Homosexual Church Dream

[Mayflower]

Love is from God (1 John 4:8). So for unbelieving homosexuals I question if they even know what love is. I think about David and Jonothan that really loved each other, but not out of homosexual love.

Sex is about lust. Two men or women who love each other without committing sexual acts towards one another, that is not wrong. And marriage, to me the Bible show clear specifications for marriage. Homosexuality is not part of that.

 

[marks]

And what of their argument that the Genesis account specifically deals only with the sin of homosexual rape, not loving, monogamous homosexual relationships/marriages?

That is of course an argument from silence.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That is of course an argument from silence.

Their whole case actually boils down to an argument from silence. To quote one article:

We need to put all this in perspective. These are six verses [i.e. which apparently condemn homosexual practice, but which the author explains away] out of more than 31,000 verses or roughly 0.016 per cent of the text. In contrast, the Bible contains more than 2,000 verses about money (and related issues of greed, wealth, loans, and property), and more than 100 specifically on one's obligation to care for widows. In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers. For certain Christian groups to make this the decisive Christian issue is simply a misreading of biblical values.

Lest readers think the Bible is against sexuality generally, there is an entire biblical book devoted to celebrating human sexual desire. Written in the style of a Mesopotamian love poem, the Song of Songs (sometimes called Song of Solomon), speaks positively of both female and male sexual yearning... The Bible offers a wide variety of marriage arrangements, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly.
What does the Bible really say about same-sex marriage?

It essentially just focuses on trying to debunk common interpretations of key passage condemning homosexuality, and then argues that scripture doesn't actually talk about it that much. The key for me in the dream was that the guy was actually using scripture to say the Bible endorsed it, which is what I found different.

 

[DNB]

I liked your last paragraph, btw. About this, what would you answer to their argument that such commandments were given because of the culture of the times, but what was unacceptable then has become acceptable now according to modern culture?

No, one does not implement the death penalty for an act that is circumstantial to its times, for there is a fundamental an inherent perversion in the desire and the act itself. Again, fundamentally speaking, God created them man & woman, and it is on this principle that life continues to exist, otherwise it would not. There is an intrinsic necessity in this arrangement, that surpasses eras and cultures.
Other Laws had their time and place like, worship practices and rituals, observances of certain days, attire requirements, these are merely superficial gestures that do not define the disposition of one's heart, attractions and desires. These may be abrogated as laws, which, as we all know, they were. Stealing and murder never ceased to be a law, nor did abuse, or sexual perversions that disrespect, objectify and take advantage of those involved. Just because there are persons who prefer acts of dominatrix, orgies or whatever, it does not mean that they are sound, and that the act is beneficial. Mutual consent is not necessarily grounds for healthy or inconsequential living. There are many strange characters out there. Try hanging out with a bunch of homosexuals for a day, you will very soon begin to see how strange and twisted their characters are (you won't last).

And what of their argument that the Genesis account specifically deals only with the sin of homosexual rape, not loving, monogamous homosexual relationships/marriages?

No, because again, the fundamental principles are that, by design, the anatomy does not comport to such an interaction as it does in a heterosexual relationship. It was not the intent of the designer, nor was it conducive to the design. Nature has indicted the act.

No, because then we will have to say that the women's rape, in both accounts, were acceptable, because that is what was decided as a resolution. Meaning, the women were not offered in the place of the men because this was acceptable, obviously, but rather because it was the lesser of the two evils. In other words, because the rape could not be thwarted, which is egregiously wrong under any circumstance, the concession was to allow something less abominable. Again, if in their eyes, there's no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, they would have just complied with the demand to give up the men for rape, for what's the difference at that point whether a man or women gets raped, since either act is mutually evil, because both type of relationships are equal? But this clearly wasn't the case.

 

[shnarkle]

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

Eating pork is explicitly described as "an abomination". It's ironic that Cornelius was recognized by the Jews as righteous because he kept the commandments of God. Just a coincidence?

 

[shnarkle]

I know this is about gay right's, so to speak, BUT, hear is a question that kinda follows the same line!
What if Your Pastor was openly having an Affair with another woman??
Would you still want to give any credence to His Preaching?
God Said, and we need to hold to what He has Said. Stand up for the Word, draw a line in the sand and stand!
Salvation is for all who are willing to repent, and Go their way and try to sin no more!
Personally, I would not attend any assembly that allowed such peoples to be a part of their Body!

The problem with that philosophy is where do you draw the line with sin? Obviously, you draw it with homosexuality, but why there? Paul points out that if you break one of God's commandments, you've essentially broken them all. The glaring problem is that there aren't any people in your church who will claim that they're perfectly sinless.

 

[shnarkle]

Proverbs 16:5 KJV
[5] Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord : though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

It’s amazing how many things the Lord finds abominable ?

