• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Leviticus and Homosexuality

lily_r

New Member
Well...and the answer would be: "Just those things of the Bible which match with the good of mankind"
Sorry, but I'm confused. So we're not doing what the Bible says anymore? Great, that sounds awesome, a lot of pressure off of me...but something isn't ringing of truth here. So, if we just ignore the four passages that condemn homosexuality, then we really don't have any reason to believe anything else about the Bible. And by that logic, that means that the "refute" to homosexuality that God is love holds just as much authority as the passages that you took out because you're offended by them. So, really, the agnostics and atheists have more rationality here in saying that the Bible isn't true if one passage isn't true.

The Bible isn't here to cater to your wants and needs, it stands as an objective definition of truth laid out by the apostles and clergymen alike so that we can follow God to the best of our ability.
Food for thought:
Revelation 22:1818
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Sorry, but I'm confused. So we're not doing what the Bible says anymore? Great, that sounds awesome, a lot of pressure off of me...but something isn't ringing of truth here. So, if we just ignore the four passages that condemn homosexuality, then we really don't have any reason to believe anything else about the Bible. And by that logic, that means that the "refute" to homosexuality that God is love holds just as much authority as the passages that you took out because you're offended by them. So, really, the agnostics and atheists have more rationality here in saying that the Bible isn't true if one passage isn't true.

The Bible isn't here to cater to your wants and needs, it stands as an objective definition of truth laid out by the apostles and clergymen alike so that we can follow God to the best of our ability.
Food for thought:
Revelation 22:1818
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

I find your argument very sound you seem like an evangelist of sort.

But I have a question sis, with the same yardstick you just introduced, why dont you follow this as well? (I am sure you know your scripture and not for a second am I thinking you should definitely follow this or doubting your knowledge)

Corinthians chapter 11.

2. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
3. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.
6. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7. Aman ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
 

lily_r

New Member
I knew someone would bring that up, and I thank you for doing so because it is an important thing for someone who believes in sola scriptura to consider. In all honesty, this is a concept I have been struggling with for some time now as I find myself inclined to evangelism and preaching/teaching.

I do not believe it is a sin for women to prophesy. We have Anna the Prophetess spoken about in Acts (I believe) in a positive light, and Paul does not condemn her for doing this. I hate to pull out the cultural context card as that is often abused, but the ordination of women is more of a cultural context issue than homosexuality. It is speculated that because many of Paul's words in relation to women are in contradiction with other parts of the Bible, that he was addressing particular groups of rather disorderly women.

I do not believe though that women should not submit to their husbands. That is a statement that is repeated throughout scripture, and does not conflict with anything.
In terms of women in leadership positions though, there is discrepancy.
 

lily_r

New Member
I find your argument very sound you seem like an evangelist of sort.

But I have a question sis, with the same yardstick you just introduced, why dont you follow this as well? (I am sure you know your scripture and not for a second am I thinking you should definitely follow this or doubting your knowledge)

Corinthians chapter 11.

2. I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.
3. But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.
6. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7. Aman ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
I knew someone would bring that up, and I thank you for doing so because it is an important thing for someone who believes in sola scriptura to consider. In all honesty, this is a concept I have been struggling with for some time now as I find myself inclined to evangelism and preaching/teaching.

I do not believe it is a sin for women to prophesy. We have Anna the Prophetess spoken about in Acts (I believe) in a positive light, and Paul does not condemn her for doing this. I hate to pull out the cultural context card as that is often abused, but the ordination of women is more of a cultural context issue than homosexuality. It is speculated that because many of Paul's words in relation to women are in contradiction with other parts of the Bible, that he was addressing particular groups of rather disorderly women.

I do not believe though that women should not submit to their husbands. That is a statement that is repeated throughout scripture, and does not conflict with anything.
In terms of women in leadership positions though, there is discrepancy.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I knew someone would bring that up, and I thank you for doing so because it is an important thing for someone who believes in sola scriptura to consider. In all honesty, this is a concept I have been struggling with for some time now as I find myself inclined to evangelism and preaching/teaching.

