IS a standard to denote couples in the bible though and that's what we're studying*. It states in the O.T. whether or not the couples were fertile and able to bear children. Use other bible translations from crosswalk.com and biblegateway.com for free if you don't have any others yet. Read the story from the very beginning though and also read it in Kings. Close friendship and love does not mean they were a couple. Christian men love Jesus more than they do their wives. My DH loves Jesus more than he loves me. Jesus is everything to Him and he wants to be with him forever. That does not mean that DH has homosexual feelings towards Christ. They love God with all of the heart all of their minds and all of their souls. Jesus loves them the same and He proved it by dying on the cross for them. The story of David and Jonathan represents not only the passing of power from the Father to Jesus, it also represents the Love Jesus has for the church. Jesus calls us his brothers and friends, his kin.
> 
> I understand what you're saying about cleave but cleave is also used to describe, "to break apart and separate or to get a hold of, grasp onto" in the bible not just in reference of couples. You really need Strong's Concordance to show you all of the other instances the word is used and what the definition meant in the original Hebrew. You would need to have two or more witnesses that says that Naomi and Ruth were a couple and just the word cleave doesn't even give you one. Cleave does not mean they were a couple it means that she chose to stay with her and she followed her to Bethelehem.



I don't see this. It always says that someone had sex when we look at relationships in the Bible? If it does does that mean that that every relationship that doesn't explicitly state sex happened is not an intimate relationship? 

The part where David says Johnathan's love for him surpasses women is really a sticking point to me. It is a different thing when someone says they love God, as that is a reverential love. However, this is between Johnathan and David. He specifically said that their love surpassed the love of women." Why would he really say all that if in fact, he did not mean what he said quite literally? He loved Johnathan over women. 

If someones husband said that his love for another man surpassed the love of his wife we would see that as acceptable?


----------



## SunySydeofLyfe (Dec 8, 2008)

I wanted to read the entire post but I am working and limited on time (will when I get home). This post is ever so close to my heart because my 17 year old brother told my mother just days ago that he is gay and that he feels that he was born that way (I dont agree, who knows anything about sexuality at birth). My mother asked me last night to speak to him but I am not sure where to begin without alienating (sp) him.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind when I hear people talk about homosexuality being 'ok'......I am lost......


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

chellero said:


> Thanks heatseeker for answering my question. I don't think that was a homosexual relationship, for several reasons but even if it were where is the evidence that God approved of it?   There is plenty in the Bible to suggest that it is wrong.



 I may be editing this post instead of constantly spamming the thread for the other versus. (the italicized words are my thoughts)

 Leviticus 20:13  If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”- _ If a man lies with a man as with a woman. A man and woman have penetrative. This verse is saying if a man lays with a man as he would a woman it is a sin. Not laying with a man is a sin in itself. I think this is speaking to penetrative sex. In the Hebrew Bible there is no mention of lesbians or women in this verse.  I don't know how we rectify that unless we are going to infer something upon silence.   _

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."- _ Dealing with the natural and unnatural. Homosexuality is natural to a homosexual person, as heterosexuality is natural to a heterosexual person. Therefore, men who where heterosexual, were participating in homosexual acts with other men, and this was unnatural to them and indecent. Therefore they are to receive a penalty for that._

My understand is Leviticus was Purity codes correct? Many of which we no longer obied by in the Church as a whole.


----------



## LadyD (Dec 8, 2008)

akimat001 said:


> My mother asked me last night to speak to him but I am not sure where to begin without alienating (sp) him.


 
This thread both helped me and made me sad.  I have the same situation with a family member.  For years there were constant arguments and hurt feelings on both sides.  Even still he is determined to MAKE me accept things that I cannot.

Pray up. The Highest One will show you what to say and how.  I went to my family member in the wrong way and I am still to this day years later paying for it. If I could do anything over again I would have gone to my family member in love and not in anger and disgust.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

akimat001 said:


> I wanted to read the entire post but I am working and limited on time (will when I get home). This post is ever so close to my heart because my 17 year old brother told my mother just days ago that he is gay and that he feels that he was born that way (I dont agree, who knows anything about sexuality at birth). My mother asked me last night to speak to him but I am not sure where to begin without alienating (sp) him. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind when I hear people talk about homosexuality being 'ok'......I am lost......


 
Just pray and ask God to speak to your brother through you. Make sure you pray that FIRST. You don't want to come to your brother with your own opinion or understanding. God knows what your brother needs to hear, when he needs to hear it. That doesn't mean that he will all of a sudden accept what God says and seek to conform to the Word but it means that the seed has been sown and the Lord will make it grow in His heart daily among the others that will be sown to help him see the truth.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I may be editing this post instead of constantly spamming the thread for the other versus. (the italicized words are my thoughts)
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”- _If a man lies with a man as with a woman. A man and woman have penetrative. This verse is saying if a man lays with a man as he would a woman it is a sin. Not laying with a man is a sin in itself. I think this is speaking to penetrative sex. In the Hebrew Bible there is no mention of lesbians or women in this verse. I don't know how we rectify that unless we are going to infer something upon silence. _
> 
> ...


 
I think you may believe that the O.T. is irrelevant. While we are not saved by obeying the O.T. laws but now by grace, we still see that the law is good it is our schoolmaster, our teacher of the thoughts, heart and ways of God. Read the book of Hebrews. We do not discount the law at all. "Purity codes" are included but doesn't consist of all of Lev.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> I think you may believe that the O.T. is irrelevant. While we are not saved by obeying the O.T. laws but now by grace, we still see that the law is good it is our schoolmaster, our teacher of the thoughts, heart and ways of God. Read the book of Hebrews. We do not discount the law at all. "Purity codes" are included but doesn't consist of all of Lev.