Tecarta Bible

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

 

[Mayflower]

Eating pork is explicitly described as "an abomination". It's ironic that Cornelius was recognized by the Jews as righteous because he kept the commandments of God. Just a coincidence?

I didnt know that. Well then. Glad for this exercise.

 

[Mayflower]

Eating pork is explicitly described as "an abomination". It's ironic that Cornelius was recognized by the Jews as righteous because he kept the commandments of God. Just a coincidence?

But pork was a Jewish law, correct? While homosexuality is mentioned in the NT as well...

 

[shnarkle]

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

This is a direct and explicit reference to the Mosaic law.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Timothy 1:8‭-‬10 KJV

It's ironic that you focus on only one aspect of this passage rather than the most glaring transgression by most of Christianity, i.e. the 4th commandment. Why the double standard?

When this passage is fully understood, it will be seen that Paul is identifying persons who broke the ten commandments, up to commandment 9 and in the same order as they were given in Exodus 20.

THE LIST OF COMMANDMENT BREAKERS.
Lawless - Anomos(Gr.),without law,not having,knowing or acknowledging the law.Shows opposition to or contempt for the will of God.

Disobedient - Anupotaktos(Gr.),disobedient to authority(God's)

Ungodly - Asebes(Gr.),Godless,without fear or reverence to God,one who practises the opposite of what the fear of God demands.

Sinners - Hamartolos(Gr.),a heinous and habitual sinner.

The above persons do not recognize the true God and His laws but have gods of their own. They end up making images in honour of these gods and offer worship to them contrary to the commands of the true God.[See,Romans 1:18-25;Proverbs 16:27;Deuteronomy 13:13;II Corinthians 6:14-18;I Samuel 2:12;Galatians 4:8; N.B., ungodly - sons of belial]

The persons above break commandments 1 & 2

Unholy - Anosios(Gr.),opposite of holy,profane.

Profane - Bebelos(Gr.),unhallowed, opposite of sacred, permitted to be trodden.

The above persons disregard or desecrate that which is holy. They take the Lord's name in vain and pollute the Sabbath.[See,Leviticus 18:21;19:12;Matthew 12:5;Nehemiah 13:17;Isaiah 58:13;56:6]

The persons above break commandments 3 & 4.

The rest are fairly straightforward and self-explanatory.

Murderers of fathers and - Dishonour parents by killing
murderers of mothers them.

The persons above break commandment 5.

Manslayers - Kill others.

The persons above break commandment 6.

Whoremongers etc. - Commit adultery and various sexual sins.

The persons above break commandment 7.

Men stealers - Steal or kidnap men.

The persons above break commandment 8.

Liars and perjured persons - These persons lie, bear false witness.

The persons above break commandment 9.

Any other thing contrary to sound doctrine would include commandment 10,which must be transgressed before any other sin is committed.[See,James 1:14,15;I Corinthians 10:6;Matthew 15:19]

Hence Paul clearly affirms that the breaking of the ten commandment law is a sin and describes those who disregard the Sabbath as unholy and profane.In this passage, Paul states plainly that it is contrary to sound Christian doctrine, contrary to the gospel, to be unholy and profane ie. to disregard the Sabbath.[I Timothy 1:10,11]

So my thinking is the Bible says homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine.

So it breaking the 4th commandment and the dietary laws.

So if we are to live in fellowship with God, a lifestyle of homosexuality should not be exercised. And as Christians, we shouldnt condone it...

Only if we are going to be consistent in our reasoning which precludes us from a lifestyle of Sabbath breaking, eating garbage, etc. We either learn to condone homosexuality, or we repent from our own hypocrisy.

 

[Waiting on him]

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

I would say none of it enters in.

 

[shnarkle]

But pork was a Jewish law, correct? While homosexuality is mentioned in the NT as well...

So is adhering to sound doctrine from the law. There are no exceptions. The oracles of God were given to Moses, and Israel was cut off through their own disobedience, but as Luke points out, those same oracles were given to the New Testament church.

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles TO GIVE UNTO US:
39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt," Luke 7:38,39

 

[shnarkle]

I would say none of it enters in.

None of what enters into what? None of it enters into the heart? The proud heart is defiled because pride issues from it, along with lust, gluttony, the desire to sin, etc.

 

[shnarkle]

He is a Holy and Righteous God. Praise Him that He is also forgiving, Amen?

And therefore he will forgive the homosexual who sins in ignorance.

 

[shnarkle]

only the two different genders, can engender the miracle of life.

This is a good point, and one which most Christians don't want to look at because it reveals our own biases, as well as our own sin. For example, we're talking about homosexuality, but the sin is really sodomy which many heterosexual couples practice as well. Some use it as a form of birth control which most Christians have no problem with as well. The double standard just keeps getting more pronounced the more we look at it.

