Homosexuality

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is homosexuality a sin?


  • Total voters
    133
Status
Not open for further replies.

DoUPray2

New Member
Aug 4, 2012
22
0
0
64
East TN
Like she said, they themselves have not come out of Egypt. How can you lead others out and into the fullness of Christ If you have not been there yourself. That's the state of affairs today

Thank you Rex! Exactly!

It's the "church" doors we should care about.

Axehead,

Could you explain your statement, please!! Just trying to figure out what you were staying. Thank you!
 

IHSscj

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
16
0
0
Ok. Firstly, most of your paragraph made absolutely NO sense at all, but I'll try my best to make head and tail of the mess.
I love this quote: "So if the idolatry/Sin was tne cause that led to whatever modern aspect of human conduct that might be referenced in Rom 1: 26- 28"
'Whatever modern aspect of human conduct'. Please!!!! Tell me, what do you think Paul is referring to when he says "[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another" What is he referring to???? It's so obvious that your ambiguous statement is absolutely mind-blowing! What else is he referring to? [/background]


[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]What can we possibly make of the phrase, "the natural use of the woman?" Can it be that Paul, one of the most enlightened church leaders of the time, advocated one person using another? But, truly, I do not believe that Paul was writing in terms of modern dysfunctional theory. I would suppose that he was speaking in terms of the fundemental economic mechanism (FEM) of the day. It was not specifically referenced because it was simply the way everyone thought in that time. The economy, the culture, and much of the politics was based on agriculture. In order to run the farm, you had to have cheap labor. Most people could not afford slaves. The only way to survive "economically" (even if that meant bartering in some places) was to yell, "Honey!! Come into the tent! We'll need more children by next harvest." Paul (and the Holy Spirit), in turn, supported the christian community by encouraging participation in the economy of the time. Pastors today do similar work, encouraging people to be prosperous in their carrers. [/background]

[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]So the "the natural use of the woman" to me means procreation as part of the FEM. Now, "lust," what kind of lust would that have referred to? It is often interpreted in sexual terms, but is that because there is a sexual connotation to the word? Or is that a case of eisegesis? Is it just a matter of our modern society being so sex-crazed that we all bring a sexual connotation to a scripture passage that did not have it per the original intent of the Holy Spirit? Could it be that today we have gradually developed an economy and a culture that is not dependant on procreation for cheap labor; so that "natural use" of anyone is not "sexual," even in an economic sense, but in the sense of responsible and respectful participation in a (hopefully) thriving economic community? Don't I "use" a grocery store employee, in a responsible sense, when I ask where the peanut butter is? If the original meaning was not sexual lust, what else could it have meant? Well, a person can lust after anything, hypothetically -- gold, profit, influence, food, etc. It is even possible to stand in church and "sing lustlily," as musical directives in the margin sometimes direct. I suppose, coming back to the text at hand, that Paul may have been referring to lust after economic profit by dishonest means -- theft, undue influence (such as a man smiling allurringly at a marketer's daughter in order to close a deal that favors himself), deceit, etc. Sexual lust? Oh, I suppose it could mean that. But scripture is, at its core, revelation, in print, of truth that we could not imagine if we were left to ourselves (humans without God). So where in Rom 1: 26- 28, or anywhere else in the letter, does scripture reveal the lust it is referencing to be primarily sexual? If the Holy Spirit did not specify, should we? Particularly, should we claim "knowledge" that the Holy Spirit did not give? [/background]
 

Groundzero

Not Afraid To Stand
Jul 20, 2011
819
35
0
29
Australia
IHSscj said:
What can we possibly make of the phrase, "the natural use of the woman?" Can it be that Paul, one of the most enlightened church leaders of the time, advocated one person using another? But, truly, I do not believe that Paul was writing in terms of modern dysfunctional theory. I would suppose that he was speaking in terms of the fundemental economic mechanism (FEM) of the day. It was not specifically referenced because it was simply the way everyone thought in that time. The economy, the culture, and much of the politics was based on agriculture. In order to run the farm, you had to have cheap labor. Most people could not afford slaves. The only way to survive "economically" (even if that meant bartering in some places) was to yell, "Honey!! Come into the tent! We'll need more children by next harvest." Paul (and the Holy Spirit), in turn, supported the christian community by encouraging participation in the economy of the time. Pastors today do similar work, encouraging people to be prosperous in their carrers.

So the "the natural use of the woman" to me means procreation as part of the FEM. Now, "lust," what kind of lust would that have referred to? It is often interpreted in sexual terms, but is that because there is a sexual connotation to the word? Or is that a case of eisegesis? Is it just a matter of our modern society being so sex-crazed that we all bring a sexual connotation to a scripture passage that did not have it per the original intent of the Holy Spirit? Could it be that today we have gradually developed an economy and a culture that is not dependant on procreation for cheap labor; so that "natural use" of anyone is not "sexual," even in an economic sense, but in the sense of responsible and respectful participation in a (hopefully) thriving economic community? Don't I "use" a grocery store employee, in a responsible sense, when I ask where the peanut butter is? If the original meaning was not sexual lust, what else could it have meant? Well, a person can lust after anything, hypothetically -- gold, profit, influence, food, etc. It is even possible to stand in church and "sing lustlily," as musical directives in the margin sometimes direct. I suppose, coming back to the text at hand, that Paul may have been referring to lust after economic profit by dishonest means -- theft, undue influence (such as a man smiling allurringly at a marketer's daughter in order to close a deal that favors himself), deceit, etc. Sexual lust? Oh, I suppose it could mean that. But scripture is, at its core, revelation, in print, of truth that we could not imagine if we were left to ourselves (humans without God). So where in Rom 1: 26- 28, or anywhere else in the letter, does scripture reveal the lust it is referencing to be primarily sexual? If the Holy Spirit did not specify, should we? Particularly, should we claim "knowledge" that the Holy Spirit did not give?


Ok, so how about women changing that which is natural to that which is unnatural? I suppose that is all FEM as well!

Seriously, I don't know what you're on, or what you are thinking, but you are seriously misaligned. I don't care about 'the natural use of a woman'. Your interpretation doesn't make sense at all, but that's beside the point. The point is, that WHATEVER the natural use of a woman was, men LEFT it! You've completely missed the point, or maybe that was your goal after all.

Now you launch into a etymology of the word, 'lust'. Now please excuse me, but doesn't the phrase in Scripture declare, "burned in their lust one toward another."? What is their lust towards????? One to another! Paul is talking about people, and in the next sentence, he makes it 200% certain WHO he is referring to - "Men with men."

When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, it didn't leave an ambiguous meaning. It stated more than sufficiently enough material to ascertain as to what Paul was writing about - homosexuality.

As you can see, none of this is 'cherry-picked'. It's what Scripture says, and no amount of twisting and turning will change it. Dodging the issue won't make it go away. Fighting the issue won't destroy it. God's word is forever and no matter what people try to do, it's message stands the same.


