The Bible’s standard regarding homosexual acts is clear. God’s Word says: “You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman.”-Leviticus 18:22. “Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.”-1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 The Bible teaches that sex should be engaged in only by a male and a female who are married to each other.-Genesis 1:27, 28; Proverbs 5:18, 19. Although the Bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not encourage prejudice, hate crimes, or any other kind of mistreatment of homosexuals.-Romans 12:18. That is what true Christians believe, and they have a right to it. At the same time, God's Witnessess strive to “pursue peace with all people.” (Hebrews 12:14) While they reject homosexual acts, his people do not force their view on others, nor do they participate in homophobic hate crimes or rejoice when they hear of them. Christians strive to follow the Golden Rule by treating others the way they themselves would like to be treated although they do not agree with homosexuality.-Matthew 7:12 Thank you 🫂💙
Hi Kimberley, thank you for engaging. I gladly agree that we should pursue peace with all people, and that hate crimes or any kind of mistreatment of others is wrong, alongside prejudice. However, I disagree with you that the Bible's standard is 'clear'. You mention Leviticus; I have a video that covers this verse here: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html and one covering 1 Corinthians here: studio.ua-cam.com/users/videoZFCKWJ7uk2o/ I also have videos covering some of the other verses usually brought up in this debate (including Genesis). I hope you find them helpful.
The Bible explicitly condemns a man laying with another man. God understands the long term implications of normalizing such an act. No longer can there be an emphasis on family, or child-rearing, because that would be offensive to gay couples. Birth rates drop, sexual disease increases, following one’s desires and lusts becomes applauded, society as a whole gets weaker. And that is the point. As a thought experiment imagine in some future year, the gay population rate and heterosexual population rate flipped, meaning 90-some % of people were gay and only a small minority straight, humanity would cease to exist. There are no two ways about it. The family unit is the most important aspect of any society. God’s commands are not random. It is not about me as a straight male thinking gay men are worse than me. Not at all. I know we are equal in the eyes of the Lord because even the best of my deeds are done with sin-stained hands. It is about perpetuating Truth and helping others find it, allowing them to avoid lifestyles embedded in sin which keep them from the Lord.
Hi Christian, with the best will in the world, your comment comes over as scare-mongering. Gay couples do not find it offensive when straight couples marry, or raise kids; they just want to be able to do that themselves. I don't know why you call it following desires and lusts - you wouldn't use this language for straight couples wishing to marry. Your thought experiment is bizarre. Why on earth would 90% of people be gay? You could make exactly the same statement about celibacy - does that make celibacy bad? You say that you know we are all equal, but you are using language like 'lust' for gay people that you are not using for straight people.
@@BibleandHomosexuality the Bible clearly outlines what constitutes morally good sex. It is between a man and his wife. Gay sex, pre-marital sex, adultery, non-consensual sex etc. all fall under the category of immoral sex because it does not follow God’s clear commands. I say the same thing for straight people who are embedded in lifestyles of sin. I see no difference between gay sex and pre-marital sex. Many in modern culture do not adhere to God’s commands but that does not change God’s commands. To be clear, I WOULD call straight sex which is outside of monogamous marriage lustful. I do not personally find it offensive when gay people are together, it does not affect me directly. However, the same way I would advise a friend not to jump off of a bridge because of the associated dangers, when the topic comes up I do not hesitate to speak the truth on God’s expectations. God sees gay sex as a lustful act. You say my thought experiment is bizarre, but why is that? What is preventing 90% of people from being gay? Is being gay only okay if it’s exclusive and in small numbers? In a future society which is “more fair” by your standards, which allows and advocates for gay rights, what is preventing a majority of people from being gay? People born between 1980-1999 show rates of homosexuality over 5-times greater than those born between 1913-1945 (8.1% vs 1.4%). Is it completely ridiculous to extrapolate a pattern we already see? I do not think so. Even if that number were 50%, we would not have nearly the population production needed to fill jobs and maintain our modern society. With this as an example we can begin to see the rationale behind straight couples being more beneficial for society, and perhaps why we are not supposed to see gay sex as equal to straight sex (within the confines of marriage). As for celibacy, Jesus says he wishes all could live such a lifestyle so as to commit their full lives to the Lord. It takes a lot of time and effort to maintain a relationship, and if that time is spent instead on spreading God’s word, that makes God happy. Every person has an innate desire for procreation, if we choose to act on it instead of maintaining celibacy then there are certain ways which God says we are supposed to express that desire. God has rules and they are clearly outlined. The point of my original comment was to share a perspective which may provide reasoning for those rules which you and others may not have considered. Our human understandings of morality pale in comparison to God’s, we must not bend the word of God to fit our own desires but rather seek to understand the Truth in God’s word.