I know that we're all sinners, and that the appropriate attitude towards sin is shame, not indifference or advertisement. I wouldn't allow in the Church, a pot smoker to wear a T-Shirt with a leaf on it, or smell like pot.

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

Or, sleazy clothes,

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

I know that we are all battling our demons, therefore, keep it locked up.

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

 

[Waiting on him]

This is a direct and explicit reference to the Mosaic law.



It's ironic that you focus on only one aspect of this passage rather than the most glaring transgression by most of Christianity, i.e. the 4th commandment. Why the double standard?

When this passage is fully understood, it will be seen that Paul is identifying persons who broke the ten commandments, up to commandment 9 and in the same order as they were given in Exodus 20.

THE LIST OF COMMANDMENT BREAKERS.
Lawless - Anomos(Gr.),without law,not having,knowing or acknowledging the law.Shows opposition to or contempt for the will of God.

Disobedient - Anupotaktos(Gr.),disobedient to authority(God's)

Ungodly - Asebes(Gr.),Godless,without fear or reverence to God,one who practises the opposite of what the fear of God demands.

Sinners - Hamartolos(Gr.),a heinous and habitual sinner.

The above persons do not recognize the true God and His laws but have gods of their own. They end up making images in honour of these gods and offer worship to them contrary to the commands of the true God.[See,Romans 1:18-25;Proverbs 16:27;Deuteronomy 13:13;II Corinthians 6:14-18;I Samuel 2:12;Galatians 4:8; N.B., ungodly - sons of belial]

The persons above break commandments 1 & 2

Unholy - Anosios(Gr.),opposite of holy,profane.

Profane - Bebelos(Gr.),unhallowed, opposite of sacred, permitted to be trodden.

The above persons disregard or desecrate that which is holy. They take the Lord's name in vain and pollute the Sabbath.[See,Leviticus 18:21;19:12;Matthew 12:5;Nehemiah 13:17;Isaiah 58:13;56:6]

The persons above break commandments 3 & 4.

The rest are fairly straightforward and self-explanatory.

Murderers of fathers and - Dishonour parents by killing
murderers of mothers them.

The persons above break commandment 5.

Manslayers - Kill others.

The persons above break commandment 6.

Whoremongers etc. - Commit adultery and various sexual sins.

The persons above break commandment 7.

Men stealers - Steal or kidnap men.

The persons above break commandment 8.

Liars and perjured persons - These persons lie, bear false witness.

The persons above break commandment 9.

Any other thing contrary to sound doctrine would include commandment 10,which must be transgressed before any other sin is committed.[See,James 1:14,15;I Corinthians 10:6;Matthew 15:19]

Hence Paul clearly affirms that the breaking of the ten commandment law is a sin and describes those who disregard the Sabbath as unholy and profane.In this passage, Paul states plainly that it is contrary to sound Christian doctrine, contrary to the gospel, to be unholy and profane ie. to disregard the Sabbath.[I Timothy 1:10,11]



So it breaking the 4th commandment and the dietary laws.



Only if we are going to be consistent in our reasoning which precludes us from a lifestyle of Sabbath breaking, eating garbage, etc. We either learn to condone homosexuality, or we repent from our own hypocrisy.

Are you Jewish?

 

[shnarkle]

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.

It's ironic that a group as small as the LGBT is can have such a powerful influence over society. One has to wonder why Christians are incapable of mustering an equivalent number to engage them. The only response evident is to beat them over the head with the Mosaic law which Paul points out will be of no use whatsoever. Instead he insists that we employ the gospel.

"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? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?...23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,

"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.

Homosexuals endeavoring to enter into Christian congregations use the EXACT same arguments used by practicing Christians for their defense of the abolition of the dietary laws, transgressing the Sabbath, as well as the 7th commandment. The church is never going to admit or repent from its own sins, so it is inevitable that this trend will continue.

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).

Of course it's false, but then it's just as false to ignore the other commandments as well which most Christians readily do already. The double standard is shocking, and disturbing.

"And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews,"

There is only one criteria or standard by which a Jew would give such a report; the Mosaic law.

" But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Those who work righteousness, keep the commandments of God.

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

Note that there is no mention of redefining sin which is what Christianity has done by redefining what day God sanctified, by what means one may annul God's commandments concerning marriage, and the dietary laws.

The church will never admit or repent of these abominations. They will only heap more upon themselves by justifying them (Luke 16:15)

Therefore, the church will not just admit homosexuals, but eagerly embrace them as well as the lifestyle. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

The ACLU has already backed away from defending Christianity. It has come out and declared it will no longer be defending Christianity. They see the writing on the walls already. Christians who think they can keep their doors open, and exclude homosexuals are oblivious to the destruction of the witness of scripture as well as the guidance and witness of the Spirit in their own congregations.