Rom 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:
Rom 1:27 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.
 

IHSscj

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
16
0
0
ZebraHug said:
Ok, so how about women changing that which is natural to that which is unnatural? I suppose that is all FEM as well!

Seriously, I don't know what you're on, or what you are thinking, but you are seriously misaligned. I don't care about 'the natural use of a woman'. Your interpretation doesn't make sense at all, but that's beside the point. The point is, that WHATEVER the natural use of a woman was, men LEFT it! You've completely missed the point, or maybe that was your goal after all.

Now you launch into a etymology of the word, 'lust'. Now please excuse me, but doesn't the phrase in Scripture declare, "burned in their lust one toward another."? What is their lust towards????? One to another! Paul is talking about people, and in the next sentence, he makes it 200% certain WHO he is referring to - "Men with men."

When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, it didn't leave an ambiguous meaning. It stated more than sufficiently enough material to ascertain as to what Paul was writing about - homosexuality.

As you can see, none of this is 'cherry-picked'. It's what Scripture says, and no amount of twisting and turning will change it. Dodging the issue won't make it go away. Fighting the issue won't destroy it. God's word is forever and no matter what people try to do, it's message stands the same.


Rom 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:
Rom 1:27 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.
"Ok, so how about women changing that which is natural to that which is unnatural? I suppose that is all FEM as well! "

Since vss. 26 & 27 seem clearly (to me, anyway) to be in parallel, it would be difficult to suppose that there is an unseen influence in one and not the other.​

"Seriously, I don't know what you're on, or what you are thinking, but you are seriously misaligned. "

You seem to be upset. I understand that you may feel strongly about the issue. And you are not alone. May I suggest that we agree to submit our emotions to Christ so that He may work past them and use us to make the revealed truth in Rom. 1 clear?​

"I don't care about 'the natural use of a woman'. "

Ummmm..... O.K., how are you able to read the holy Word of God without caring what the words in it mean?
"Your interpretation doesn't make sense at all, but that's beside the point. The point is, that WHATEVER the natural use of a woman was, men LEFT it! "

Certainly those men, living before Paul's time, departed from what God wanted. But it will be difficult to discover what the Holy Spirit was using Paul to say without discerning WHAT "natural use of a woman" he was referring to.​

"Now you launch into a etymology of the word, 'lust'. Now please excuse me, but doesn't the phrase in Scripture declare, "burned in their lust one toward another."? What is their lust towards????? One to another! "

Yes, but how many ways are there for one man to use another? There is (and, presumably, was in Paul's time)
sexuality, economically, politically, oh, I suppose domestically.... Let us stick to the Word of God. Is the means of these men, of whom Paul was speaking, using each other revealed in scripture? What verse?​

"When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul, it didn't leave an ambiguous meaning. It stated more than sufficiently enough material to ascertain as to what Paul was writing about - homosexuality. "

That's good news! It is clear to you and you can answer the questions that I have asked above and below. Then it will be clear to me.​

"As you can see, none of this is 'cherry-picked'."

"None of what?" none of what you have said in your previous post? none of what others have said in this thread?​

"It's what Scripture says, and no amount of twisting and turning will change it. "

True, but that applies to anyone who says anything about the Word of God. & surely you know that everything that we who are writing outside of scriptural canon are subject to error. So, why don't we all try to be careful there, hmm?

"Dodging the issue won't make it go away. "

At what point have I tried to do that?​

"Fighting the issue won't destroy it. "

In what way have I tried to do that?​

"God's word is forever and no matter what people try to do, it's message stands the same. "

Very good ending -- TY!​
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is sure easy to get upset about sin we are not tempted by.
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
aspen2 said:
It is sure easy to get upset about sin we are not tempted by.

-- It is when you are threatened and attacked for not wholeheartedly supporting that sin, criticized for being unwilling to endorse it as an acceptabel lifestyle, and being told by even fellow (misguided) Christians that if you do not support that sin by endoring Gay Marraige that you are "violating the Civil Rights of homosexuals."

It is a false implication perpetuated by people here like you that Christians single out this one sin above others to magnify and criticize.

That could only be true if those that practice adultery, evade taxes, rob banks, assault people, commit murder, etc. begin holding parades and putting forth political measures demanding that their behavior be protected by the Constitution, be taught in school as an acceptable lifestyle, and demanded ostracizing and punishment for those that do not support them.
 

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
dragonfly, on 14 November 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Hi IHSscj,



The key thought in the Bible regarding homosexual behaviour, is that it falls in the category of idolatry first of all. In the New Testament (NT), the word 'fornication' also covers it, according to the meaning of the Greek word.

The reason that fornication is forbidden, is that it's an expression of idolatry, and of not worshipping God in spirit and truth. John 4:22 - 24.

The spirits which overcome a person's innate sexual design, are particularly strong, but you can take back that territory in your life, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I'm sure it's the Holy Spirit which is leading you to seek out answers, as you are.

IHSscj replied,


Now, this is an approach that I have not heard or seen before. Gayness ("homosexuality") is said to be fundamentally associated with idolatry, which is the worship of inanimate objects instead of God. Where else can I find references that approach any objective sin as forms of idolatry?

John 4 offers the story of the Samaritan woman. Verses 1- 6 deal with the background of the situation. Verses 7- 9 deal with racial barriers of the time. In verses 10- 15 we see that Jesus seems to shift gears and change the subject: He is the source of Living Water. In verses 16- 18 we see Him shift back to the immediate situation. In verses 19- 26 we see the woman shift the discussion to liturgical matters, which is where we find what you seem to be referencing as a condemnation of idolatry, and rightly so.

We have to see at the well, that Jesus was in charge of the conversation from the start. That is a study in itself, which I do not wish to make in this thread, except to point out that the Samaritans were mainly idolaters. For whatever reason Jesus 'happened' to be at Jacob's well at the same time as the woman. There was a long history of a version of Godly worship running alongside the idolatry in Samaria. And, she was at Jacob's well. It is not surprising that she brought Jerusalem and Messiah into the conversation, since she knew she was speaking to a Jewish man.

But can we connect all of this together? Maybe there was no change of subject. After all, doing the Will of God can be thought of as a form of worship, or at least of honoring God. (Deut 6: 4- 9)

Doing the will of God is extremely important, and what that entailed in those days and now, was an adherence to His law. Genesis 26:5, Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, 1 Cor 9:21. At the start of Leviticus 18, God sets out His terms with regard to not worshipping idols. The context was the giving of the law to Moses, and the prospect of going into the land, where other 'gods' were worshipped. God knew that the people would be under heavy spiritual pressure to worship like the natives, because He understands the spiritual hierarchies which govern earthly territories and 'the air'. Ephesians 2:2

Deuteronomy 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided to all nations under the whole heaven. .... 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

1 Corinthians 10:19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

But to rope fornication, or gayness, or any other specific form of conduct, into a "categogy" that is fundementally opposed to the worship of God -- that to me is questionable.