Hi Christian, Thank you for your response. I shall try to deal briefly with your points. First of all, I disagree with you about how clear the Bible is about morally good sex. For example, the Bible does not explicitly condemn intercourse between unmarried consenting adults. And the Old Testament not only allows for polygamy, in some situations it demands it (Levirite marriage). And the Bible does say that intercourse during menstruation is an abomination, which we now ignore. Secondly, I disagree that intercourse within a committed, faithful marriage is sinful, whether gay or straight. Thirdly, the reason that it is unlikely that 90% of the population will be gay is that it is not a choice but something that forms before birth. There seems to be a 'natural' rate of around 2% in males. The rise above that is mainly owing to a larger number identifying as bisexual. Thirdly, the reason for the rise is (almost certainly) the fact that it is now easier (still not easy) to come out than in the past. If you look on Google, you can find a similar shape graph for people who identify as left-handed (2% in the nineteenth century, when there was often punishment for trying to use your left hand, compared to 10-12% now). Fourthly, your argument seems to assume that procreation is the only reason for intercourse. But that is not the case. You also say 'God has rules and they are clearly outlined'. But they are not. God has given us one clear rule: love one another. I do not consider it loving to prevent two people who are committed to each other and who love each other to marry. Thanks once again for your response.
@@BibleandHomosexuality 1/2 I appreciate your response. I think a key distinction between your argument and mine is that yours centers around human definitions of morality, while mine is rooted in the words of the Bible. I know you will disagree with this statement, but I will explain why I believe this to be the case. As an initial indicator I will point to your final paragraph when you say “I do not consider it loving..”. My argument is that it is not your consideration which defines what is moral and good, but the word of God, and the word of God alone. What you consider never supersedes what God considers. I will address your refutations one at a time. Your first refutation is that you do not believe the Bible is explicit about what constitutes morally good sex. I would ask you to refer to Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Or Romans 1:26-28 “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done”. Leviticus 20:13, Jude 1:7, and Mark 10:6-9, among others, confirm this same sentiment. One has to manipulate the text tremendously in order to view it as approving homosexual relationships. As for your point on polygamy, let us not confound two separate practices. Polygamy has to do with how many wives one can morally take. If God says it is okay to take multiple wives, then it is okay, despite what is “common” today, and since moral sex is defined as that which is enacted between a man and his wife, sex within the confines of those marriages would be considered moral. We could get into how polygamy was necessary during certain periods in history and why we don’t see it in modern society, but that is besides the point. Regardless if God allows multiple wives, his command on sex remains unchanged: moral sex is that which is enacted between a man and his wife. I am curious why you refer to the modern commonality of practices as the ultimate informer of their morality. It is common to have sex during menstruation today so therefor God was wrong when he said it is an abomination? Why does it make it okay? Using The Lord’s name in vain is also rampant in modern society, so God made a mistake with that command? That is a backwards argument. The commonality of a practice does not inform whether or not it is moral. In your second point you say you disagree that sex within a committed marriage is sinful. I never said sex within marriage is sinful, I have said this is the only type of morally good sex. We as humans, however, do not get to re-define the term “marriage” so that our perversions fall into it. God already took the liberty of defining clearly what constitutes marriage. It is the holy union between a man and a woman. Do we think God cares more about the man-made redefinition of marriage, or the definition which he created and gave to us? If in some future year we change the legal definition of marriage to include that between men and animals, do we then cross-out more of the Bible and say God must have been wrong when he said sex with animals is an abomination? The point here is human definitions, preferences, and common practices change, and