Question regarding homosexuality in Scripture?

[newgene87]

I hope i worded that right? Just something that i read this morning. So, I have this daily scriptures app on my phone cause I take delight in reading random verses from the scriptures and one popped up today that threw me off. Okay, I don't know the full argument with Christians who are "homosexual" neither do I judge one bit, but I heard that they use David and Jonathan in their equation. Not only does it say, "...that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loves him as his own soul ...then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1Samuel18:1-3). Okay that may seem questionable to me but I don't just see it like that; maybe they were just close. Good good friends.....BUT, now the verse I'm getting to...

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: THY LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN." (2Samuel1:26). Now, I wasn't expecting to ever read a verse like that but that sounds like David and Jonathan were more than just "Friends" or "companions". Maybe Ray spoke on this matter before and I mean THAT VERSE BEFORE. Cause it says love passing the love of women. Now I will say, I am engaged to a beautiful woman and I'm perfect happy with that, it's just that verse really makes me think that maybe that says something that it's not implying?? If that makes sense? but can someone explain this verse to me? Again, hopefully I'm not offending anyone, I truly mean no offense but jut a question of truth on my part. I personally have a very close relative who lives that lifestyle and I don't judge him at all. I accept and love him. Just a question. Thanks

[Deborah-Leigh]

Hi newgene87

Love is not wrong.

...we also "LOVE" with our heart, soul and mind as well " (Matt. 22:37). http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,1939.0.html

Homosexuality is not acceptable in God's eyes..http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3241.0.html

The interpretation that King David and Johnathan were homosexuals, is an attempt to defend homosexuality.

Arc

[newgene87]

But "Love" for animals can cause a particular person to engage in sexual acts with them "beastiality I believe?) And a "Love" for kids can cause "molestation " . It wasn't just te love I saw was a problem but "thy love passing the love OF WOMEN" sounds like they were engaged in what women wold particularly do. But its okay now. Rena had an amazing comment to this so that was what I needed. It disappeared so idk what happened to it. And to me that verse is a STRONG defense for homosexualitu. He specifically said "passing the love of women" not just that he loved him. No it was deeper than that. So connecting that their "souls were knit", "they made a covenant", and "his love passing the love of WOMEN": strong cause. But just would've shown that David was unconverted, a murderer as well, adulterer, carnal, obviously a sinner. So adding homosexual to his resume wouldn't do anything. Murder and Adultery is stronger to me (if you Ask me anyway). Thanks :-)

[Rene]

Hi Eugene,

Here are the comments I had posted:

I know it may be shocking to some to discover that David may have had a homosexual relationship, but I look at it differently.  What difference does it make?  I have come to understand that David was a sinner, he was carnal, and he died unconverted.  If David practiced such behavior, he, too, will be judged for these acts.  It certainly does not justify the behavior.  

The apostle Paul acknowledged that some of the saints had practiced homosexuality also before being converted:

1Corinthians 6:9,11:

9 Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

11 And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.


René

[Gina]

That's an excellent response, Rene.  I never thought David could have had a "gay" relationship, and I know I would've been a little surprised to discover that especially after Bathsheba and all, but you're right--so what if he did?  It's another sin to be repented of.

[gmik]

whenever I had read that scsripture in 1 Sam. I never once thought of it as a hint at homosexuality.

I always thoght it as a bond- ya know- like soldiers in battle or team sports- something that guys know about that is different than their love for women...

but I agree w/ posts...so what? and it can never be fully known one way or the other...  David died in his sins but will become ...all in all w/ Christ and God at the end of the age...

and God called David a man after His own heart...high praise indeed..wow

[Samson]

I hope i worded that right? Just something that i read this morning. So, I have this daily scriptures app on my phone cause I take delight in reading random verses from the scriptures and one popped up today that threw me off. Okay, I don't know the full argument with Christians who are "homosexual" neither do I judge one bit, but I heard that they use David and Jonathan in their equation. Not only does it say, "...that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loves him as his own soul ...then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1Samuel18:1-3). Okay that may seem questionable to me but I don't just see it like that; maybe they were just close. Good good friends.....BUT, now the verse I'm getting to...