I need you to think outside the box, here. Paul has said that sacrifices to idols, are really sacrifices to demons. Moses said, (above), quoting God, that the people might feel driven to worship created objects. Deuteronomy 13:6 - 11.

Rom 1:25b '... worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator ...' The spirits are strong, brother, and there are many natural circumstances which create openings for them in a person's life.

Children are powerless to resist, and many adults have no spiritual understanding - even Christians are ignorant, and do not know how to lay hold of God for their own innermost needs, let alone protect children from the ravages of their spiritual enemies. If anyone knows anything, they usually learned it the hard way, having made mistakes in ignorance, but finding God's grace and power able to deliver them, once they understand what to pray for.

After all, if homosexuality is fundementally associated with Sin, is heterosexuality to be fundementally associated with holiness?

No. That would be an over-simplification. But, any stepping outside the boundaries God has set for sexual behaviour, is sin, and spirits are always on the lookout for a body to influence or inhabit, should a person offer them that foothold.

But, if it is, how is it to be differentiated from the fertility religions, where heterosexuality, along with general prosperity, was the outright object of worship? :mellow:

Fornication - which is required in the worship of any other than God - covers everyone and every sexual act. Even a married couple can commit fornication (with each other) if they practise sexual perversion.

The first step to separating all the issues, is to accept that when God made man in His likeness, and created them male and female, He was explaining things about Himself. This is the basis of all pure sexual relationship, which God can bless.
 

Raeneske

New Member
Sep 18, 2012
716
19
0
Foreigner said:
-- It is when you are threatened and attacked for not wholeheartedly supporting that sin, criticized for being unwilling to endorse it as an acceptabel lifestyle, and being told by even fellow (misguided) Christians that if you do not support that sin by endoring Gay Marraige that you are "violating the Civil Rights of homosexuals."

It is a false implication perpetuated by people here like you that Christians single out this one sin above others to magnify and criticize.

That could only be true if those that practice adultery, evade taxes, rob banks, assault people, commit murder, etc. begin holding parades and putting forth political measures demanding that their behavior be protected by the Constitution, be taught in school as an acceptable lifestyle, and demanded ostracizing and punishment for those that do not support them.
Amen.

IHSscj said:
What can we possibly make of the phrase, "the natural use of the woman?" Can it be that Paul, one of the most enlightened church leaders of the time, advocated one person using another? But, truly, I do not believe that Paul was writing in terms of modern dysfunctional theory. I would suppose that he was speaking in terms of the fundemental economic mechanism (FEM) of the day. It was not specifically referenced because it was simply the way everyone thought in that time. The economy, the culture, and much of the politics was based on agriculture. In order to run the farm, you had to have cheap labor. Most people could not afford slaves. The only way to survive "economically" (even if that meant bartering in some places) was to yell, "Honey!! Come into the tent! We'll need more children by next harvest." Paul (and the Holy Spirit), in turn, supported the christian community by encouraging participation in the economy of the time. Pastors today do similar work, encouraging people to be prosperous in their carrers.

So the "the natural use of the woman" to me means procreation as part of the FEM. Now, "lust," what kind of lust would that have referred to? It is often interpreted in sexual terms, but is that because there is a sexual connotation to the word? Or is that a case of eisegesis? Is it just a matter of our modern society being so sex-crazed that we all bring a sexual connotation to a scripture passage that did not have it per the original intent of the Holy Spirit? Could it be that today we have gradually developed an economy and a culture that is not dependant on procreation for cheap labor; so that "natural use" of anyone is not "sexual," even in an economic sense, but in the sense of responsible and respectful participation in a (hopefully) thriving economic community? Don't I "use" a grocery store employee, in a responsible sense, when I ask where the peanut butter is? If the original meaning was not sexual lust, what else could it have meant? Well, a person can lust after anything, hypothetically -- gold, profit, influence, food, etc. It is even possible to stand in church and "sing lustlily," as musical directives in the margin sometimes direct. I suppose, coming back to the text at hand, that Paul may have been referring to lust after economic profit by dishonest means -- theft, undue influence (such as a man smiling allurringly at a marketer's daughter in order to close a deal that favors himself), deceit, etc. Sexual lust? Oh, I suppose it could mean that. But scripture is, at its core, revelation, in print, of truth that we could not imagine if we were left to ourselves (humans without God). So where in Rom 1: 26- 28, or anywhere else in the letter, does scripture reveal the lust it is referencing to be primarily sexual? If the Holy Spirit did not specify, should we? Particularly, should we claim "knowledge" that the Holy Spirit did not give?
Romans 1:26:27 - 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: 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.

The natural use here is plain, and explained in the very next verse. The men left the natural use of women, and burned in lust towards each other. This is clearly a sexual tone. It is not burning in lust towards the economy, or any other thing. It is men, whose feelings were not towards women, but for each other in lust.

You have taken the words in this verse with it's clear cut meaning, and twisted them so far out of context, that it appears that you are trying to turn the truth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

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,

Effeminate from Strong's Concordance.

a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
 

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
Hi IHSscj,

Separately from my previous post, and from the points others are making, I want to state that I don't believe anyone is 'born' 'homosexual', although I understand this may be what it feels like to some, and, that many people have accepted the idea of 'being born that way', which lends credence to the idea that therefore, one can never change to being heterosexual.

God originally made people male and female for the purpose of having children together. He is the God of increase.

The power of sin in mankind is a power, but those who find Christ and receive the Holy Spirit, have a greater power; and through the power of the cross, the whole person is put to death and raised to new life in Christ Jesus. Receiving His death, is the key to receiving His life.

The power of God is well-able to recreate and restore missing strands of who we are to become in Him, and He does and will answer our hearts' cries.

If you look carefully at the root of the Greek word which is translated 'affection' (in the phrase 'vile affection' in Romans 1) it is about a person being 'affected' by an outside influence. 'Affect', in psychological language, is akin to 'mood'. In other words, the temptation to yield to same-sex attraction begins from outside the person. Inside the person being tempted, there may well be fertile ground - not only a pattern of fleshly behaviour, but genuine emotional and psychological disadvantages in the past, which render them additionally vulnerable to accept same sex attention. If there was no unclean spiritual attachment before that time, this is when it begins. However, as Paul said of himself and the Greeks (in a general way) 'the time of our ignorance God winked at (Acts 17), but now commands all men everywhere to repent'. You will find God very willing to work with you to bring your attitudes and thinking into line with His - that He can make you whole - but, if you knowingly go along with sin, the bondage is most likely to get stronger. You need to make a cold-blooded decision to hold on to God for all the changes you need to experience, and then hold on.

There is a breakthrough moment with every sin which a Christian conquers, which tends to occur at the point one thinks one is never going to be free. It is, therefore, very important not to give up on the challenge to get beyond that breakthrough point. You don't do this on your own. Paul calls it 'mortify the flesh', Romans 8:13. You play an active part in starving the hungry lion, but, all with the help of the Holy Spirit.
 