are fallible, but God’s word does not and is not. As Christians we understand God’s word is superior to man’s. The hope is that man’s law reflects God’s law in its entirety, we should aim to bring heaven to earth, however in the case of contradiction between man’s law and God’s we understand by default God’s authority supersedes man’s. Your third argument revolves around the nature of gay people. You say that being gay is not a choice but something that forms before birth. How do you know this? You do not know this. Neither of us can prove sexual identity is innate at birth or develops as we grow. I can’t say I understand why that would matter, but the fact remains you cannot make that claim with any certainty. What we do know is that rates have steadily increased over time. Appealing to historical rates of 2% and stating that that is the “natural rate” is unfounded. Even if it is granted that this is the natural rate, we have clear evidence that show rates can and do stray wildly from the “natural rate” at times, for whatever reasons. With this in mind, my hypothetical scenario of a society with 50% or 90% gay population cannot be dismissed as ridiculous or impossible. In fact, gen Z adults today identify as LGBTQ at a rate of 19.7%. How do we reconcile this fact with the 2% “natural rate” theory. Why do we see over 10x growth in less than 100 years? Even if it were strictly a matter of genetics, and external factors had zero impact on ones propensity to be attracted to the same sex, the argument cannot be made that propensity overrules the commands of God. Certain people are predisposed to alcoholism, does that mean we do away with the idea that alcoholism is detrimental to those people? Of course not. The truth is that alcoholism is a lifestyle which binds people from living up to their potential, and regardless how strong their cravings or desires, that fact will remain true. Regardless how many alcoholics there are in the world, that fact will remain true. Regardless how the alcoholic re-defines the phrase “living up to ones potential” so that his alcoholism fits within it, the fact remains true. It does not matter if people are born gay, or what number of them exist in society, God says in receiving the Holy Spirit we are born-again, and will be given new hearts which are in line with the word of God. Did God now also lie when He promised us this? We all have a deep proclivity to sin, gay people are not special in that regard. I think you support my point instead of your own when you reference the left-handedness graph. You use it to say rates of homosexuality are increasing because society is more accepting of it now. You say “It is now easier (still not easy) to come out than in the past”. So then in 100 years when society is more right and just, by your standards, and it is extremely easy to come out, what will happen to rates of homosexuality? They will revert to the “natural rate” of 2%? Of course not. If rates are 19.7% for the current young generation and it is “still hard to come out”, can you still say honestly that my hypothetical proposition of 50% or 90% is ridiculous? Obviously not. If rates of homosexuality are directly related to the “ease of coming out”, or in other terms, the “Godlessness of the society”, then how can we say there is any “natural rate” at all. You prove my point rather than your own in saying rates are correlated to social norms.
Hi Jeffrey, thanks for your comment, but it's a bit vague. Could you be more specific? It might be that something you think I have omitted I've covered in one of my other videos.
I’m no expert so this is what Other you tube commentators such as Voddie Baucham a very learned and articulate pastor point to Matthew 5 and 19 for starters.
Hi Stephen. You can blame me for many things, but I don't think I am responsible for the Church of England being confused and in a mess - I only wish I had the type of influence you attribute to me.
@@BibleandHomosexuality The bible CLEARLY condemns homosexuality. Man shalt not lie down with Man. It's in the old and new testament. There's no room or misintrepation around it. Men were clearly not designed to have sex with other men. It's beyond crazy that the church is even debating this topic.
Just started your video and i love it. I've subscribed and added a lot of your videos to my watch later playlist so i can watch them all slowly. This video is very logical in regards to context. The first example that comes to mind is divorce. IIRC Jesus condemns divorce, period, stating that Moses only allowed it because their hearts were hard. But in modern society I don't think anyone would refuse a divorce for a woman who is being abused by her husband, for example.