I think the Old Testament is very relevant. I just don't understand why we would obey some of the codes in this day and age but not all. Either we are to obey them or not.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I don't see this. It always says that someone had sex when we look at relationships in the Bible? If it does does that mean that that every relationship that doesn't explicitly state sex happened is not an intimate relationship?
> 
> The part where David says Johnathan's love for him surpasses women is really a sticking point to me. It is a different thing when someone says they love God, as that is a reverential love. However, this is between Johnathan and David. He specifically said that their love surpassed the love of women." Why would he really say all that if in fact, he did not mean what he said quite literally? He loved Johnathan over women.
> 
> If someones husband said that his love for another man surpassed the love of his wife we would see that as acceptable?


 

Heat you are reading those scriptures already deciding that they were gay relationships. I'm trying to explain to you that they were close friends not intimate partners. There is NO WHERE that suggests that they were gay. You are going to have to read this in a version other than KJV. Don't think of fellowship and sign of affection back then as in terms of now or even the way we express friendship as Eurocentrics compared to other cultures. You have to read that story from the beginning and all references to those events in the context that they were written in the TIMES that they were written.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> Heat you are reading those scriptures already deciding that they were gay relationships. I'm trying to explain to you that they were close friends not intimate partners. There is NO WHERE that suggests that they were gay. You are going to have to read this in a version other than KJV. Don't think of fellowship and sign of affection back then as in terms of now or even the way we express friendship as Eurocentrics compared to other cultures. You have to read that story from the beginning and all references to those events in the context that they were written in the TIMES that they were written.



What version would you suggest. The NIV is the only other I can think may be on hand...


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I think the Old Testament is very relevant. I just don't understand why we would obey some of the codes in this day and age but not all. Either we are to obey them or not.


 
In the book of Acts the Apostles state that they shouldn't try to make non Jewish Christians try to obey certain Jewish laws. Read Acts 15:9-21


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 8, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> What version would you suggest. The NIV is the only other I can think may be on hand...


 

Read a couple of the more modern English translations that we talked about before like the Amplified and Good News.


----------



## Shimmie (Dec 8, 2008)

Ms.Honey said:


> Shimmie she is not playing games this is an interpretation that she found that she believes supports homosexuality in the bible. We can't say ," Be holy and just do what the bible says" if people are being influenced by incorrect interpretations of God's Word. How is she or anyone else going to know the proper interpretation without explaining to us what she believes and why she believes it. Iron sharpens iron, saints strengthen each other through correction and support having each others best interests at heart. I admit that I made assumptions about what her level of biblical knowledge was instead of asking her, which I eventually did. She doesn't have a broad knowledge of the Word and is a babe in Christ. We know what the scripture means and know to read other versions of the bible and use Strong's Concordance to trace the original meanings of words to put the scripture in proper context. She didn't.
> 
> I want to publicaly apologize to you heat for assuming that just because you are a Christian that you already knew how to rightly divide the Word of God according to the instructions that He gave us. I'm sorry hon and I ask for you forgiveness.


She knows EXACTLY what she's doing.   Planting the the seeds of the Gospel of Homosexualtiy.   She knows better; for this is the word that is taught in gay churches and congregations.   And it's spread throughout to place the true word of God as 'suspect'.  

MsHoney, you said it plain right here and she's not here for you to share otherwise, but only to plant the seed and set confusion in the minds of those who doubt the word of God.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ms.Honey*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Homosexuality is a spirit and it's in full operation which respects no bounds.  It's main focus is to shame God; the 'accuser of the brethren' in full operation, that stands before God and points with condemnation,  "Look at your Creation...and what they have become." 

I am not calling Heat Seeker, the enemy, but the enemy is using her; she knows the truth of God's word.   She's been exposed to it long enough to know better.   And again, she knows exactly what she's doing.

Now....watch God move.  He's not playing and neither am I.


----------



## Evolving78 (Dec 9, 2008)

SuperNova said:


> Homosexuality is defined as
> 
> 
> Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
> ...



ITA!  i have a question though, for people that have been dealing with certain sins since childhood, how do they avoid being tempted?  i know i have some since that have been brought on since childhood that i still struggle with.  but what to do about folks who claim they were born this way?  i have a cousin who is the same age as me and you could clearly see it when he was younger.  (he was not sexually abused either)


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 9, 2008)

shortdub78 said:


> ITA!  i have a question though, for people that have been dealing with certain sins since childhood, how do they avoid being tempted?  i know i have some since that have been brought on since childhood that i still struggle with.  but what to do about folks who claim they were born this way?  i have a cousin who is the same age as me and you could clearly see it when he was younger.  (he was not sexually abused either)




We should run from tempting situations.  I don't have the scripture in front of me, but i'll get back with you on the exact verse(s).  Also, as far as people being born and believing that they are a certain way. . .could be.  But I know that sometimes people can speak things over our lives as children even babies and those things can come to pass if our parents are unaware of the power of words and how to cancel out those negative things spoken against us(we all know someone who was called bad/hardheaded/destined for jail as a child and low and behold, they grew up and proved everyone right)  Hopefully someone can chime in, but I believe there are certain curses that can come upon a child, based upon the parents actions. . . .hmmmmm  a lot of us don't know what our parents did before we came along.  Too, not saying your cousin was molested, but there is so much that happens in the lives of children, that it is impossible to know who has or hasn't experienced this(the sad thing is that a majority of molestation is at the hands of other kids who are just curious and take advantage of younger children in the form of little "games") We have to be active in praying for our children and specific with God about not letting our children fall victim because of our own actions before they were even born.