IHSscj

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
16
0
0
dragonfly said:
We have to see at the well, that Jesus was in charge of the conversation from the start. That is a study in itself, which I do not wish to make in this thread, except to point out that the Samaritans were mainly idolaters. For whatever reason Jesus 'happened' to be at Jacob's well at the same time as the woman. There was a long history of a version of Godly worship running alongside the idolatry in Samaria. And, she was at Jacob's well. It is not surprising that she brought Jerusalem and Messiah into the conversation, since she knew she was speaking to a Jewish man.



Doing the will of God is extremely important, and what that entailed in those days and now, was an adherence to His law. Genesis 26:5, Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, 1 Cor 9:21. At the start of Leviticus 18, God sets out His terms with regard to not worshipping idols. The context was the giving of the law to Moses, and the prospect of going into the land, where other 'gods' were worshipped. God knew that the people would be under heavy spiritual pressure to worship like the natives, because He understands the spiritual hierarchies which govern earthly territories and 'the air'. Ephesians 2:2

Deuteronomy 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided to all nations under the whole heaven. .... 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

1 Corinthians 10:19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?



I need you to think outside the box, here. Paul has said that sacrifices to idols, are really sacrifices to demons. Moses said, (above), quoting God, that the people might feel driven to worship created objects. Deuteronomy 13:6 - 11.

Rom 1:25b '... worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator ...' The spirits are strong, brother, and there are many natural circumstances which create openings for them in a person's life.

Children are powerless to resist, and many adults have no spiritual understanding - even Christians are ignorant, and do not know how to lay hold of God for their own innermost needs, let alone protect children from the ravages of their spiritual enemies. If anyone knows anything, they usually learned it the hard way, having made mistakes in ignorance, but finding God's grace and power able to deliver them, once they understand what to pray for.



No. That would be an over-simplification. But, any stepping outside the boundaries God has set for sexual behaviour, is sin, and spirits are always on the lookout for a body to influence or inhabit, should a person offer them that foothold.



Fornication - which is required in the worship of any other than God - covers everyone and every sexual act. Even a married couple can commit fornication (with each other) if they practise sexual perversion.

The first step to separating all the issues, is to accept that when God made man in His likeness, and created them male and female, He was explaining things about Himself. This is the basis of all pure sexual relationship, which God can bless.
dragonfly -- Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

We have to see at the well, that Jesus was in charge of the conversation from the start. That is a study in itself, which I do not wish to make in this thread, except to point out that the Samaritans were mainly idolaters.
Could you start a separate thread on this? It is a very interesting possibility.

For whatever reason Jesus 'happened' to be at Jacob's well at the same time as the woman. There was a long history of a version of Godly worship running alongside the idolatry in Samaria. And, she was at Jacob's well. It is not surprising that she brought Jerusalem and Messiah into the conversation, since she knew she was speaking to a Jewish man.
Agreed.

Doing the will of God is extremely important, and what that entailed in those days and now, was an adherence to His law. Genesis 26:5, Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, 1 Cor 9:21.
On the whole, that is a very big discussion, with good points pro and con. But, focusing strictly on idolatry, as you do below, there is no doubt.
At the start of Leviticus 18, God sets out His terms with regard to not worshipping idols. The context was the giving of the law to Moses, and the prospect of going into the land, where other 'gods' were worshipped. God knew that the people would be under heavy spiritual pressure to worship like the natives, because He understands the spiritual hierarchies which govern earthly territories and 'the air'. Ephesians 2:2
Deuteronomy 4:19 …..
Deuteronomy 5:9 …..
1 Corinthians 10:19 …..
[I have omitted the scriptures themselves, not because I disrespect the Word -– I respect God’s Word as revelation — but because I am confident that we can all use the scroll function and/or our bibles to read the scriptures as God leads us.]
Agreed.

I need you to think outside the box, here. Paul has said that sacrifices to idols, are really sacrifices to demons. Moses said, (above), quoting God, that the people might feel driven to worship created objects. Deuteronomy 13:6 - 11.
Rom 1:25b '... worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator ...' The spirits are strong, brother, and there are many natural circumstances which create openings for them in a person's life.
Children are powerless to resist, and many adults have no spiritual understanding - even Christians are ignorant, and do not know how to lay hold of God for their own innermost needs, let alone protect children from the ravages of their spiritual enemies. If anyone knows anything, they usually learned it the hard way, having made mistakes in ignorance, but finding God's grace and power able to deliver them, once they understand what to pray for.
Yes, all very much agreed to. But how does any of this (the above 3 paragraphs) relate to gayness? or to any form of modern sexuality?

[A]ny stepping outside the boundaries God has set for sexual behavior, is sin, and spirits are always on the lookout for a body to influence or inhabit, should a person offer them that foothold.
Agreed, as a simple statement. But the implications reach much further. Surely we can all agree that no amount of legalism will lead anywhere if it used as a completely fleshly effort, devoid of God’s Spirit. (I John 4: 4- 6) I trust Jesus to lead me; if He wants me to be “ex-gay,” or anything of the kind, I trust Him to lead me through it. But we are a long way from that prospect. (see below)
Fornication - which is required in the worship of any other than God - covers everyone and every sexual act. Even a married couple can commit fornication (with each other) if they practice sexual perversion.
The first step to separating all the issues, is to accept that when God made man in His likeness, and created them male and female, He was explaining things about Himself. This is the basis of all pure sexual relationship, which God can bless.
A fascinating idea. Is there scripture to support it?

Raeneske said:
Amen.

Romans 1:26:27 - 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: 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.

The natural use here is plain, and explained in the very next verse. The men left the natural use of women, and burned in lust towards each other. This is clearly a sexual tone. It is not burning in lust towards the economy, or any other thing. It is men, whose feelings were not towards women, but for each other in lust.

You have taken the words in this verse with it's clear cut meaning, and twisted them so far out of context, that it appears that you are trying to turn the truth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

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,

Effeminate from Strong's Concordance.

a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
Romans 1:26:27 - 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: 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.

The natural use here is plain, and explained in the very next verse. The men left the natural use of women, and burned in lust towards each other.
How many ways are there for one man to use another man? Is there someone skilled in ancient Greek who can verify that the word, translated here as “lust,” was in fact sexual?
This is clearly a sexual tone.
How do you know?
It is not burning in lust towards the economy, or any other thing.
The possibility that I meant to suggest was that men were using men economically as opposed to sexually: such as a man swinging a deal in the market, not because of a commodity that he values, but because he wants to prevent someone else whom he feels malevolently.

It is men, whose feelings were not towards women, but for each other in lust.
How many different kinds of lust are there? Dictionary.com gives 7 meanings of the word, 3 with sexual connotations, 3 without sexual connotations, and one obsolete. See above in this post for my suggestion that we focus on the meaning of the original Greek word, rather than the English translation.​

You have taken the words in this verse with it's clear cut meaning, and twisted them so far out of context…
In what way?
If the sexual meaning of "lust" is clear, why doesn't the scripture text use the word "sexual?" Does God lead us to add meanings to scripture?