I do not believe it is a sin for women to prophesy. We have Anna the Prophetess spoken about in Acts (I believe) in a positive light, and Paul does not condemn her for doing this. I hate to pull out the cultural context card as that is often abused, but the ordination of women is more of a cultural context issue than homosexuality. It is speculated that because many of Paul's words in relation to women are in contradiction with other parts of the Bible, that he was addressing particular groups of rather disorderly women.

I do not believe though that women should not submit to their husbands. That is a statement that is repeated throughout scripture, and does not conflict with anything.
In terms of women in leadership positions though, there is discrepancy.

I understand.

See most people in this thread and in another thread contended saying that even the rendition of Zachar and Isha verses in Leviticus and Arsekoites verses in the NT are also cultural and specific to certain individuals or acts.

Hope you understand what I am saying. I dont say I agree with them sister but I feel that it is not a fair measurement to elevate one teaching as Gospel truth that should be followed and another dismissed putting it into a historical contextual framework.

Yes there are many contradictions to pauls and Jesus' teachings, and there are scholars who are also contesting the authorship of Paul to some of his books. But that is a question to be taken at a different level which things I have never discussed in an open forum before. And it is a historical fact that women held high positions in the early Christian church and legacy than the latter church. My presumption is that it is due to the canonisation taking too long (Probably centuries) for the degradation of women.

Anyway, that's just a question I had to ask.

Best of luck and Peace.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I knew someone would bring that up, and I thank you for doing so because it is an important thing for someone who believes in sola scriptura to consider. In all honesty, this is a concept I have been struggling with for some time now as I find myself inclined to evangelism and preaching/teaching.

I do not believe it is a sin for women to prophesy. We have Anna the Prophetess spoken about in Acts (I believe) in a positive light, and Paul does not condemn her for doing this. I hate to pull out the cultural context card as that is often abused, but the ordination of women is more of a cultural context issue than homosexuality. It is speculated that because many of Paul's words in relation to women are in contradiction with other parts of the Bible, that he was addressing particular groups of rather disorderly women.

I do not believe though that women should not submit to their husbands. That is a statement that is repeated throughout scripture, and does not conflict with anything.
In terms of women in leadership positions though, there is discrepancy.


Sorry, but I'm confused. So we're not doing what the Bible says anymore? Great, that sounds awesome, a lot of pressure off of me...but something isn't ringing of truth here. So, if we just ignore the four passages that condemn homosexuality, then we really don't have any reason to believe anything else about the Bible.

One of the things I notice consistently in Christian groups is the ability to decide which parts of the Bible are the important ones. It isn't just you, the number of divorcees who claim my marriage is an abomination is enormous. Or Jesus brought a new covenant so Leviticus no longer applies to Christians, except for the gay parts.

It has convinced me that Christianity is whatever a Christian thinks it is, and has little to do with God.

Tom
 
One of the things I notice consistently in Christian groups is the ability to decide which parts of the Bible are the important ones. It isn't just you, the number of divorcees who claim my marriage is an abomination is enormous. Or Jesus brought a new covenant so Leviticus no longer applies to Christians, except for the gay parts.

It has convinced me that Christianity is whatever a Christian thinks it is, and has little to do with God.

Tom

I was talking to one of my friends ( a sulfur and brimstone Christian) along these lines recently. I asked why is gay marriage or homosexuals in general in the forefront of current events for Christians? My point to him was the old testament put a lot of emphasis on driving out other religions and smashing their idols and graven images.

Why are Christians (American) so concerned about gays, who don't try to convert or overtly bother anyone, yet have no problem with Hindu or Muslim immigrants coming into your land. Shouldn't that be the main if not a concern at all?
 

lily_r

New Member
One of the things I notice consistently in Christian groups is the ability to decide which parts of the Bible are the important ones. It isn't just you, the number of divorcees who claim my marriage is an abomination is enormous. Or Jesus brought a new covenant so Leviticus no longer applies to Christians, except for the gay parts.

