thank you for being one of the people that talks about this topic despite the venom thrown your way , as a gay christian youth these are very helpful and im thankful for you and the people that show that being gay isnt inherently sinful
@@shanicebrown1585 Amen hi hey can you pray for my son cuz he thinks he's a women and not a man so pray can you pray for God can open he's eyes plz he's name is Brain bravo plz
False teachera gay teachers, the church of Satan, you homosexuals will burn in Hell. REPENT AND FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST BEFORE ITS TOO LATE, don't decieving yoursrlf, stop covering your sin, hell fire waiting for you
I think it is obvious that Paul used arsenokoites from Lev. 18 and any attempt to obfuscate that is either bad scholarship or disingenuous. The reason Jesus didn't address male sexual relations as sin is because this was settled morality amongst the Jews of his day. Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, did address the homosexual acts that were prevalent in the Greco-Roman society into which he was sent and at no time or place did he affirm that monogamous, same-sex relationships were appropriate. The best approach, if one cares to know if God approves of it or not, would be to ask, "if Paul were aware of 'committed, loving, same-sex relationships, would he have included those in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10?"; or, if the word homosexual existed, might he have used it? And while it is true that sexual orientation as we understand it was unknown, Paul did address it for both men and women as being "consumed" by "unnatural passions"---even going so far as to say that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions", calling the homosexual acts themselves "shameful". I know this is touchy for many, my family included several times over, but the testimony of Scripture, in the aggregate, is simple and clear.
You have no evidence for literally any claim you wrote. I'll start with this: Leviticus doesn't talk in any way about homosexuality in the sense you mean and especially not as a sin, and most importantly would be completely irrelevant to Paul. It was a law of the jews and had no sway over Christianity.
Romans 1:26-28 1 Timothy 1: 9-11 Mark 10: 6-9 1 Corinthians 7:2 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 Leviticus 18:22 Anything without the capability to produce life is unnatural. Christ loves you, Jesus Christ frees you from that sin which has you in bondage, the wages of which is death, in this life and eternity. Theres no abomination Christ cannot free you from. Love does not equate to acceptance, true love gives life not destruction. No sinner is above another for we all have fallen short of grace that which the blood of the Lamb atones for. That demon that has you in bondage you feel God made you that way that demon will lead you to a sunken place and consume you with lust. Do not get that reprobate stage. Call upon the name of Jesus the Christ, believe on him, confess your sin and he who begins that work in you will see it completed. Your life is precious to God, that the angels rejoice over just one life that turns from the way of abomination. Your life is so precious God wants your bloodline to continue, dont let the devil feed you lies and lead you to emptiness of your soul and destruction. Christ will heal that void and recompense that which the devil and his demons have sought to destroy. God Bless you
Thank you for your comment. My videos cover most of the passages you cite (the issues in 1 Tim 1:9-11 are essentially the same as those in 1 Cor. 6:6-11). It is a shame that you haven't engaged with the exegesis of these passages that I have covered in the videos. The exception is 1 Cor. 7:2, which is about married couples not abstaining from intercourse. I am unsure how you think this is relevant. Your definition of 'unnatural' would rule out the unmarried (particularly the celibate), the old, the infertile, and children. It would also rule out most of nature (rocks, water...). It would also rule out contraception. Is this your intention? I agree that Christ loves us. I disagree that homosexuality is a sin, about lust, or any kind of bondage, and I give my reasons in the videos. As I explain, I believe that the Bible is talking about something quite different in the passages cited. You say 'your lifeline is so precious God wants your bloodline to continue' - I do not find this to be consistent with the message of the New Testament, and in particular would seem to go against one of the key metaphors for our relationship with God as being adopted as children of God. I hope you find this reply helpful, and may God bless you too.
Is Sexual immorality sleeping with prostitutes or also sleeping with those of the same sex ? Do you have a video on this? The Didache chapter 2 lists do not engage in pederasty, but right after is do not engage in sexual immorality. Thank you.
I don't have a separate video on this specific issue. But (in brief) the Didache 2:2 has three terms, one after another. They may be roughly translated as You shall not commit adultery (moicheuseis), you shall not corrupt children (paidophthoreseis), you shall not be sexually immoral (porneuseis). The first, moicheuseis, is not how we would understand adultery now (in that sex with a prostitute was not legally adultery). It was having intercourse with a free woman who was not your wife, so that honour was affected. The third term, porneuseis, is linked to the term porne - a prostitute. The meaning can vary depending on context, but 'sleeping around (particularly with prostitutes)' is likely to capture much of it. The second term, paidophthoreseis, refers to intercourse with children, in particular boys. The three terms together cover the common ways in which immorality could happen: intercourse with someone else's wife; intercourse with a boy; intercourse with prostitutes. These are the practices that seem to be in mind anytime anyone discourses about this in most of the literature. What is almost certainly not in anyone's mind (writer or reader) would be faithful, loving, permanent relationships. Hope this helps.
"faithful, loving, permanent relationships" - if that was a characteristic of male homosexuality the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases amongst male homosexuals would be far less than it is. Every account I've read relating to the life of a man who had carnal relations with other men, be it biographical or auto-biographical, recounts promiscuity.
Well, for a start if it was actually talking about what we are talking about today - faithful, monogamous, same-sex relationships between people who by nature are gay. But it doesn't talk about this, anywhere. So I go to the principles that come from the Bible: is it loving or not? And I don't find it loving to deny people the opportunity to have a faithful, monogamous, loving relationship that we allow to straight people. So I find denying same-sex couples to be unbiblical. Hope this helps.
I don't think the Word is clear in the way you think it is. No, I am not referring to celibate relationships. I believe that celibacy is a particular calling, and few are called to it. I do not believe that being gay (any more than being straight) means you are called to celibacy.
There is a lot at play with this issue of Christianity and homosexuality. Not only is there a natural tendency to suppress what seems unnatural or deviant, there are also centuries of religious tradition that reinforces it. We have several problems before us 1) Homosexual attraction 2) Homosexual activity 3) The deviance of homosexuality 4) The Christian response to homosexuality. These problems are not one but we tend to deal with it all the same which I think leads to many problems. The biggest of these is the Christian response to homosexuality. I think there is a discussion to be had as to what percentage of homosexuals are innately so and what percentage are so because of environment. An example is within the context of hedonism, one may not necessarily be a homosexual but nonetheless engages in debauchery with multiple partners of both sexes to satisfy their lust. If it is true that many homosexuals are innately so, either because of biological factors caused by their parents or a genetic reality, that is something Christianity has to contend with. Even if it is also true that some homosexuals are so purely because of environment and tolerance of it. Christianity must deal with the issue of innate homosexual attraction and condemnation is not a solution because that homosexual person remains so, only now the people that were supposed to love them now hate them and it was the people who condemned them are the ones who put the millstone around their neck and threw them into the sea. On the other hand, the promotion of homosexuality and inculcating children in modern sexual theories is also not a solution because promoting it ensures that it will exist to a greater degree, if it is true that environment can create more homosexuals than what would otherwise. That said, children at an appropriate age should be taught by their parents about it because anything that a child is sheltered from to an extreme degree, they will find later in life and have to wrestle with it on their own. They will wrestle with it either way but better to be set on a good path by their family.
I would like to make some comments on your comments: 1 Is homosexuality a born orientation?: the latest scientific discussion is that homosexuality IS a born orientation: one part is determined by several genes and their SNP and another part is determined by "environment", by anti-bodies (NLGN4Y) during pregnancy. So when the baby gets born , it is already determined as homosexual or heterosexual. 2 Can children become homosexual?: gradually age adequate sexual education in school is very important. This education isn't "promoting" homosexuality it is informing the kids that heterosexuality exists as much as homosexuality and that both are natural and healthy. Back in my school in Germany in the 70s and 80s we had that education and now, as we are all over 50years old I can say the heterosexual kids stayed heterosexual, have families now and some expect grandchildren , and the homosexual born kids stayed homosexual , have steady relationships or are married, some adopted kids. I do not see any danger of turning kids into another sexual orientation by anything during their life, because thats not possible. The only ones that can switch are born bisexual people, but thats a complete other story.
@@Pro-j4q Your reply addresses the surface with the general knowledge of homosexual existence. However the question remains, when homosexuality is more saturated in a culture, will that produce more homosexual activity? The problem, if any, that Christianity should be wrestling with is homosexual activity. We understand that homosexual attraction exists. It would be like any other cultural phenomena. While culture cannot simply outright create homosexuals because of biology, it is still possible for homosexual activity to increase because of not only widespread acceptance but also promotion. I don't think anyone would study this though, as it would be easy to shoot down under the guise of anti-bigotry.
@@GridironMasters I see what you’re saying however, I don’t believe environment is a factor, & the study you speak is alrdy being conducted. Homosexuality has always been around & our current societal views on it has never been more open & more accepting than it is now & it was a very fast & in your face acceptance. It’s widely accepted In today, where as in the past it wasn’t. The worst being the later half of the 20th century where It was more shunned, closeted, & viewed negatively than it ever has been before. The result of this recent, rapid wide acceptance is the belief some ppl have adopted that seeing more of it, having children exposed to it will create more homosexuals. Is homosexuality more prevalent, are we creating more or does it feel as such bc ppl are more open, they are N̶o̶ longer hiding who they are to suit the needs of others. Facts are nbdy chooses to be gay & their sexuality is not determined by their environment. Society didn’t create more heterosexual’s during the late 20th century when homosexuality was shunned & viewed the most negative it has ever been. Also nbdy raises their children to be homosexual, not even homosexual parents. Just bc a child is exposed to something doesn’t mean they will practice it. They are children & they don’t do shit that they don’t like (big facts 💯) I’m not str8, yet I was raised in a religious household, church 3 times a week, church summer camp, & I was also born & raised in a country (until 14) who’s culture is notorious for being homophobic. Almost every song I heard growing had “fire fi battyman”, “mi no keep company wid battyman”, as lyrics which are still used by the artists in their songs being released currently. So my exposure to homosexuality was the fear God, the fear of what my country’s culture & society would do to me, it’s an abomination & you’re going to burn Hell. So imagine my mental state when I’m starting to realize yeah I like girls, I like being sexual with them but I don’t love them. I prefer men😰
@@tdawgz68 I think it's clear that environment affects everyone. I don't think environment guarantees the same outcome. For example, high crime environments do not necessarily create criminals but the chance that there will be more criminals is higher. Look at pretty much every human cultural activity. A culture begets itself more often than not. Why not homosexuality, transexuality or any other sexual practice that may come along in the future? I believe that there is a group of people that are inevitably homosexual and they should be left alone like anyone else. However, I haven't found a reason to doubt that environment and culture beget themselves.
@@GridironMasters Think about it this way: Which sexuality/sexual preference is a child exposed to first? Heterosexuality. Children are always exposed to heterosexuality first & are raised always raised to find love & attraction in the opposite sex notwithstanding their environment & culture. The exposure to Homosexuality comes after, it’s exposure is limited & usually negative. So now it begs the question: How are ppl Gay if their environment & culture is one that promotes heterosexuality & demotes homosexuality? Answering this question will mostly likely lead you to where u want to go We know Environment and Cultures affects physical features used to enhance attractiveness, i.e body modification. However, body modifications and attractiveness do not correlate to sexual preferences
I believe you can pick apart any subject in the bible to explain it away into your own worldview. In addition to the single passage you've referenced is leviticus 18, 20, and Romans 1. The new and old testaments are congruent. With that is personal experience of living in a place where homosexuality is praised. It does not bring peace even where it is accepted. No it is not a proclivity that separates one from Christ, but practicing that proclivity unrepentantly does. If knowing this, I said nothing how much would I have to hate my brother?
Hi, thanks for the comment. I have videos on Leviticus and Romans. Please do have a look at them. Whilst I appreciate that you may have your own personal experience, others have a different experience from yours, and find peace accepting both their sexuality and Christian faith.
Hi first time I encountered this page, I love it. But I have a concern as a Christian, the reference you are talking about doesn't take into consideration that God created humans males and females, and that was his plan from the beginning. This is not about having meaningful relationships with one another, but how his design was supposed to be carried out by us humans (male & female).
Hi, thanks for the compliment. You have a concern over male and female; take a look at my video on Genesis. You can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/F4ljKuxHAJ4/v-deo.html
I struggle with how you try to downplay ‘male bedding’ here. You say that the meaning is unclear, likely based on Leviticus (men sleeping with men, like women) - to say we have to take it with a pinch of salt. Then you say that when other people talk about homosexuality, they are talking about children. Which contradicts the Leviticus connection... and creates a dangerous precedent for interpretation: I am arguing the bible doesn’t say X, I support this by saying when the Bible does say X someone else talking about Y means Z, therefore X means Z and there is no evidence that the Bible says X. I would like to be convinced by your argument, but it has no solid ground, so you too often retreat to this kinds of arguments.
Hi Matthew, thank you for your comment. There are a number of aspects which need addressing. First, Leviticus does NOT say men sleeping with men - it says men sleeping with males. The difference is significant. We have a Jewish contemporary of Paul, Philo, who refers to Leviticus when talking about the pederasty that was common in the Roman Empire at the time. Secondly, it is anachronistic to expect writers of the period to be talking about homosexuality (in the sense of adult, equal relationship). Particularly by the Roman period, the common or garden form of male same-sex activity was an adult male with a boy (hence the lively trade in slave boy prostitutes at the time, and the custom of buying boys as slaves in the household for this purpose - eg the slaves (boys) known as deliciae whose main duty was to be available for intercourse. If someone in the ancient world was talking about males having intercourse with males, the default assumption would be that it was an adult and child. Thirdly, we have other early Christian writings which we can reference. The Didache is probably the oldest Christian writing outside of the New Testament. There is a reference to what to avoid - 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not corrupt children, do not commit sexual immorality...'. It is a similar vice list to 1 Corinthians. Clearly, 'child corruption' was something so common and widespread that it can be placed without explanation into such a list. To summarise: other Jewish writers link Leviticus and adult-boy; adult-boy abusive relationships were commonplace in the culture whereas homosexual relationships (adult-adult) were not; and other Christian writings do refer to adult-child relationships. If you want further information, please do go to www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/st-paul-1-corinthians-and-homosexuality/ which points to further resources. I also deal with some of the issues in my post on Romans 1. Hope this is helpful, and once again thanks for the enquiry.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I have watched all your videos, and read 'Permanent, Faithful, Stable'. I remain unconvinced by the style of argumentation, as well as the actual content. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly, would you mind though if I show in your reply the things that I draw issue to?