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,

Effeminate from Strong's Concordance.
to a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
How does any of this relate to gayness? May I suppose that you are using Strong’s definition of “effeminate” to translate Paul’s original Greek word, malakoi? But that is a long discussion. Have you read Boswell’s treatment of it?
 

Raeneske

New Member
Sep 18, 2012
716
19
0
IHSscj said:
dragonfly -- Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

We have to see at the well, that Jesus was in charge of the conversation from the start. That is a study in itself, which I do not wish to make in this thread, except to point out that the Samaritans were mainly idolaters.
Could you start a separate thread on this? It is a very interesting possibility.

For whatever reason Jesus 'happened' to be at Jacob's well at the same time as the woman. There was a long history of a version of Godly worship running alongside the idolatry in Samaria. And, she was at Jacob's well. It is not surprising that she brought Jerusalem and Messiah into the conversation, since she knew she was speaking to a Jewish man.
Agreed.

Doing the will of God is extremely important, and what that entailed in those days and now, was an adherence to His law. Genesis 26:5, Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, 1 Cor 9:21.
On the whole, that is a very big discussion, with good points pro and con. But, focusing strictly on idolatry, as you do below, there is no doubt.
At the start of Leviticus 18, God sets out His terms with regard to not worshipping idols. The context was the giving of the law to Moses, and the prospect of going into the land, where other 'gods' were worshipped. God knew that the people would be under heavy spiritual pressure to worship like the natives, because He understands the spiritual hierarchies which govern earthly territories and 'the air'. Ephesians 2:2
Deuteronomy 4:19 …..
Deuteronomy 5:9 …..
1 Corinthians 10:19 …..
[I have omitted the scriptures themselves, not because I disrespect the Word -– I respect God’s Word as revelation — but because I am confident that we can all use the scroll function and/or our bibles to read the scriptures as God leads us.]
Agreed.

I need you to think outside the box, here. Paul has said that sacrifices to idols, are really sacrifices to demons. Moses said, (above), quoting God, that the people might feel driven to worship created objects. Deuteronomy 13:6 - 11.
Rom 1:25b '... worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator ...' The spirits are strong, brother, and there are many natural circumstances which create openings for them in a person's life.
Children are powerless to resist, and many adults have no spiritual understanding - even Christians are ignorant, and do not know how to lay hold of God for their own innermost needs, let alone protect children from the ravages of their spiritual enemies. If anyone knows anything, they usually learned it the hard way, having made mistakes in ignorance, but finding God's grace and power able to deliver them, once they understand what to pray for.
Yes, all very much agreed to. But how does any of this (the above 3 paragraphs) relate to gayness? or to any form of modern sexuality?

[A]ny stepping outside the boundaries God has set for sexual behavior, is sin, and spirits are always on the lookout for a body to influence or inhabit, should a person offer them that foothold.
Agreed, as a simple statement. But the implications reach much further. Surely we can all agree that no amount of legalism will lead anywhere if it used as a completely fleshly effort, devoid of God’s Spirit. (I John 4: 4- 6) I trust Jesus to lead me; if He wants me to be “ex-gay,” or anything of the kind, I trust Him to lead me through it. But we are a long way from that prospect. (see below)
Fornication - which is required in the worship of any other than God - covers everyone and every sexual act. Even a married couple can commit fornication (with each other) if they practice sexual perversion.
The first step to separating all the issues, is to accept that when God made man in His likeness, and created them male and female, He was explaining things about Himself. This is the basis of all pure sexual relationship, which God can bless.
A fascinating idea. Is there scripture to support it?


Romans 1:26:27 - 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: 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.

The natural use here is plain, and explained in the very next verse. The men left the natural use of women, and burned in lust towards each other.
How many ways are there for one man to use another man? Is there someone skilled in ancient Greek who can verify that the word, translated here as “lust,” was in fact sexual?
This is clearly a sexual tone.
How do you know?
It is not burning in lust towards the economy, or any other thing.
The possibility that I meant to suggest was that men were using men economically as opposed to sexually: such as a man swinging a deal in the market, not because of a commodity that he values, but because he wants to prevent someone else whom he feels malevolently.

It is men, whose feelings were not towards women, but for each other in lust.

How many different kinds of lust are there? Dictionary.com gives 7 meanings of the word, 3 with sexual connotations, 3 without sexual connotations, and one obsolete. See above in this post for my suggestion that we focus on the meaning of the original Greek word, rather than the English translation.

You have taken the words in this verse with it's clear cut meaning, and twisted them so far out of context…
In what way?
If the sexual meaning of "lust" is clear, why doesn't the scripture text use the word "sexual?" Does God lead us to add meanings to scripture?

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,

Effeminate from Strong's Concordance.
to a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
How does any of this relate to gayness? May I suppose that you are using Strong’s definition of “effeminate” to translate Paul’s original Greek word, malakoi? But that is a long discussion. Have you read Boswell’s treatment of it?
Using someone economically is not lust. Especially since, it was men leaving the natural use of women, and burning in lust towards each other, and likewise women did the same thing. This is economical? By the context of the verses it is clearly a sexual tone. You saying, "Is it" and then continually attempting to change the definition of what Paul was referring to, doesn't change the context it was used in the Bible. Men don't leave the natural use of women to burn in lust towards other men, for economical things, as women don't do the same.

Do they really have to say, "sexual lust"? Have you seen in the Old Testament where God calls it an abomination for a man to lie with a man, and a woman with a woman? Does the Lord change?
 

Rex

New Member
Oct 17, 2012
2,060
122
0
Kingman AZ
Don't we see this played over and over again.
People come here with an apparent genuine concern, why are people so judgmental, you give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they may have or been exposed to extreme views. He who presents their case first always seems right, until another comes forward and questions them.

As we begin to see the issue isn't judgement, the issue is non submission :denying the truth", not giving themselves to the truth but instead standing firm in themselves and bending the truth to fit their desires. Don't get me wrong this isn't the only topic I observed this behavior its rampant throwout christian teachings.

Just as the Lord extends grace which covers a multitude of sins, we extend the same gratuity only to find that there is no desire to continue in being made into the image of Christ, instead the truth threw grace is used to justify the unwillingness to change. These people stand at the threshold claiming to be a part of the body of Christ condemning everyone that doesn't understand their uneek relationship with Christ. Has God really said, repent from the old self turn away from sin.

Do I really have to commit to the renewing of my mind? How about I renew the teaching in scripture instead?
Did God actually say, "You shall not eat of any tree in the garden"?

