Homosexual Church Dream

Hidden In Him said:

Ok, well keep in mind here that I am not defending the homosexual-affirming position by any stretch. But I do know what arguments they would likely use, and here they would again remind you that this entire narrative was about those practicing rape (which they acknowledge to be a sin), not about people who were practicing loving, monogamous (homosexual) relationships, which they teach scripture supposedly condones.

Click to expand...

Let's look at what happened in Sodom. The condemning of the people of Sodom shows us something of the culture. Being gracious and helpful to strangers was seen as a great virtue. The people of Sodom were nasty towards strangers. All they cared about was money, it seems.

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Thus the two angels were seen as prey. We should not think that all the men and boys were gay. What Lot suggested tells us that wasn't true. He offered to let them have sex with his daughters. Why would he do that? In his eyes, it was better to show kindness to strangers even if that meant his daughters had to be raped. Obviously then these men were mostly straight. They wanted a thrill, and raping men would be a bigger thrill than raping women even if the women were virgins.

Some aspects of that culture still exist in some Arab countries. Thus when Qaddafi was overthrown and captured, one of his captors wanted to get a thrill out of degrading him. Call it toxic masculinity if you want. He didn't rape Qaddafi by having sex with him. He degraded him by sodomizing him with a bayonet.

That kind of toxic masculinity has been around for a long time. We see it in hazing rituals. It makes the news that young boys sodomize new members with various objects, etc. I've seen stories about the police doing things like that; and it is sometimes seen in the military as it was in the case of Qaddafi. Sometimes it's actual forced sex too.

The Jewish tradition says "sword" in Isaiah 14 is a nice word for "penis." The King of Tyre had built a temple for himself and ordered people to worship him as if he was some god or the covering cherub. Part of his predicted punishment was to be sodomized by the invading troops; and the Jews say he was.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Oh Lucifer! How the mighty have fallen, indeed.

Was Sodom destroyed because the men and boys wanted to rape the angels? Scarcely. God had decided to take action before that happened. Their sins were many; and their iniquity was great. It is a big mistake then to believe Sodom was destroyed because of "sodomy." They were a brutish people, lacking compassion towards others. The attempted rape is just one way that brutishness came out.

It may be worth repeating what Ezekiel wrote:

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

It seems to me that the church's first priority should be to show compassion to the poor and needy. My sister told me that there were some Christian missionaries visiting a refugee camp in some Arabic Muslim country. The law said they could help them with food and other aid, but they could try to convert them by talking about Jesus. So that's what they did. They did the good they were allowed to do; and it turned out that some of the Muslims were impressed that they converted to Christianity on their own without the missionaries saying a word about Jesus. I cannot verify that this story is true; but it sounds true to me.

VictoryinJesus said:

was meaning God’s marriage bed where the New creation and consummation takes place—Christ and His church joined together as one—is undefiled. Don’t believe it is saying or justifying anything goes in a bedroom between a man and his wife ...

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. That's not at all what you implied.

DNB said:

Didactic: Capital punishment to those who commit such a crime (Lev 18:22, 20:13)

Click to expand...

This raises some questions. It seems that both male and female prostitutes were around since we're told the money they earned should not be accepted for any vow.

Deuteronomy 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

It would seem that then while it could be known in general that someone was a male prostitute, he couldn't be put to death for it without eye witnesses to an act. What could be done was to pass other laws to make it more difficult. Thus the pagan Temples often had male prostitutes who dressed as women. That could be banned. The forbidden haircuts? Some say those were how pagan priests cut their hair.

Serious questions exist however about the history of the Torah. In its current form, it appears to be a compilation of mostly two texts, commonly labeled the J-text and the E-text. What is curious is that when the young Josiah became king, apparently only one copy could be found.

2 Kings 23:2 And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord.
3 And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.

Reform was instituted, and the houses of male prostitution close to the Temple got demolished.

7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

So we see a connection here between homosexuality and paganism. I think it safe to assume that such prostitutes would have appealed to married men with bisexual leanings. I cannot believe that any completely heterosexual man, married or single, would have visited them. Thus they were used as an enticement to lure the men of Israel into paganism.

