Homosexuality and the Bible

[SunySydeofLyfe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

Homosexuality is defined as

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. 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)

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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? 1. 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. 2. 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. 5. 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.
4. 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 3. 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.

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]

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]

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?

Aren't you the one who is interpreting this as gay people aren't supposed to go against their nature?

-

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.

If paul understood homosexuality well enough to say that men and women going against what was natural to them was sin, (meaning that he thought that gay people were born that way) then why wouldn't he give the same warning to gay people who went against their nature and had heterosexual sex? Also why would he beleive that people were born gay? That's a recent concept.

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.

I think that by "natural" they are talking about the way that our bodies are designed. There is a clear appendage A fits slot B, kind of design. The fact that oral sex is pointless but for the fun of it, and that even a healthy behind needs some outside help for sex that way, points to that not being natural. But that's not the point. The problem with your argument is that Paul is clearly telling some men not to have sex with other men. Now if they are telling men that not to have sex with men that they are not attracted to then it doesn't make sense as the man would have to be attracted for the sex to take place. If that's the case the according to your argument the attraction must be natural so the sex must be natural. So who is he talking to? It doesn't make sense.

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?

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.

See the above.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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



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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Girl THANK YOU , I AGREE WITH YOU 1000000%

 

[Irresistible]

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]

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.