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: THY LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN." (2Samuel1:26). Now, I wasn't expecting to ever read a verse like that but that sounds like David and Jonathan were more than just "Friends" or "companions". Maybe Ray spoke on this matter before and I mean THAT VERSE BEFORE. Cause it says love passing the love of women. Now I will say, I am engaged to a beautiful woman and I'm perfect happy with that, it's just that verse really makes me think that maybe that says something that it's not implying?? If that makes sense? but can someone explain this verse to me? Again, hopefully I'm not offending anyone, I truly mean no offense but jut a question of truth on my part. I personally have a very close relative who lives that lifestyle and I don't judge him at all. I accept and love him. Just a question. Thanks

Hi Gene,

It's interesting how an individuals mindset or desire comes into play when examining certain passages of Scripture as to the meaning and interpretation. I'm not referring to YOU in what my comment is about to consist of. What I mean by Mindset or desire is this, one's frame of reference or beliefs at the time someone would read a passage like the one above depicting Jonathan & David's close bond affection for one another. The first time I read this passage, it never once occurred to Me that they(Jonathan & David) had some type of sexual desire or relationship between them. It's often that We experience or know of cases where Two Males or Two Females have a very close bond that is greater in most area's than the one they have with their Marriage Mate in which they have no sexual desire whatsoever, I've experienced such a relationship with another Male, not presently, where He and I had so much in common: Our thinking, reasoning, interests, trust and a strong affection that didn't include or desire anything sexual in nature and at that time, I could trust this close Male friend more than my Marriage Mate. I've observed this type of scenario with Women too.

"Generally Speaking," Males have more in common with other Males and likewise, Females have more in common with other Females, there are always exceptions, as with anything, but it's been my experience that the above usually holds true. Now, I'm not trying to preach Psychology 101 in my comment, but My Post relates to Ones Mindset or desire when viewing the Scriptural Passage in question.

If someone were a practicing Homosexual that is attempting to reconcile passages from the Scriptures in order to maintain that they are Christian believers, wouldn't they need to have an alternate interpretation of passages that present Homosexuality as being wrong and to find passages that appear to justify this course or practice. They have to downplay or interpret differently Romans. 1:24-27; 1Cor. 6:9-11(Greek-Arsenokoites, Sodomite, Males with lie with Males); 1Tim. 1:10(Arsenokoites in this passage too).

In Ray's Article from the front page of this Web-Site regarding Homosexuality, Ray actually addresses some of these claims made by a Gay Church organization. So, in conclusion, if someone or anyone were looking for the justification of this practice, they would welcome any interpretation that they could use to maintain that lifestyle or perhaps to ease their conscience. Individuals have done that also with the passage in Genesis regarding Sodom & Gomorrah(chapter 19) claiming the inhabitants were inhospitable. Of course they were inhospitable and many other things, sounds like New York City,  .

          Hope this Helps, If not, I guess y'all will let me have it, Samson.

[JohnMichael]

Hi Gene,

In line with what Samson and others have said, I have heard the David/Jonathan and Naomi/Ruth arguments. If they did have sexual relationships, it still doesn't jive with Romans, 1 Corinthians, Leviticus, or any of the other passages that refer to homosexual practices. The Scriptures do not hide the faults of the people that are written about. They are for our instruction, reproof, admonition, example, etc.

I've even heard the justification that the Scriptures were just referring to prostitution but not consenting relationships. The carnal mind will try to find any loophole to do what it wants to do. I say that not in condemnation because this is the very struggle of the flesh that I wrestle with.

Rene also had a very good answer. If they were, that doesn't justify it. It will still have to be repented of.

Hope this helps.

In Him,
John

[newgene87]

Beautifully put Samson. That was amazing and I will take that to heart. I am currently in the Army and I should know the bond with an opposite sex can be strong without sexual desire. Oh How God is judging me right now through that. Thank you all for the replies. I love this forum. Thank you all for the insight and correction.  :-)

[rumpelstiltskin]

The whole thing reminds me of a Simpson's episode, where Dr Hibert comments something like " What sort of love do you mean? that between a woman and a man or that of a man for a fine cigar 

Peace

[indianabob]

Thanks all for the practical advice and counsel.