I’ve seen a lot of heresy in my life, from oneness/modalism, to dispensationalism, to the Bible supporting evolution. But now this new claim of “the Bible not condemning homosexuality.” This claim is built on faulty logic throughout the video, this is just some of it that I’ve noticed. 0:45 Money lending being condemned by the Bible? The verse I think you were talking about (I could be wrong) is Exodus 22:25 “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” The Bible says it’s okay to lend money, but it’s NOT okay to charge usury (interest on debt). Which leads me to my second point... 1:30 money lending=usury? You seemed to have confused the 2, but they are not the same. Once again in the verse, it’s okay to lend them money, but it’s NOT okay to charge usury. If they were the same thing, why is God allowing one but condemning the other? (The same thing is said in Ezekiel 18:17) 2:20 Authority of the Bible vs Interpretation: The Bible says in 1 Cor 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” God wants us to understand his word, and he makes it easy for us. But don’t get it wrong, some things require a bit more reading and understanding to get, such as prophecy and parables, but over, it’s easy to get. The Bible is the word of God, it is the Authority. And for the most part, it’s easy to interpret, it’s more like people don’t like what it says, so they make it say something else. 2:50 Usury and money lending. You seem to have a habit of mixing up the 2. Like someone who mixes tribulation and wrath and fall into the pre tribulation rapture, but they are distinct (different). Otherwise it would make no sense to allow one, and condemn the other. 3:40 the logic? Items X and Y (whatever they may be) may be related, but they are distinct. For example, the Bible does not support smoking, but what lights up a cigarette? A lighter. So I could say, “well because a cigarette is bad, and you need a lighter to start a cigarette, the lighter is also bad” that logic is just nonsense. Why don’t you read Romans 1. From 1:20-32 and get the context (and no it’s not about idolatry) people who tell me that have red the first 3 verses and come to that conclusion, but reading the whole thing, you will see what it’s true context is. And I’ve noticed something to, someone posted me this link, but I’ve seen it before, specifically from atheist, no believers and people of other faith trying to “prove to me” the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I find it odd that you are supported by the non believing world. It makes me want to think of the verse Luke 6:26 when the Bible says “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” Really something to think about.
Hi Ernesto, thank you for your detailed comments. I appear to have led you to misunderstand the point made in the video. When I refer to money-lending in the video, I am using it as a shorthand for money-lending including interest (this would include any type of loan including any amount of interest, including mortgages, or having an interest-bearing saving account). You have taken it to mean money-lending without any interest being paid at all. Sorry for confusion here. But all types of lending with any amount of interest were seen as universally wrong by the Church up until the time of Calvin. We (the Church broadly) now allows lending money including interest, so long as the interest is not high and oppressive. I hope this clarifies the point I was making. Secondly, I have an entire video which covers Romans 1; you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html Finally, I am supported by many Christians. But this is immaterial in any case: what matters is whether the argument is true or not. You can be right and the world be against you, but you can also be wrong and the world be against you. Thanks again for engaging.
"Usury" means lending money at EXORBIANT interest. It's not just lending money for a profit, it's EXCESSIVE profits. There's nothing wrong with lending money for a small profit and it isn't condemned at all. In fact Jesus talks about the story of a man given a gold talent who could've put it in a bank to make interest off of it, instead of burying it. Banks would fail if they didn't lend money at interest. It's when they overcharge for interest that it becomes usury. On the other points I agree with you.
Tell me, how do you suppose of going around these written word’s of truth that are fixed in its meaning’s and cemented in clarity. Genesis 19:1-11 Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 Judges 19:16-24 1 Kings 14:24 1 Kings 15:12 2 Kings 23:7 Romans 1:18-32 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Jude 7 Please Indulge me..
Hi Antonio, I suggest you have a look at the rest of the channel. There you will find: videos on Genesis 19 & Judges 19 (both examples of gang rape) ua-cam.com/video/ZG2Ic-45tyE/v-deo.html And on Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html And on Romans 1:18-32: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html And on 1 Cor. 6:9-11 & 1 Tim 1:8-10: ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html The references in 1 & 2 Kings are to male temple prostitutes. This actually makes one of the points for me in explaining some of the context for the Leviticus verses. They certainly aren't applicable to faithful loving relationships (I am assuming that you would agree that female temple prostitutes would also be condemned?). The reference to Jude 7 is not covered in the videos, but I do cover it in the linked website. You can find it near the end of this post: www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/what-has-sodom-got-to-do-with-homosexuality/ Hope you find this helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality You contradicting yourself, if they weren’t applicable as you say then, Scripture wouldn’t say, that no man shall lay down with another man for it is against GOD and is a sinful act. Your trying to fit positivity into negativity for loving relationships. I’ll pray for you, may the Holy Spirit open your eyes and give you understanding of GODS word.
1 Corinthians 6:9,1 Timothy 1:10: 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[a]. Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
This video is superb. It makes a strong case for the acceptance of homosexual unions by Christians without compromising on a high view of Scripture. Great food for thought.
