Homosexual Church Dream

[CharismaticLady]

Had the strangest dream this morning, though I'm just getting the chance to post about it now. Maybe this came up in my dreams because we'd been discussing a vision recently that says there will eventually be a homosexual Christian congregation in nearly every major city in America. There are already over 8,000 LGBT-affirming congregations in North America alone.

Anyway, I'm posting to ask how everyone would respond to the following line of preaching. In the dream, this homosexual minister was trying to convince me from scripture that I should actually try the lifestyle. I had zero interest, but I was trying to be polite so as to reach him with the truth. But suddenly the scene changed and I was in the middle of this sparsely-membered congregation where he was now preaching. The message he was preaching centered around Acts 14:27 I believe, and how God had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles, who (by insinuation) were practicing homosexuality. He then turned to the congregation and asked, "Should we not then open the door to everyone?" or in other words be all-inclusive. He was using this message as a defense for homosexuals to be admitted into the body of Christ yet be accepted for practicing their lifestyle without need of repentance.

Who knows if they will use such an argument. Maybe they are already. But the question is: How would you respond to this line of argument, and/or what do you believe would be the best way to counter it and expose it for being false (if you do indeed believe it to be false).

There are no wrong or right answers here. Just curious to see what responses I would get. I know what mine would be, but I'll withhold it for now.

Blessings in Christ.

Using Acts 14:27 as an acceptance of homosexuality is such a stretch it is diabolical.

 

[shnarkle]

you write like an Adventist.

I'm not an Adventist.

Had I asked you what "other faith" you were a part of? I think I did. No need to answer. Just pointing out some similarities to what you apparently believe.

I wasn't presenting beliefs. I was presenting some observations backed up by scripture.

the LGBQ community uses the argument that laws against homosexual practices are no longer binding upon the church as a defense of their lifestyle.

That's only one argument. They will also cite Mark 7:1-19 where Christ points out that it isn't what enters into a man that defiles him. Then there is Paul's comments to not engage in pointless disputes, or to let one's conscience be one's guide, etc.

But I differ from you in arguing that a reversion back to keeping dietary laws and the 7th day are a suitable way to counter their argument, and the growing trend...

Why? The fact that one keeps the Mosaic law cannot be used by the LGBTQ community to support their position. Those who don't keep the Mosaic law have no defense. They can only be exposed and blackmailed for their hypocrisy.

I hold these ritual laws to be representative of spiritual laws

Check your bible then because, sodomy violated ritual cleanliness laws. It's right there tucked in with the dietary laws. It's part of the Holiness code. You don't get to ignore that fact, or pretend that it isn't included.

that supersede them, with commands against eating "unclean foods" representing the danger and spiritual filthiness of taking unclean spirits within oneself. The latter is the law now binding upon Christians rather than the former, which merely represented it.

And your argument can be just as easily applied to sodomy or the gay lifestyle. If the swine that enters your mouth is now no longer representative of spiritual filth, then the same holds for the sodomite as well. They can make the exact same argument.

Btw, this is actually the argument I use. When the NT writers spoke of homosexuality and/or sexually immoral practices, often the word "uncleanness" was used, as a reference to demonic spirits tempting believers to commit such acts. I see this as a tougher argument for them to get around, because what society thinks has no bearing if scripture defines what they are doing as giving themselves to demonic influence.

You're making my points for me. Yes, it's the exact same argument which is why they will be welcomed with open arms into any and all government recognized churches.

All of their arguments fall apart actually.

Of course, but then so do yours. They're the same arguments.

That He hates rape but condones loving, monogamous relationships falls apart. No matter how they slice it, it is still engaging in unclean practices rather than leading a holy life; spiritually unclean practices, that lead only to God "delivering them up to all uncleanness."

Yep, but then the same applies to all unclean practices including profaning God's name, the Sabbath, the sanctity of marriage, the dietary laws, etc.

The strength in your argument, however, is that the church is indeed lenient on its own sexually immoral and unclean practices; teenagers engaging in oral sex, Christian adults practicing adultery, ministers indulging in pornography, ect. and all these take place as the result of the influence of spiritual uncleanness as well.

Yep, but this doesn't excuse any of it, including transgressing the dietary laws, the profanation of the Sabbath, making a mockery of marriage by divorcing and remarrying at the same rate as secular society, etc.

 

[Nancy]

I think that verse doesnt work since homosexuality is sin. It isnt something that is just an old testament law thing like not eating pork. It is an abomination to the Lord.