In reality what we see is the unwillingness to seek out what the will of God is, what is good acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:1-2
 

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
Hi IHSscj,

I'll begin at the end of your last comments to me.
I said (following comments about fornication),
The first step to separating all the issues, is to accept that when God made man in His likeness, and created them male and female, He was explaining things about Himself. This is the basis of all pure sexual relationship, which God can bless.

you replied
A fascinating idea. Is there scripture to support it?
I don't propose to quote from the Mosaic law, but as you study it, you will see that virginity was expected of men and women until they married the first time. Various sanctions were applied if this requirement was found not to have been fulfilled, or, if accusations made proved to be true, and even if they proved untrue; because a person's truthfulness, reputation and integrity were valued and vindicated (or not) within the legal aspects of Hebrew culture.

Do you need verses which show that God is Holy, righteous, just, True, pure light, powerful, Jealous (intolerant of sin)?

I hope you could make a far longer list of His attributes. All of them have a bearing on what He meant when He said:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...' This is the standard.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Regarding virgins, lower in the same chapter:

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

I trust Jesus to lead me; if He wants me to be “ex-gay,” or anything of the kind, I trust Him to lead me through it. But we are a long way from that prospect.

Well, I'm certain He will lead you through it successfully if you continue yielding your whole being to Him.

But how does any of this (the above 3 paragraphs) relate to gayness? or to any form of modern sexuality?

First of all, there is nothing new under the sun. 'Modern sexuality' is not 'modern'. The only people it's new to are the people who didn't practise it before recently. Gayness is not new either. I'm sure you know that.

What the previous three paragraphs touched on, is the relationship between idols, demons and a person's vulnerability to demonic influences while growing up. This is something a child has no defence against, especially if not actively protected by mature believers in Christ. Many factors combine to produce situations in which 'gayness' may develop, and there's a great variety in those situations, from family to family, and from person to person. Unclean spirits take advantage of the weak, the wounded, the rejected. There is no way a child can hope to negotiate the adult world with the same understanding as the adults in their life, so, most children make something up to fill the gaps in their understanding, and that fiction is the beginning of an opening for another spirit. Gayness and 'homosexuality' are among the greatest lies, ever.

God did not create men or women without a huge instinct towards mating with what we call 'the opposite sex', but it is possible to have that instinct disrupted at a profond level, combined with wrong thinking, and end up 'homosexual'.

If you look up the word 'gender', you'll find it has to do with cultivation. If a deep enough rift develops between the anatomy of a person and their gender, it can seem impossible to retrieve, but it is not beyond God's ability to restore the right gender to those who desire it, although as you note, the prospect seems distant right now. That's okay. God is ready when you are.
 

SilenceInMotion

New Member
Dec 10, 2012
304
10
0
36
Virginia, USA
Homosexuality is undeniably a sin. It was punished with death in the Old Law, and again in the New Testament, it is put next to other sins. It cannot be committed without falling under the cardinal sin of lust, because it cannot happen within marriage (as marriage is between a man and a woman). Furthermore, homosexuality is inherently idolatrous- it is a sin, and to be a homosexual, one has to commit a lifestyle of being such. This, by extension, is a lifestyle contrary to nature and it separates one from God.

To say that homosexuality is NOT a sin is to say that theivery, adultery, drunkeness, etc. are NOT sins as well. They can be forgiven, but the atonement is pointless if one revolves their life around it. For example, to steal something is forgivable, but to be a professional thief makes forgiveness vain. In the same way, continuing a life of homosexuality makes forgiveness vain.
 

Raeneske

New Member
Sep 18, 2012
716
19
0
SilenceInMotion said:
Homosexuality is undeniably a sin. It was punished with death in the Old Law, and again in the New Testament, it is put next to other sins. It cannot be committed without falling under the cardinal sin of lust, because it cannot happen within marriage (as marriage is between a man and a woman). Furthermore, homosexuality is inherently idolatrous- it is a sin, and to be a homosexual, one has to commit a lifestyle of being such. This, by extension, is a lifestyle contrary to nature and it separates one from God.

To say that homosexuality is NOT a sin is to say that theivery, adultery, drunkeness, etc. are NOT sins as well. They can be forgiven, but the atonement is pointless if one revolves their life around it. For example, to steal something is forgivable, but to be a professional thief makes forgiveness vain. In the same way, continuing a life of homosexuality makes forgiveness vain.
Agreed, homosexuality is a sin, undeniably. (the rest of this post in not towards you, just so you know)

But do we Christians who do not condone this as a normal aspect? No! People may do as they please, and it is their choice. But, we aren't going to change the Bible around (okay, some of us) simply because it offends some people. It isn't called a two edged sword for no reason. It's meant to show you that you're in the wrong. Do you feel personally attacked because we point out your sins? No one is trying to make a homosexual feel personally attacked, we say, come to Jesus as you are. Admit that you're in sin, and then let Him cleanse you. And don't think that fighting homosexuality will make it disappear instantly. It's a struggle just like anyone else whose sins are more hidden than something easier to see than homosexuality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dragonfly

afaithfulone4u

New Member
Dec 7, 2012
1,028
32
0
California
Duckybill said:
Romans 1 confirms that gays are not welcome in God's Kingdom.

Romans 1:26-32 (ESV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
There you go... you beat me to that scripture truth~
 

IHSscj

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
16
0
0
Raeneske said:
Using someone economically is not lust. Especially since, it was men leaving the natural use of women, and burning in lust towards each other, and likewise women did the same thing. This is economical? By the context of the verses it is clearly a sexual tone. You saying, "Is it" and then continually attempting to change the definition of what Paul was referring to, doesn't change the context it was used in the Bible. Men don't leave the natural use of women to burn in lust towards other men, for economical things, as women don't do the same.

Do they really have to say, "sexual lust"? Have you seen in the Old Testament where God calls it an abomination for a man to lie with a man, and a woman with a woman? Does the Lord change?
On this site the left-justify function does not seem to work. Instead, I will post my responses with a series of "_/" as below to distinguish them from quotes. It will help to know who has said what.

Using someone economically is not lust.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ See my post above, Reply # 1042, Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:47 AM.

Especially since, it was men leaving the natural use of women, and burning in lust towards each other, and likewise women did the same thing.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ How do we know what kind of lust it was? There are four meanings of the word “lust” given on dictionary.com; 2 are sexually slanted, two are not.]

This is economical? By the context of the verses it is clearly a sexual tone.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ How do you know? How does the context of the passage lead anyone (including me) to such a ("holy) idea?

You saying, "Is it" and then continually attempting to change the definition of what Paul was referring to, doesn't change the context it was used in the Bible.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ At what point have you found me trying to change what is/was in scripture?]

Men don't leave the natural use of women to burn in lust towards other men, for economical things, as women don't do the same.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ See my post above, Reply # 1042, Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:47 AM]

Do they really have to say, "sexual lust"?

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Refer to II Tim 3: 16- 17. Wait – I bet you know that scripture by heart!

Have you seen in the Old Testament where God calls it an abomination for a man to lie with a man, and a woman with a woman? Does the Lord change?

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ See my post above, Reply # 1018, Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:38 PM .