I will respond to your comment above. Your Leviticus video explains that your interpretation of the man and male sex means sex with boys not men. Your support is ambiguity (can mean boys, so does mean boys) and Roman cultural precedent of men having sex with boys. You then assert that most of the time when males had sex with other males in Roman culture it was with boys. This is a huge assertion, which you propose with no support. It also ignores the complex nature of the penetrator being masculine and the penetrated being feminine in Greco-roman male-to-male intercourse. The Didache argument you put forward doesn’t really support anything as corrupting children and sexual immorality are two separate things in that list. It doesn’t support or detract from your argument. You summarise that adult male sex didn’t happen, which is based on an unsupported assertion you made earlier. I hope this doesn’t come across as a rant, or hateful in anyway, but I cannot see how this type of argumentation is persuasive. Especially when you then compare it back to a modern standard on consenting long-term relationships as if homosexual sex being licensed against was invalidated by the value difference (aka: this doesn't get around that if the consenting relationship contains sex, then it is still homosexual sex). Do you have any more scholarly arguments for the invalidation of biblical verses on homosexual sex, or sources that you may refer me to?
Hi Matthew, thanks for a thoughtful question. Your point hinges on my assertion that most of the time when males had sex with males it was men with boys. This point is not some wild claim; it is based on mainstream scholarship on the Roman Empire at the time. In particular, the go-to book analysing this is Craig Williams 'Roman Homosexuality'. As a pointer, this is his introduction to the book: 'Ancient Romans lived in a cultural environment in which married men could enjoy sexual relations with their male slaves without fear of criticism from their peers; in which adultery generally aroused more concern than pederasty; in which men notorious for their womanizing might be called effeminate, while a man whose masculinity had been impugned could cite as proof of his manhood the fact that he had engaged in sexual relations with his accuser's sons...'. (p.3). Your point about the penetrator being masculine and penetrated being feminine shows why the idea of an equal relationship between adult males would not have been in the foreground of anyone's thinking. This is particularly so since the active, 'masculine' approach here was assumed; the passive partner was effectively being raped (see Ruden (2010, 45-71 for a taste of the full nastiness of the Roman world at this time). Adult male sex did happen, but when it did the passive partner was humiliated and left without honour or had no honour in the first place (a slave). But generally males were only considered as being attractive whilst still boys (so sometimes slaves had to appear as boys even when growing older). This is why I stated that pederasty was commonplace and accepted, whereas the idea of an adult faithful homosexual relationship was not going to be the focus of public discourse. The term in the Didache (child corruption) is a reference to pederasty, which can be seen both in its use in a number of Christian writers, and general acceptance of this point in all scholarship. In 1 Corinthians, I think it makes most sense for Paul to be condemning something which was endemic in the Roman world at the time (pederasty) rather than a phenomenon which would be applicable to no-one in his congregations. Does this mean that all male-male intercourse is invalid? This is why I make the link with usury in the first video. For the ancient world, male-male sex meant pederasty, it meant abuse, it meant rape, it was something married men did, and it often involved slaves or prostitutes or slave prostitutes. Do condemnations of that mean that we have to condemn loving, faithful relationships now?
Does ancient greek have separate words for man and boy? Or is arseno used for both man and boy? If they have separate words for man, boy and male couldn't they use the greek word for boy instead to make it more clear? Also is there a word in ancient greek that directly means homosexual or gay? If there is then that would help your point since if there is a more clear word then they should've used it, and since they didn't then that means they probably aren't talking about homosexuals or gays Here is something I found on a website that I want an answer to, I hope your right about this but this quote seems to be a problem: ‘In response, however, it must be pointed out, first, that arsenokoites is a broad term that cannot be confined to specific instances of homosexual activity such as male prostitution or pederasty. This is in keeping with the term’s Old Testament background where lying with a “male” (a very general term) is proscribed, relating to “every kind of male-male intercourse.”13 In fact, the Old Testament “bans every type of homosexual intercourse.” not just male prostitution or intercourse with youths.’, Campbell, ‘Marriage and Family in the Biblical World’, p. 243 (2003).
Hi, some answers. 'arsenos' is the Greek equivalent of 'male'. It can therefore be used for either man or boy. Around the NT period, arseno- was often used as a prefix when referring specifically to desire for boys. There is no word for 'homosexual' or 'gay' - the ancient world did not structure sexuality by the gender you desired, but by whether or not you were dominant or submissive (active/passive). I've more on this in other videos. Campbell is making a claim for what arsenokoites means that he cannot actually substantiate. If you go to the associated website page for this video (link in video description) near the bottom I refer to the relevant scholarship. Assuming that arsenokoites is broad is just that - an assumption - and one I think is false. Hope this helps.
Hey Thomas here again. I’m now on this video. So if being the passive partner as a male would be deemed unhorable. How does that apply in todays society? Do you think someone who is the passive partner in a same sex male male faithful committed married would be not accepted into the kingdom of God? I’m also curious on those who are gay that are “switch” or “versatile” who like both the dominant and passive role. Or, because Christ came, died on the cross and rose again and we now live in America under a completely different government structure than Ancient Rome, does it not matter anymore? Why or why not? Also again thank you for these videos ❤️
There is no answer to your question because your question is built on a false story cradled in lies and the supernatural. There is no rational answer to an irrational question.
As the video indicates, malakos can cover a whole range of meanings. Paul uses it once, here, in a list, and doesn't explain which possible meaning he is referring to.
shame on those who interprets the word of God wrongly. if men are to marry men; them He sure forgot to add that to His word!!!!!!!!!! good job for the correction.
Hi hippie for christ. This is about how we interpret the Bible, and I am concerned that we do this well. There are many issues that the Bible doesn't address directly, besides gay marriage, for example contraception, IVF, weapons of mass destruction, what digital worship looks like etc. I don't think God 'forgot' these issues - I think the Bible gives us a story of God's love for us, and some principles for us to follow. Hope you're all well and safe at home.
Bible and Homosexuality Bible and Homosexuality Hello-first of all, my gratitude for your thoughtful interpretations. I have seen various ideas about what all of these passages relevant to the homosexuality debate actually meant, and yours has been one of the most extensive from everything I have seen. I have grown up in an evangelical Christian church for my entire life and been taught that homosexuality/transgenderism were sins. It led me to want to begin research on the context and time period of which these passages were written, in a hope of considering differing viewpoints on the issue. Your videos and website gave me another interesting perspective on this topic, and I admire the way you are respectful to those who disagree and can back up your claims pensively. Simply having a different understanding of the passages does not mean you are trying to ‘twist’ God’s word, deceive, or ‘defy’ natural law-these arguments buy much more into emotions than creating rational arguments. It is encouraged to anyone reading this that you have an open mind and consider differing, respectful ideas with rationality rather than instantly shutting them down. Christians in earlier time periods used the Bible to justify objectification of women and ownership of slaves and possibly said that a woman’s/slave’s (or simply any person of colour’s) ‘natural’ place was as inferior, which is now greatly looked down upon-presumably because they have gained better understanding of the time and context. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church also declared that anyone who denied the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth was a heretic or deceiver. Even though he was labelled as a liar, Galileo Galilei’s scientific questions and discoveries helped with the solidification of a new belief in heliocentrism. My point by this is that, perhaps the interpretations of homosexuality and transgenderism in the Bible could be facing something a little bit similar to this situation that occurred in the past. It became clear to me that in the verses which contain relevance to the Christian homosexuality debate, none ever mentioned faithful and long-lasting homosexual relationships or marriages (very likely due to the fact that it was practically unheard of or thought of in the time, and the men who wrote the Bible while taking inspiration from God would likely not have this in mind). Again, thank you for your solicitous research and novel perspective to consider; it was quite informing.
No one exegetes and explains these things better than Robert A.J. Gagnon, PhD. I highly recommend his videos and books for a very detailed scholarly explanation.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I'm not surprised. We'll have to disagree on his work then. If there is a more researched, detailed, and scholarly work on the topic, I am unaware of it.
I respect your opinion but once again it’s just an opinion. That does not make it a fact. You do have good points but you could be potentially misleading people if your opinion is wrong.
Thank you for your comment. As you say, I could be wrong (though clearly I don't think I am). Similarly, those who are conservative on this issue or who disagree with my opinion could be wrong and misleading people. I encourage everyone to look at the arguments carefully.
@@BibleandHomosexuality let’s say you were right, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” I Corinthians 6:12 , just because it’s okay doesn’t make it mean it’s going to be good for you. Same thing with drinking, a lot of people following these lifestyles have deeper heart issues that need to be addressed if they really want healing. I’m speaking from experience. A lot of people who engage in these behaviors have had some traumatic happen to them. To tell them it’s okay could be conditioning them to think they are fine, blindly leading them into lifestyles that are not healthy.
Hi D. It is actually just a myth that people become gay (or transition) because of a trauma. You can check out the actual science in articles such as this one: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616 (it is Bailey et al, 2016). Healthy or unhealthy lifestyles are a completely separate issue from sexuality. Plenty of heterosexual people have extremely unhealthy lifestyles; many gay people have extremely healthy (in every sense of that word) lifestyles. The evidence also shows that trying to deny sexuality is definitely bad for people (hence many countries, on medical advice, are limiting or banning the harmful practice of conversion 'therapy'). Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I agree with some of what your saying yeah everyone has bad l lifestyle choices that’s not what I’m getting at. It’s alot to explain over texting but I do not care what Study’s say when your seeing, experiencing, and living with these issues it’s alot different then a doctor who doesn’t know JACK S))) about what really effect people I know people who have been molested by men and are completely traumatized by the experience to where they have become lesbian. Is it like that for everyone? NO but what is true is that curtain experiences do effect how you operate as a person and sexually. That’s a fact. 90% of people going through these things have dealt with some form of trauma that causes them to do what they do. Sure as you grow older and what your exposed to culturally and everything else plays a role in it as well but I’m sure for majority of people if they didn’t go through what they went through there’s that possibility they wouldn’t be. So it really depends on the person.
St. Paul, along with the other Apostles, viewed adultery, fornication and homosexuality as sins that can exclude a believer from heaven. This is clearly the meaning of 1Corinthians 6 which is echoed in Galatians 5. This has been the uniform moral belief and teaching throughout church history both in the East and the West. It was unquestioned until the 20th century--which tells us a lot.
Hi Bestpossible World, thanks for commenting. You make a big assumption about interpreting the Bible when you include 'homosexuality' along with fornication and adultery as sins that St Paul was talking about. Saying this was 'clearly' the meaning of 1 Cor. 6 just begs the question. The video explores this in more detail, giving arguments as to why 'homosexuality' would be a particularly poor translation. Saying this was unquestioned until the 20th century is unsurprising - the concept of 'homosexuality' only gained any prominence in the mid to late 19th century, and the term was only first used in English in 1906. Saying that this was the uniform belief of the church throughout church history is misleading - for example, the main german translation of 1 Cor. 6 from Luther translated the key term as 'die Knabenschänder' - which means 'the boy molesters'. Galatians 5 refers to fornication. It does not refer to homosexuality. To equate the two is simply again to beg the question.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Thanks for replying, but all you are doing is quoting a bible verse without context or interpretation. I have a full video on these verses; you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
@@BibleandHomosexuality of course the context does not change the clear meaning of the quoted text. If anything, St. Paul's contextual meaning actually amplifies the moral meaning of his statement in the quote. The main features of the contextual background are as follows: 1. Though God's divine nature and moral requirements are plainly observed by all humans through what has been made (i.e. the created order), humans have, 2. Willfully turned away from the worship and obedience of God into idolatry, even to the point of worshipping himself. 3. Therefore, as a manifestation of His wrath, God has repeatedly (three occurrences in the passage) turned humans over to the moral degradation of themselves through all kinds of sin and impurity. 4. Culminating in the unnatural lust for same-sex relations. St. Paul's condemnation of humanity's engagement in moral depravity (with homosexuality epitomizing this), through rebellion against God and His moral order in nature, could not be stronger. Since the time of the Church Fathers, what I have described has been the received understanding and meaning of the Romans 1 passage.
Thanks for the reply. The contextual background is that Paul is using a relatively common Jewish critique of pagans, which centres around idolatry (note how it is idolatry that this chapter focuses on). The cultural context then (which is more hidden to us now, because our context is different) is that pagan worship of goddesses included accusations of sexual orgies led by female priests and including self-castrated male priests (galli). One strand of interpretation of Romans 1 (which was current in the Church Fathers) is that this is what Romans 1:26-28 refers to, as it fits the context so well. It is not until the late fourth century that you begin to see this passage as interpreted as including female-female sexual activity, and writers such as Augustine take 1:26 to mean unnatural sexual activity between women and men. A variety of other early church fathers interpret the male same-sex activity to be referring to pederasty. As I said, more information is in the video or accompanying website.
There are at least 29 do not be deceased in the New Covenant alone. William Tyndale who translated the scriptures into English both five languages. Back then they actually cared about their vocation and took it seriously not like today when he used the word homosexual he knew exactly in Greek and Hebrew what he was using he translated it that so the English-speaking people could have scriptures and God's opinion on what we are supposed to be doing for his agenda. You are twisting the scriptures to make it say something that it's not and you are very good cuz that's what I do research stuff and you are right about 90% of what you're saying. But just like Satan when he tells you something it's 95% truth it's the 5% that's going to kill you and separate you for eternity from God. I used to be bisexual I knew it was wrong the first time I ever tried it and I didn't even know what gay or homosexual even met I knew it was wrong just like the first time you smoke a cigarette you don't do it in public you do it out in the woods that you stole the cigarette from your parents or somebody else first time you had gay sex you knew it was wrong but you still did it anyway but you didn't do it on the front yard you did it out because that's the god home and device in every human being that knows that something is wrong you are trying to convince people that a sin is all right if you want to be gay that's your business have at it but don't expect God to go along with it. He loves all people gay people gamblers drug addicts drunks we've all been deceived somehow or another I come out of my sexual perversion I still have problems with it but I am fighting it apparently you have given yourself over to it I'll pray for you
Hi Robert, Tyndale did not use the word 'homosexual' in his translation. His translation of 1 Cor. 6:9 is, 'nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde'. Sometimes when we do something it feels wrong because it is wrong - it is our conscience telling us that. But sometimes it is internalised from what we've been told, irrespective of whether it really is right or wrong. Also, as it happens, I am not gay. God bless.
Keep fighting sin my brother! Homosexuality is not ok it will never be ok! It is sin! By the blood of Christ you will overcome I pray the lord bless you with a wife one day. Don’t listen to guys like this he is a false teacher.
We must not forget the fact that Paul was a rigorist Pharisaic scholar and study a lot about Torah. I mean, Paul is not Jesus himself. Even Jacob and Paul is contradicting. Despite these two person are authors of holy scriptures. Is holy spirit confusing? I must say Jesus never condemn homosexuality.
The thing that I don't get is, if the issue was men sleeping with male children rather than men sleeping with men, why wouldn't he have just called it child corruption too, to then also include men sleeping with female children? Why just boys?
It might have meant secs with boys with reasons we don't know about why he didn't use existing words. "child corruption" might have been a later term. On the other hand, it might have been broader, the deliberate act of dominating and denigrating any male by putting them in a female role. Just that the most common victims were boys.
This is false and intentionally misleading. The Bible clearly speaks about what will happen to those who twist the Scriptures to serve their own purposes. You best be repenting.
Accusations are easy to throw out. It would be more helpful to everyone if you could indicate precisely where you think the arguments are wrong, and why.