The following is a list of things the Bible considers an abomination:

• Unclean things (Lev. 7:21)
• Customs of pagans (Lev. 18:30)
• Idols (2 Chr. 15:8; 1 Pet. 4:3)
• Sins of men (Ps. 14:1; 53:1)
• Cheating (Mic. 6:10)
• Lost souls (Rev. 21:8)
• A froward man (perverse; one who turns aside (Pro. 3:32; 11:20)
• A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17)
• A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22)
• Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17)
• A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18)
• Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18)
• A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19)
• A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19)
• Wickedness (Pro. 8:7)
• A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1)
• Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)
• The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9)
• The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26)
• The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5)
• Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15)
• Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)
• Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23)
• Divers, dishonest measures (Pro. 20:10)
• Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9)
• Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)
• Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18)
• Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18) See GayPrejudice.com
• Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)
• Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)
• Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)
• Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12)
• Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5) See GayPrejudice.com
• Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God's house (Dt. 23:18)
• Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)
• Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)
• Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)
• Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)
• Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13)
• Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)
• Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13)
• Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)
• Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35)
• Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 13)
• Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30)
• Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15)
• Many other sins of the nations (Lev. 18: 26-29; Dt. 18: 9-12; 20:18; 29:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 21:2, 11; 23:24; 2 Chr. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:14; Ezek. 7: 3-20; 8: 6-17; 16: 2-58; 20: 4-30; Rev. 17: 4-5)

It is abundantly clear from scripture that ALL SIN is considered an abomination by God. While one can debate degrees of seriousness and punishment for sin, it is clear that, according to the Bible, ALL sin is an abomination!

 

[Hidden In Him]

If the swine that enters your mouth is now no longer representative of spiritual filth, then the same holds for the sodomite as well.

I'm saying it is representative, but that mere representations are no longer binding upon the Christian.

Check your bible then because, sodomy violated ritual cleanliness laws. It's right there tucked in with the dietary laws. It's part of the Holiness code. You don't get to ignore that fact, or pretend that it isn't included.

I'm not. I'm saying they are still binding, whereas dietary laws are not.

You're making my points for me. Yes, it's the exact same argument which is why they will be welcomed with open arms into any and all government recognized churches.

? I said what society recognizes has no bearing, not what true children of God recognize.

Of course, but then so do yours. They're the same arguments.

I can tell this conversation is ending quickly, LoL.

Yep, but then the same applies to all unclean practices including profaning God's name, the Sabbath, the sanctity of marriage, the dietary laws, etc.

Yep. Over.

Listen, no hard feelings. Just thought I'd run it by you. I think you would be teaching them righteousness according to Judaism rather than Christianity, but then you have not clearly identified what religion you ascribe to, so that line of debate would not really be hitting the nail on the head as far as getting to the distinctions between what we believe anyway.

 

[Waiting on him]

"God is not a respecter of persons". The message of salvation is "to the Jew first, then the gentile". It is the same message, the same gospel. God does not condone sin in Gentiles while condemning in Jews. Paul explicitly points out that just as the native branch was cut off through disobedience, so too the grafted can just as easily be cut off as well, and the native branch reattached.

Addressing me rather than the argument is the fallacy of the Ad Hominem.

Lol, I didn’t know I was engaged in an argument?

 

[shnarkle]

I'm saying it is representative, but that mere representations are no longer binding upon the Christian.

Makes no difference. Again, the same exact argument can be made with regards to sodomy or the gay lifestyle. You're saying it is representative, but that mere representations are no longer binding upon the Christian. Great, now you can welcome with open arms the sodomite and the homosexual couples because sodomy is only representative of a spiritual malady.

I'm saying they are still binding, whereas dietary laws are not.

I haven't forgotten your position. I'm pointing out that it is inconsistent: e.g. "representations are no longer binding", but "I'm saying they are still binding".

? I said what society recognizes has no bearing, not what true children of God recognize.

Yet supposedly the true children recognize that sodomy is itself a sin while eating pork, profaning the Sabbath, etc. isn't actually a sin, but only represents a spiritual truth which can be ignored now that we know this. The double standard isn't going away with that explanation. It can be just as easily employed with sodomy.

I think you would be teaching them righteousness according to Judaism rather than Christianity,

And you would be mistaken as there is no scriptural difference. I'm not a Jew presenting Judaism. Strawman argument.

but then you have not clearly identified what religion you ascribe to,

Primarily because it is irrelevant. It doesn't validate my argument. My argument stands on its own merits which you are ignoring. That's your prerogative.