ETA: James 4:7 says So place yourselves under God's authority. Resist the devil, and he will run away from you.

Genesis 9:24 says When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
       "Cursed be Canaan!***Canaan is Ham's son(Noah's youngest)***
       The lowest of slaves
       will he be to his brothers.


----------



## chellero (Dec 9, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I may be editing this post instead of constantly spamming the thread for the other versus. (the italicized words are my thoughts)
> 
> Leviticus 20:13  If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”- _ If a man lies with a man as with a woman. A man and woman have penetrative. This verse is saying if a man lays with a man as he would a woman it is a sin. Not laying with a man is a sin in itself. I think this is speaking to penetrative sex. In the Hebrew Bible there is no mention of lesbians or women in this verse.  I don't know how we rectify that unless we are going to infer something upon silence.   _
> 
> ...



There are several instances where the Bible doesn't speak specifically to women, but they mean both sexes.  I will edit when I find the verses.  As far as the penetration part, men don't just penetrate women, they do other sexual things with them too.  I think that "lay" refers to sex period, not just the penetrative kind.  I don't think that  homosexuality was considered natural in the Bible. It is specifically called an abomination (or a perversion or disgusting in some translations) In addition a lot of things come "naturally" to us but we are told to die to ourselves and follow Christ.  

  And if your translation is correct, then where does this leave the bisexual people? And isn't some level of "bi-curiousity" considered "natural" for most people now? I remember reading something about a spectrum.  Anyway, according to your interpretation wouldn't gay people be sinning if they had sex with a person of the opposite sex?  Don't many gay people have to do that to figure out that they are gay?  

And finally what about marriage?  We are all only allowed to have sex inside marriage.  God clearly defines marriage and says that it like the relationship between God and the church.  The Bible is specific there when they mention the roles of men and women.  You can't have a marriage without a man and a woman.  If you are not married then any sexual activity that you would do, penetrative or not, is just wrong.  Surely you don't think that it would be OK for a married man to have a non penetrative sexual experience outside of marriage?  Well if it's not OK then how can a man and a man or a woman and a woman have such an experience outside of marriage in a non sinful way?  

_Ephesians 5: 22  Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. __ 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband._


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 9, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I'm not saying that it stated anything about sexual intimacy. Again, there does not have to be sexual reference for someone to be a couple. Sexual intimacy is not the one and only standard for determining a homosexual from a heterosexual. Thats like saying someone is not really a couple until they have sex. The relationship itself must do that. The leave and cleave reference was used because the only other times that I saw cleave exactly was used in a husband and wife reference and to God. I thought of this verse because it is used all the time in sermons I here dealing with marriage.
> 
> The second red: Lesbians do this quite often. Of course they can not bear one another's children (without medical intervention nowadays). *Ruth bears a child to Naomi through a relative and it carries on the family name. The child is related to both Naomi and Ruth*.



I would have to disagree with that.  Ruth bear her deceased husband a son(which was custom) and by default, that was like Naomi's grandbaby.  



HeatSeeker said:


> I don't see this. It always says that someone had sex when we look at relationships in the Bible? If it does does that mean that that every relationship that doesn't explicitly state sex happened is not an intimate relationship?
> 
> The part where David says Johnathan's love for him surpasses women is really a sticking point to me. It is a different thing when someone says they love God, as that is a reverential love. However, this is between Johnathan and David. He specifically said that their love surpassed the love of women." Why would he really say all that if in fact, he did not mean what he said quite literally? He loved Johnathan over women.
> 
> If someones husband said that his love for another man surpassed the love of his wife we would see that as acceptable?



It seems that intimacy and sex have gotten all twisted throughout the ages.  Intimacy does not equal a relationship based upon an attraction which is defined as either homo/heterosexual.  I found this to be a pretty clear definition of intimacy--"Intimacy is both the ability and the choice to be close, loving, and vulnerable."  When he said their loved surpassed the love of a woman you have to consider the place that women had---We were made with a purpose and although we are created equally by God, we do spiritually have  sort of a lower value(not to be confused with being subservient)  Two men who love God are on an even playing field, they are directly linked with God and require no "covering"  or protection other than God himself.  Women come with the burden of needing to be covered by their husband which means that to a man, although he may love his wife . . .he is responsible for her to an extent, whereas with a man---brother in Christ, he is not responsible for that man and therefore has no extra responsibilities with a man and can flourish in a relationship based on equal give and take.  

Brotherhood in the Bible is the standard(normal).  God created men first, and then placed them in charge of the family, the church, and sent his son to head up his body on earth.  Men are special to one another and those who love God to the degree that David and Jonathan did understood the value of a level of intimacy that had been afforded to them being able to fellowship and grow together.


----------



## HeChangedMyName (Dec 9, 2008)

God just gave me this word in my ear:  He created man and woman each with a purpose.  Period.  Although we can enjoy the benefits of living this life in this skin, we are set on this earth with a purpose and homosexual relationships prevent us from fulfilling our purpose.  

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  27 So God created man in his own image, 
       in the image of God he created him; 
       male and female he created them. 
 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 



Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 
 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. 
      But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 
 23 The man said, 
       "This is now bone of my bones 
       and flesh of my flesh; 
       she shall be called 'woman,' 
       for she was taken out of man." 
 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 
 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.