It has convinced me that Christianity is whatever a Christian thinks it is, and has little to do with God.

Tom
That is unfortunately very true that in today's society a Christian is what a Christian believes, but that is not the issue I am bringing to the table.
Homosexuality is not found exclusively in Leviticus. The reason that the condemnation of homosexuality carries on today is not because Christians have it out for gay people (even though the Westboro Baptist Church has done a pretty good job of making it seem like that).
The condemnation of homosexuality is not found only in Leviticus, but in Pauline letters as well. It is also known that the Pharisees preached against homosexuality, and Jesus's silence on the issue in the New Testament is arguably a condemnation (after all, Jesus only pointed out what the religious leaders were not doing correctly.) Homosexuality is condemned throughout the timeline of the Scriptures, while many of the Old Testament laws are not (such as mixing cloth, and eating pork).
Think of it this way: Adultery was condemned in the Old Testament, and is still condemned today. I know that the matter of romantic relationships doesn't seem to be of the same caliber of sin, but it unfortunately is (according to God's standards).

As I always say about this issue: disagreement is not hate. Disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia, but an opinion. I express true sympathy to anyone who has been mistreated or called awful things by a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin. This is not in the way of Christ, and it is pathetic that anyone would think that is how someone should treat another human.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I was talking to one of my friends ( a sulfur and brimstone Christian) along these lines recently. I asked why is gay marriage or homosexuals in general in the forefront of current events for Christians? My point to him was the old testament put a lot of emphasis on driving out other religions and smashing their idols and graven images.

Why are Christians (American) so concerned about gays, who don't try to convert or overtly bother anyone, yet have no problem with Hindu or Muslim immigrants coming into your land. Shouldn't that be the main if not a concern at all?

It's because Christians are quietly dumping biblical principles in favor of secular morality. They just don't want to talk about it so they can pretend that the Bible always taught that.

This isn't new. It's been picking up speed, mostly, for a couple centuries.

Tom
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
That is unfortunately very true that in today's society a Christian is what a Christian believes, but that is not the issue I am bringing to the table.
Homosexuality is not found exclusively in Leviticus. The reason that the condemnation of homosexuality carries on today is not because Christians have it out for gay people (even though the Westboro Baptist Church has done a pretty good job of making it seem like that).
The condemnation of homosexuality is not found only in Leviticus, but in Pauline letters as well. It is also known that the Pharisees preached against homosexuality, and Jesus's silence on the issue in the New Testament is arguably a condemnation (after all, Jesus only pointed out what the religious leaders were not doing correctly.) Homosexuality is condemned throughout the timeline of the Scriptures, while many of the Old Testament laws are not (such as mixing cloth, and eating pork).
Think of it this way: Adultery was condemned in the Old Testament, and is still condemned today. I know that the matter of romantic relationships doesn't seem to be of the same caliber of sin, but it unfortunately is (according to God's standards).

As I always say about this issue: disagreement is not hate. Disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia, but an opinion. I express true sympathy to anyone who has been mistreated or called awful things by a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin. This is not in the way of Christ, and it is pathetic that anyone would think that is how someone should treat another human.

I agree.