Hi, I try not to twist anything, but to present the texts in their original contexts. I address Jude, not on the videos, but on the associated website. In particular, the page on Sodom - www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/what-has-sodom-got-to-do-with-homosexuality/ I hope you find this of help.
Octavius, if you are going to accuse me of being a false prophet, taking the Bible out of context, and cherry picking verses, at least then have the courtesy to indicate exactly where I am wrong. You are also misrepresenting me - I nowhere claim that everything in the Bible was a mistake. You also claim I am doing this to fit my own narrative. I am cis and straight, not trans or gay. As you are so keen on quoting Bible verses, let me add this one: Romans 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
While you have created an alternative explanation to the translation of these words, you have to admit that your alternative explanation has no more weight than the traditional translation of homosexuality. Futhermore, your explanation is a violation of Occam's Razor because you jump through hoops to avoid the simple answer. Your explanation on why the Greek in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 cannot refer to homosexuality reminds me of an explanation on why fire engines are red: "Because they have eight wheels and four people on them, and four plus eight makes twelve, and there are twelve inches in a foot, and one foot is a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship, and the ship sailed the seas, and there were fish in the seas, and fish have fins, and the Finns fought the Russians, and the Russians are red, and fire trucks are always russian/rushin' around, so that's why fire trucks are red!"
Hi, thanks for the comment and reply - amusing. But I disagree with you - Occam's Razor suggests Paul was talking about pederasty. Look at the alternatives: was Paul referring in a list of vices to the widely known and accepted in the pagan world practice of pederasty, which also appears in similar vice lists in other early Christian literature, or was he doing something completely different and considering all forms of homosexuality including those common today, which were not part of usual discourse at the time? The simplest explanation is that Paul was talking about pederasty. Occam's Razor.
I'm sorry but it is a sin. Also an abomination... Please have him confess he's a sinner and ask Jesus for his forgiveness..... Homosexuals do not enter gods heaven!
@@erasedfromgenepool.4845 All people who follow Jesus and love one another do and do good in life. You sound like a very judgemental person, which god doesn’t like, you may be going to hell yourself
"He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" - Matthew 19:4-5 There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that ever even entertains the possibility of a Man having a "Husband". Marriage is defined between a man and women and any form of sex, whether man with man, man with women, or women with women, outside of marriage, is automatically sexual immorality. So even if there wasnt a single verse mentioning anything about homosexuality, it's still a sin. You've really got to twist scripture hard to justify this sin. Even the Catholics don't go this far.
Marriage in the Bible varies and is defined by prevailing culture. The reason there's no mention of two men/women is purely cultural. The foundational text Gen 2 is fully consistent with gay marriage. You've really got to twist scripture to justify the sin of homofobia.
Colossians 3:5 - Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry.
This is all interesting stuff. You are twisting and turning in all kinds of directions, but as long as the Catholic Church that is formed by people that are more knowledgeable then you says that the translation is "persons that are attracted to the same sex". All you say is just blasphemie and leading people away from the Church. The devil is a great liar. Catechism 2357 till 2359 can't be clearer. I'm praying for your soul 🙏
@@BibleandHomosexualityForget Catholics, you are twisting scripture. Pouring in. Genesis tells us that God made male and female, husband and wife. Period.
@jvdamoviehunter - thank you for your prayers. @theway77744 - I have a video on Genesis. But for now, note that Genesis says nothing of people being celibate, for example.
Hi Andre. Thanks for commenting. But you have asserted your point of view without engaging at all with any of the biblical arguments. If you disagree with me, which part of my argument is wrong?
When a man inserts his penis into a vagina his sperm naturally seeks an egg to propriate. Its a natural process. You know this. You and I are living proof of that. Our fathers did not lay with another man to produce us. If you believe in God you would know that his enemy is the devil who is doomed. He naturally chooses people like you to pervert other lost souls so that they will be mislead by foolish arguments. Im not here to bash you for your sexual orientation. I am just telling you that your pursuit to mislead yourself and others will set you up for failure. We will never live forever. This is temporary.
Hi Andre, thanks for engaging. Your argument implies that the only point of intercourse is to have children. However, at least for protestant churches, this is not considered to be true. For example, it would mean that contraception is wrong, or that if a couple know that they are unable to have children that they shouldn't have intercourse. By your argument, contraception is unnatural, as is having any type of intercourse that cannot lead to children. For the record, my sexual orientation is straight.
Theres a reason he made them male and female. The fact is if God made them male and male or female and female we wouldn't be here today. This is natural order God doesn't make mistakes.
1 Kings 15:12 12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made. Leviticus 18:22 22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Romans 1:32 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:27 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Leviticus 18:22-24 22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. 23 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 24 “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Leviticus 20:13 13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. Hebrews 13:1-5 1 Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. 2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. 3 Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. 4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” John 8:7-11 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Romans 1:26-28 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. Galatians 5:14 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Jude 1:5-8 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. Mark 10:6-9 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 1 Corinthians 7:2 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. Romans 13:8-10 8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 1 Corinthians 6:17-20 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. Romans 1:18-32 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Ok without Bible verses, which is a Huge mistake because The Word is God, & God is The Word!.. But I’ll explain in layman’s terms! .. Homosexuality is Wrong because it’s UNNATURAL, when two men have sexual Inter coarse, the sperm when it’s ejaculated into another man’s anus it immediately looks for an egg to fertilize BUT it can’t find one because it’s NOT a female! Thus making it UNNATURAL! .. God made Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Steve! for a Reason!🔥🔥 .. if He did then NON of us would be here right NOW! .. There are MILLIONS of NDE’s ( Near, Death, Experience’s ) that speak on the subject of when their soul came out their bodies & went to Hell they ALL came back stating that ALL HOMOSEXUALS were in HELL!🔥🔥 .. They were ALL CHAINED TOGETHER as a PAIR in Two Lines in the Lake of Fire & Brimstone! SUFFERING & IN EXTREME TORMENT!, CRYING OUT TO THE LORD TO GIVE THEM ONE MORE CHANCE TO REPENT! THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR LIVES COMPLETELY IF THEY HAD A CHANCE TO RETURN TO THE EARTH ONE MORE & PREACH TO EVERYONE THEY CAN ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HELL & HOMOSEXUALITY!🔥🔥🔥 BUT THE LORD TELLS THEM WHO ARE IN HELL WITH TEARS IN HIS EYES THAT JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN SET BY GOD THE FATHER & THAT HE CAN’T DO ANYTHING FOR THEM BECAUSE HE GAVE ALL THEM EVERYDAY A CHANCE TO REPENT! & THEY NEVER DID!🔥🔥 SENDING MESSENGERS & PREACHERS THEIR WAY & THEY ALL REFUSED THE HAND OF GOD!🔥🔥 BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY REPENT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE BREATH IN YOUR LUNGS HERE ON EARTH!🔥🔥🔥🔥
Hi Wilamo. I didn't say not to use biblical verses, just to explain how they justify your argument or explain where you think I might have gone wrong. With that said, your argument that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is also true, of course, for any couple using contraception, or any couple where one of the couple is incapable of having children. It also, of course, does not apply to female same-sex couples. You claim that there are 'millions' of near death experiences all supporting your viewpoint, all claiming that all homosexual people are in hell. Forgive me if I doubt the evidence for this. The documented examples (and there are few, not millions) of NDEs that involve hell do not mention homosexuality. See Cassol et al (2019) for a systematic review. If you have been told this, can I suggest that you have been misled.
This is assertion not argument. It is the equivalent to saying 'this thing I don't like is sin; the Bible says that sins are wrong, therefore the Bible says that you shouldn't like this thing I don't like'. It is using the Bible rather than being formed by the Bible.
I get needing to justify things... but this is intellectual gymnastics. To homosexuals that are trying to find a way around the Bible, if someone promises an easy way it probably isn't right. Read Corinthians for yourself and think on it. This video lecture is using very selective truths to spin a complete falsehood. Paul goes on to explain that he wishes everyone would be celibate. But, if the temptation of the flesh is too great then a man should take a woman and they should give themselves to each other to keep their urges and desires in check. He specifically addresses men who sleep with men in the context of this being sinful sexual desires and his answer to addressing sexual desires was for a man to take a woman to satisfy those urges. The context is clear, and this is extremely misleading. Celibacy, or hetero-marriage. I'm sorry, not trying to be a buzz kill. This is a bad case of someone doing research to prove the outcome they desire rather than researching to find the correct answer. Nothing about Christianity is easy. It is literally about sacrificing what you want to live a completely different life. I wish everyone would choose to hear the good news of the gospel. But, I also acknowledge that it is not palatable for everyone. But the most important thing to know is that we are called to love everyone, regardless of their way of life.
Hi Jason, thanks for your reply and for giving an argument based upon Paul and 1 Corinthians. However, I think you have misread the letter and Paul's concerns. Paul says he wishes everyone should be celibate in the specific context of addressing concerns from the Corinthian church, in particular whether husbands and wives should avoid intercourse (probably because of a mistaken belief that intercourse would be sinful). He actually says husbands and wives should not abstain from intercourse except for short periods by mutual agreement. You are right that he also says that men and women should marry if their desires are too much. However, this leads directly to an argument for homosexuality. If the solution for straight people with desires is to marry, why isn't the solution for gay people with desires to marry? Otherwise you are leaving this group with no solution. You also say that Paul specifically addresses men who sleep with men. This is not the case. Paul addresses men who sleep with males (note the difference), by which he probably means the common practice in the Roman world of heterosexual, married men practising pederasty. This is made even more likely by the criticism of this also being found in other early Christian literature, whereas both the concept and issue of homosexuality are not found in the earliest Christian literature, and it is rare in the literature generally. If you watch this video in conjunction with others, I cover this aspect of Roman culture in more detail. I agree that Christianity is about self-sacrifice. However, often it appears that straight people are asking gay people to make sacrifices not required of straight people. Additionally, sacrifice itself is not a virtue if you are sacrificing (or asking others to sacrifice) the wrong thing. Finally, I agree wholeheartedly that we are called to love everyone, regardless.
@@BibleandHomosexuality No, I didn't misread. Again, you are practicing intellectual gymnastics to justify your desired outcome. Selectively cherry picking theological interpretations to win points. The theme of man and woman starts from beginning and persists to end. Finding some isolated translation to argue semantics does not refute the entirety of the message. Your interpretation is one of convenience because the alternative is a much harder choice... celibacy. And sure the letter was in the context of Corinthians, but the words are clear and the intent is clear... He would prefer everyone choose a life of celibacy and emphasized the importance of focusing on your relationship with God and not the flesh. That statement may have been made to the Corinthians, but it was a statement he intended for everyone to embrace. But, he went on to say that he understands it is a totally unreasonable preference and encouraged men to take wives and vice versa to satisfy urges of the flesh. Not a fun or popular message AT ALL. This choice in no way considers your desire or enjoyment in this world. It isn't about having fun. In fact this way of life does everything possible to WARN YOU that you will suffer greatly if you pursue a life with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Think about your mental gymnastics while you attempt to use the Bible to justify sexual gratification of any kind... This isn't a popularity contest, don't lie to people to trick them to accept your faith and tell them how easy it is to adhere to it. Eventually they're going to learn the truth and blame the faith instead of the person that lied to them. I'm not condemning anyone for anything to be clear. I'm just not comfortable with changing the faith to suit your lifestyle and then lie to yourself that its okay. Jesus surrounded himself with the worst of us. There's a reason for that. So I'm by no means saying you have to be "sin free" to be Christian... that is entirely contradictory to the whole point of Jesus. Sinners belong in church, I go because I need help with my sins and I need my church community to help me stay on the right track. I fail sometimes unfortunately and they bring me back in line. My sin is no better or worse than anyone else's. But if you start accepting sin and then change the meaning of the Bible's stories to erase those complicated places in the Bible that you don't want to deal with then... just accept the fact that you're not really practicing the faith. There are a lot of sins that would be really convenient for me to erase from the Bible and it would make my life easier. I could just start erasing things until I have no struggles left at all... how nice would that be.
Hi Jason, thanks for this reply. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I am arguing this way for convenience to make my life easier. I am not. As it happens, I am straight (and married). I am making this case because I believe it is right and just, and that for Christians to argue otherwise is to inflict needless cruelty on gay people. You may think I am mistaken (as I think you are), but please do not attribute that kind of motive to me. Being within the evangelical tradition, if I wanted to win popularity contests I would simply hold to the non-affirming view.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I apologize, it is a UA-cam comment/reply and I drifted between speaking generally and addressing you directly and that does cause confusion I will admit. I did not mean to imply you were justifying this for yourself, that was a generalization. The generality is that people are seeking an easy and convenient truth that doesn't require they change their life to fit their belief. The personal is that I do genuinely see you providing them that easy way out by cherry picking very specific interpretations because it is the outcome you desire for them. Why? I cannot answer that. Maybe a valid speculation is that you genuinely care! I want to be clear that I fully acknowledge you are likely seeking the desired outcome because you care for people. But, it is still intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps you're not so much lying to "them", rather you are lying to yourself for them. And so you did your research seeking an outcome and you believe you've found it. Classic case of a desired outcome resulting in agreeable evidence and then we call it "research". I said it before I'll say it again, this is too complex of a discussion to have in UA-cam reply format. If people are interested in the truth there is a ton of apologetics discussions around this topic. I won't refer anyone to any of them because I don't want there to be an unintended negative interpretation of what I'm attempting to explain and then a viewer project that negativity onto the apologist. If I'm being negatively received then let's just keep that negativity focused on me alone where it belongs. A quick search on UA-cam can easily uncover a wealth of information from fantastic theological scholars. Christianity has time and time again rejected the premise that homosexuality is acceptable. There are factions, typically known as "New Age" that claim the Christianity name that attempt to amend this. But if you have to do intellectual gymnastics to justify your desired outcome... chances are you're lying to yourself. And that is exactly what New Age Christianity is doing. No intended malice, just a desire to find the answer they prefer because the real answer didn't sit well. I wish the best for everyone. Sorry to piss people off.
Jude 1:7 stop deceiving people cause the wrath of God will come up against you the bible say if anyone teach anything other than what the apostles teaches u will be in serious trouble. 2 thessalonians 2 :3 say the falling away from the truth must come first before the end come and we are in that season .1 Corinthians 6:9 . jude 1:7.im not here to condemn any one cause condemnation belongs to God but I'm here to share the truth .if we love him we keep his commandments .sometime we might be stuck in the ways we love and what makes us feel good but if we love God we will flee from temptation and give up the things in the world.God loves us all and he will deliver us from our prison but first we have to give up our wrong doing .
Hi Shanice. I appreciate your concern for others. But you haven't engaged with the video at all. You are accusing me of going against apostolic teaching, but don't point out where the flaws are in the video. Simply quoting bible verses isn't an argument. You are convinced that your interpretation of scripture is the right one - fine. But try to convince me. Because I think that your interpretation of scripture is wrong.
The Bible only ever talks about marriage in the context of husband and wife. We should follow God's law, not try to twist it to go legitimise our desire to satiate personal lusts.