There is no concrete proof that anyone tampered with the text of the Torah; but it seems odd to me that there was only one copy. It does raise the question if someone added provisions to the Torah that Moses had not written. What would happen today if all copies of the Bible disappeared and finally one person said, "Here, I got one." Would we take his word for it, or would we wonder if maybe he wrote it or parts of it himself?

What seems true to me is that these laws were designed more as guarding against being seduced into paganism than about homosexuality itself. Today we would not take the law about how to cut our hair too seriously; but in that culture, it would have been relevant.

Giuliano said:

What seems true to me is that these laws were designed more as guarding against being seduced into paganism than about homosexuality itself. Today we would not take the law about how to cut our hair too seriously; but in that culture, it would have been relevant.

Click to expand...

Hi Giuliano, sorry, for one, I'm not an advocate of the circumstantial nature of the Bible, of either testaments. And two, i did offer what i believe to be, some fundamental and practical reasons against homosexuality, that I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the injunction, which is stipulated in both testaments, was just an indirect means to deal with another issue altogether. For we could go on forever prohibiting many things that 'lead' one into a more egregious sin, which would be misguided and absurd. In other words, why restrict homosexuality when allegedly, in and of itself, it's inconsequential, or anything else that is not offensive, in order to circumvent something else? Who legislates anything in such a manner?
If God allowed something to be permissible because it was truly harmless, then leave it at that, and address the nature and vice of what is not an acceptable practice.
People who exegete the Bible in this way, i.e. over emphasize the culture at the time, I find truly have a bias and lack insight as to why a certain restriction was implemented. In other words, they key to understanding the Bible, is not only knowing what God says, but why he said it, and the holy and wise reason behind it. God is not frivolous, i.e. changing his mind on a whim or on a historical convenience. His thoughts are profound and timeless. Even when certain laws were temporal, they were clearly exposed as such (NT) and the reasons behind the temporality were explained.
The death penalty was never applied to an act that wasn't inherently egregious in God's eyes.

CharismaticLady said:

Hmmmm. That's not at all what you implied.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you think was implied then. although after going back to read what I wrote to you it does sound like I’m supporting it and asking if it is okay. “God’s marriage bed is undefiled and honorable in all.” Instead of “the marriage bed” ...as I meant He has ownership of it.

Going to sleep. Goodnight.

Hidden In Him said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dysfunction is dysfunction. Will man call it acceptable when God says it is not? Yes he will, just as he justifies all his dysfunction yet it remains dysfunction. The fact that there are homosexual churches (and I'm assuming they are practising homosexuals) that call themselves believers in Jesus is an indication how darkened the mind of man has become.

DNB said:

Hi Giuliano, sorry, for one, I'm not an advocate of the circumstantial nature of the Bible, of either testaments. And two, i did offer what i believe to be, some fundamental and practical reasons against homosexuality, that I'd be hard-pressed to believe that the injunction, which is stipulated in both testaments, was just an indirect means to deal with another issue altogether. For we could go on forever prohibiting many things that 'lead' one into a more egregious sin, which would be misguided and absurd. In other words, why restrict homosexuality when allegedly, in and of itself, it's inconsequential, or anything else that is not offensive, in order to circumvent something else? Who legislates anything in such a manner?

Click to expand...

Jesus said that all the Law could be summed up in two commandments, to love God and to love our fellow man. I am compelled then to look for reasons why acts are unloving if I want to understand why they are forbidden. I have read Maimonides who explained well to me why so many of those laws made sense in the culture they were written and why the Law needs to reinterpreted to be applied as culture changes. That is the Jewish position; it was Jesus' position; it is mine. The laws are not arbitrary. If properly understood, the motive behind them all must be love.

As for the statements in the New Testament? I may get to discussing them in more detail later, but for now let me say that it's mostly Paul who had his own ideas about sex. However when he does talk about it, he almost always talks about "lust" being a problem.

If God allowed something to be permissible because it was truly harmless, then leave it at that, and address the nature and vice of what is not an acceptable practice.

Click to expand...

So if two men or two women love each other, what is the harm in them showing that love? The situation is completely different if people are in heterosexual marriages, of course. Going outside that marriage to conduct gay affairs would surely be wrong. So tell me what harm is being done by gay sex between loving partners?