So you believe that Arsenokoites in the pauline letters (Romans and Timothy etc) are referring to homosexuals? or is it the act of homosexuality? I hope you understand my question. But I agree that there cant be homosexuals without the act. I just want to get your opinion on this.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sorry, but I'm confused.
Yes. You are.
So we're not doing what the Bible says anymore?
The bible (until the advent of sola scriptura during the Reformation) was never intended to be "followed." Jesus, through the whole teaching of the Church, is what is to be "followed."
So, if we just ignore the four passages that condemn homosexuality, then we really don't have any reason to believe anything else about the Bible.
We're not ignoring the passages. We're simply not taking them at face value, realizing that they represent a cultural and scientific POV that simply is no longer relevant. We don't "ignore" the creation myths, either, but we certainly don't take them at face value when we know they don't jibe with scientific discovery about the origin of the planet.
The Bible isn't here to cater to your wants and needs, it stands as an objective definition of truth laid out by the apostles and clergymen alike so that we can follow God to the best of our ability.
No. it doesn't "stand as an objective definition of truth." It stands as a highly subjective and particular theological treatment of the human story. That's partly why you're confused.
I hate to pull out the cultural context card as that is often abused, but the ordination of women is more of a cultural context issue than homosexuality
No, it isn't. First of all, the writers didn't know about homosexuality as an orientation -- and they certainly didn't think it was a healthful and natural expression of one's sexual identity, as today's experts in the human psyche know it to be. The homosexual act, as presented by the biblical texts is entirely cultural.
I do not believe though that women should not submit to their husbands. That is a statement that is repeated throughout scripture, and does not conflict with anything.
In terms of women in leadership positions though, there is discrepancy.
As a seminary-trained member of the clergy with denominational standing, I suggest that you learn a lot more about the biblical texts, cultural anthropology, and biblical ethics before you consider teaching and preaching.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That is unfortunately very true that in today's society a Christian is what a Christian believes, but that is not the issue I am bringing to the table.
Homosexuality is not found exclusively in Leviticus. The reason that the condemnation of homosexuality carries on today is not because Christians have it out for gay people (even though the Westboro Baptist Church has done a pretty good job of making it seem like that).
The condemnation of homosexuality is not found only in Leviticus, but in Pauline letters as well. It is also known that the Pharisees preached against homosexuality, and Jesus's silence on the issue in the New Testament is arguably a condemnation (after all, Jesus only pointed out what the religious leaders were not doing correctly.) Homosexuality is condemned throughout the timeline of the Scriptures, while many of the Old Testament laws are not (such as mixing cloth, and eating pork).
Think of it this way: Adultery was condemned in the Old Testament, and is still condemned today. I know that the matter of romantic relationships doesn't seem to be of the same caliber of sin, but it unfortunately is (according to God's standards).

As I always say about this issue: disagreement is not hate. Disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia, but an opinion. I express true sympathy to anyone who has been mistreated or called awful things by a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin. This is not in the way of Christ, and it is pathetic that anyone would think that is how someone should treat another human.
Unfortunately, when one holds the bible to a standard of inscrutability and a standard of absolute, objective truthfulness, that standard is based upon strongly-held personal (and subjective) notions. It removes the possibility of subjecting the texts to the type of critical scrutiny that take under consideration differences of language, and culture that simply do not make an easy translation from an ancient understanding to a post-modern understanding.
First of all, we need to understand that, even though the bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not condemn homosexuality. As I asserted before, the ancients did not understand the homosexual act as a natural expression of a natural orientation. They did not understand that there was such a thing as a homosexual orientation. They thought that all people were oriented toward the opposite sex, so, of course any homosexual act would be considered to be "unnatural." Today, our medical experts know differently. The bible cannot condemn what it does not know exists.

Second, you need to understand that, since God didn't write the texts, it's not really purely "God's standards" that we're dealing with here. We're dealing with God's standards as understood through the cultural. lingual, and educational filters of the writers. Therefore, those "standards" are highly-biased by what the writers think and understand.

Third, when we hold the standards of the bible in stasis, not making allowances for scientific understanding or cultural differences, the texts very quickly become irrelevant -- and even harmful! Case in point, people of the 18th and 19th (and even 20th) centuries used the biblical texts to justify slavery and discrimination against blacks. You see, it's not simply a matter of "what the bible says." It's a matter of "what the bible says in light of what we understand as reasonable."

With regard to your last 3 sentences, I find it admirable that you find hate deplorable, but you need to understand that "disagreeing with homosexuality" is fine, so long as a judgment -- especially a judgment made upon rather arbitrary biblical standards" -- does not enter the picture, since, as i've shown, the texts are not nearly as absolute on the subject as many of us have been taught to think. Holding people to arbitrary standards based upon ancient scientific and cultural understanding is an opinion -- and it's ultimately a hateful one, because it does not allow for the validity of the other person's values, assuming that yours are superior.