I wonder though if the example of David and Jonathan doesn't relate to the type of and the depth of love that our Lord Jesus has for his bride. Isn't Jesus' love deeper than a man would imagine that he could have with his physical wife? Surely we love our wives and we understand that we are becoming one flesh with them both in body and in spirit, but in many ways that love is physically based as it begins to grow and in many ways depends upon reciprocal love toward us. Whereas the love that Jesus has for his holy bride is complete and without reservation and independent of any returned love from the bride.
David's love for Jonathan was of that depth and each of them would joyfully have given their life for the other.

Indianabob

[River]

I don't see any problem with asking this question and it doesn't automatically make it someone trying to defend homosexuality. I personally think the resistance to people who ask questions and then are assumed and labeled as to be trying to attack the scriptures is sinful. If you do this your making assumptions and really why can't those who do this just answer the questions and forget all the other garbage. I for one ask a million questions and I personally don't see God as one who is afraid of being searched out. After all it is this same questioning that help me escape the church system and continues to erode the conditioned culture and traditional teachings. Bottom line, whatever sin it is, no sin allowed. 

[Deborah-Leigh]

Defence and questioning are two different things.

Thanks for pointing that out River! 

Defending homosexuality
« on: May 24, 2011, 04:28:00 PM »

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,13156.0.html

Dear Aaron:  I will make some COMMENTS... in your e-mail:

Hello sir, I am a gay-Christian as according to God's Will.

COMMENT:  When you call yourself a "Christian," Aaron, it behooves you to "depart from iniquity," and homosexuality according to the Scriptures is iniquity:  "Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are His. And, Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (II Tim. 2:19).  "Iniquity" in this verse is translated from the Greek word idekia, and according to Dr. Strong, it means "unrighteousness"--NOT RIGHT, WRONG.

I read your paper on homosexuality and would like to challenge you to think on some things. I would love for you to post my email to you on your website, to give your readers a non-biased view of the scriptures on homosexuality. First of all, Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of inhospitality, not sodomy!

COMMENT:  What in the world does your statement regarding Sodom and Gomorrah have to do with my paper on homosexuality?  You said you are "challenging" my paper, yet my paper says nothing regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or that their sin was sodomy.  Where did you read such a thing in my paper?  Here is what I did say under the heading: What is Homosexuality?"  "The word "homosexual" is reported to be a German invention to euphemize and take the place of the distasteful word "sodomite." Although the word "sodomy" as used today may not even have a direct connection with the sexual sins of historical Sodom" (first page).

Nowhere in my entire paper did I ever connect the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality.  Where?  And you say you are "non-biased."  Why do you do this?  Why are YOU connecting Sodom with homosexuality, seeing that I did not?  I thought this e-mail was a non-biased challenge of my paper?  You not only lie, but you slander when you falsely accuse me of such things.  Maybe argue with someone else about Sodom, but don't argue it with me, as I had nothing to say regarding it.  If anything, I said that the word sodomy "...may NOT even have a direct connection with the sexual sins of historical Sodom."  And you turn around and try to use such an argument against my paper--shame on you!


Read Ezekiel 16:48-50, their sin was not treating Lot and his guests correctly, show me one scripture that states Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality?

COMMENT:  I don't have to show you anything, because I never made such a statement. No, Aaron, you show ME one statement where I said that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality?  Go ahead, SHOW ME!  You ask me to read Ezekiel 16:48-50 for proof that the sin of Sodom was "not treating Lot and his guests correctly."  Oh really?  Have YOU read Ezekiel 16:48-50?  Well then show us were it says such a thing in Ezekiel?  Where?  Ezekiel says NOTHING regarding the treatment of Lot and his guests--nothing.  But  God does say through Ezekiel that Sodom was "haughty, and committed ABOMINATION before ME [God]."  Are you unaware of the fact that God said He would destroy Sodom for her abominations BEFORE "Lot and his guests" ever went to Sodom?  So how could their destruction be predicated on how they treated Lot and his guests before they ever arrived there?

Gen. 18:20 "And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their SIN IS VERY GRIEVOUS...." These "very grievous sins" were committed before Lot ever arrived at Sodom, so God did not destroy them because of their inhospitable treatment of Lot and his guests. You just make this stuff up as you, don't you, Aaron?

Secondly the Leviticus Codes of Holiness no longer apply to NT Christians. Leviticus 20:9 orders death to children for cursing their parents? Do we abide by that today, NO! We are under a NEW LAW!