Yes, we should not twist what God said to legitimise our desires, which can include ... disdain for people because they're different to us self-righteously "thanking God we're not like that tax collector" sense of power over a vulnerable minority fear of losing face or even power if our pet belief has been proved wrong The Bible "only ever talking about ..." is circumstantial and fallacious. There may have been other reasons why it never mentions same-secs relationships. Just because God approves of men marrying women doesn't mean he disapproves of men marrying men.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I’m not asking, I’m letting you know you are in error and hopefully some people that are struggling with this reads this and does not fall for you deceptive teachings
Hi, I appreciate your well-researched video as a conservative Christian I disagree and I believe you're misrepresenting scriptures and I have a lot of questions for you. I'll start with a few though. 1. Obviously you don't believe homosexuality is a sin. But do you believe that it is the plan of God for males and females, why is heterosexuality in the confines of marriage glorified everywhere in the scripture. Can you please just give me a specific verse where God, Jesus, The holy spirit, and The prophets glorified same-sex relationships the same way heterosexuality is glorified just one? 2. Are you saying that in Sodom and Gomorrah the only same-sex activity that was happening was only to male pedophiles and prostitutes. The Angels that came were in the form of men and the two men who wanted to have carnal knowledge(sex) with them were definitely between adults and not kids. Yes, there were other sins in the cities going on but homosexuality was part of it and it doesn't just make sense for it is limited to pedophilia or prostitution or rape. 3. Obviously the Bible is not an English book. And the word homosexuality wasn't added till 1946 in the RSV I think. Verses before that said sodomites which means anal and oral sex and please don't tell me it actually meant sex in the temple or some other nonsense because that's a blatant misrepresentation of scriptures and blasphemy. This makes sense because men don't have vaginas and paul called this unnatural. Like you said effeminate also means taking the position of the woman(the one being penetrated). And yes some translations called these boy molesters and male prostitutes but again the bible wasn't written in English so let's focus on the action and context rather than words. Paul made no reference to anything exploitative or to pederasty was talking about the unnatural desire between male and male. And yes pederasty was widespread back then but that doesn't mean man-to-man consensual sex wasn't happening. So my question is, what is the definitive thing that limits the passages in Leviticus and 1 cor to only pederasty, pedophilia, rape, and other things you said but not man-to-man consensual sex. Unless you're speaking on behalf of paul. 4. So every passage concerning same-sex relationship are the only books that have been mistranslated because the translators were homophobic fanatics right? God, Jesus, and Paul all condemned sexual immorality and espoused heterosexual marriage. God be fruitful and multiply, Jesus Matt 19:4-5(Unless they mistranslated that verse too), Paul let every man have his own wife, and many more verses. If they condemned the sinful approach to sex and marriage and espoused heterosexual marriage why didn't they do the same for consensual homosexuality between adults and espouse it? And why didn't God and Paul explicitly say pederasty, prostitution, or any of the things you said are the actual meaning of the verses in Leviticus and 1 Corinthians. I think it encompasses every form of male-to-male homosexual activities. Whether sex in pagan temples, pederasty, or consensual homosexuality between adults. 5. I have a lot more questions but this is getting too long and I just came across this video. I'll need to do extensive research and present my arguments to you again. But these are just the ones that came to my mind. Anyway my final question for now. Did prostitution back then mean someone who trades sex for money or someone who has casual sex a lot? Either way won't it be consensual? the greek word in question means male bed. And I feel the holy spirit is telling me now that paul coined this word to condemn all forms of homosexuality. I mean surely there are greek words for pederasty and pedophiles and prostitution why make a new word except to prohibit homosexuality in all its form. Please stop the lies and deceit. Remember what Jesus said about people misleading people Matt 18:6-7. I await your response that will be based on your subjective feelings. God bless you.
By the way, I sound aggressive because it's sad when I see older people who are supposed to lead the younger ones to the truth are the ones lying and leading people away from God. I don't know you sir but I'm highly disappointed.
Gen 19 is an incident of attempted raip. It does not specify the specific sins that led to their destruction, nor does it make any categorical statement about all instances of secs between males. Lev 18/20 is difficult to translate but says that some kind of behaviour that we would classify as homoxesual today was against their religion. It does not say it was a sin, and Mosaic law no longer applies anyway. If you want moral guidance based on Leviticus, Rom 13.8-10 and 1 Pet 1.14-16 are your best guide. And Rom 13 teaches against your interpretation. Rom 1 says that male idolaters did something "unseemly" with each other. It says it was shameful to their own culture, but does not say it was a sin. Nor does it make any categorical statement about all instances of secs between males. Some translation inaccuracies are common that make it sound more like modern Christian stereotype of gay behaviour instead of 1st cent Jewish stereotype of Roman behaviour. 1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1 use words whose meaning is ambiguous ("soft") or unknown ("male-bedder"). The context is obviously about deliberate, hurtful behaviour. What make me "highly disappointed" is the irresponsibility of using something so unclear to form policies that harm people who are doing nothing to hurt anyone, and this commonly by "older people who are supposed to lead the younger ones", disobeying many scriptures in the process (Mat 7.16, 18.6, 23.3, Mark 7.8, James 1.19 come to mind). As you can see, there is nothing in the Bible against committed loving relationships between two men. And of course it says nothing against two women. They are clearly against raip, violating cultural taboo, idolatry and indecency, and secs abbuse. That the Bible only speaks of marriage between man and woman - or more accurately one or more women with the occasional concubine - is circumstantial. There were cultural reasons that made marriage between two men or two women problematic, not theological ones. The Bible nowhere says that a man must not marry a man, or that a man must only marry a woman. On the contrary, the same reasons for marriage presented in Gen 2 apply seamlessly to same-secs marriage with no contradiction to the text.
@@MusicalRaichu 1. Jude 1:7 tells us the real reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were burnt. No matter how hard you try to twist scriptures to fit your agenda. The Bible clearly tells us why it was burnt. Sexual immorality and going after unnatural desires. And no way you could limit it to only rape and not consensual sex between same-sex couples because it was never the will of God and it is therefore unnatural. 2. No it's not you heretics are the ones making it difficult. Male to Male sex is condemned. Whether it be rape, prostitution, or consensual. Yes, mosaic law no longer applies but moral laws still do from the new testament, and guess what same sex is a sin. From the verses, you told me to read the main theme I noticed is love your neighbor. I love my neighbor which is why I won't lie and twist scriptures to justify my sins and agenda. read Deut4:2. 3. So what do you think unnatural relations mean in Romans 1. Paul talked about idolaters and homosexuals separately and said they will not enter the kingdom of God. Yes, mistranslation has caused confusion. But if you look at the direct greek translation it shows paul was talking about the act of male-to-male sexual activity. So homosexuals is a good translation. 4. I was expecting this, Just because you're "highly disappointed" doesn't mean you're right. You have no idea how insanely infuriating it is to see people like you misrepresent such easy and common-sense passages to fit your perverted sexual agenda. Read the entire Bible and tell me how you see God endorse homosexuality. Of all the passages in the Bible, only a few talking about homosexuality are wrong even though if we translate it directly from greek it will say male-to-male sex is a sin. Again the Bible verses you brought up are not relevant. 5. If the Bible isn't against loving same-sex relationships why did God or any biblical characters not espouse it the same way as heterosexuality. The verses talking about same-sex activities never mentioned anything relating to rape, taboo, idolatry, etc. It just said male-to-male sex is an abomination. And guess what male prostitutes, male pedophiles, etc are still homosexuals because IT IS STILL MALE TO MALE!!!. It is ignorant to think consensual same-sex couples are excluded don't be naive. 6. Yes I'm aware polygamy is not a sin mentioned in the bible. But I still think it's immoral(topic for another day). Gen 2 literally said a man shall cleave unto his WIFE and become one flesh are you high or drunk? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the holy book and quite frankly blasphemy. You still have not answered the questions I asked in my previous comments. This is a desperate attempt from you fake Christians. This is disgusting. God help us all.
@@MusicalRaichu The way paul used malakoi and arsenokoitai clearly tells us he is referring to sodomy(Non-heterosexual penetrative sex). An effeminate man in this context is a man taking the role of a woman in the bed(the one to be penetrated). arsenokoitai literally means male-bedder and bedder is just a euphemism for gay sex. Yes, gay rape and gay pedophilia were common back then. But guess what so was consensual gay sex and they all fall under the same category of sin paul prohibited. But a look at a direct greek translation shows us it means male-to-male sex. Where you idiots got pedophiles, rapists, etc. from. In the passage, I have no idea. I guess we all speaking on behalf of Paul.
@@hakeemfrancis1099 Jude was written in the 1st cent when the idea that those towns engaged in secs immorality started becoming prevalent. The old testament makes no such suggestion. Jude might not be referring to Gen 19 but to a contemporary text. The Greek word he used indicates that it cannot possibly mean males with males. In context it's about humans with angels. Mosaic law has been annulled and is not the best guide to morality, otherwise we'd be treating women like property, executing wayward children and enslaiving the bankrupt. It makes no mention of lying with "the same secs". Do not confuse "men lying with men" with "people lying with the same secs" - the latter is an category artificially invented in modern times that never appears in the Bible. And the prohibition is ceremonial anyway. Investigate Paul's use of the word "nature". It carries no moral significance. "Unnatural" in Rom 1 means not what you'd expect someone to do: "you'd expect males to have secs with females but here are these male idolaters having secs with one another". It was consensual and a cultural issue, not a moral one. It does not say it was a sin and makes no categorical statement about all same-secs acts. "Soft ones" had a range of usages. Since the context does not indicate which was intended, how can you insist on one particular usage? The meaning of male-bedder is unknown. The limitations we have is secs behaviour involving at least one male that is hurtful ("unrighteous"), deliberate ("not inherit the kingdom") and within one's capacity to change ("such were some of you"). No one can change their secs orientation or remove their need for intimate relationship. Gay people can be in loving relationships hurting no one and even be faithful believers. To expand it to include women who like women is ludicrous. Conjecture all you like, doesn't change anything. Modern Greek translations (I presume that's what you're referring to) are all just as much interpretations as modern English ones. Gen 2 explains the reasons for marriage and contains not a single word against same-secs marriage. Just because the Bible affirms a man marrying a woman does not mean God disapproves of a man marrying a man - that's illogical! On the contrary, if he experiences the same needs for companionship, mutual support, familial relationship and personal intimacy, if he meets the same condition of recognizing a man as a suitable, as one like him, then by the same reasoning as scripture he should marry the man. The Bible does not mention same-secs relationships for various reasons: - Under patriarchy, marriage was understood as a submissive female under the control of a dominant male. Two women/men in marriage made no cultural sense in that era. - A man taking a woman's role was also problematic because he would be acting like an inferior which made it highly problematic with legal implications in Roman law. - They did understand secs orientation as well as we do today, so they didn't know that some people need a relationship with the same secs the way most people need a relationship with the opposite secs. To say that texts that are EXPLICITLY about attempted raip (Gen 19), a religious taboo (Lev), indecent behaviour by idolaters (Rom) and deliberate hurtful acts (1 Cor, 1 Tim) should also gratuitously be used to condemn people who only want to love and be loved in the only way God has granted them is highly irresponsible and misuse of scripture. Even if, hypothetically speaking, scripture had a command against it, what did Jesus teach about a conflict between obeying the Bible and loving our neighbour? I find your language about "my agenda" unacceptable. I have no vested interest in this issue. My "agenda" is to promote our Lord's command to love one another. The false teaching you promote has done nothing but harm and therefore disobeys Christ. There are research papers documenting the damage we've done and how the secular world has had to pick up the pieces. It's gradually coming to an end anyway whether you like it or not but there are still hangers on like you. Often they have vested interests. I've come across some (not you (so far)) have even resorted to deceit to maintain the status quo. Calling someone a fake Christian because of one disputed point of difference about something that harms no one is precisely what Paul is talking about in Rom 14: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand." It's one thing if you have a legitimate concern and disagree, altogether another to use disrespectful language and hurl judgemental accusations.
thank you for being one of the people that talks about this topic despite the venom thrown your way , as a gay christian youth these are very helpful and im thankful for you and the people that show that being gay isnt inherently sinful
Hi Casey, thanks for your encouragement - it's appreciated.
@@shanicebrown1585 Amen hi hey can you pray for my son cuz he thinks he's a women and not a man so pray can you pray for God can open he's eyes plz he's name is Brain bravo plz
@@BibleandHomosexualityYes, Im so grateful for your teachings. So much pain caused by anti-gay christian teachings.
False teachera gay teachers, the church of Satan, you homosexuals will burn in Hell. REPENT AND FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST BEFORE ITS TOO LATE, don't decieving yoursrlf, stop covering your sin, hell fire waiting for you
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. We are not bound by the old law anymore, but God does not change his mind on what an abomination is.
💗💜💙 Thank you for giving me hope, I have been struggling with this.....
Thanks - I'm glad if you've found it helpful.
He is leading you astray just submit to the most high
Thank you for the insight in your videos they are truly educational
Thanks - appreciated!
I think it is obvious that Paul used arsenokoites from Lev. 18 and any attempt to obfuscate that is either bad scholarship or disingenuous. The reason Jesus didn't address male sexual relations as sin is because this was settled morality amongst the Jews of his day. Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, did address the homosexual acts that were prevalent in the Greco-Roman society into which he was sent and at no time or place did he affirm that monogamous, same-sex relationships were appropriate. The best approach, if one cares to know if God approves of it or not, would be to ask, "if Paul were aware of 'committed, loving, same-sex relationships, would he have included those in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10?"; or, if the word homosexual existed, might he have used it? And while it is true that sexual orientation as we understand it was unknown, Paul did address it for both men and women as being "consumed" by "unnatural passions"---even going so far as to say that "God gave them up to dishonorable passions", calling the homosexual acts themselves "shameful". I know this is touchy for many, my family included several times over, but the testimony of Scripture, in the aggregate, is simple and clear.
You have no evidence for literally any claim you wrote. I'll start with this: Leviticus doesn't talk in any way about homosexuality in the sense you mean and especially not as a sin, and most importantly would be completely irrelevant to Paul. It was a law of the jews and had no sway over Christianity.
@christiancristof491 you are going to believe whatever you want that much is obvious, and what I said is demonstrably true.
@@kylestephens4133 Demonstrate it then, i'm very much open to listen to you. You seem the closed minded one.
Hello and thank you. Hard to believe that so many don't understand it. Hence why it is important to use the King James Bible.
Why is it important to read the KJV?
Thank you so much for these videos! I am not a christian but your explanation gives clearence and clarity and helps make peace with the past.
Thank you - glad you have found them helpful.