Isaiah 29
11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't; it is sealed." 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."  13 The Lord says: 
       "These people come near to me with their mouth 
       and honor me with their lips, 
       but their hearts are far from me. 
       Their worship of me 
       is made up only of rules taught by men. [b] 
 14 Therefore once more I will astound these people 
       with wonder upon wonder; 
       the wisdom of the wise will perish, 
       the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish." 
 15 Woe to those who go to great depths 
       to hide their plans from the LORD, 
       who do their work in darkness and think, 
       "Who sees us? Who will know?" 
 16 You turn things upside down, 
       as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! 
       Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 
       "He did not make me"? 
       Can the pot say of the potter, 
       "He knows nothing"? 







***My understanding is this,  God created man and woman for a reason and a purpose which is to glorify him and be a family to him through reproduction.  When we try to do anything other than his purpose for us, we are basically telling God that he is wrong.  In those instances, no matter the sin, God will let you stray from his truth so long as you are not earnestly and sincerely seeking his truth(although the proof of his love is that he is always there, just waiting for us to turn from the lie and toward his truth).  





I had an issue before that I honestly didn't believe that anything was wrong with it and although I had other people trying to tell me I was wrong, I could see the forest for the trees.  One day, I went to God and my prayer was that if I was wrong about the situation that he PLEASE open my eyes so that I could see his truth.  I was honestly clueless and didn't "get it"  slowly but surely, God opened my eyes and through SKILT  I let go of a relationship that was sinful and as dead wrong as a homosexual relationship.  Once I asked God and stopped asking people and I was open to whatever God had to tell me.  I saw the truth for what it was.  I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I've mentioned before that there may be people on this board lurkers and participants who struggle with homosexuality and really don't "get it".  Just ask God to open your eyes.  pray earnestly and fervently that he show you the truth.


----------



## chellero (Dec 10, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."- _ Dealing with the natural and unnatural. Homosexuality is natural to a homosexual person, as heterosexuality is natural to a heterosexual person. Therefore, men who where heterosexual, were participating in homosexual acts with other men, and this was unnatural to them and indecent. Therefore they are to receive a penalty for that._
> 
> My understand is Leviticus was Purity codes correct? Many of which we no longer obied by in the Church as a whole.



Heatseeker you are also not reading this passage in it's entirety.  I also find the comments in red to especially problematic for your interpretation.  Sorry that it is so long.  

 The details of this passage show why these new interpretations are impossible:[3]         For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
       For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
       Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
       For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


Let me start by making two observations.  First, this is about God being mad:  "For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men...."  
       Second, there is a specific progression that leads to this "orgy" of anger.  Men "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18).  They exchanged "the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25).  Next, "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity..." (v. 24).  They "exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural (v. 26).  Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v. 18); they are without excuse (v. 20).
       This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation.  Paul is not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution that's part of life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture.  He is talking about a universal condition of man.
       Regarding the same-sex behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses:  a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that's unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).
*There's only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed:  if someone is in total revolt against God.  According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one's Creator.  Verse 32 shows it's rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God--true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality.  God's response is explicit:  "They are without excuse" (v. 20).*
 Born Gay?  
* What if one's "natural" desire is for the same sex, though.  What if his homosexuality is part of his physical constitution?  There are four different reasons this is a bad argument.  The first three are compelling; the fourth is unassailable.*
       First, this rejoinder assumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality.  The scientific data is far from conclusive, though.  Contrary to the hasty claims of the press, there is no definitive evidence that homosexuality is determined by physiological factors (see "Just Doing What Comes Naturally," Clear Thinking, Spring, 1997).
*There's a second problem.  If all who have a desire for the same sex do so "naturally," then to whom does this verse apply?  If everybody is only following their natural sexual desires, then which particular individuals fall under this ban, those who are not aroused by their own gender, but have sex anyway?  Generally, for men at least, if there is no arousal, there is no sex.  And if there is arousal, according to Boswell et al, then the passion must be natural.*
       Third, this interpretation introduces a whole new concept--constitutional homosexuality--that is entirely foreign to the text.  Boswell himself admits that it was "in fact unlikely that many Jews of [Paul's] day recognized such a distinction," and that possibly even Paul himself was in the dark.  
       If Paul did not understand genuine homosexuality, though, then how can one say he excepted constitutional homosexuals when he wrote that they "exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"?  This argument self-destructs.
       Further, if Paul spoke only to those violating their personal sexual orientation, then wouldn't he also warn that some men burned unnaturally towards women, and some women towards men?  Wouldn't Paul warn against both types of violation--heterosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the same sex, and homosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the opposite sex?
       What in the text allows us to distinguish between constitutional homosexuals and others?  Only one word:  "natural."  A close look at this word and what it modifies, though, leads to the most devastating critique of all.
 Natural Desire or Natural Function?
       Paul was not unclear about what he meant by "natural."  Homosexuals do not abandon natural desires; they abandon natural functions:  "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..." (1:26-27)
       The Greek word kreesis, translated "function" in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time.  According to the standard Greek language reference _A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other  Early Christian Literature_,[4] the word means "use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse."
       Paul is not talking about natural desires here, but natural functions.  He is not talking about what one wants sexually, but how one is built to operate sexually.  The body is built to function in a specific way.  Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.
       This conclusion becomes unmistakable when one notes what men abandon in verse 27, according to Paul.  The modern argument depends on the text teaching that men abandoned their own natural desire for woman and burned toward one another.  Men whose natural desire was for other men would then be exempted from Paul's condemnation.  Paul says nothing of the kind, though.
       Paul says men forsake not their own natural desire (their constitutional make-up), but rather the "natural function of the woman.."  They abandoned the female, who was built by God to be man's sexual compliment.
       The error has nothing to do with anything in the male's own constitution that he's denying.  It is in the rejection of the proper sexual companion God has made for him--a woman:  "The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts...." (v. 27)
       Natural desires go with natural functions.  The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a   man and a man is what Paul calls a degrading passion.
       Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship:  "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].'?"  (Matthew 19:4-5)
       Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment God has ordained for him:  a woman.  That was Paul's view.  If it was Paul's view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God's view.  And if it is God's view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 10, 2008)

chellero said:


> There are several instances where the Bible doesn't speak specifically to women, but they mean both sexes.  I will edit when I find the verses*.  *1.* As far as the penetration part, men don't just penetrate women, they do other sexual things with them too.*  I think that "lay" refers to sex period, not just the penetrative kind.  I don't think that  homosexuality was considered natural in the Bible. It is specifically called an abomination (or a perversion or disgusting in some translations) In addition a lot of things come "naturally" to us but we are told to die to ourselves and follow Christ.
> 
> And if your translation is correct, then where does this leave the bisexual people? And isn't some level of "bi-curiousity" considered "natural" for most people now? I remember reading something about a spectrum.  2. *Anyway, according to your interpretation wouldn't gay people be sinning if they had sex with a person of the opposite sex?*  Don't many gay people have to do that to figure out that they are gay?
> 
> ...



1. Bolded, some Christians believe differently. I have heard Christians on this board say that anything other than vaginal/penal sex is wrong. Debatable.

2. Yes. Although, if you are having sex with someone other than the opposite sex, you are not gay. You are bisexual. If you are bisexual, meaning attracted to both sexes, it would not be a sin, as having sex with males or females is no going against your nature. 

3. Where does it state that a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot get married? Yes, God spoke on marriage and the roles that take place within them (dominant and submissive) but again, I don't try to infer anything upon Gods silence of the matter. Because he did not state anything specifically dismissing it, one cannot then state He was against it just because.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 10, 2008)

chellero said:


> Heatseeker you are also not reading this passage in it's entirety.  I also find the comments in red to especially problematic for your interpretation.  Sorry that it is so long.
> 
> The details of this passage show why these new interpretations are impossible:[3]         For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
> For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
> ...



I went back and numbered my questions regarding the text in red that I was responding to: 

1. Why would Paul if he did not understand homosexuality, as stated in the reading? 

2. Not sure I understand that. If a man can successfully get aroused, have  carnal knowledge of (trying to keep this PC) how is that not functioning? I can only assume that is because they cannot have children, which is an age old argument that I disagree with. 

3. I'm not sure why that sentence was added, but that could be problematic. I wont take it that way though. 

4. I read it several times. I still dont see where he said that was the only natural relationship, or even used the word natural inside of that context. 

5. Again, why are we inferring condemnation upon silence?


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 10, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> 1. Bolded, some Christians believe differently. I have heard Christians on this board say that anything other than vaginal/penal sex is wrong. Debatable.
> 
> 2. Yes. Although, if you are having sex with someone other than the opposite sex, you are not gay. You are bisexual. If you are bisexual, meaning attracted to both sexes, it would not be a sin, as having sex with males or females is no going against your nature.
> 
> 3. Where does it state that a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot get married? Yes, God spoke on marriage and the roles that take place within them (dominant and submissive) but again, I don't try to infer anything upon Gods silence of the matter. Because he did not state anything specifically dismissing it, one cannot then state He was against it just because.


 

Let me ask you this heat. What could have possibly been going on between two men, similar to what a man does with a woman ACCORDING to scriptures that God said it was an abomination and that they needed to be put to death in a chapter that is discussing OTHER sexual sins with the SAME result, death?


----------



## chellero (Dec 10, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> I went back and numbered my questions regarding the text in red that I was responding to:
> 
> 1. Why would Paul if he did not understand homosexuality, as stated in the reading?
> 
> ...





HeatSeeker said:


> 1. Bolded, some Christians believe differently. I have heard Christians on this board say that anything other than vaginal/penal sex is wrong. Debatable.
> 
> 2. Yes. Although, if you are having sex with someone other than the opposite sex, you are not gay. You are bisexual. If you are bisexual, meaning attracted to both sexes, it would not be a sin, as having sex with males or females is no going against your nature.
> 
> ...



Those roles weren't called dominant and submissive.  They were called man and woman, husband and wife.  These words did not apply to same sex couples.   This passage also does not forbid you marrying a sibling.  Is marriage between a man and his sister allowed?  

Heat - I am really trying to see your point here, but this seems like such a stretch.  Have you prayed and asked God about this?   I know that most Christians want to be living their lives in accordance with the Bible, but I honestly think that you are trying make the Bible fit what you want instead of making your life fit God's word. Out of curiousity, how are interpreting this :

1 Cor 6:9 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 mankind,Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  

Don't you know that evil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marriage or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual 10will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others.   11Some of you used to be like that. But now the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of God's Spirit have washed you and made you holy and acceptable to God.


----------



## chellero (Dec 10, 2008)

*One more question.  Why is it that out all of the sexual behaviors listed here that are forbidden homosexuality is the only one that is OK now, while all of the others are still obviously sinful?*

 7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

 8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

 9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

 10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

 11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

 12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

 13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

 14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

 15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

 16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

 17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

 18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

 19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

 20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

 21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.


----------



## Crackers Phinn (Dec 10, 2008)

What a surprisingly vivid thread! So many questions come to mind:
What on earth would G-d vomit?  Does the spirit of homosexuality wear pink chiffon and leave a trail of glitter?

erplexed

anywho



chellero said:


> This is kind of a spin off from one of the Prop 8 threads in the political forum.
> 
> Someone mentioned  interpretations of the Bible that allow homosexuality, instead of it being a sin.  I have never come across an interpretation like this that was not quite obviously flawed, but I was wondering if anyone here had.  If so please share.