COMMENT:  Really?  So now it is no longer a sin to curse your parents?  Is that what you are saying?  We Christians are now under a "NEW LAW" by which we can curse our parents?  You claim to be a Christian, so let's see what Jesus Christ Himself has to say about your absurd and blasphemous teaching: 

"But He [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?  For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death.  But ye say, Whosoever shall say to father or mother,  a gift, by whatsoever you might be profited by me;  And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free.  Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.  YOU HYPOCRITES..." (Matt. 15:3-7).

So are you saying that Jesus doesn't know what He is talking about.  It is now okay to curse one's father and mother?  Or are you now despising the word of God because He is gracious enough to let you live even though you deserve to die for your sin of homosexuality?  And you call this your "second" point.  Excuse me, but where was your "first" point?


Thirdly, the church (and you Mr. Smith) has tried to hide the fact that David and Jonathan were bi-sexual

COMMENT:  You LIE, Aaron: I hide nothing!  You might owe Jonathan and David an apology as well.

the bible says in 2nd Samuel 1:23-27 that David loved Jonathan more than he did any woman. Read and study the first book of Samuel, the 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters, this WAS an intimate, loving relationship between two MEN.

COMMENT:  Since when does the word "love" mean "homosexual act?" David and Jonathan were brothers in war, and as most people realize, when men fight together in battle, they often become even closer than they are with women, but NOT SEXUALLY.  Such non-sexual love and closeness between men is sometimes the theme of Hollywood cinema.  If you doubt this, maybe see the movie: "Band of Brothers."  Homosexuality and bestiality are utterly condemned under the law of Moses, so why would Samuel try to cloak such a sin if it involved Jonathan and David, and then have the audacity to call it "love" rather than what the Scriptures call it everywhere, "an abomination?" Nowhere is homosexuality called "love." "WOE unto them who call evil good...." (Isa. 5:20).

In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, Jesus blessed the gay centurion; please refer to http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html for further study. There is no other mentioning of homosexuals by Jesus in the Bible!

COMMENT:  Excuse me, but where does Jesus call the centurion a homosexual in these verses?  Jesus does not suggest that this centurion is a homosexual.

Jesus NEVER spoke ONE WORD about it! Show me one Mr. Smith!

COMMENT:  And you are pretending to have read my paper?  You ask me to show you ONE WORD about Jesus speaking of homosexuality, as though you somehow put me down with your statement.  What kind of foolish nonsense is that?  If Jesus doesn't mention something in the Gospels, is that proof that it isn't a sin. Do you think I have never considered such stupid arguments before?  You didn't read my paper on homosexuality.  You're a fraud, Aaron.  Let me quote to you a half dozen paragraphs from my paper beginning at the very top of the first page:

                                                                               A SILLY ARGUMENT

"Over the years I have received some bizarre reasons from the gay community regarding why they don't think homosexuality is a sin [and yours, Aaron, is just another one of them]. Here is an example I received this week from a self-professed lesbian:

"Also, don't you find it interesting that when Jesus walked the earth, he never once brought up the subject? If it was such a sin, it would be one of the Ten Commandments, don't you think?"

No, I don't think so at all. Lev. 20:13 does not need to be one of the Ten Commandments before it has any jurisdiction over Christian Believers.

Jesus did not address child-molestation either; neither is it one of the Ten Commandments. Neither did Jesus address drug abuse, nor pornography, smoking, spousal abuse, or torture. Does this fact therefore condone such sins and atrocities? Are we to assume therefore that none of these are wrong or sinful? I hope we are not foolish enough to believe that if something is not mentioned in the Bible, then it shouldn't be considered a sin.

Listen: One of the Ten Commandments was against "stealing." But stealing did not carry the death sentence. Yet witchcraft (not one of the Ten Commandments) did carry the death sentence (Lev. 20:27). Having sexual intercourse with an animal carried the death sentence for both men and women (Lev. 20:15-16).

Who among us would deign to suggest to their children that having sex with farm yard animals is now okay since it is not condemned in the New Testament by Jesus, neither is one of the Ten Commandments? When all else fails, try a little common sense and basic morality."  End of statement from my paper.