Romans 1:26-28
1 Timothy 1: 9-11
Mark 10: 6-9
1 Corinthians 7:2
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Leviticus 18:22
Anything without the capability to produce life is unnatural. Christ loves you, Jesus Christ frees you from that sin which has you in bondage, the wages of which is death, in this life and eternity. Theres no abomination Christ cannot free you from. Love does not equate to acceptance, true love gives life not destruction. No sinner is above another for we all have fallen short of grace that which the blood of the Lamb atones for. That demon that has you in bondage you feel God made you that way that demon will lead you to a sunken place and consume you with lust. Do not get that reprobate stage. Call upon the name of Jesus the Christ, believe on him, confess your sin and he who begins that work in you will see it completed. Your life is precious to God, that the angels rejoice over just one life that turns from the way of abomination. Your life is so precious God wants your bloodline to continue, dont let the devil feed you lies and lead you to emptiness of your soul and destruction. Christ will heal that void and recompense that which the devil and his demons have sought to destroy. God Bless you
Thank you for your comment. My videos cover most of the passages you cite (the issues in 1 Tim 1:9-11 are essentially the same as those in 1 Cor. 6:6-11). It is a shame that you haven't engaged with the exegesis of these passages that I have covered in the videos. The exception is 1 Cor. 7:2, which is about married couples not abstaining from intercourse. I am unsure how you think this is relevant.
Your definition of 'unnatural' would rule out the unmarried (particularly the celibate), the old, the infertile, and children. It would also rule out most of nature (rocks, water...). It would also rule out contraception. Is this your intention?
I agree that Christ loves us. I disagree that homosexuality is a sin, about lust, or any kind of bondage, and I give my reasons in the videos. As I explain, I believe that the Bible is talking about something quite different in the passages cited.
You say 'your lifeline is so precious God wants your bloodline to continue' - I do not find this to be consistent with the message of the New Testament, and in particular would seem to go against one of the key metaphors for our relationship with God as being adopted as children of God.
I hope you find this reply helpful, and may God bless you too.
@@dereklee2590 , you're just arguing with emotions and doing nothing to address his points.
@@BibleandHomosexualityrepent, the scripture is clear
Is Sexual immorality sleeping with prostitutes or also sleeping with those of the same sex ? Do you have a video on this? The Didache chapter 2 lists do not engage in pederasty, but right after is do not engage in sexual immorality. Thank you.
I don't have a separate video on this specific issue. But (in brief) the Didache 2:2 has three terms, one after another. They may be roughly translated as You shall not commit adultery (moicheuseis), you shall not corrupt children (paidophthoreseis), you shall not be sexually immoral (porneuseis). The first, moicheuseis, is not how we would understand adultery now (in that sex with a prostitute was not legally adultery). It was having intercourse with a free woman who was not your wife, so that honour was affected. The third term, porneuseis, is linked to the term porne - a prostitute. The meaning can vary depending on context, but 'sleeping around (particularly with prostitutes)' is likely to capture much of it. The second term, paidophthoreseis, refers to intercourse with children, in particular boys.
The three terms together cover the common ways in which immorality could happen: intercourse with someone else's wife; intercourse with a boy; intercourse with prostitutes.
These are the practices that seem to be in mind anytime anyone discourses about this in most of the literature.
What is almost certainly not in anyone's mind (writer or reader) would be faithful, loving, permanent relationships.
Hope this helps.
Bible and Homosexuality It does, thank you for your insights.
Glad to be of help :)
"faithful, loving, permanent relationships" - if that was a characteristic of male homosexuality the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases amongst male homosexuals would be far less than it is. Every account I've read relating to the life of a man who had carnal relations with other men, be it biographical or auto-biographical, recounts promiscuity.
Do you have a video over Romans 1?
I sure do: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
What exactly would the bible have to say for you to believe these acts are sinful?? 🤷
Well, for a start if it was actually talking about what we are talking about today - faithful, monogamous, same-sex relationships between people who by nature are gay. But it doesn't talk about this, anywhere. So I go to the principles that come from the Bible: is it loving or not? And I don't find it loving to deny people the opportunity to have a faithful, monogamous, loving relationship that we allow to straight people. So I find denying same-sex couples to be unbiblical. Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality So are you referring to a celibate relationship then, since the Word is clear on the physical "relations"? 🤔
I don't think the Word is clear in the way you think it is. No, I am not referring to celibate relationships. I believe that celibacy is a particular calling, and few are called to it. I do not believe that being gay (any more than being straight) means you are called to celibacy.
There is a lot at play with this issue of Christianity and homosexuality. Not only is there a natural tendency to suppress what seems unnatural or deviant, there are also centuries of religious tradition that reinforces it. We have several problems before us 1) Homosexual attraction 2) Homosexual activity 3) The deviance of homosexuality 4) The Christian response to homosexuality. These problems are not one but we tend to deal with it all the same which I think leads to many problems.
The biggest of these is the Christian response to homosexuality. I think there is a discussion to be had as to what percentage of homosexuals are innately so and what percentage are so because of environment. An example is within the context of hedonism, one may not necessarily be a homosexual but nonetheless engages in debauchery with multiple partners of both sexes to satisfy their lust.
If it is true that many homosexuals are innately so, either because of biological factors caused by their parents or a genetic reality, that is something Christianity has to contend with. Even if it is also true that some homosexuals are so purely because of environment and tolerance of it. Christianity must deal with the issue of innate homosexual attraction and condemnation is not a solution because that homosexual person remains so, only now the people that were supposed to love them now hate them and it was the people who condemned them are the ones who put the millstone around their neck and threw them into the sea.
On the other hand, the promotion of homosexuality and inculcating children in modern sexual theories is also not a solution because promoting it ensures that it will exist to a greater degree, if it is true that environment can create more homosexuals than what would otherwise. That said, children at an appropriate age should be taught by their parents about it because anything that a child is sheltered from to an extreme degree, they will find later in life and have to wrestle with it on their own. They will wrestle with it either way but better to be set on a good path by their family.
I would like to make some comments on your comments:
1 Is homosexuality a born orientation?: the latest scientific discussion is that homosexuality IS a born orientation: one part is determined by several genes and their SNP and another part is determined by "environment", by anti-bodies (NLGN4Y) during pregnancy. So when the baby gets born , it is already determined as homosexual or heterosexual.
2 Can children become homosexual?: gradually age adequate sexual education in school is very important. This education isn't "promoting" homosexuality it is informing the kids that heterosexuality exists as much as homosexuality and that both are natural and healthy. Back in my school in Germany in the 70s and 80s we had that education and now, as we are all over 50years old I can say the heterosexual kids stayed heterosexual, have families now and some expect grandchildren , and the homosexual born kids stayed homosexual , have steady relationships or are married, some adopted kids. I do not see any danger of turning kids into another sexual orientation by anything during their life, because thats not possible.
The only ones that can switch are born bisexual people, but thats a complete other story.
@@Pro-j4q Your reply addresses the surface with the general knowledge of homosexual existence. However the question remains, when homosexuality is more saturated in a culture, will that produce more homosexual activity? The problem, if any, that Christianity should be wrestling with is homosexual activity. We understand that homosexual attraction exists. It would be like any other cultural phenomena. While culture cannot simply outright create homosexuals because of biology, it is still possible for homosexual activity to increase because of not only widespread acceptance but also promotion. I don't think anyone would study this though, as it would be easy to shoot down under the guise of anti-bigotry.
@@GridironMasters I see what you’re saying however, I don’t believe environment is a factor, & the study you speak is alrdy being conducted.
Homosexuality has always been around & our current societal views on it has never been more open & more accepting than it is now & it was a very fast & in your face acceptance. It’s widely accepted In today, where as in the past it wasn’t. The worst being the later half of the 20th century where It was more shunned, closeted, & viewed negatively than it ever has been before.
The result of this recent, rapid wide acceptance is the belief some ppl have adopted that seeing more of it, having children exposed to it will create more homosexuals.
Is homosexuality more prevalent, are we creating more or does it feel as such bc ppl are more open, they are N̶o̶ longer hiding who they are to suit the needs of others.
Facts are nbdy chooses to be gay & their sexuality is not determined by their environment. Society didn’t create more heterosexual’s during the late 20th century when homosexuality was shunned & viewed the most negative it has ever been.
Also nbdy raises their children to be homosexual, not even homosexual parents. Just bc a child is exposed to something doesn’t mean they will practice it. They are children & they don’t do shit that they don’t like (big facts 💯)
I’m not str8, yet I was raised in a religious household, church 3 times a week, church summer camp, & I was also born & raised in a country (until 14) who’s culture is notorious for being homophobic. Almost every song I heard growing had “fire fi battyman”, “mi no keep company wid battyman”, as lyrics which are still used by the artists in their songs being released currently. So my exposure to homosexuality was the fear God, the fear of what my country’s culture & society would do to me, it’s an abomination & you’re going to burn Hell. So imagine my mental state when I’m starting to realize yeah I like girls, I like being sexual with them but I don’t love them. I prefer men😰
@@tdawgz68 I think it's clear that environment affects everyone. I don't think environment guarantees the same outcome. For example, high crime environments do not necessarily create criminals but the chance that there will be more criminals is higher. Look at pretty much every human cultural activity. A culture begets itself more often than not. Why not homosexuality, transexuality or any other sexual practice that may come along in the future? I believe that there is a group of people that are inevitably homosexual and they should be left alone like anyone else. However, I haven't found a reason to doubt that environment and culture beget themselves.
@@GridironMasters Think about it this way: Which sexuality/sexual preference is a child exposed to first? Heterosexuality. Children are always exposed to heterosexuality first & are raised always raised to find love & attraction in the opposite sex notwithstanding their environment & culture. The exposure to Homosexuality comes after, it’s exposure is limited & usually negative.
So now it begs the question: How are ppl Gay if their environment & culture is one that promotes heterosexuality & demotes homosexuality?
Answering this question will mostly likely lead you to where u want to go
We know Environment and Cultures affects physical features used to enhance attractiveness, i.e body modification. However, body modifications and attractiveness do not correlate to sexual preferences
I'm wondering whether we have completely misunderstood arsenokoites and it refers to the practice of using arsenic as a contraceptive.
sorry i need some comic relief once in a while ...
Who was St Paul?
I believe you can pick apart any subject in the bible to explain it away into your own worldview. In addition to the single passage you've referenced is leviticus 18, 20, and Romans 1. The new and old testaments are congruent. With that is personal experience of living in a place where homosexuality is praised. It does not bring peace even where it is accepted. No it is not a proclivity that separates one from Christ, but practicing that proclivity unrepentantly does. If knowing this, I said nothing how much would I have to hate my brother?
Hi, thanks for the comment. I have videos on Leviticus and Romans. Please do have a look at them. Whilst I appreciate that you may have your own personal experience, others have a different experience from yours, and find peace accepting both their sexuality and Christian faith.
Hi first time I encountered this page, I love it. But I have a concern as a Christian, the reference you are talking about doesn't take into consideration that God created humans males and females, and that was his plan from the beginning. This is not about having meaningful relationships with one another, but how his design was supposed to be carried out by us humans (male & female).
Hi, thanks for the compliment. You have a concern over male and female; take a look at my video on Genesis. You can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/F4ljKuxHAJ4/v-deo.html
Love love love this channel. Thank you!!
Really glad that you've found it helpful. Thanks for the feedback.
I struggle with how you try to downplay ‘male bedding’ here.
You say that the meaning is unclear, likely based on Leviticus (men sleeping with men, like women) - to say we have to take it with a pinch of salt.
Then you say that when other people talk about homosexuality, they are talking about children. Which contradicts the Leviticus connection... and creates a dangerous precedent for interpretation:
I am arguing the bible doesn’t say X, I support this by saying when the Bible does say X someone else talking about Y means Z, therefore X means Z and there is no evidence that the Bible says X.
I would like to be convinced by your argument, but it has no solid ground, so you too often retreat to this kinds of arguments.
Hi Matthew, thank you for your comment. There are a number of aspects which need addressing. First, Leviticus does NOT say men sleeping with men - it says men sleeping with males. The difference is significant. We have a Jewish contemporary of Paul, Philo, who refers to Leviticus when talking about the pederasty that was common in the Roman Empire at the time.
Secondly, it is anachronistic to expect writers of the period to be talking about homosexuality (in the sense of adult, equal relationship). Particularly by the Roman period, the common or garden form of male same-sex activity was an adult male with a boy (hence the lively trade in slave boy prostitutes at the time, and the custom of buying boys as slaves in the household for this purpose - eg the slaves (boys) known as deliciae whose main duty was to be available for intercourse. If someone in the ancient world was talking about males having intercourse with males, the default assumption would be that it was an adult and child.
Thirdly, we have other early Christian writings which we can reference. The Didache is probably the oldest Christian writing outside of the New Testament. There is a reference to what to avoid - 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not corrupt children, do not commit sexual immorality...'. It is a similar vice list to 1 Corinthians. Clearly, 'child corruption' was something so common and widespread that it can be placed without explanation into such a list.
To summarise: other Jewish writers link Leviticus and adult-boy; adult-boy abusive relationships were commonplace in the culture whereas homosexual relationships (adult-adult) were not; and other Christian writings do refer to adult-child relationships.
If you want further information, please do go to www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/st-paul-1-corinthians-and-homosexuality/ which points to further resources. I also deal with some of the issues in my post on Romans 1.
Hope this is helpful, and once again thanks for the enquiry.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I have watched all your videos, and read 'Permanent, Faithful, Stable'. I remain unconvinced by the style of argumentation, as well as the actual content.
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly, would you mind though if I show in your reply the things that I draw issue to?
Hi Matthew, please feel free - I can't promise an immediate response though!
I will respond to your comment above.
Your Leviticus video explains that your interpretation of the man and male sex means sex with boys not men.
Your support is ambiguity (can mean boys, so does mean boys) and Roman cultural precedent of men having sex with boys.
You then assert that most of the time when males had sex with other males in Roman culture it was with boys. This is a huge assertion, which you propose with no support. It also ignores the complex nature of the penetrator being masculine and the penetrated being feminine in Greco-roman male-to-male intercourse.
The Didache argument you put forward doesn’t really support anything as corrupting children and sexual immorality are two separate things in that list. It doesn’t support or detract from your argument.
You summarise that adult male sex didn’t happen, which is based on an unsupported assertion you made earlier.
I hope this doesn’t come across as a rant, or hateful in anyway, but I cannot see how this type of argumentation is persuasive. Especially when you then compare it back to a modern standard on consenting long-term relationships as if homosexual sex being licensed against was invalidated by the value difference (aka: this doesn't get around that if the consenting relationship contains sex, then it is still homosexual sex).
Do you have any more scholarly arguments for the invalidation of biblical verses on homosexual sex, or sources that you may refer me to?
Hi Matthew, thanks for a thoughtful question. Your point hinges on my assertion that most of the time when males had sex with males it was men with boys. This point is not some wild claim; it is based on mainstream scholarship on the Roman Empire at the time. In particular, the go-to book analysing this is Craig Williams 'Roman Homosexuality'. As a pointer, this is his introduction to the book:
'Ancient Romans lived in a cultural environment in which married men could enjoy sexual relations with their male slaves without fear of criticism from their peers; in which adultery generally aroused more concern than pederasty; in which men notorious for their womanizing might be called effeminate, while a man whose masculinity had been impugned could cite as proof of his manhood the fact that he had engaged in sexual relations with his accuser's sons...'. (p.3).