Again, before you begin teaching and preaching, IMO, you (and the rest of us) would benefit from your further education in this area.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Unfortunately, when one holds the bible to a standard of inscrutability and a standard of absolute, objective truthfulness, that standard is based upon strongly-held personal (and subjective) notions. It removes the possibility of subjecting the texts to the type of critical scrutiny that take under consideration differences of language, and culture that simply do not make an easy translation from an ancient understanding to a post-modern understanding.
First of all, we need to understand that, even though the bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not condemn homosexuality. As I asserted before, the ancients did not understand the homosexual act as a natural expression of a natural orientation. They did not understand that there was such a thing as a homosexual orientation. They thought that all people were oriented toward the opposite sex, so, of course any homosexual act would be considered to be "unnatural." Today, our medical experts know differently. The bible cannot condemn what it does not know exists.

Second, you need to understand that, since God didn't write the texts, it's not really purely "God's standards" that we're dealing with here. We're dealing with God's standards as understood through the cultural. lingual, and educational filters of the writers. Therefore, those "standards" are highly-biased by what the writers think and understand.

Third, when we hold the standards of the bible in stasis, not making allowances for scientific understanding or cultural differences, the texts very quickly become irrelevant -- and even harmful! Case in point, people of the 18th and 19th (and even 20th) centuries used the biblical texts to justify slavery and discrimination against blacks. You see, it's not simply a matter of "what the bible says." It's a matter of "what the bible says in light of what we understand as reasonable."

With regard to your last 3 sentences, I find it admirable that you find hate deplorable, but you need to understand that "disagreeing with homosexuality" is fine, so long as a judgment -- especially a judgment made upon rather arbitrary biblical standards" -- does not enter the picture, since, as i've shown, the texts are not nearly as absolute on the subject as many of us have been taught to think. Holding people to arbitrary standards based upon ancient scientific and cultural understanding is an opinion -- and it's ultimately a hateful one, because it does not allow for the validity of the other person's values, assuming that yours are superior.

Again, before you begin teaching and preaching, IMO, you (and the rest of us) would benefit from your further education in this area.

Out of topic, since you said that God didn't write the bible, and since you are a educated seminary graduate with a Masters degree etc, may I ask you who wrote the bible?
 

McNap

Member
You shall not lie with man as with woman.



It is an explanation because Leviticus does not use one word for the homosexual act. It is absurd to think that a man can exactly be with a man the way he lies with a woman. It is an explanation.



I am glad and I dont dispute you in this thread about your new covenant. I am just stating what Leviticus says. Thats all.



Alright. I was answering your question from the point of view of this thread and the bible. Personally this is what I believe.

  • Whatever your sexual orientation is that is your personal matter and no ones bloody business.
  • It is eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. That means punishment to a crime equal to the crime. Even if one person in his narrow thinking presumes homosexuality as a crime, what is the punishment? Death? It is a disparity. It doesnt go.
  • We dont know who wrote Leviticus. All we know is that its in Hebrew. There are so many problems there in. If we are to take the whole of the OT as God given truth we will be committing incest and keeping concubines and not allowing disabled people in the church.

So there brother.

Peace

Thanks for the reply.

But I'm sure Leviticus is strictly against heterosexuals. Not homosexuals.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
Out of topic, since you said that God didn't write the bible, and since you are a educated seminary graduate with a Masters degree etc, may I ask you who wrote the bible?

Hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.
 

McNap

Member
If a man (also) sleeps with a man in the way he slept with a girl.

That doesn't mean you can kill a man who sleeps with a man when he never slept with a girl yet.
QUOTE]

It isn't referring to that specific man having already slept with a girl. It means as men typically lay with women.

to paraphrase, "If a man lay with a man as men typically lay with women (sex), it is an abomination."