How can you have the audacity to ask me to show you where Jesus spoke on the subject of homosexuality after reading those SIX PARAGRAPHS starting on page one of my paper.  Jesus did not need to speak on every single sin in the universe in order for it to be a sin.  Where do you gays (I mean guys) come up with such deceitful trickery and nonsense?  Is torture not a sin because Jesus did not condemn it?  Is child pornography not a sin because Jesus did not condemn it?  Is drug abuse not a sin because Jesus did not condemn it?  Is child molestation not a sin because Jesus did not condemn it?  How in the world can you think there is an ounce of credence to your biased arguments?

And lastly, St. Paul did NOT write everything he said under the influence of God Holy Spirit! In 1st Corinthians 7:6 and 25 Paul admittedly gives advice that does not come from God! So we must be very careful in our assessment of Paul's writings.

COMMENT:  Oh really?  We have got to be "very" careful in our assessment of Paul's writings?  I guess he'll just lead us astray every chance he gets, if we are not "VERY CAREFUL" in believing what he wrote.  Listen:  Paul wrote those words to the Corinthians in the spring of 57 AD.  By 68 AD the only New Testament writings which were not complete where those of the Apostle John, and in 68 AD eleven years after writing to the Corinthians, Paul wrote this:  "ALL SCRIPTURE is given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all GOOD WORKS" (II Tim. 3:16-17).

You HYPOCRITE!  Maybe Paul didn't receive a specific "commandment" from God to say what he said in I Cor. 7, but eleven years later, we are informed that those very words were now considered THE INSPIRED WORDS OF GOD, and preserved as "Scripture" for ever.  But you despise the word of God and will not allow yourself to be corrected by Paul's words of inspiration.  You don't want "reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness."  Furthermore, you are wrong when you state that Paul didn't write everything he said in the Bible "under the influence of God['s] Holy Spirit." The Bible says no such thing. It says he did not receive an injunction or specific commandment to write what he did, which is totally different from stating that he was not influence by God's Holy Spirit.  Since these very words are still in our Bibles and considered Scripture, we must conclude that they were indeed written under inspiration of God (II Tim. 3:16).

It is in the first chapter of Romans that our Apostle Paul utterly condemns the acts of homosexuality and here are his credentials for saying what he does in Romans 1:  "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1).  He then proceeds to instruct us concerning the things God wants us to know as part of his gospel:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [Gk: 'hold back'] the truth in unrighteousness (Ver 18).

"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  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 (Ver 24-26)"

"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 even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do these things which are not convenient [ not fitting].  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, HATERS OF GOD, despiteful, proud, boaster, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without NATURAL affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things ARE WORTHY OF DEATH, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Vers. 27-32).

And this you want us to believe was only Paul's opinion, which needs to be "very carefully assessed."

I can go on and on,

COMMENT:  No, please don't!  Quit while you are ahead before you make even a greater fool out of yourself.

but will not. I am a 46 year old gay-man, and have been in a loving relationship with my partner for 20 years. I am at complete peace with how God made me. Homosexuality is a gift from God,

COMMENT:  God inspired Isaiah to write:  "WOE [Deep distress, misery, grief, misfortune, calamity sorrow, dismay] unto them that call EVIL GOOD...."  Calling homosexuality "a gift from God" is just such a sin.  And you will repent of this sin now, or you will bitterly repent of it later.

why would I give it back. I have proven using the scriptures as you demand, Mr. Smith, that homosexuality is NOT a sin in God's eyes.

COMMENT:  You have proven no such thing, Aaron.  Can you not read?  What does it say in the first chapter of Romans?  Do you really think that you can dismiss the entire first chapter of Romans by suggesting that Paul can't be trusted in everything that he says?

Please, stop judging your fellow gay and lesbian Christian brothers and sisters.

COMMENT:  Where did I judge gays in my paper?  Maybe you need to read my paper for the first time. And I don't judge you, Aaron, I show you the Scriptures and I tell you that the Scriptures MEAN WHAT THEY SAY!  I'm sorry if you think my honesty is rather condemnation. It is not.  I have shown that adultery is usually mentioned before acts of homosexuality, indicating that they are a greater sin, yet I don't write papers trying to show that the Bible teaches against adultery.  Men and women who cheat on their mates KNOW that they are sinning.  It is only homosexuals that insist that their abomination is a virtue.

I would love to get a response back from you on the above scriptures, but my main concern is to post this email on other sites to expose the heresy you teach.