Your point about the penetrator being masculine and penetrated being feminine shows why the idea of an equal relationship between adult males would not have been in the foreground of anyone's thinking. This is particularly so since the active, 'masculine' approach here was assumed; the passive partner was effectively being raped (see Ruden (2010, 45-71 for a taste of the full nastiness of the Roman world at this time). Adult male sex did happen, but when it did the passive partner was humiliated and left without honour or had no honour in the first place (a slave). But generally males were only considered as being attractive whilst still boys (so sometimes slaves had to appear as boys even when growing older). This is why I stated that pederasty was commonplace and accepted, whereas the idea of an adult faithful homosexual relationship was not going to be the focus of public discourse.
The term in the Didache (child corruption) is a reference to pederasty, which can be seen both in its use in a number of Christian writers, and general acceptance of this point in all scholarship.
In 1 Corinthians, I think it makes most sense for Paul to be condemning something which was endemic in the Roman world at the time (pederasty) rather than a phenomenon which would be applicable to no-one in his congregations.
Does this mean that all male-male intercourse is invalid? This is why I make the link with usury in the first video. For the ancient world, male-male sex meant pederasty, it meant abuse, it meant rape, it was something married men did, and it often involved slaves or prostitutes or slave prostitutes. Do condemnations of that mean that we have to condemn loving, faithful relationships now?
Does ancient greek have separate words for man and boy? Or is arseno used for both man and boy? If they have separate words for man, boy and male couldn't they use the greek word for boy instead to make it more clear? Also is there a word in ancient greek that directly means homosexual or gay? If there is then that would help your point since if there is a more clear word then they should've used it, and since they didn't then that means they probably aren't talking about homosexuals or gays
Here is something I found on a website that I want an answer to, I hope your right about this but this quote seems to be a problem:
‘In response, however, it must be pointed out, first, that arsenokoites is a broad term that cannot be confined to specific instances of homosexual activity such as male prostitution or pederasty. This is in keeping with the term’s Old Testament background where lying with a “male” (a very general term) is proscribed, relating to “every kind of male-male intercourse.”13 In fact, the Old Testament “bans every type of homosexual intercourse.” not just male prostitution or intercourse with youths.’, Campbell, ‘Marriage and Family in the Biblical World’, p. 243 (2003).
Hi, some answers. 'arsenos' is the Greek equivalent of 'male'. It can therefore be used for either man or boy. Around the NT period, arseno- was often used as a prefix when referring specifically to desire for boys.
There is no word for 'homosexual' or 'gay' - the ancient world did not structure sexuality by the gender you desired, but by whether or not you were dominant or submissive (active/passive). I've more on this in other videos.
Campbell is making a claim for what arsenokoites means that he cannot actually substantiate. If you go to the associated website page for this video (link in video description) near the bottom I refer to the relevant scholarship. Assuming that arsenokoites is broad is just that - an assumption - and one I think is false.
Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Hi! Could you provide evidence for arseno used as a prefix to mean desire for boys around the time of new testament?
Thank you for what you do, God Bless you.
It's an extensive work but the context doesn't agree with you assumptions. Thanks
You'll need to be more specific.
Hey Thomas here again. I’m now on this video. So if being the passive partner as a male would be deemed unhorable. How does that apply in todays society? Do you think someone who is the passive partner in a same sex male male faithful committed married would be not accepted into the kingdom of God? I’m also curious on those who are gay that are “switch” or “versatile” who like both the dominant and passive role. Or, because Christ came, died on the cross and rose again and we now live in America under a completely different government structure than Ancient Rome, does it not matter anymore? Why or why not? Also again thank you for these videos ❤️
There is no answer to your question because your question is built on a false story cradled in lies and the supernatural.
There is no rational answer to an irrational question.
what book does it translate effeminate translate to “weakling”
Tyndale's translation of the Bible translates 'malakoi' as 'weaklinges'.
Doesnt malakos mean passive in a homosexual relataionship?
As the video indicates, malakos can cover a whole range of meanings. Paul uses it once, here, in a list, and doesn't explain which possible meaning he is referring to.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Yea I got It thx. God loves u have a great day.
i can see u are full of love and faith 💗 thank you
shame on those who interprets the word of God wrongly. if men are to marry men; them He sure forgot to add that to His word!!!!!!!!!! good job for the correction.
Hi hippie for christ. This is about how we interpret the Bible, and I am concerned that we do this well. There are many issues that the Bible doesn't address directly, besides gay marriage, for example contraception, IVF, weapons of mass destruction, what digital worship looks like etc. I don't think God 'forgot' these issues - I think the Bible gives us a story of God's love for us, and some principles for us to follow.
Hope you're all well and safe at home.
Bible and Homosexuality In your humble opinion is homosexual a sin?
Bible and Homosexuality Bible and Homosexuality Hello-first of all, my gratitude for your thoughtful interpretations. I have seen various ideas about what all of these passages relevant to the homosexuality debate actually meant, and yours has been one of the most extensive from everything I have seen. I have grown up in an evangelical Christian church for my entire life and been taught that homosexuality/transgenderism were sins. It led me to want to begin research on the context and time period of which these passages were written, in a hope of considering differing viewpoints on the issue. Your videos and website gave me another interesting perspective on this topic, and I admire the way you are respectful to those who disagree and can back up your claims pensively. Simply having a different understanding of the passages does not mean you are trying to ‘twist’ God’s word, deceive, or ‘defy’ natural law-these arguments buy much more into emotions than creating rational arguments. It is encouraged to anyone reading this that you have an open mind and consider differing, respectful ideas with rationality rather than instantly shutting them down. Christians in earlier time periods used the Bible to justify objectification of women and ownership of slaves and possibly said that a woman’s/slave’s (or simply any person of colour’s) ‘natural’ place was as inferior, which is now greatly looked down upon-presumably because they have gained better understanding of the time and context. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church also declared that anyone who denied the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth was a heretic or deceiver. Even though he was labelled as a liar, Galileo Galilei’s scientific questions and discoveries helped with the solidification of a new belief in heliocentrism. My point by this is that, perhaps the interpretations of homosexuality and transgenderism in the Bible could be facing something a little bit similar to this situation that occurred in the past. It became clear to me that in the verses which contain relevance to the Christian homosexuality debate, none ever mentioned faithful and long-lasting homosexual relationships or marriages (very likely due to the fact that it was practically unheard of or thought of in the time, and the men who wrote the Bible while taking inspiration from God would likely not have this in mind). Again, thank you for your solicitous research and novel perspective to consider; it was quite informing.
Hi Verbatiism, thank you for your kind words. It's appreciated.
No one exegetes and explains these things better than Robert A.J. Gagnon, PhD. I highly recommend his videos and books for a very detailed scholarly explanation.
I have serious issues with a number of claims that Gagnon makes. He has a tendency, in my view, to build large castles with foundations of sand.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I'm not surprised. We'll have to disagree on his work then. If there is a more researched, detailed, and scholarly work on the topic, I am unaware of it.
I respect your opinion but once again it’s just an opinion. That does not make it a fact. You do have good points but you could be potentially misleading people if your opinion is wrong.
Thank you for your comment. As you say, I could be wrong (though clearly I don't think I am). Similarly, those who are conservative on this issue or who disagree with my opinion could be wrong and misleading people. I encourage everyone to look at the arguments carefully.
@@BibleandHomosexuality let’s say you were right, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”
I Corinthians 6:12 , just because it’s okay doesn’t make it mean it’s going to be good for you. Same thing with drinking, a lot of people following these lifestyles have deeper heart issues that need to be addressed if they really want healing. I’m speaking from experience. A lot of people who engage in these behaviors have had some traumatic happen to them. To tell them it’s okay could be conditioning them to think they are fine, blindly leading them into lifestyles that are not healthy.
Hi D. It is actually just a myth that people become gay (or transition) because of a trauma. You can check out the actual science in articles such as this one: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616 (it is Bailey et al, 2016). Healthy or unhealthy lifestyles are a completely separate issue from sexuality. Plenty of heterosexual people have extremely unhealthy lifestyles; many gay people have extremely healthy (in every sense of that word) lifestyles. The evidence also shows that trying to deny sexuality is definitely bad for people (hence many countries, on medical advice, are limiting or banning the harmful practice of conversion 'therapy'). Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I agree with some of what your saying yeah everyone has bad l lifestyle choices that’s not what I’m getting at. It’s alot to explain over texting but I do not care what Study’s say when your seeing, experiencing, and living with these issues it’s alot different then a doctor who doesn’t know JACK S))) about what really effect people I know people who have been molested by men and are completely traumatized by the experience to where they have become lesbian. Is it like that for everyone? NO but what is true is that curtain experiences do effect how you operate as a person and sexually. That’s a fact. 90% of people going through these things have dealt with some form of trauma that causes them to do what they do. Sure as you grow older and what your exposed to culturally and everything else plays a role in it as well but I’m sure for majority of people if they didn’t go through what they went through there’s that possibility they wouldn’t be. So it really depends on the person.
St. Paul, along with the other Apostles, viewed adultery, fornication and homosexuality as sins that can exclude a believer from heaven. This is clearly the meaning of 1Corinthians 6 which is echoed in Galatians 5. This has been the uniform moral belief and teaching throughout church history both in the East and the West. It was unquestioned until the 20th century--which tells us a lot.
Hi Bestpossible World, thanks for commenting. You make a big assumption about interpreting the Bible when you include 'homosexuality' along with fornication and adultery as sins that St Paul was talking about. Saying this was 'clearly' the meaning of 1 Cor. 6 just begs the question. The video explores this in more detail, giving arguments as to why 'homosexuality' would be a particularly poor translation.
Saying this was unquestioned until the 20th century is unsurprising - the concept of 'homosexuality' only gained any prominence in the mid to late 19th century, and the term was only first used in English in 1906. Saying that this was the uniform belief of the church throughout church history is misleading - for example, the main german translation of 1 Cor. 6 from Luther translated the key term as 'die Knabenschänder' - which means 'the boy molesters'.
Galatians 5 refers to fornication. It does not refer to homosexuality. To equate the two is simply again to beg the question.
@@BibleandHomosexuality
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Thanks for replying, but all you are doing is quoting a bible verse without context or interpretation. I have a full video on these verses; you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
@@BibleandHomosexuality of course the context does not change the clear meaning of the quoted text. If anything, St. Paul's contextual meaning actually amplifies the moral meaning of his statement in the quote. The main features of the contextual background are as follows:
1. Though God's divine nature and moral requirements are plainly observed by all humans through what has been made (i.e. the created order), humans have,
2. Willfully turned away from the worship and obedience of God into idolatry, even to the point of worshipping himself.
3. Therefore, as a manifestation of His wrath, God has repeatedly (three occurrences in the passage) turned humans over to the moral degradation of themselves through all kinds of sin and impurity.
4. Culminating in the unnatural lust for same-sex relations.
St. Paul's condemnation of humanity's engagement in moral depravity (with homosexuality epitomizing this), through rebellion against God and His moral order in nature, could not be stronger.
Since the time of the Church Fathers, what I have described has been the received understanding and meaning of the Romans 1 passage.
Thanks for the reply. The contextual background is that Paul is using a relatively common Jewish critique of pagans, which centres around idolatry (note how it is idolatry that this chapter focuses on). The cultural context then (which is more hidden to us now, because our context is different) is that pagan worship of goddesses included accusations of sexual orgies led by female priests and including self-castrated male priests (galli). One strand of interpretation of Romans 1 (which was current in the Church Fathers) is that this is what Romans 1:26-28 refers to, as it fits the context so well. It is not until the late fourth century that you begin to see this passage as interpreted as including female-female sexual activity, and writers such as Augustine take 1:26 to mean unnatural sexual activity between women and men. A variety of other early church fathers interpret the male same-sex activity to be referring to pederasty.
As I said, more information is in the video or accompanying website.
There are at least 29 do not be deceased in the New Covenant alone. William Tyndale who translated the scriptures into English both five languages. Back then they actually cared about their vocation and took it seriously not like today when he used the word homosexual he knew exactly in Greek and Hebrew what he was using he translated it that so the English-speaking people could have scriptures and God's opinion on what we are supposed to be doing for his agenda. You are twisting the scriptures to make it say something that it's not and you are very good cuz that's what I do research stuff and you are right about 90% of what you're saying. But just like Satan when he tells you something it's 95% truth it's the 5% that's going to kill you and separate you for eternity from God. I used to be bisexual I knew it was wrong the first time I ever tried it and I didn't even know what gay or homosexual even met I knew it was wrong just like the first time you smoke a cigarette you don't do it in public you do it out in the woods that you stole the cigarette from your parents or somebody else first time you had gay sex you knew it was wrong but you still did it anyway but you didn't do it on the front yard you did it out because that's the god home and device in every human being that knows that something is wrong you are trying to convince people that a sin is all right if you want to be gay that's your business have at it but don't expect God to go along with it. He loves all people gay people gamblers drug addicts drunks we've all been deceived somehow or another I come out of my sexual perversion I still have problems with it but I am fighting it apparently you have given yourself over to it I'll pray for you
Hi Robert, Tyndale did not use the word 'homosexual' in his translation. His translation of 1 Cor. 6:9 is, 'nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde'.
Sometimes when we do something it feels wrong because it is wrong - it is our conscience telling us that. But sometimes it is internalised from what we've been told, irrespective of whether it really is right or wrong.
Also, as it happens, I am not gay.
God bless.
@@BibleandHomosexualitylol i was going to say this to him as well he has not read matthew bible 1537 they copy tyndal words from the new testament 🎉
@@BibleandHomosexualitywell said many think when they teach this’ others come in accusing them thinking they are gay.
Keep fighting sin my brother! Homosexuality is not ok it will never be ok! It is sin! By the blood of Christ you will overcome I pray the lord bless you with a wife one day. Don’t listen to guys like this he is a false teacher.
We must not forget the fact that Paul was a rigorist Pharisaic scholar and study a lot about Torah. I mean, Paul is not Jesus himself. Even Jacob and Paul is contradicting. Despite these two person are authors of holy scriptures. Is holy spirit confusing?
I must say Jesus never condemn homosexuality.
Jacob and Paul might have different emphasis, but they do not contradict, unless you have trouble understanding rhetoric, hyperbole and nuance.
The thing that I don't get is, if the issue was men sleeping with male children rather than men sleeping with men, why wouldn't he have just called it child corruption too, to then also include men sleeping with female children? Why just boys?
It might have meant secs with boys with reasons we don't know about why he didn't use existing words. "child corruption" might have been a later term.
On the other hand, it might have been broader, the deliberate act of dominating and denigrating any male by putting them in a female role. Just that the most common victims were boys.
Because they need an excuse to justify homosexuality.
@@agentmikster44 Justify it!? What like justifying having red hair or being left handed? Get real.
This is false and intentionally misleading. The Bible clearly speaks about what will happen to those who twist the Scriptures to serve their own purposes. You best be repenting.