People who exegete the Bible in this way, i.e. over emphasize the culture at the time, I find truly have a bias and lack insight as to why a certain restriction was implemented. In other words, they key to understanding the Bible, is not only knowing what God says, but why he said it, and the holy and wise reason behind it. God is not frivolous, i.e. changing his mind on a whim or on a historical convenience. His thoughts are profound and timeless. Even when certain laws were temporal, they were clearly exposed as such (NT) and the reasons behind the temporality were explained.

Click to expand...

I follow the Jewish tradition on this. Everything must be seen in its cultural context. That is the reason ordinary Jews were not expected to interpret the laws of Moses for themselves. Students of the Torah and history sat on the Sanhedrin and they interpreted the Law of Moses for each generation. Jesus agreed to this principle too when he told Jews to obey what the Sanhedrin told them to do.

Thus the Sanhedrin had the absolute authority to come to a deal with the Romans that gave Rome the right to try all capital cases. The Jews could not execute anyone. The historical context is surely important. They had two choices. One was to fight to the death with thousands or millions of casualties. The other was to get Rome to agree to allow them religious freedom while agreeing not to execute anyone in capital cases. The whole purpose of the Law was to save lives, so they could use it to incur a pointless massacre.

You are right God is not frivolous, but most Christians seem to think He is. Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the Law, but many Christians say, "But he did." They say "fulfilling" the law abolished it. I am one of those people who say the "spiritual law" behind the 613 written laws is eternal.

Most of us no longer use rooftops for eating or sleeping; but the "spirit" behind that law still stands. In today's culture, it could mean fencing the area around a pool. It would be silly in today's culture to put walls on your roof unless you did indeed use it for sleeping or eating.

The death penalty was never applied to an act that wasn't inherently egregious in God's eyes.

Click to expand...

Like gathering sticks on the Sabbath?

I pointed out too that it was known who the male prostitutes were. They weren't executed; but the priests wouldn't take their money. The situation would be like that of adultery. The context has to be seen. If you are having sex in public and getting caught, you are flouting the law scandalously. That, by the way, is also the reason the man gathering the sticks on the Sabbath was executed. He could have done it discretely but he was doing it publicly, flouting the law.

How important is the Sabbath to most Christians today? My conclusion on it is that many Christians have the attitude about the laws of Moses is that if they want to do something, that law can be ignored; but if if they don't others to do it, the law stands. Christians seem to have been confused almost from the beginning. The Council of Jerusalem agreed to certain things; but along came Paul and said, "Oh, you can forget what they said." Paul had his own ideas about whether it was okay to eat food offered to idols.

quietthinker said:

Dysfunction is dysfunction. Will man call it acceptable when God says it is not? Yes he will, just as he justifies all his dysfunction yet it remains dysfunction. The fact that there are homosexual churches (and I'm assuming they are practising homosexuals) that call themselves believers in Jesus is an indication how darkened the mind of man has become.

Click to expand...

Why did God make some people gay? Many people say it's a choice. Even Paul didn't go that far. Paul said God made them gay.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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:

Read the things in the list Paul gave. Why pick just one out of the list?

1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

When you understand the mystery of why God gives some people up to things, then perhaps you will be in a position to judge them. Until then:

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

How odd then that some churches seem to think homosexuality is the only thing mentioned.

DNB said:

God created them Man & Women, and there was a clear and uncompromising distinction between them. One was made for the other, one was biologically different than the other, one was the head of the other, one was cursed differently than the other after the fall, one was not allowed to have authority over the other, one can get pregnant while the other can't.
All life on earth, as we know it, subsists due to gender. There is a symbiotic and complimentarian relationship between the two, which the epitome of this, is the fact that only the two different genders, can engender the miracle of life.

Click to expand...

Why did Jesus never marry then? Did he fail to obey the commandment to be fruitful and multiply because he didn't marry and have children in the physical sense? People say he obeyed the Law in all points; but that commandment is the first in the book. If read it read it too literally and only in a biological sense, we would have to conclude Jesus disobeyed it. I can't believe that.