God loves us all! If Jesus wants me to find a responses that shows the "sinful" quality of gayness, perhaps it will be here! :unsure: :D
 

Raeneske

New Member
Sep 18, 2012
716
19
0
IHSscj said:
On this site the left-justify function does not seem to work. Instead, I will post my responses with a series of "_/" as below to distinguish them from quotes. It will help to know who has said what.

Using someone economically is not lust.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ See my post above, Reply # 1042, Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:47 AM.

Especially since, it was men leaving the natural use of women, and burning in lust towards each other, and likewise women did the same thing.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ How do we know what kind of lust it was? There are four meanings of the word “lust” given on dictionary.com; 2 are sexually slanted, two are not.]

This is economical? By the context of the verses it is clearly a sexual tone.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ How do you know? How does the context of the passage lead anyone (including me) to such a ("holy) idea?

You saying, "Is it" and then continually attempting to change the definition of what Paul was referring to, doesn't change the context it was used in the Bible.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ At what point have you found me trying to change what is/was in scripture?]

Men don't leave the natural use of women to burn in lust towards other men, for economical things, as women don't do the same.

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ See my post above, Reply # 1042, Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:47 AM]

Do they really have to say, "sexual lust"?

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Refer to II Tim 3: 16- 17. Wait – I bet you know that scripture by heart!

Have you seen in the Old Testament where God calls it an abomination for a man to lie with a man, and a woman with a woman? Does the Lord change?

_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ See my post above, Reply # 1018, Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:38 PM .

God loves us all! If Jesus wants me to find a responses that shows the "sinful" quality of gayness, perhaps it will be here! :unsure: :D
The fact that God loves us all, did not stop Him from destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and did not stop Him from giving people up to their unclean lusts, and will not stop Him from destroying those disobedient ones at the end of the 1000 years. Homosexuality, is sinful, it’s a sinful lust towards man of the same kind. It’s like someone who wants to have sex with animals. It’s a sinful lust, and that’s all there is to it. God will save the homosexual from his sinful lust, if the homosexual wants to be freed from it. If they want to, they can have the grace of God. No one is saying it will happen immediately, but it will happen over time, they will slowly begin to notice their sinful lusts to vanish away, as they commit their works to the Lord.

You cannot systematically change the definitions of the words, when they are strictly pointing to each other. While you continually give different definitions from the word lust, you cannot separate it from the fact that they burned in lust towards each other. There is no other way for it to be interpreted. What you are saying about the Holy Spirit is downright not true. The Holy Spirit did leave you without any doubt as to which kind of lust it is. Lust to each other, how do we know it’s sexually? Men left the natural use of women, and burned in lust toward each other. Men stopped looking upon women, and looked to men and burned in their lust to men. It has nothing to do with FEM or the economy. Not a single thing. The Holy Spirit made it very clear.

You also talk about cherry-picking. What God showed in the Old Testament did not change about homosexuality today. As a matter of fact, He showed that in Romans His feelings upon homosexuality is the same. It is a vile lust, unclean, sinful. While God showed it was indeed an abomination in the OT, he showed again His hot displeasure for it in the New Testament. The Lord does not change. What He said sorely displeased Him before, He showed in the New Testament still sorely displeases Him. It is an abomination.

If the context of the passage leads you to believe anything else, you have been clearly lied to. Now, as people open up your understanding of what that passage truly means, God is looking for you to acknowledge the fact that that is what it means. I’m not asking you to repent in front of me, I am not God. I am saying, scripture oh so clearly points to it being a sexual lust, and not any other kind of lust, by the simple use of a MAN LEAVING WOMEN AS A NATURAL USE to LUSTING AFTER EACH OTHER. There is no other definition even implied here. Excuse my all caps, I am just using the greatest emphasis possible.
 

IHSscj

New Member
Nov 2, 2012
16
0
0
I don't propose to quote from the Mosaic law, but as you study it, you will see that virginity was expected of men and women until they married the first time. Various sanctions were applied if this requirement was found not to have been fulfilled, or, if accusations made proved to be true, and even if they proved untrue; because a person's truthfulness, reputation and integrity were valued and vindicated (or not) within the legal aspects of Hebrew culture.

Do you need verses which show that God is Holy, righteous, just, True, pure light, powerful, Jealous (intolerant of sin)?

I hope you could make a far longer list of His attributes. All of them have a bearing on what He meant when He said:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...' This is the standard.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Regarding virgins, lower in the same chapter:

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


Quote

I trust Jesus to lead me; if He wants me to be “ex-gay,” or anything of the kind, I trust Him to lead me through it. But we are a long way from that prospect.

Well, I'm certain He will lead you through it successfully if you continue yielding your whole being to Him.


Quote

But how does any of this (the above 3 paragraphs) relate to gayness? or to any form of modern sexuality?



First of all, there is nothing new under the sun. 'Modern sexuality' is not 'modern'. The only people it's new to are the people who didn't practise it before recently. Gayness is not new either. I'm sure you know that.

What the previous three paragraphs touched on, is the relationship between idols, demons and a person's vulnerability to demonic influences while growing up. This is something a child has no defence against, especially if not actively protected by mature believers in Christ. Many factors combine to produce situations in which 'gayness' may develop, and there's a great variety in those situations, from family to family, and from person to person. Unclean spirits take advantage of the weak, the wounded, the rejected. There is no way a child can hope to negotiate the adult world with the same understanding as the adults in their life, so, most children make something up to fill the gaps in their understanding, and that fiction is the beginning of an opening for another spirit. Gayness and 'homosexuality' are among the greatest lies, ever.

God did not create men or women without a huge instinct towards mating with what we call 'the opposite sex', but it is possible to have that instinct disrupted at a profond level, combined with wrong thinking, and end up 'homosexual'.

If you look up the word 'gender', you'll find it has to do with cultivation. If a deep enough rift develops between the anatomy of a person and their gender, it can seem impossible to retrieve, but it is not beyond God's ability to restore the right gender to those who desire it, although as you note, the prospect seems distant right now. That's okay. God is ready when you are.



I don't propose to quote from the Mosaic law, but as you study it, you will see that virginity was expected of men and women until they married the first time. Various sanctions were applied if this requirement was found not to have been fulfilled, or, if accusations made proved to be true, and even if they proved untrue; because a person's truthfulness, reputation and integrity were valued and vindicated (or not) within the legal aspects of Hebrew culture.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ See my post above, Reply # 1018, Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:38 PM .

Do you need verses which show that God is Holy, righteous, just, True, pure light, powerful, Jealous (intolerant of sin)?

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/I am sure that either of us could find such scriptures, but I do believe that that would be another thread. The issue in this thread, from what I have seen, is in the area of ethics, or, if you prefer, morality, rather than the qualities of God.

I hope you could make a far longer list of His attributes. All of them have a bearing on what He meant when He said:
_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ That is an interesting analysis. But that might also deserve another thread.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...' This is the standard.

Where does scripture say that? (WDSST?) Where does scripture lay this out as the standard? and as the standard for what?