 

[shnarkle]

Lol, I didn’t know I was engaged in an argument?

It's a point of discussion which you are ignoring. If you prefer ignoring what I'm posting, then one can only assume that is how you wish to be treated as well.

 

[shnarkle]

The following is a list of things the Bible considers an abomination:

• Unclean things (Lev. 7:21)
• Customs of pagans (Lev. 18:30)
• Idols (2 Chr. 15:8; 1 Pet. 4:3)
• Sins of men (Ps. 14:1; 53:1)
• Cheating (Mic. 6:10)
• Lost souls (Rev. 21:8)
• A froward man (perverse; one who turns aside (Pro. 3:32; 11:20)
• A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17)
• A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22)
• Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17)
• A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18)
• Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18)
• A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19)
• A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19)
• Wickedness (Pro. 8:7)
• A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1)
• Sacrifices of the wicked (Pro. 15:8; 21:27)
• The way of the wicked (Pro. 15:9)
• The thoughts of the wicked (Pro. 15:26)
• The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5)
• Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15)
• Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)
• Divers, dishonest weights (Pro. 20:10, 23)
• Divers, dishonest measures (Pro. 20:10)
• Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9)
• Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)
• Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18)
• Some same sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:18) See GayPrejudice.com
• Taking ornaments from idols when being destroyed (Dt. 7:25-26)
• Any Idolatrous practices (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18; 29:17)
• Offering an imperfect animal to God as a sacrifice (Dt. 17:1)
• Any traffic with demons (Dt. 18:7-12)
• Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5) See GayPrejudice.com
• Bringing the hire of a harlot or sodomite into God's house (Dt. 23:18)
• Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)
• Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)
• Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)
• Idols of Ammon (1 Ki. 11:5)
• Idols of Moab (1 Ki. 11:7; 2 Ki. 11:13)
• Idols of Zidon (2 Ki. 23:13)
• Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13)
• Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)
• Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35)
• Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
• Worship of anti-Christ (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; Mt. 24:15; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 13)
• Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30)
• Things highly esteemed by man (Lk. 16:15)
• Many other sins of the nations (Lev. 18: 26-29; Dt. 18: 9-12; 20:18; 29:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 21:2, 11; 23:24; 2 Chr. 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:14; Ezek. 7: 3-20; 8: 6-17; 16: 2-58; 20: 4-30; Rev. 17: 4-5)

It is abundantly clear from scripture that ALL SIN is considered an abomination by God. While one can debate degrees of seriousness and punishment for sin, it is clear that, according to the Bible, ALL sin is an abomination!

I don't think it's accurate to say "things that are highly esteemed of men"(luke 16:15) as an abomination. That statement needs to be clarified by adding that it is in relation to self justification. There are plenty of things that are highly esteemed of men that are not abominations; e.g. 'the faith of Christ', his atoning sacrifice, etc.

 

[DNB]

... For example, we're talking about homosexuality, but the sin is really sodomy which many heterosexual couples practice as well. Some use it as a form of birth control which most Christians have no problem with as well. The double standard just keeps getting more pronounced the more we look at it.

Great point, I agree, I am against all forms of sexual deviancy, homosexuality, masturbation, sodomy, masochism, role playing, toys, pornography, etc... I couldn't care less if it's mutually consented to, for I feel that they are disrespectful, immature, objectifying, perverted and ultimately shameful and disgraceful.

There are plenty of Christians who would simply waste away without pot to help them through their chemo/radiation treatments for cancer without it. What about the epileptic children who are now able to live normal healthy lives because of the distilled CBD oils from pot plants? The medicinal uses of marijuana seem to be expanding by the day, and are more than justified by the overwhelming evidence.

I meant strictly recreational, not medicinal, at all. I am strongly against drugs for pleasure, but I will take most of them if it is the only remedy available for an ailment, injury or disease, ...(though, I wish that I had more faith ultimately).

This is a subjective matter of taste or personal preference. When I was a child women all wore hats in church. Do they still do that in your church? Does everyone in your church wear a suit and tie/dresses with hats?

Sleazy clothes is very different than informal attire. Sleazy is suggestive, provocative, enticing and revealing, inappropriate and uncomfortable. Yes, very subjective, but at least measure by either how much skin is showing, or how tight the fit. Let the Pastor decide, and warn gently.
I don't mind informal and casual wear in the Church at all, only until it appears to reflect an indifference or a contempt for the occasion, or is antithetical to message being preached (vixen attire).