Another question would be why he said:

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

We could debate if "eunuch" might mean "gay" in that passage; but I can't say I have a strong view. What does seem obvious however is that having physical children is not a requirement -- indeed it seems not having children might be a good thing in some cases. Was Cardinal Newman gay? I'd say he was. Does that mean I think he had sex with his boyfriend? To be honest, I don't care if he did or didn't. We will probably never know and it's not worth arguing about if you ask me. I do find it amusing though when the Catholic Church wanted to make him a saint that they dug him up where he had been buried with his boyfriend. I guess they didn't want pilgrims asking why two men got buried together.

I also ask if we should believe a man who seduces a woman and gets her pregnant has done a good deed for biological reasons?

Giuliano said:

Jesus said that all the Law could be summed up in two commandments, to love God and to love our fellow man

Click to expand...

For lawyers and publicans this is impossible.

Waiting on him said:

For lawyers and publicans this is impossible.

Click to expand...

It may be a struggle for us all to be able to understand how it is possible. Still I remain convinced Jesus was right, that is was and is all about love if properly understood.

^ How does love interact with the law? I heard a story about a Jewish woman in a Nazi concentration camp. Her husband had escaped Germany, so she was alone in the camp. The only way out would be if she was pregnant since the Nazis didn't want pregnant women in the camp. She was on friendly terms with one of the guards and talked him into having sex to see if she could get pregnant. She did, she was released and found her way to freedom where he joined her husband. When the child was born, it was a boy and she and her husband named him after the guard. Following the "letter" of the Law would have killed her. I wouldn't say her "adultery" was a sin. Her husband didn't have a problem with it since he loved her and her getting pregnant by another man was the only way she could be with him again.

The purpose of the Law was so people could live. It was never meant to harm them.

Deuteronomy 30:19 call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

I can also excuse Lot's daughters when they believed they and their father were the only people left on the earth. I think Lot knew better, but they didn't. They showed some courage then in risking the incest with their father; but if that was the only way they knew to keep the human race alive in keeping with the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, they can be excused. If anyone was at fault, I'd say it was Lot who was too proud to go running back to Abraham like a dog with its tail between its legs. He had to know that God wasn't going to destroy Abraham.

Hidden In Him said:

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.

Click to expand...

The first thing that has to be established when dealing with this issue is whether the homosexual act itself is considered by God to be a sin. I haven't read every post in this thread, but I have seen posts supporting opposing views on this.

The main scripture I look at is what Jesus Himself spoke.

Matt 19:1-9-- When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds?”
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said:
“ For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
“Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

In the portion of the scripture I underlined, Jesus is quoting Genesis 2.

Gen 2:18-24-- Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.” So the Lord God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the sky, and to every wild animal; but for the man no helper was found as his complement. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the Lord God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said:
This one, at last, is bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called “woman,”
for she was taken from man.
This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Jesus spoke to this issue by going back to the beginning in revealing God's basic design for sexual relationships. Jesus made several essential points in this short scripture.

1) God created humans as male and female (not male and male or female and female) for the purpose of marriage and procreation.
2) Husband and wife (not man and woman) are to be joined in sexual union and become one flesh.
3) What God has joined together, man is not to separate.

This was God's design from the beginning. He made humans male and female. Man and woman are to become one flesh within the bonds of marriage. And marriage is not to be dissolved except on specific grounds because of what God designed and established from the beginning.

These scriptures show that homosexuality doesn't fit into God's design for sexual relationships. In fact, homosexuality defies the basic design of God, who commanded the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve, to multiply, i.e. produce offspring.

There are other scriptures that clearly show homosexuality to be a sin. To be sure, it's not the only sexual sin that people can engage in, but it is clearly considered an unrighteous act, and its practice keeps a person from inheriting God's kingdom.

1 Cor 6:9-11-- 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, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Prayer Warrior said:

The first thing that has to be established when dealing with this issue is whether the homosexual act itself is considered by God to be a sin. I haven't read every post in this thread, but I have seen posts supporting opposing views on this.

The main scripture I look at is what Jesus Himself spoke.

Matt 19:1-9-- When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds?”
“Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said:
“ For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh?
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
“Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

In the portion of the scripture I underlined, Jesus is quoting Genesis 2.

Gen 2:18-24-- Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.” So the Lord God formed out of the ground every wild animal and every bird of the sky, and brought each to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the sky, and to every wild animal; but for the man no helper was found as his complement. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the Lord God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said:
This one, at last, is bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called “woman,”
for she was taken from man.
This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Jesus spoke to this issue by going back to the beginning in revealing God's basic design for sexual relationships. Jesus made several essential points in this short scripture.