There are no passages in the bible (old or new testament) that 'allow' homosexuality.  As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that all instances where it's referred to outright are acts of male on male molestation or rape/attempted rape. 

It's beyond a stretch to make a religious argument for homosexuality. Political, yes, religious, no.


----------



## chellero (Dec 11, 2008)

JCoily said:


> What a surprisingly vivid thread! So many questions come to mind:
> What on earth would G-d vomit?  Does the spirit of homosexuality wear pink chiffon and leave a trail of glitter?
> 
> erplexed
> ...


and feeling guilty. 
The political argument is less of a stretch but I still see them reaching.  I can vote for that without feeling too bad.


----------



## Mortons (Dec 11, 2008)

chellero said:


> Those roles weren't called dominant and submissive.  They were called man and woman, husband and wife.  These words did not apply to same sex couples.   This passage also does not forbid you marrying a sibling.  Is marriage between a man and his sister allowed?
> 
> Heat - I am really trying to see your point here, but this seems like such a stretch.  Have you prayed and asked God about this?   I know that most Christians want to be living their lives in accordance with the Bible, but* I honestly think that you are trying make the Bible fit what you want instead of making your life fit God's word.* Out of curiousity, how are interpreting this :
> 
> ...



Thats not what I am trying to do at all. The things that i asked were sincere questions and issues that I raise in trying to understand things. I know that I was born this way and will die this way. All that "changing myself" and "being delivered from this spirit" is a facade when people say it. I also don't believe that God would condemn me to a life of being alone and without companionship due to me being homosexual. I know others disagree, and thats fine, but I don't believe the one I serve would be that cruel. 

Which version is that for Corinthians 6:9?


----------



## Mortons (Dec 11, 2008)

chellero said:


> *One more question.  Why is it that out all of the sexual behaviors listed here that are forbidden homosexuality is the only one that is OK now, while all of the others are still obviously sinful?*



Forbidden where and to whom?


----------



## chellero (Dec 11, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> Forbidden where and to whom?



Everyone, unless you think that sex with relatives and animals and such is alright with God.  erplexed What makes homosexuality OK now, but sex with animals, sisters, mothers, fathers, brothers, ect not OK? And why aren't you answering my questions?  I feel ig'd.


----------



## Chrissy811 (Dec 11, 2008)

Shimmie said:


> Headstrong for being among those who know God's truth and stand boldly upon it.  You are a Christian without compromise.  You KNOW the word and you stand on it.
> 
> I can see that the enemy's (satan's) scheme now is to 'play' on the word 'homosexuality' not being mentioned in the Bible.   Ummmmmm, the definition of it is surely in God's word and it cannot be missed.  People are really 'stretching' their sins.
> 
> ...



Girl THANK YOU , I AGREE WITH YOU 1000000%


----------



## Irresistible (Dec 11, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> Thats not what I am trying to do at all. The things that i asked were sincere questions and issues that I raise in trying to understand things. I know that I was born this way and will die this way. All that "changing myself" and "being delivered from this spirit" is a facade when people say it. I also don't believe that God would condemn me to a life of being alone and without companionship due to me being homosexual. I know others disagree, and thats fine, but I don't believe the one I serve would be that cruel.
> 
> Which version is that for Corinthians 6:9?



keep seeking him and seeking him and seeking him!


----------



## Mortons (Dec 11, 2008)

chellero said:


> Everyone, unless you think that sex with relatives and animals and such is alright with God.  erplexed What makes homosexuality OK now, but sex with animals, sisters, mothers, fathers, brothers, ect not OK? And why aren't you answering my questions?  I feel ig'd.



I didn't understand if you were talking about they were illegal or unchristian like.  My bad about your questions, I though I did but I must have missed a post...I'll come back and update this post.


----------



## Ms.Honey (Dec 11, 2008)

HeatSeeker said:


> Thats not what I am trying to do at all. The things that i asked were sincere questions and issues that I raise in trying to understand things. I know that I was born this way and will die this way. All that "changing myself" and "being delivered from this spirit" is a facade when people say it. I also don't believe that God would condemn me to a life of being alone and without companionship due to me being homosexual. I know others disagree, and thats fine, but I don't believe the one I serve would be that cruel.
> 
> Which version is that for Corinthians 6:9?


 
You have made God into your image and your likeness. You have made Him into an idol who sees the world as you do and has made your sin not a sin becuae that upsets you. You don't accept the gospel as is and have changed it in a way that's comfortable to you. 

Your personal belief of what God will and will not do is irrelevant as is ours. God says He and His Word are one. He has written what His will is, He doesn't have an alternative Gospel. He is not going to allow you to do something that is against His Word and tell you you are exempt because of your feelings. You see the bible as if God can be swayed by your feelings. You see it as many as an American who believes in democracy when it is a theocracy. One God, omnipotent. 

You are looking at this and making it suit your own personal beliefs. You feel that you are different than the rest of mankind because you were born gay and that your sin is special because you've had it as long as you can remember. You think it's different and refuse to admit that it's just one of many. You refuse to admit that everyone is born with a sin and yours just happens to be homosexuality.

God has delivered homosexuals from homosexuality before and always will. He delivers those who believe His Word above their own wants and desires whether it's sexual sin or any other kind of sin. 

We are not the first to tell you this. He continues to tell you this and you reject it because it's not what you want to hear. When you want to accept that homosexuality is a not a sin you have that doubt in the back of your mind that something is not right. 