That's how I interpret it and it seems pretty black and white to me. I've never heard anyone interpret it the way you are now.

*edit* im not sure why the quote feature isn't working. I did it twice and made sure not to delete anything from the quote codes.

Thanks for saying this.

But still... if we interpret it your way I wonder how we make a gay boy believe that he had seks with a boy as we would with a girl, since a gay boy wouldn't.

If you say: "As men typically lay with women" the gay boy will still not feel challenged by these words.

So what do we do if a boy comes to us and says: "I feel I don't fall on girls"?

Then the boy sleeps with another boy... would you say: "You slept with that boy as I would with a girl. You could have stayed single"?

What alternative do we offer homosexuals?

For prostitutes, rapists, pedophiles, etc. there are alternatives.

For homosexuals there is nothing, but staying single. Apart from the fact that homosexuality between homosexuals may not be a crime, for they didn't hurt anyone.

Prostitutes have victims. As an alternative she can marry a man.
Same is for rapists and other criminals.
I just don't believe it's a crime if a homosexual makes love to another homosexual.
Believe me. This verse is against heterosexuals. Even if we interpret it the way you do.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Out of topic, since you said that God didn't write the bible, and since you are a educated seminary graduate with a Masters degree etc, may I ask you who wrote the bible?
Human beings wrote the bible. Who else could have? We're the only species that reads and writes. To assume that God wrote the texts is patently absurd.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Interesting conclusion. Could you elucidate how you've come to that conclusion? I mean, outside of the belief that all human beings are sinners, and since those who identify as homosexual are human, they are sinners?

But, of course, if that's the argument, there's no real need to qualify the sinner-humans as "homosexual," since they'd be sinners regardless of their professed sexual preferences. You could have just said, "all human beings are sinners."

Apparently, that's not the message you intend to convey. I *think* you intend to convey that those who identify as homosexual are sinners by virtue of something other than the fact that they are human. Could you outline what that cause is? And can you point conclusively to the source of that belief, providing adequate support for why that source is irrefutably correct to the extent that you're willing to condemn fellow human beings because of said evidence?

Perhaps I could have simply said that all human beings are sinners, but simply acknowledging that one is a sinner in such a general sense does a great injustice to God's plan of redemption and salvation. Acknowledging that every person is a sinner does have it's place however. If we do recognize that we ourselves are sinners, along with everyone else, at least we might find motive for compassion and mercy toward others and their sins, knowing that we are all struggling with some particular sin of our own. But if you leave it at the fact that we're all sinners, and neglect to acknowledge your own particular sin, you deprive yourself of the act of repentance from that sin which is necessary for salvation. You also might deprive yourself of knowing the Savior, in whom lies each person's only hope of salvation. If homosexuality is your sin, it is the sin of homosexuality from which you need to repent. It is the sin of homosexuality that separates you from God, and from communion with God.

I personally am not in need of repentance from the sin of homosexuality. But I have my own sins, from which I need God's forgiveness. And this necessary forgiveness only comes to those who trust in God, Our Messiah through the work He has performed through His Son on the Cross.

Let me bring your attention to John 3:18-21
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

But instead of admitting that homosexuality is sin, as the Word of God proclaims, homosexuals tickle their ears with the notion that they were born to be homosexual, that it must have been God's will, which it is not necessarily the case. Instead, they deny the truth of God, and replace it with a lie, bringing condemnation upon their own heads.

If it be true that God causes men to be homosexual, then that should frighten all of us. For if God preordains a man to be homosexual, then it is as if God creates this for the purpose of inevitable destruction, which is not an absurd idea.

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:19-24)

Are we vessels fitted to destruction, or are we vessels fitted to make known the riches of God's glory?
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
Human beings wrote the bible. Who else could have? We're the only species that reads and writes. To assume that God wrote the texts is patently absurd.
The five books of Moses was written by Moses. G-D dicated the laws.
 
Top