Your dream is a potent reminder of what is already happening because people are going to make their way to the exits as homosexuals, transgendered, etc. take a seat next to them.

Of course there aren't going to be many of them in church because they really don't want to be part of a religious community in the first place. They're just pawns in a much more broader movement to destroy Christianity. They will win. They are going to destroy Christianity as we used to know it. They're picking out a suitable stone right now, not to mourn its departure, but as a monument to their victory over it.

"When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth." Rev. 11: 7-10

 

[shnarkle]

Are you Jewish?

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

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

 

[shnarkle]

But pork was a Jewish law, correct? While homosexuality is mentioned in the NT as well...

There is no prohibition against cannibalism in the Old or New Testaments. There is no need for it in the Old Testament due to the fact that it is impossible if one keep the dietary laws. Christians have annulled the only commandments that preclude them from engaging in cannibalism.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It's ironic that a group as small as the LGBT is can have such a powerful influence over society. One has to wonder why Christians are incapable of mustering an equivalent number to engage them. The only response evident is to beat them over the head with the Mosaic law which Paul points out will be of no use whatsoever. Instead he insists that we employ the gospel.

"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? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?...23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,



Homosexuals endeavoring to enter into Christian congregations use the EXACT same arguments used by practicing Christians for their defense of the abolition of the dietary laws, transgressing the Sabbath, as well as the 7th commandment. The church is never going to admit or repent from its own sins, so it is inevitable that this trend will continue.



Of course it's false, but then it's just as false to ignore the other commandments as well which most Christians readily do already. The double standard is shocking, and disturbing.

"And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews,"

There is only one criteria or standard by which a Jew would give such a report; the Mosaic law.

" But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

Those who work righteousness, keep the commandments of God.

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

Note that there is no mention of redefining sin which is what Christianity has done by redefining what day God sanctified, by what means one may annul God's commandments concerning marriage, and the dietary laws.

Therefore, the church will not just admit homosexuals, but eagerly embrace them as well as the lifestyle. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

The ACLU has already backed away from defending Christianity. It has come out and declared it will no longer be defending Christianity. They see the writing on the walls already. Christians who think they can keep their doors open, and exclude homosexuals are oblivious to the destruction of the witness of scripture as well as the guidance and witness of the Spirit in their own congregations.

Your dream is a potent reminder of what is already happening because people are going to make their way to the exits as homosexuals, transgendered, etc. take a seat next to them.

Of course there aren't going to be many of them in church because they really don't want to be part of a religious community in the first place. They're just pawns in a much more broader movement to destroy Christianity. They will win. They are going to destroy Christianity as we used to know it. They're picking out a suitable stone right now, not to mourn its departure, but as a monument to their victory over it.

"When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. 8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. 9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth." Rev. 11: 7-10

I'd give your post a good grade for having some real substance behind it. But now, there are some things I would oppose.

For starters, you write like an Adventist. Had I asked you what "other faith" you were a part of? I think I did. No need to answer. Just pointing out some similarities to what you apparently believe.

Ok,

Homosexuals endeavoring to enter into Christian congregations use the EXACT same arguments used by practicing Christians for their defense of the abolition of the dietary laws, transgressing the Sabbath, as well as the 7th commandment. The church is never going to admit or repent from its own sins, so it is inevitable that this trend will continue.

I think you are largely correct here, at least in saying that the LGBQ community uses the argument that laws against homosexual practices are no longer binding upon the church as a defense of their lifestyle. But I differ from you in arguing that a reversion back to keeping dietary laws and the 7th day are a suitable way to counter their argument, and the growing trend...

But it would be a long conversation having to cover whether dietary laws are still binding, let alone the 7th day... suffice it to say I hold these ritual laws to be representative of spiritual laws that supersede them, with commands against eating "unclean foods" representing the danger and spiritual filthiness of taking unclean spirits within oneself. The latter is the law now binding upon Christians rather than the former, which merely represented it.

Btw, this is actually the argument I use. When the NT writers spoke of homosexuality and/or sexually immoral practices, often the word "uncleanness" was used, as a reference to demonic spirits tempting believers to commit such acts. I see this as a tougher argument for them to get around, because what society thinks has no bearing if scripture defines what they are doing as giving themselves to demonic influence. All of their arguments fall apart actually. God being indifferent in our time falls apart. That He hates rape but condones loving, monogamous relationships falls apart. No matter how they slice it, it is still engaging in unclean practices rather than leading a holy life; spiritually unclean practices, that lead only to God "delivering them up to all uncleanness."

The church will never admit or repent of these abominations. They will only heap more upon themselves by justifying them (Luke 16:15)

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

So, yes. In a way I agree with you. There is a hypocrisy going on that the LGBQ community righty identifies, and it presents real problems to the Christian witness and Christian standards regarding who is allowed to become a member.