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ Wow! Now here is a verse that draws the christian into deeper contemplation! Can anything but the Blood of Jesus save anyone? And yet, there it is in scripture! And we could read I Tim 2: 15 with a similar concern. My solution to this little dilemma is to trust that Christ is somehow at work in the midst of our lives, especially in our relationships, and most especially in our deeper ones. And another little dilemma occurs to me: How are we to read a scripture in which (vs. 12) the author says that it is he writing ("speaking") and not the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Regarding virgins, lower in the same chapter:

But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ Yes, these things are very clearly laid out for the church of that time. But not every direction/command in Paul's letters are understood to apply strictly to the modern church. (regarding cosmetology, see I Cor 11: 3- 10) A few pastors still use this, but the trend is decreasing.

I trust Jesus to lead me; if He wants me to be “ex-gay,” or anything of the kind, I trust Him to lead me through it. But we are a long way from that prospect.
Well, I'm certain He will lead you through it successfully if you continue yielding your whole being to Him.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ He most certainly will! But the steps toward an ex-gay life in Christ, as I understand them, are:
1. Examine what, if anything, the Holy Spirit is using scripture to say about gayness.
2. Study the above (step 1.) finding thoroughly to see how to apply it in one's life in practical terms.
3. Wait for the gay feelings to subside. Then wait for the same some more. Then wait for the same some more. Then wait for the same some more......
But, if that is correct, let's leave steps 2. & 3. aside for now. We have a lot of work to do on step 1. !

But how does any of this relate to gayness? or to any form of modern sexuality?

First of all, there is nothing new under the sun.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ I believe that you are quoting Ecclesiastes 1: 9. How much of the Preacher’s words do you want to apply to Christianity? Shall we say that the Cross of Christ and His Righteous Sacrifice, His Agape Love, is vanity?

'Modern sexuality' is not 'modern'. The only people it's new to are the people who didn't practice it before recently. Gayness is not new either. I'm sure you know that.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ That’s nice philosophy. But it is just as easy to say that some “ancient” things have changed. (refer to Isaiah 43: 18- 19; 56: 1- 7) Regarding marriage & sexuality, one aspect that has clearly changed is the main guiding principal: Today if two people go a preacher and say that they want to be married, the pastor often immediately begins an exploration of whether they are compatible. A few centuries ago, the discussion in such a situation was about who the parents of the two were, what the customary requirements were and whether they could meet them, etc. So “modern” marriage is certainly different from the ancient reality of marital life. And, in some ways, marital sexuality has changed with it. Children were not always the economic burden that they are today in industrialized nations. Further, many modern couples are concerned about sexual pleasure. But, as far as I know, historians have not found evidence of this concern going back more than the same few centuries.

What the previous three paragraphs touched on, is the relationship between idols, demons and a person's vulnerability to demonic influences while growing up. This is something a child has no defense against, especially if not actively protected by mature believers in Christ. Many factors combine to produce situations in which 'gayness' may develop, and there's a great variety in those situations, from family to family, and from person to person. Unclean spirits take advantage of the weak, the wounded, the rejected. There is no way a child can hope to negotiate the adult world with the same understanding as the adults in their life, so, most children make something up to fill the gaps in their understanding, and that fiction is the beginning of an opening for another spirit. Gayness and 'homosexuality' are among the greatest lies, ever.
God did not create men or women without a huge instinct towards mating with what we call 'the opposite sex', but it is possible to have that instinct disrupted at a profound level, combined with wrong thinking, and end up 'homosexual'.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ Nice philosophy. Does it have a scriptural basis? Yes, yes, I know that there are scriptures that you look at when you think of these things, but how can I derive your above thoughts from them? Or are you only repeating what a human being in a church has taught you?


If you look up the word 'gender', you'll find it has to do with cultivation.
_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ Per dictionary.com, it has more to do with types or kinds. But perhaps you were using a different reference work. :mellow:

If a deep enough rift develops between the anatomy of a person and their gender, it can seem impossible to retrieve, but it is not beyond God's ability to restore the right gender to those who desire it, although as you note, the prospect seems distant right now. That's okay. God is ready when you are.

_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ I trust Jesus with my whole life. But I still have found no reason so far to align what you have said in the above four paragraphs with God’s plan for my life.

Keep trying as long as God leads you! (refer to Romans 8: 31b: "If God is for us, who can be against us?" :lol: )


dragonfly said:
Hi IHSscj,

Separately from my previous post, and from the points others are making, I want to state that I don't believe anyone is 'born' 'homosexual', although I understand this may be what it feels like to some, and, that many people have accepted the idea of 'being born that way', which lends credence to the idea that therefore, one can never change to being heterosexual.

God originally made people male and female for the purpose of having children together. He is the God of increase.

The power of sin in mankind is a power, but those who find Christ and receive the Holy Spirit, have a greater power; and through the power of the cross, the whole person is put to death and raised to new life in Christ Jesus. Receiving His death, is the key to receiving His life.

The power of God is well-able to recreate and restore missing strands of who we are to become in Him, and He does and will answer our hearts' cries.

If you look carefully at the root of the Greek word which is translated 'affection' (in the phrase 'vile affection' in Romans 1) it is about a person being 'affected' by an outside influence. 'Affect', in psychological language, is akin to 'mood'. In other words, the temptation to yield to same-sex attraction begins from outside the person. Inside the person being tempted, there may well be fertile ground - not only a pattern of fleshly behaviour, but genuine emotional and psychological disadvantages in the past, which render them additionally vulnerable to accept same sex attention. If there was no unclean spiritual attachment before that time, this is when it begins. However, as Paul said of himself and the Greeks (in a general way) 'the time of our ignorance God winked at (Acts 17), but now commands all men everywhere to repent'. You will find God very willing to work with you to bring your attitudes and thinking into line with His - that He can make you whole - but, if you knowingly go along with sin, the bondage is most likely to get stronger. You need to make a cold-blooded decision to hold on to God for all the changes you need to experience, and then hold on.

There is a breakthrough moment with every sin which a Christian conquers, which tends to occur at the point one thinks one is never going to be free. It is, therefore, very important not to give up on the challenge to get beyond that breakthrough point. You don't do this on your own. Paul calls it 'mortify the flesh', Romans 8:13. You play an active part in starving the hungry lion, but, all with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I appreciate your concern for my walk with Yeshua (Jesus). I do indeed resolve daily to "hold on to God for all the changes you need to experience, and then hold on" But I am a long way from identifying my gayness as something from which He wants me to throw away.

I am by no means learned in Greek, ancient or modern. But if I am correct, the words translated as “lust” in Romans 1: 26- 27 are pathe’ & orexei.


<http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom1.pdf>
 

Foreigner

New Member
Apr 14, 2010
2,583
123
0
1 Cor 6:9...

This is usually where someone comes in and tries the old standby: "But in the ancient Greek...."



New International Version (©1984)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

New Living Translation (©2007)
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

English Standard Version (©2001)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,

International Standard Version (©2012)
You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.