It is not our job to convince you but to bring you the truth. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. If you really want to know God's will ask Him is it His will for you to be homosexual. That's all I ask. Tell Him what you believe straight up and tell Him you believe that He doesn't expect for you to be delivered of it and to become heterosexual. But make sure that you also tell Him that you want His willl to be done in your life and if it is His will for you to be different than what you believe you should be that you want Him to change you.

You see, that's what we all have to do. There are things that we have believed and we sure of that conflicted with the Word of God and we had to tearfully give them up. When we see something in God's word that's contrary to what we believe, we lay the cards down on the table not fearing what He will say becuase we believe He has our best interest at heart. If you believe that He has your best interest at heart you will seek His not heats understanding of what you've been hearing and seeing in His word. It's a sign of spiritual maturity.


----------



## dreamlovermd (Jan 6, 2009)

I agree with what everyone has to say about being homosexual is wrong, but when you look deeper into 1 Corin. 6:9-10, homosexuality is stated differently*. 

Lev. 18:22, **Lev. 20:13, **Rom. 1:26-28 All states a man should not lay with another man the way he lays with a woman. *

*1 Corinthians 6: 9-10* "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor *homosexual offenders* nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 
Homosexual Offenders means someone who causes pain to a homosexual or it could be interpreted, someone who is homosexual that causes pain to another. 
*
*I feel that God gives us so many ways to get to him. Homosexuality has been on this earth for centuries, even when Noah was around. At one point, I "felt" that God was like, these people are not going to change and things are going to get worst, which is the reason we have 1 Corin. 6:9-10  The origin of homosexuality is not very clear to us, but all we need to know is that God is the one that judges, not us.  Working with foster children, I realized, when a boy is molested as a child, "especially by a man" 95% of the time, that child grows up to be homosexual. They have a lot of mental problems. I don't judge anymore, I just pray for them because I do not know their past. Even if I did know their past, it still does not give me the right to judge. *

Prayer is the key, the answer and the way. 
*


----------



## saved06 (Jan 7, 2009)

I do understand homosexuality is a sin....sin is sin...my concern is that people who engage in premartial sex and fornication will try to look down upon those living the homosexual lifestyle. I never understood that. 

Homosexuality will grow more popular as we go closer toward the last days.... Satan is homosexual in nature because creation honors God and Satan ain't tryna do that....

If you know someone who is struggling with homosexuality please pray for them and be a light...do not distance yourself...they need you...let the love of God shine through you....and take advantage of opportunities to minister....

And to add....I know many ppl who are homosexual because of molestation issues when they were growing up...so again point them to Jesus to heal their hurt


----------



## chicacanella (Jan 7, 2009)

saved06 said:


> I do understand homosexuality is a sin....sin is sin...my concern is that people who engage in premartial sex and fornication will try to look down upon those living the homosexual lifestyle. I never understood that.
> 
> Homosexuality will grow more popular as we go closer toward the last days.... Satan is homosexual in nature because creation honors God and Satan ain't tryna do that....
> 
> ...


 

*It is alot of reasons. I know people say that people can not change but God can, as I've seen in one of my close friends. Then the enemy will try to have people say, "Well, he was not gay in the first place." Well, my question is, "What exactly would qualify as one being gay and who may you the authority or telling another person how they feel?" Yet, you accept it when they "come out" but when Jesus brings them out, they are no longer gay to you? So, we have Satan again attempting to make people think that if you are gay there is no possible way you can change and if you do, then you weren't gay in the first place.  There have been men just as flamboyant as the black guy from America's Next Top Model who God has changed. *

*God gave me a Word about this and said, "He is God and if he created you, then he can change you." It's just that simple.  Even if a person believes they were born gay becausewe are born into sin and there are a such thing as generation curses and familiar spirits that may linger with a particular family or in a house BUT the potter can change the pot into anything that he wishes.  You're telling me that the creator of the universe, who made Adam and Eve can't change someone?*


----------



## saved06 (Jan 7, 2009)

chicacanella said:


> *It is alot of reasons. I know people say that people can not change but God can, as I've seen in one of my close friends. Then the enemy will try to have people say, "Well, he was not gay in the first place." Well, my question is, "What exactly would qualify as one being gay and who may you the authority or telling another person how they feel?" Yet, you accept it when they "come out" but when Jesus brings them out, they are no longer gay to you? So, we have Satan again attempting to make people think that if you are gay there is no possible way you can change and if you do, then you weren't gay in the first place. There have been men just as flamboyant as the black guy from America's Next Top Model who God has changed. *
> 
> *God gave me a Word about this and said, "He is God and if he created you, then he can change you." It's just that simple. Even if a person believes they were born gay becausewe are born into sin and there are a such thing as generation curses and familiar spirits that may linger with a particular family or in a house BUT the potter can change the pot into anything that he wishes. You're telling me that the creator of the universe, who made Adam and Eve can't change someone?*


 
Preach! There is power in the name! Like I said ppl put so much emphasis on homosexuality yet fornication is abundant all around. I do believe God can change you because when you are in Christ (really in Christ) you are  new. It's all about loving ppl and leading them to Christ. And yes those generation curses are so real


----------



## chicacanella (Jan 7, 2009)

saved06 said:


> Preach! There is power in the name! Like I said ppl put so much emphasis on homosexuality yet fornication is abundant all around. I do believe God can change you because when you are in Christ (really in Christ) you are new. It's all about loving ppl and leading them to Christ. And yes those generation curses are so real


 

*Yes, they are real. And if we could actually see with spiritual eyes, then we would be astonded. Seriously. There is a physical realm and an earthly realm. Have you ever read Mary K. Baxter's book, "Divine Revelation of Hell?" I definitely wouldn't doubt that each fallen angel has certain things that they are assigned to. No, people don't believe in "bad" spirits but they are out there and we need not be delusional about it them being there. When my friend was homosexual, I didn't tell her to make her feel better that I thought she was born that way. I told her what I believed and continued to love her, praying for her to God and even though her behavior was saying one thing; eventually God brought her out. *