1) God created humans male and female (not male and male or female and female) for the purpose of marriage and procreation.
2) Husband and wife (not man and woman) are to be joined and become one flesh.
3) What God has joined together, man is not to separate.

This was God's design from the beginning. He made humans male and female. Man and woman are to become one flesh within the bonds of marriage. And marriage is not to be dissolved except on specific grounds because of what God designed and established from the beginning.

These scriptures show that homosexuality doesn't fit into God's design for sexual relationships. In fact, homosexuality defies the basic design of God, who commanded the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve, to multiply, i.e. produce offspring.

There are other scriptures that clearly show homosexuality to be a sin. To be sure, it's not the only sexual sin that people can engage in, but it is clearly considered an unrighteous act, and its practice keeps a person from inheriting God's kingdom.

1 Cor 6:9-11-- 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, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Click to expand...

Why didn't Jesus marry then?

And why did he also say:

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Some people are born eunuchs? Some people become eunuchs for the kingdom's sake? And why is it that in the kingdom, people do not get married?

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Why does Paul says male and female don't exist in Christ?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If the two sexes don't exist in Christ, how can we say that what is permissible for a man and a woman in the physical realm is impermissible in the same physical realm?

I also wonder if Paul believed women had to have children in order to be saved. Can that be right? What he meant confuses me. First he says there is neither male nor female; then he says there is a difference. I don't know what to make of some things he wrote.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Giuliano said:

Why didn't Jesus marry then?

And why did he also say:

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Some people are born eunuchs? Some people become eunuchs for the kingdom's sake? And why is it that in the kingdom, people do not get married?

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Why does Paul says male and female don't exist in Christ?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If the two sexes don't exist in Christ, how can we say that what is permissible for a man and a woman in the physical realm is impermissible in the same physical realm?

Click to expand...

Hi, Giuliano, i figured I would hear from you! And I have heard every objection that you're raising. I think it's important to cut through the mental gymnastics and get right to the bottom line, which is God's design.

I don't see any questions or objections you're raising here as refuting what Jesus said about marriage and sexual relationships. It's really pretty simple. Both Jesus and Paul spoke to this issue very clearly. Anyone who foolishly ignores what they said and PRACTICES any form of unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul made it clear that this is not an acceptable lifestyle when he told the Christians in Corinth, "some of you used to be like this." (1 Cor. 6:11) God help those who tell homosexuals (or anyone else) that engaging in homosexual acts (or any other sin) is okay with God! It's not!

It is how it is, and human reasoning will not change the truth!

VictoryinJesus said:

God’s marriage bed is undefiled and honorable in all. Always heard ’the marriage bed is undefiled’ means anything goes in the bedroom between and man and his wife. ...yes, sodomy too?

Click to expand...

Hebrews 13:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. there is nothing in the Bible about marriage and sodomy.. iam talking scripture . next people will be peeking in bedrooms to see how others has sex when married

CharismaticLady said:

I agree, and have to really wonder about husbands who want that sort of thing. I would think to become one you have to be looking your spouse in the eye. But I am curious as to what he thinks.

Click to expand...

this is one of the issues the Holy spirit should guide . to say in marriage sodomy is sin where is the scripture ?

Prayer Warrior said:

Hi, Giuliano, i figured I would hear from you! And I have heard every objection that you're raising. I think it's important to cut through the mental gymnastics and get right to the bottom line, which is God's design.

I don't see any questions or objections you're raising here as refuting what Jesus said about marriage and sexual relationships. It's really pretty simple. Both Jesus and Paul spoke to this issue very clearly. Anyone who foolishly ignores what they said and PRACTICES any form of unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul made it clear that this is not an acceptable lifestyle when he told the Christians in Corinth, "some of you used to be like this." (1 Cor. 6:11) God help those who tell homosexuals (or anyone else) that engaging in homosexual acts (or any other sin) is okay with God! It's not!

It is how it is, and human reasoning will not change the truth!

Click to expand...

What a lot of words without answering anything. You say it was God's design but can't say why Jesus didn't marry and have children.