Accusations are easy to throw out. It would be more helpful to everyone if you could indicate precisely where you think the arguments are wrong, and why.
What about Jude1:7? Can you twist that too?😄 May God Bless you.
Hi, I try not to twist anything, but to present the texts in their original contexts. I address Jude, not on the videos, but on the associated website. In particular, the page on Sodom - www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/what-has-sodom-got-to-do-with-homosexuality/
I hope you find this of help.
A man shall not lay with a man as he diea a woman, is that clear enough for you ?
So many homophobics here it's disgusting 🤭
That's a made up term to justify disgusting and unnatural behavior.
@@AnikenSkiwalker Omg, you explained it at its' best♡♡
I fear NO homosexual...is that what you mean????
@@tomasmucha2133 Basically, having fear of homosexuality is like having the fear of having a pp smaller than 1 inch.
Octavius, if you are going to accuse me of being a false prophet, taking the Bible out of context, and cherry picking verses, at least then have the courtesy to indicate exactly where I am wrong. You are also misrepresenting me - I nowhere claim that everything in the Bible was a mistake. You also claim I am doing this to fit my own narrative. I am cis and straight, not trans or gay. As you are so keen on quoting Bible verses, let me add this one:
Romans 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
Why did sadomn burn😅😅😅
While you have created an alternative explanation to the translation of these words, you have to admit that your alternative explanation has no more weight than the traditional translation of homosexuality. Futhermore, your explanation is a violation of Occam's Razor because you jump through hoops to avoid the simple answer.
Your explanation on why the Greek in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 cannot refer to homosexuality reminds me of an explanation on why fire engines are red: "Because they have eight wheels and four people on them, and four plus eight makes twelve, and there are twelve inches in a foot, and one foot is a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler, and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship, and the ship sailed the seas, and there were fish in the seas, and fish have fins, and the Finns fought the Russians, and the Russians are red, and fire trucks are always russian/rushin' around, so that's why fire trucks are red!"
Hi, thanks for the comment and reply - amusing.
But I disagree with you - Occam's Razor suggests Paul was talking about pederasty.
Look at the alternatives: was Paul referring in a list of vices to the widely known and accepted in the pagan world practice of pederasty, which also appears in similar vice lists in other early Christian literature, or was he doing something completely different and considering all forms of homosexuality including those common today, which were not part of usual discourse at the time?
The simplest explanation is that Paul was talking about pederasty. Occam's Razor.
I am asking God to show us the way with our beautiful transgender son and your videos have been most helpful!
Glad that you've found them helpful! All the best for your son.
I'm sorry but it is a sin. Also an abomination... Please have him confess he's a sinner and ask Jesus for his forgiveness..... Homosexuals do not enter gods heaven!
@@erasedfromgenepool.4845 All people who follow Jesus and love one another do and do good in life. You sound like a very judgemental person, which god doesn’t like, you may be going to hell yourself
@@erasedfromgenepool.4845 And who are you to make such a judgement? Do you supercede tha possibilty of God's love and mercy?
@@xotanHe is standing on the authority of the word of God. Unlike this so called reverend.
"He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"
- Matthew 19:4-5
There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that ever even entertains the possibility of a Man having a "Husband". Marriage is defined between a man and women and any form of sex, whether man with man, man with women, or women with women, outside of marriage, is automatically sexual immorality.
So even if there wasnt a single verse mentioning anything about homosexuality, it's still a sin. You've really got to twist scripture hard to justify this sin. Even the Catholics don't go this far.
Marriage in the Bible varies and is defined by prevailing culture. The reason there's no mention of two men/women is purely cultural. The foundational text Gen 2 is fully consistent with gay marriage. You've really got to twist scripture to justify the sin of homofobia.
Colossians 3:5 -
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry.
Hi Joe, thanks for quoting a verse, but you haven't explained why it has anything to do with faithful couples.
Sounds like you are just trying to justify your sins and enjoyment of those who participate in them.
Why do you assume I am gay? Given I am not, I suppose that strengthens the arguments I am making by your logic.
And of course you could actually read the letter instead.
Hi, I agree. I always encourage people to read as much scripture as possible.
This is all interesting stuff. You are twisting and turning in all kinds of directions, but as long as the Catholic Church that is formed by people that are more knowledgeable then you says that the translation is "persons that are attracted to the same sex". All you say is just blasphemie and leading people away from the Church.
The devil is a great liar.
Catechism 2357 till 2359 can't be clearer.
I'm praying for your soul 🙏
I am not a Roman Catholic, and therefore do not consider the catechism as binding the Church.
@@BibleandHomosexuality all the more reason for me to pray for you. God bless U.
I don’t agree with Catholics but yes he’s 100% wrong.
@@BibleandHomosexualityForget Catholics, you are twisting scripture. Pouring in. Genesis tells us that God made male and female, husband and wife. Period.
@jvdamoviehunter - thank you for your prayers. @theway77744 - I have a video on Genesis. But for now, note that Genesis says nothing of people being celibate, for example.
No matter how you try to spin this. It is wrong for a man to sleep with another man.
Hi Andre. Thanks for commenting. But you have asserted your point of view without engaging at all with any of the biblical arguments. If you disagree with me, which part of my argument is wrong?
When a man inserts his penis into a vagina his sperm naturally seeks an egg to propriate. Its a natural process. You know this. You and I are living proof of that. Our fathers did not lay with another man to produce us.
If you believe in God you would know that his enemy is the devil who is doomed. He naturally chooses people like you to pervert other lost souls so that they will be mislead by foolish arguments. Im not here to bash you for your sexual orientation. I am just telling you that your pursuit to mislead yourself and others will set you up for failure. We will never live forever. This is temporary.
Hi Andre, thanks for engaging. Your argument implies that the only point of intercourse is to have children. However, at least for protestant churches, this is not considered to be true. For example, it would mean that contraception is wrong, or that if a couple know that they are unable to have children that they shouldn't have intercourse. By your argument, contraception is unnatural, as is having any type of intercourse that cannot lead to children.
For the record, my sexual orientation is straight.
Theres a reason he made them male and female. The fact is if God made them male and male or female and female we wouldn't be here today. This is natural order God doesn't make mistakes.
Your argument leads to the logical conclusion that celibacy is wrong, as it goes against God's natural order. I disagree with you.
1 Kings 15:12
12 He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made.
Leviticus 18:22
22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Romans 1:32
32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:27
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Leviticus 18:22-24
22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
23 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.
Leviticus 20:13
13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Hebrews 13:1-5
1 Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters.
2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
3 Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.”
John 8:7-11
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Romans 1:26-28
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
Galatians 5:14
14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Jude 1:5-8
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.
Mark 10:6-9
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’
7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
1 Corinthians 7:2
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
Romans 13:8-10
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
1 Corinthians 6:17-20
17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
Romans 1:18-32
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Please don't just quote Bible verses. It is unhelpful unless you can also explain how they are relevant to the issue.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Ok without Bible verses, which is a Huge mistake because The Word is God, & God is The Word!.. But I’ll explain in layman’s terms! .. Homosexuality is Wrong because it’s UNNATURAL, when two men have sexual Inter coarse, the sperm when it’s ejaculated into another man’s anus it immediately looks for an egg to fertilize BUT it can’t find one because it’s NOT a female! Thus making it UNNATURAL! .. God made Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Steve! for a Reason!🔥🔥 .. if He did then NON of us would be here right NOW! .. There are MILLIONS of NDE’s ( Near, Death, Experience’s ) that speak on the subject of when their soul came out their bodies & went to Hell they ALL came back stating that ALL HOMOSEXUALS were in HELL!🔥🔥 .. They were ALL CHAINED TOGETHER as a PAIR in Two Lines in the Lake of Fire & Brimstone! SUFFERING & IN EXTREME TORMENT!, CRYING OUT TO THE LORD TO GIVE THEM ONE MORE CHANCE TO REPENT! THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR LIVES COMPLETELY IF THEY HAD A CHANCE TO RETURN TO THE EARTH ONE MORE & PREACH TO EVERYONE THEY CAN ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HELL & HOMOSEXUALITY!🔥🔥🔥 BUT THE LORD TELLS THEM WHO ARE IN HELL WITH TEARS IN HIS EYES THAT JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN SET BY GOD THE FATHER & THAT HE CAN’T DO ANYTHING FOR THEM BECAUSE HE GAVE ALL THEM EVERYDAY A CHANCE TO REPENT! & THEY NEVER DID!🔥🔥 SENDING MESSENGERS & PREACHERS THEIR WAY & THEY ALL REFUSED THE HAND OF GOD!🔥🔥 BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY REPENT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE BREATH IN YOUR LUNGS HERE ON EARTH!🔥🔥🔥🔥
Hi Wilamo. I didn't say not to use biblical verses, just to explain how they justify your argument or explain where you think I might have gone wrong. With that said, your argument that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is also true, of course, for any couple using contraception, or any couple where one of the couple is incapable of having children. It also, of course, does not apply to female same-sex couples.
You claim that there are 'millions' of near death experiences all supporting your viewpoint, all claiming that all homosexual people are in hell. Forgive me if I doubt the evidence for this. The documented examples (and there are few, not millions) of NDEs that involve hell do not mention homosexuality. See Cassol et al (2019) for a systematic review. If you have been told this, can I suggest that you have been misled.
@@BibleandHomosexuality ua-cam.com/video/I5gv-V9axtg/v-deo.html
Hi, the video you link to is not a near-death experience. And it is one woman's claimed 'visions'. This is not evidence of anything.
Romans 8:8
English Standard Version
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Living homosexuality is,living in the flesh
This is assertion not argument. It is the equivalent to saying 'this thing I don't like is sin; the Bible says that sins are wrong, therefore the Bible says that you shouldn't like this thing I don't like'. It is using the Bible rather than being formed by the Bible.
Living life for ur partner is living for flesh
I get needing to justify things... but this is intellectual gymnastics. To homosexuals that are trying to find a way around the Bible, if someone promises an easy way it probably isn't right. Read Corinthians for yourself and think on it. This video lecture is using very selective truths to spin a complete falsehood. Paul goes on to explain that he wishes everyone would be celibate. But, if the temptation of the flesh is too great then a man should take a woman and they should give themselves to each other to keep their urges and desires in check. He specifically addresses men who sleep with men in the context of this being sinful sexual desires and his answer to addressing sexual desires was for a man to take a woman to satisfy those urges. The context is clear, and this is extremely misleading. Celibacy, or hetero-marriage. I'm sorry, not trying to be a buzz kill. This is a bad case of someone doing research to prove the outcome they desire rather than researching to find the correct answer. Nothing about Christianity is easy. It is literally about sacrificing what you want to live a completely different life. I wish everyone would choose to hear the good news of the gospel. But, I also acknowledge that it is not palatable for everyone. But the most important thing to know is that we are called to love everyone, regardless of their way of life.
Hi Jason, thanks for your reply and for giving an argument based upon Paul and 1 Corinthians. However, I think you have misread the letter and Paul's concerns.
Paul says he wishes everyone should be celibate in the specific context of addressing concerns from the Corinthian church, in particular whether husbands and wives should avoid intercourse (probably because of a mistaken belief that intercourse would be sinful). He actually says husbands and wives should not abstain from intercourse except for short periods by mutual agreement. You are right that he also says that men and women should marry if their desires are too much. However, this leads directly to an argument for homosexuality. If the solution for straight people with desires is to marry, why isn't the solution for gay people with desires to marry? Otherwise you are leaving this group with no solution.
You also say that Paul specifically addresses men who sleep with men. This is not the case. Paul addresses men who sleep with males (note the difference), by which he probably means the common practice in the Roman world of heterosexual, married men practising pederasty. This is made even more likely by the criticism of this also being found in other early Christian literature, whereas both the concept and issue of homosexuality are not found in the earliest Christian literature, and it is rare in the literature generally. If you watch this video in conjunction with others, I cover this aspect of Roman culture in more detail.
I agree that Christianity is about self-sacrifice. However, often it appears that straight people are asking gay people to make sacrifices not required of straight people. Additionally, sacrifice itself is not a virtue if you are sacrificing (or asking others to sacrifice) the wrong thing.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly that we are called to love everyone, regardless.
@@BibleandHomosexuality No, I didn't misread. Again, you are practicing intellectual gymnastics to justify your desired outcome. Selectively cherry picking theological interpretations to win points. The theme of man and woman starts from beginning and persists to end. Finding some isolated translation to argue semantics does not refute the entirety of the message. Your interpretation is one of convenience because the alternative is a much harder choice... celibacy. And sure the letter was in the context of Corinthians, but the words are clear and the intent is clear... He would prefer everyone choose a life of celibacy and emphasized the importance of focusing on your relationship with God and not the flesh. That statement may have been made to the Corinthians, but it was a statement he intended for everyone to embrace. But, he went on to say that he understands it is a totally unreasonable preference and encouraged men to take wives and vice versa to satisfy urges of the flesh. Not a fun or popular message AT ALL.
This choice in no way considers your desire or enjoyment in this world. It isn't about having fun. In fact this way of life does everything possible to WARN YOU that you will suffer greatly if you pursue a life with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Think about your mental gymnastics while you attempt to use the Bible to justify sexual gratification of any kind... This isn't a popularity contest, don't lie to people to trick them to accept your faith and tell them how easy it is to adhere to it. Eventually they're going to learn the truth and blame the faith instead of the person that lied to them.
I'm not condemning anyone for anything to be clear. I'm just not comfortable with changing the faith to suit your lifestyle and then lie to yourself that its okay. Jesus surrounded himself with the worst of us. There's a reason for that. So I'm by no means saying you have to be "sin free" to be Christian... that is entirely contradictory to the whole point of Jesus. Sinners belong in church, I go because I need help with my sins and I need my church community to help me stay on the right track. I fail sometimes unfortunately and they bring me back in line. My sin is no better or worse than anyone else's. But if you start accepting sin and then change the meaning of the Bible's stories to erase those complicated places in the Bible that you don't want to deal with then... just accept the fact that you're not really practicing the faith. There are a lot of sins that would be really convenient for me to erase from the Bible and it would make my life easier. I could just start erasing things until I have no struggles left at all... how nice would that be.
Hi Jason, thanks for this reply. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I am arguing this way for convenience to make my life easier. I am not. As it happens, I am straight (and married). I am making this case because I believe it is right and just, and that for Christians to argue otherwise is to inflict needless cruelty on gay people. You may think I am mistaken (as I think you are), but please do not attribute that kind of motive to me. Being within the evangelical tradition, if I wanted to win popularity contests I would simply hold to the non-affirming view.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I apologize, it is a UA-cam comment/reply and I drifted between speaking generally and addressing you directly and that does cause confusion I will admit. I did not mean to imply you were justifying this for yourself, that was a generalization.
The generality is that people are seeking an easy and convenient truth that doesn't require they change their life to fit their belief.