*Do you remember in Samuel where God himself sent Saul a spirit of depression? A spirit of depression; what is that? It is an evil spirit that is fighting against God's people and even likes to toment people of the world, yet God himself use this spirit (since he is all powerful) to accomplish his purpose. Also remember that Saul was no longer in the will of God. So, if the bible talks about spirits of divination and these spirits have descriptions attached to them; is it possible that there may be a spirit of fornication? Is it possible that there may be a spirit of deception, of jealousy, of discord and every possible thing that is not of God? Of course there is.*

*Many scientists say, "there are animals that also display homosexual activity." Yes, there are but we also know that evil spirits can enter animals as observed when Jesus cast demons out of a person and they went into the pigs. Is it possible that these beings that we can't see know certain things as they lurk about in certain places, like "This journalist from PBS is doing a big story on homosexuality in animals." Wouldn't they be able to enter an animal so that many will be deceived into believing that if an animal does it, then it must be natural despite the fact that humans are held to a much higher standard and created a little lower than the angels? I remember someone saying in the bible: if only you could see with your spiritual eyes. Then their eyes were opened and they saw many, many angels around them.*


----------



## dreamlovermd (Jan 7, 2009)

chicacanella said:


> *It is alot of reasons. I know people say that people can not change but God can, as I've seen in one of my close friends. Then the enemy will try to have people say, "Well, he was not gay in the first place." Well, my question is, "What exactly would qualify as one being gay and who may you the authority or telling another person how they feel?" Yet, you accept it when they "come out" but when Jesus brings them out, they are no longer gay to you? So, we have Satan again attempting to make people think that if you are gay there is no possible way you can change and if you do, then you weren't gay in the first place.  There have been men just as flamboyant as the black guy from America's Next Top Model who God has changed. *
> 
> *God gave me a Word about this and said, "He is God and if he created you, then he can change you." It's just that simple.  Even if a person believes they were born gay becausewe are born into sin and there are a such thing as generation curses and familiar spirits that may linger with a particular family or in a house BUT the potter can change the pot into anything that he wishes.  You're telling me that the creator of the universe, who made Adam and Eve can't change someone?*




I do believe in generational curses, but it has to be that person that is willing to change that, and make sure the next generation is not effected by it. If someone is gay and they are willing to come to Christ, then Christ will change them. They will have a more understanding and start seeing things different. We are sinners and we will do anything to please ourselves. Our problem is, we assume the world revolves around us, but we seem to forget who the creator is. We have to remember that we are here to do the creator's wish not our own and for someone to say that they are gay and in Christ, they are lying to themselves. If your truly in Christ, you would do what ever it takes to please God and walk away from that type of sin. You would feel so disgusted with yourself, that you would wonder how could you have ever lived a life like that? Christ makes you see things in a whole different light and angle.


We all know that Jesus came and eat with the sinner and pardon the sinners, but all the sinners Jesus touched, they left their old ways to walk with Christ. They became disciples of Christ. 


Isaiah 55:6-7 

 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found;
       call on him while he is near.

 7 Let the wicked forsake his way
       and the evil man his thoughts.
       Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
       and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

Being Gay is wrong, and all I can do is pray for them.  Yes, I will speak to them, but the best method is prayer and surrounding them with Christ followers.


----------



## chicacanella (Jan 7, 2009)

dreamlovermd said:


> I do believe in generational curses, but it has to be that person that is willing to change that, and make sure the next generation is not effected by it. If someone is gay and they are willing to come to Christ, then Christ will change them. They will have a more understanding and start seeing things different. We are sinners and we will do anything to please ourselves. Our problem is, we assume the world revolves around us, but we seem to forget who the creator is. We have to remember that we are here to do the creator's wish not our own and for someone to say that they are gay and in Christ, they are lying to themselves. If your truly in Christ, you would do what ever it takes to please God and walk away from that type of sin. You would feel so disgusted with yourself, that you would wonder how could you have ever lived a life like that? Christ makes you see things in a whole different light and angle.


 

*Yes, I definitely agree with you. I was pointing out that there are certain spirits that lurk about in certain places that do not glorify God. I would guess that there are many, many lustful, fornication and other evil spirits in those adult book stores where men do all kinds of awful things.*

*I would assume that there are many spirits of drunkardness in bars, or spirits of lust inside strip bars inducing people to do certain things. This is why light can have no fellowship with darkness and we are called out of the world. Is this an excuse for someone's behavior, not at all: but there are certain spirits that people can be released from. There is a scripture that I will try to find that says, we can know what is going on in the spiritual realm by looking at what happens on earth. The enemy assigns his soldiers to work in certain cities, regions which is why some cities may have rate of prostitution yet another comparable city doesn't or some cities may have other issues going on when another comparable city doesn't. Sometimes, it may just be the person themselves but God is able to do exceedingly above what we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us. Do we not believe this?*

*Again, how can you tell me that the God who created the earth, stars, moon, sun, humans, animals, etc in six days can't change a person who may not be in his will?  He knows that Satan walketh about like a Lion seeking whom he may devour and He also knows in this walking about, he is attempting to kill, steal and destroy. Sometimes he succeeds but again, is God not able to do exceedingly above what we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us?  *

*I can't tell the Great 'I am that I am" what he is able to do nor suppress the truth when His words speaks of his power? He's done some things in my life that I will be forever greatful for.*


----------