Paul says to take it to the next level by confessing your sins to one another.

I meant don't advertise them. There is a time and place to deal with them. If I know what I'm doing is a sin, it's not proper to expose it to the Church during a service. Address it in private to the Pastor, Church members, or those able to help. Don't be overt about it, in case others may feel that you're promoting or imposing it on others. Discretion is the best policy for certain issues.

Thank you shnarkle!

 

[Nancy]

I don't think it's accurate to say "things that are highly esteemed of men"(luke 16:15) as an abomination. That statement needs to be clarified by adding that it is in relation to self justification. There are plenty of things that are highly esteemed of men that are not abominations; e.g. 'the faith of Christ', his atoning sacrifice, etc.

I kind of see the abomination as exalting oneself, (luke 16:15) ... taking glory for oneself what is due only to God.

 

[shnarkle]

I couldn't care less if it's mutually consented to,

Yes, consent is a pointless distraction. Animals don't offer consent to be killed or eaten, so there's no point in presenting that as a barrier to bestiality, necrophilia, etc.

I am strongly against drugs for pleasure, but I will take most of them if it is the only remedy available for an ailment, injury or disease, ...(though, I wish that I had more faith ultimately).

If you're taking drugs foisted by Big Pharma, you're exercising much more faith than you realize. I was on over half a dozen medications for years, but eventually I became more and more interested in my own health. I became proactive, and changed a lot of things with my diet, sleep habits, exposure to modern technologies, exercise, etc. I've been off all of Big Pharma's sacraments for the last five years. I cancelled my health insurance a little less than two years ago. I no longer have any faith in western medicine, and am healthier than I've been in over 30 years.

Sleazy clothes is very different than informal attire. Sleazy is suggestive, provocative, enticing and revealing, inappropriate and uncomfortable.

A well dressed woman is attractive despite the fact that they are not wearing anything suggestive.

Yes, very subjective, but at least measure by either how much skin is showing, or how tight the fit. Let the Pastor decide, and warn gently.
I don't mind informal and casual wear in the Church at all, only until it appears to reflect an indifference or a contempt for the occasion, or is antithetical to message being preached (vixen attire).

Again, a well dressed woman can present a picture that is misleading. Women are not averse to pretending to be saintly to attract a responsible discreet man. Burkas are the only sure fire way to nix those ideas, and even then it doesn't prevent a man's imagination from running wild. I know what you mean though as I've seen my fair share of woman walking into churches looking like they just got off work walking the street all night long.

I meant don't advertise them. There is a time and place to deal with them. If I know what I'm doing is a sin, it's not proper to expose it to the Church during a service. Address it in private to the Pastor, Church members, or those able to help. Don't be overt about it, in case others may feel that you're promoting or imposing it on others. Discretion is the best policy for certain issues.

As the OP has already pointed out, numerous denominations have already dealt with it by welcoming them into the fold. As I've pointed out, it is no different than accepting the transgressions of any of the commandments, e.g. the 4th, 7th, dietary laws, etc.

 

[JohnPaul]

Had the strangest dream this morning, though I'm just getting the chance to post about it now. Maybe this came up in my dreams because we'd been discussing a vision recently that says there will eventually be a homosexual Christian congregation in nearly every major city in America. There are already over 8,000 LGBT-affirming congregations in North America alone.

Anyway, I'm posting to ask how everyone would respond to the following line of preaching. In the dream, this homosexual minister was trying to convince me from scripture that I should actually try the lifestyle. I had zero interest, but I was trying to be polite so as to reach him with the truth. But suddenly the scene changed and I was in the middle of this sparsely-membered congregation where he was now preaching. The message he was preaching centered around Acts 14:27 I believe, and how God had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles, who (by insinuation) were practicing homosexuality. He then turned to the congregation and asked, "Should we not then open the door to everyone?" or in other words be all-inclusive. He was using this message as a defense for homosexuals to be admitted into the body of Christ yet be accepted for practicing their lifestyle without need of repentance.

Who knows if they will use such an argument. Maybe they are already. But the question is: How would you respond to this line of argument, and/or what do you believe would be the best way to counter it and expose it for being false (if you do indeed believe it to be false).

There are no wrong or right answers here. Just curious to see what responses I would get. I know what mine would be, but I'll withhold it for now.

Blessings in Christ.