The personal is that I do genuinely see you providing them that easy way out by cherry picking very specific interpretations because it is the outcome you desire for them. Why? I cannot answer that. Maybe a valid speculation is that you genuinely care! I want to be clear that I fully acknowledge you are likely seeking the desired outcome because you care for people. But, it is still intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps you're not so much lying to "them", rather you are lying to yourself for them. And so you did your research seeking an outcome and you believe you've found it. Classic case of a desired outcome resulting in agreeable evidence and then we call it "research".
I said it before I'll say it again, this is too complex of a discussion to have in UA-cam reply format. If people are interested in the truth there is a ton of apologetics discussions around this topic. I won't refer anyone to any of them because I don't want there to be an unintended negative interpretation of what I'm attempting to explain and then a viewer project that negativity onto the apologist. If I'm being negatively received then let's just keep that negativity focused on me alone where it belongs. A quick search on UA-cam can easily uncover a wealth of information from fantastic theological scholars.
Christianity has time and time again rejected the premise that homosexuality is acceptable. There are factions, typically known as "New Age" that claim the Christianity name that attempt to amend this. But if you have to do intellectual gymnastics to justify your desired outcome... chances are you're lying to yourself. And that is exactly what New Age Christianity is doing. No intended malice, just a desire to find the answer they prefer because the real answer didn't sit well.
I wish the best for everyone. Sorry to piss people off.
This Channel Help Me thx
Thanks for the encouraging feedback, Rollo. Glad it helped.
Jude 1:7 stop deceiving people cause the wrath of God will come up against you the bible say if anyone teach anything other than what the apostles teaches u will be in serious trouble. 2 thessalonians 2 :3 say the falling away from the truth must come first before the end come and we are in that season .1 Corinthians 6:9 . jude 1:7.im not here to condemn any one cause condemnation belongs to God but I'm here to share the truth .if we love him we keep his commandments .sometime we might be stuck in the ways we love and what makes us feel good but if we love God we will flee from temptation and give up the things in the world.God loves us all and he will deliver us from our prison but first we have to give up our wrong doing .
Hi Shanice. I appreciate your concern for others. But you haven't engaged with the video at all. You are accusing me of going against apostolic teaching, but don't point out where the flaws are in the video. Simply quoting bible verses isn't an argument. You are convinced that your interpretation of scripture is the right one - fine. But try to convince me. Because I think that your interpretation of scripture is wrong.
@@BibleandHomosexualitymy brother show me a verse in the Bible where homosexuality is applauded.
The Bible only ever talks about marriage in the context of husband and wife. We should follow God's law, not try to twist it to go legitimise our desire to satiate personal lusts.
Yes, we should not twist what God said to legitimise our desires, which can include ...
disdain for people because they're different to us
self-righteously "thanking God we're not like that tax collector"
sense of power over a vulnerable minority
fear of losing face or even power if our pet belief has been proved wrong
The Bible "only ever talking about ..." is circumstantial and fallacious. There may have been other reasons why it never mentions same-secs relationships. Just because God approves of men marrying women doesn't mean he disapproves of men marrying men.
The bible is not gods word but man made. God has nothing to do with the insanity of all organized religions.
Homosexuality is unnatural and outside of Gods design,scripture is obvious about that
Hi, it is disappointing that you just make an assertion without presenting any evidence or engaging with the biblical texts.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Lev 18:22
@@BibleandHomosexuality go read romans 1, it speaks vividly about it as being i unatural
Hi, I have videos on Leviticus and Romans. Feel free to check them out.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I’m not asking, I’m letting you know you are in error and hopefully some people that are struggling with this reads this and does not fall for you deceptive teachings
Hi, I appreciate your well-researched video as a conservative Christian I disagree and I believe you're misrepresenting scriptures and I have a lot of questions for you. I'll start with a few though.
1. Obviously you don't believe homosexuality is a sin. But do you believe that it is the plan of God for males and females, why is heterosexuality in the confines of marriage glorified everywhere in the scripture. Can you please just give me a specific verse where God, Jesus, The holy spirit, and The prophets glorified same-sex relationships the same way heterosexuality is glorified just one?
2. Are you saying that in Sodom and Gomorrah the only same-sex activity that was happening was only to male pedophiles and prostitutes. The Angels that came were in the form of men and the two men who wanted to have carnal knowledge(sex) with them were definitely between adults and not kids. Yes, there were other sins in the cities going on but homosexuality was part of it and it doesn't just make sense for it is limited to pedophilia or prostitution or rape.
3. Obviously the Bible is not an English book. And the word homosexuality wasn't added till 1946 in the RSV I think. Verses before that said sodomites which means anal and oral sex and please don't tell me it actually meant sex in the temple or some other nonsense because that's a blatant misrepresentation of scriptures and blasphemy. This makes sense because men don't have vaginas and paul called this unnatural. Like you said effeminate also means taking the position of the woman(the one being penetrated). And yes some translations called these boy molesters and male prostitutes but again the bible wasn't written in English so let's focus on the action and context rather than words. Paul made no reference to anything exploitative or to pederasty was talking about the unnatural desire between male and male. And yes pederasty was widespread back then but that doesn't mean man-to-man consensual sex wasn't happening. So my question is, what is the definitive thing that limits the passages in Leviticus and 1 cor to only pederasty, pedophilia, rape, and other things you said but not man-to-man consensual sex. Unless you're speaking on behalf of paul.
4. So every passage concerning same-sex relationship are the only books that have been mistranslated because the translators were homophobic fanatics right? God, Jesus, and Paul all condemned sexual immorality and espoused heterosexual marriage. God be fruitful and multiply, Jesus Matt 19:4-5(Unless they mistranslated that verse too), Paul let every man have his own wife, and many more verses. If they condemned the sinful approach to sex and marriage and espoused heterosexual marriage why didn't they do the same for consensual homosexuality between adults and espouse it? And why didn't God and Paul explicitly say pederasty, prostitution, or any of the things you said are the actual meaning of the verses in Leviticus and 1 Corinthians. I think it encompasses every form of male-to-male homosexual activities. Whether sex in pagan temples, pederasty, or consensual homosexuality between adults.
5. I have a lot more questions but this is getting too long and I just came across this video. I'll need to do extensive research and present my arguments to you again. But these are just the ones that came to my mind. Anyway my final question for now. Did prostitution back then mean someone who trades sex for money or someone who has casual sex a lot? Either way won't it be consensual? the greek word in question means male bed. And I feel the holy spirit is telling me now that paul coined this word to condemn all forms of homosexuality. I mean surely there are greek words for pederasty and pedophiles and prostitution why make a new word except to prohibit homosexuality in all its form. Please stop the lies and deceit. Remember what Jesus said about people misleading people Matt 18:6-7. I await your response that will be based on your subjective feelings. God bless you.
By the way, I sound aggressive because it's sad when I see older people who are supposed to lead the younger ones to the truth are the ones lying and leading people away from God. I don't know you sir but I'm highly disappointed.
Gen 19 is an incident of attempted raip. It does not specify the specific sins that led to their destruction, nor does it make any categorical statement about all instances of secs between males.
Lev 18/20 is difficult to translate but says that some kind of behaviour that we would classify as homoxesual today was against their religion. It does not say it was a sin, and Mosaic law no longer applies anyway. If you want moral guidance based on Leviticus, Rom 13.8-10 and 1 Pet 1.14-16 are your best guide. And Rom 13 teaches against your interpretation.
Rom 1 says that male idolaters did something "unseemly" with each other. It says it was shameful to their own culture, but does not say it was a sin. Nor does it make any categorical statement about all instances of secs between males. Some translation inaccuracies are common that make it sound more like modern Christian stereotype of gay behaviour instead of 1st cent Jewish stereotype of Roman behaviour.
1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1 use words whose meaning is ambiguous ("soft") or unknown ("male-bedder"). The context is obviously about deliberate, hurtful behaviour. What make me "highly disappointed" is the irresponsibility of using something so unclear to form policies that harm people who are doing nothing to hurt anyone, and this commonly by "older people who are supposed to lead the younger ones", disobeying many scriptures in the process (Mat 7.16, 18.6, 23.3, Mark 7.8, James 1.19 come to mind).
As you can see, there is nothing in the Bible against committed loving relationships between two men. And of course it says nothing against two women. They are clearly against raip, violating cultural taboo, idolatry and indecency, and secs abbuse.
That the Bible only speaks of marriage between man and woman - or more accurately one or more women with the occasional concubine - is circumstantial. There were cultural reasons that made marriage between two men or two women problematic, not theological ones. The Bible nowhere says that a man must not marry a man, or that a man must only marry a woman. On the contrary, the same reasons for marriage presented in Gen 2 apply seamlessly to same-secs marriage with no contradiction to the text.
@@MusicalRaichu 1. Jude 1:7 tells us the real reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were burnt. No matter how hard you try to twist scriptures to fit your agenda. The Bible clearly tells us why it was burnt. Sexual immorality and going after unnatural desires. And no way you could limit it to only rape and not consensual sex between same-sex couples because it was never the will of God and it is therefore unnatural.
2. No it's not you heretics are the ones making it difficult. Male to Male sex is condemned. Whether it be rape, prostitution, or consensual. Yes, mosaic law no longer applies but moral laws still do from the new testament, and guess what same sex is a sin. From the verses, you told me to read the main theme I noticed is love your neighbor. I love my neighbor which is why I won't lie and twist scriptures to justify my sins and agenda. read Deut4:2.
3. So what do you think unnatural relations mean in Romans 1. Paul talked about idolaters and homosexuals separately and said they will not enter the kingdom of God. Yes, mistranslation has caused confusion. But if you look at the direct greek translation it shows paul was talking about the act of male-to-male sexual activity. So homosexuals is a good translation.
4. I was expecting this, Just because you're "highly disappointed" doesn't mean you're right. You have no idea how insanely infuriating it is to see people like you misrepresent such easy and common-sense passages to fit your perverted sexual agenda. Read the entire Bible and tell me how you see God endorse homosexuality. Of all the passages in the Bible, only a few talking about homosexuality are wrong even though if we translate it directly from greek it will say male-to-male sex is a sin. Again the Bible verses you brought up are not relevant.
5. If the Bible isn't against loving same-sex relationships why did God or any biblical characters not espouse it the same way as heterosexuality. The verses talking about same-sex activities never mentioned anything relating to rape, taboo, idolatry, etc. It just said male-to-male sex is an abomination. And guess what male prostitutes, male pedophiles, etc are still homosexuals because IT IS STILL MALE TO MALE!!!. It is ignorant to think consensual same-sex couples are excluded don't be naive.
6. Yes I'm aware polygamy is not a sin mentioned in the bible. But I still think it's immoral(topic for another day). Gen 2 literally said a man shall cleave unto his WIFE and become one flesh are you high or drunk? This is a blatant misrepresentation of the holy book and quite frankly blasphemy. You still have not answered the questions I asked in my previous comments. This is a desperate attempt from you fake Christians. This is disgusting. God help us all.
@@MusicalRaichu The way paul used malakoi and arsenokoitai clearly tells us he is referring to sodomy(Non-heterosexual penetrative sex). An effeminate man in this context is a man taking the role of a woman in the bed(the one to be penetrated). arsenokoitai literally means male-bedder and bedder is just a euphemism for gay sex. Yes, gay rape and gay pedophilia were common back then. But guess what so was consensual gay sex and they all fall under the same category of sin paul prohibited. But a look at a direct greek translation shows us it means male-to-male sex. Where you idiots got pedophiles, rapists, etc. from. In the passage, I have no idea. I guess we all speaking on behalf of Paul.
@@hakeemfrancis1099 Jude was written in the 1st cent when the idea that those towns engaged in secs immorality started becoming prevalent. The old testament makes no such suggestion. Jude might not be referring to Gen 19 but to a contemporary text. The Greek word he used indicates that it cannot possibly mean males with males. In context it's about humans with angels.
Mosaic law has been annulled and is not the best guide to morality, otherwise we'd be treating women like property, executing wayward children and enslaiving the bankrupt. It makes no mention of lying with "the same secs". Do not confuse "men lying with men" with "people lying with the same secs" - the latter is an category artificially invented in modern times that never appears in the Bible. And the prohibition is ceremonial anyway.
Investigate Paul's use of the word "nature". It carries no moral significance. "Unnatural" in Rom 1 means not what you'd expect someone to do: "you'd expect males to have secs with females but here are these male idolaters having secs with one another". It was consensual and a cultural issue, not a moral one. It does not say it was a sin and makes no categorical statement about all same-secs acts.
"Soft ones" had a range of usages. Since the context does not indicate which was intended, how can you insist on one particular usage? The meaning of male-bedder is unknown. The limitations we have is secs behaviour involving at least one male that is hurtful ("unrighteous"), deliberate ("not inherit the kingdom") and within one's capacity to change ("such were some of you"). No one can change their secs orientation or remove their need for intimate relationship. Gay people can be in loving relationships hurting no one and even be faithful believers. To expand it to include women who like women is ludicrous. Conjecture all you like, doesn't change anything. Modern Greek translations (I presume that's what you're referring to) are all just as much interpretations as modern English ones.
Gen 2 explains the reasons for marriage and contains not a single word against same-secs marriage. Just because the Bible affirms a man marrying a woman does not mean God disapproves of a man marrying a man - that's illogical! On the contrary, if he experiences the same needs for companionship, mutual support, familial relationship and personal intimacy, if he meets the same condition of recognizing a man as a suitable, as one like him, then by the same reasoning as scripture he should marry the man.
The Bible does not mention same-secs relationships for various reasons:
- Under patriarchy, marriage was understood as a submissive female under the control of a dominant male. Two women/men in marriage made no cultural sense in that era.
- A man taking a woman's role was also problematic because he would be acting like an inferior which made it highly problematic with legal implications in Roman law.
- They did understand secs orientation as well as we do today, so they didn't know that some people need a relationship with the same secs the way most people need a relationship with the opposite secs.
To say that texts that are EXPLICITLY about attempted raip (Gen 19), a religious taboo (Lev), indecent behaviour by idolaters (Rom) and deliberate hurtful acts (1 Cor, 1 Tim) should also gratuitously be used to condemn people who only want to love and be loved in the only way God has granted them is highly irresponsible and misuse of scripture. Even if, hypothetically speaking, scripture had a command against it, what did Jesus teach about a conflict between obeying the Bible and loving our neighbour?
I find your language about "my agenda" unacceptable. I have no vested interest in this issue. My "agenda" is to promote our Lord's command to love one another. The false teaching you promote has done nothing but harm and therefore disobeys Christ. There are research papers documenting the damage we've done and how the secular world has had to pick up the pieces. It's gradually coming to an end anyway whether you like it or not but there are still hangers on like you. Often they have vested interests. I've come across some (not you (so far)) have even resorted to deceit to maintain the status quo.
Calling someone a fake Christian because of one disputed point of difference about something that harms no one is precisely what Paul is talking about in Rom 14: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand." It's one thing if you have a legitimate concern and disagree, altogether another to use disrespectful language and hurl judgemental accusations.
Plus Paul made up like 180 words never that never existed before and never defined them