COMMENT:  You have your response, and it will be posted for the world to see, and we will see who it is that is teaching heresy.

You CAN be gay and a believer in Christ.

COMMENT:  Possibly the only true statement you have made in your entire e-mail.  Yes, of course, one can be gay and believe in Christ.  Satan and his demons are proof of this possibility:  "You believe that there is one God [or Christ]; you do well: the devils [demons] also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19).

From your Gay-Christian brother in Christ,

Aaron

CONCLUDING COMMENT:  What is the real reason you have written to me? Not to show me that I am wrong regarding the Biblical teaching on homosexuality, for you have done no such thing.  No, you have written to me because of your conscience.  You do not write to everyone who has an article against homosexuality.  The reason you are writing to me is because you have never seen this subject covered so clearly and absolutely Biblically.  You had no idea that the Scriptures speak so graphically regarding sex.  You were never shown what the word "unseemly" means in the Greek used by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:27--Strong's Greek Dictionary: "unseemly/shame" #808, aschemosune, "an indecency; by implication the pudenda [human sex organs]: shame, which is unseemly."

It is what men do with other men's SEX ORGANS that God calls "unseemly" and an abomination!  I don't suppose you felt to cocksure of yourself after reading that startling revelation, did you?

You have no wiggle room left after reading my paper.  You stand condemned by your own acts and philosophy of morality.  I have shown you in undisputable clarity from the Scriptures that homosexuality is a sin that will keep you out of the Kingdom of God unless bitterly repented of.

So you think by running by me the same stupid and unscriptural nonsense I demolish in my paper, that somehow I won't notice your deviousness.    No one.....NO ONE is that stupid as to believe the arguments you have presented are grounds for calling an immoral, deranged sexual perversion "love" and "a gift from God."  You are crying out for justification for your sins, but there is no justification for your sins.  There is only judgment unless or until you repent of these acts

May God's goodness grant you repentance, Aaron. (That would be found in Rom. 2:4, just a few verses after God says your homosexual abomination is "worthy of death"),

Ray

[Gina]

Thanks for pulling that out and highlighting the certain portion, Deb!   That makes sense!

[Gina]

My youngest daughter is experimenting with the gay lifestyle for the moment--I see it as a passing phase, like the raw food/vegan lifestyle.  It's more than accepted, it's a lifestyle that many straight people even acclaim because they're afraid of offending the gay community (which in my book is the true definition of a homophobic).

Square circles anyone?  haha

[Deborah-Leigh]

Homophobia is a term used to refer to a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay and in some cases bisexual, transgender people and behavior, although these are sometimes covered under other terms such as biphobia and transphobia. Definitions refer to irrational fear, with the implication of antipathy, contempt, prejudice, and aversion.[1][2][3] The term "homophobia" is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a perceived homosexual or in some cases any non-heterosexual orientation. In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Sounds pretty much like condemnation to me, if you take all those words associated to homophobia ~ fear, antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, discrimination, violence, racism, bigotry ~ used to dehumanize a group of people to deny their humanity, dignity and personhood.

Self justification, by such observations of pride and self righteousness, is as the piety of the Pharisee.

Non abidance in one jot or tittle of the law makes for breaking all the law. Yet we are not justified by the law and neither are we above the law, as to sin, but in Christ  mercy triumphs' over judgment. In Christ we defer condemnation to  commending His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,  Christ died for US. 

It might "kill" us to judge nothing before the time, as we learn patience and long suffering. ~

Howz that for a square circle Gina! ~

Arc

[arion]

From Ray's response;

[It is only homosexuals that insist that their abomination is a virtue.]

There is a world of difference (imo) between a man who is caught up in his sin, loathes it with all his heart, hates himself when he does it and desperately wants to be free as opposed to those who indulge their sin with a hardened heart and claim that they have not sinned. 

Reminds me of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican;

Luk 18:13-14  And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[Deborah-Leigh]

We're all out of Adam. What does Adam do? "Being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters" and on and on (Rom 1:29-31). Wow! This is "O man" out of Adam. This is what he does and only by the grace of God, some of us didn't have to go that route.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3709.0.html ~

[Gina]

Well, it's as Ray said, "Except for a few minor changes," that could've been me.  There, but for the grace of God, go I...