Should we open up the door for people who like to have sexual intercourse with animals, after all they love their pet sexual partners, after all its all about love isn’t it, we should open the doors for consensual incest too, like fathers who want to marry their daughters or mothers who want to marry their sons.

 

[JohnPaul]

In the Bible it says if a man sleeps with another man as he would a woman, may he be put to death and the blood of his head be put on his own hands.

And I agree with it.

These fake churches allow this kind of garbage and hang rainbow flags on their doors for money.

This all inclusive stuff makes me sick, they’re all sick perverted deviants who are damned to hell, that goes for the fake ministers, they’re ministers of Satan.

 

[Pearl]

In the Bible it says if a man sleeps with another man as he would a woman, may he be put to death and the blood of his head be put on his own hands.

And I agree with it.

These fake churches allow this kind of garbage and hang rainbow flags on their doors for money.

This all inclusive stuff makes me sick, they’re all sick perverted deviants who are damned to hell, that goes for the fake ministers, they’re ministers of Satan.

I think Jesus would say to those standing in judgement, 'Let those without sin cast the first stone.' And to the condemned person, 'Go and sin no more.'

 

[JohnPaul]

I think Jesus would say to those standing in judgement, 'Let those without sin cast the first stone.' And to the condemned person, 'Go and sin no more.'

You have a 12 year old in England who is the first child to go through with a transsexual change or whatever they’re calling it, I’m not casting stones, for I’d be the first to have a stone cast at me, for my sins that I have and still repent for, it’s to the point now where you have children who are being confused by these deviants, do these people not deserve death? Homosexuality is a sickness of the mind these people are corrupt and will corrupt The impressionable and innocent.

 

[Pearl]

You have a 12 year old in England who is the first child to go through with a transsexual change or whatever they’re calling it, I’m not casting stones, for I’d be the first to have a stone cast at me, for my sins that I have and still repent for, it’s to the point now where you have children who are being confused by these deviants, do these people not deserve death? Homosexuality is a sickness of the mind these people are corrupt and will corrupt The impressionable and innocent.

I wasn't inferring that you or anybody was casting stones, so sorry if you thought I was. I was just trying to look at it in the way I think Jesus would.

I read about that child and am appalled that his parents seemed to be promoting this unnatural desire to be a girl. And as you say children are being confused at an early age and in later life I feel sure he might have regrets. And I am appalled that schools must now teach our primary school children that same sex relationships are normal. I don't believe they are. I started a thread called Deliverance which described how group of people celebrated their deliverance from homosexuality.

I do think it is sinful but then so is lying, or hating or pride. All deserving of death. We had a chance to repent and took it and like the woman caught in adultery these sinners who practice unnatural acts also deserve the chance of forgiveness. And in order to get them to that point it isn't any good pointing the finger, rather we need to be opening our arms and showing them God's love as we hopefully would do with any other sinner.

 

[JohnPaul]

I wasn't inferring that you or anybody was casting stones, so sorry if you thought I was. I was just trying to look at it in the way I think Jesus would.

I read about that child and am appalled that his parents seemed to be promoting this unnatural desire to be a girl. And as you say children are being confused at an early age and in later life I feel sure he might have regrets. And I am appalled that schools must now teach our primary school children that same sex relationships are normal. I don't believe they are. I started a thread called Deliverance which described how group of people celebrated their deliverance from homosexuality.

I do think it is sinful but then so is lying, or hating or pride. All deserving of death. We had a chance to repent and took it and like the woman caught in adultery these sinners who practice unnatural acts also deserve the chance of forgiveness. And in order to get them to that point it isn't any good pointing the finger, rather we need to be opening our arms and showing them God's love as we hopefully would do with any other sinner.

Pearl you are my sister, and I love you, in times of war we must be ruthless to the core and we are at war with Satan and his minions.

 

[Waiting on him]

Pearl you are my sister, and I love you, in times of war we must be ruthless to the core and we are at war with Satan and his minions.

Having a hard time understanding “at war” do you have some scripture reference for this?

 

[JohnPaul]

Having a hard time understanding “at war” do you have some scripture reference for this?

Just look around you, don’t you see what’s going on? You need scripture for that? Then you are blind.

 

[Helen]

So would you say that a proud heart or consuming swine or shellfish is as abominable as homosexuality, or that homosexuality is no worse than having a proud heart or eating pork?

I hear what you are saying here...but I don't see any reference in the NT to "Big sins and little sins" ...where is the list of sins being rated from 1- 10 in importance... Just saying...