Made the mistake of looking at the comments section. All the anti-lgbt people judging and forcing their opinion on the lgbt community (of which i am apart of, being a gay woman) is precisely why all I do nowadays is watch sermons on youtube. I've tried telling these types of people my opinion on the christianity reddit but it goes nowhere and only gets me hurt emotionally. The law is built on justice, mercy, and love, we are commanded to love god and love others, and love does no harm. Our words and actions in how we treat others and the theology we teach others should produce good fruit. That's what I've learned these past few weeks from the bible with help from other lgbt and lgbt-ally christians and that's all i believe there is to it. Without even getting into the argument about the context of the verses they quote at us as weapons. But will they ever understand or be willing to try to listen? No. Its disheartening and it affects my walk with God.
Hi Ashley, I hope you manage to find a fully inclusive, LGBT affirming church one day. I'm sure you know this, but if you find the arguments affecting your walk with God you are under no obligation to enter into them with others.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply! All I meant was that seeing the comments is disheartening, even without responding.
Hi Stephen, I'm unclear exactly what you mean by 'using one argument to cancel out another'. I was showing that the way that the Church has dealt with issues is to see how similar the situation we are dealing with is to the situation in the Bible, as Calvin did with the issue of debt. So the next task is therefore to see if the Bible is covering the same issue that we are considering (faithful, loving, same-sex relationships). I then go on to 'deal with the texts' in my other videos. I also checked out one video by James White, where he argued strongly for scriptural authority and the need for holiness. You will be delighted to know that I have no argument with him over this. However, I consider his interpretation of scripture on this issue to be wrong. The authority of scripture is not the same as the authority of his (or, for that matter, mine or yours) interpretation of scripture.
There’s one question that stumps me, if Leviticus condemns being gay why does Lev 18:22 and 20:13 address men but Lev 18:23 address both men and women, I’ve never heard it given a serious answer.
As a bisexual woman who believes in the Lord, those arguing against you are a good example of why I haven't engaged in the church community. I'm sure there are specific quotes from the Bible about he who without sin casting the first stone, but it is so disheartening to be turned away for being different. And then we wonder why in America Christianity continues to drop drastically
Hi Chelsea, I'm really sorry to hear about your poor experience. I am not in America, so my context is different, but I hope you manage to find a Christian church where you can truly belong.
"(1) Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true fath; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. (2) These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead. (3) They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth. (4) Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. (5) For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer." - 1 Timothy 4 verses 1-4 And such people in the church community conveniently ignore this passage. I guess the doctrine of man feels "holier" than God's for them.
@@OmegaF77 I literally teared up not only hearing the good news but also your comment. I am always humbled by those who spread the love and not the hate
@@chels1991g Thanks Chelsea. God Bless. If you allow me, I found more from the guidance of the Holy Spirit: 1 Corinthians 6:12 ""Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything." Following Jesus in Matthew 11:28-30 even said, "28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”" The Church dethroned God's word and replaced it with man's doctrine, which if you can believe once stated that undressing your wife was a sin, and having sex with her during the day is a sin.
@@chels1991g So don't mind what I call "faith jockeys", since they believe by abstaining from things it makes them holier than us. When the fact is, we are made right with God from the blood of Yeshua (Jesus Christ). Sadly, many modern day Christians failed to know that they're freer than they think.
I think you have a good point. It's like if saying did the Bible condemn all tattoos as well within context. The only critique would be how homosexuality is dealt with in a modern setting , especially in light of activism which is often sinful and promotes sinful attitudes toward God.
“A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” Genesis 2:24 Just as rules in baseball give us the freedom to play baseball so too do the rules of life give us the free will to follow God’s plan. The statement Christ gave us about marriage is so certain that He never needed to say, “a man may marry a man” or “a man may never marry a man” because the role of marriage is to supplement the community and continue the legacy of mankind. Gay marriage is not a marriage at all as it does not add anything to society and produces nothing but satisfaction of the flesh.
I am sorry you feel that all childless couples don't add to society and produce nothing but 'satisfaction of the flesh'. I am also sorry if you think the only purpose of marriage is to supply children. That isn't a very biblical view (in Genesis, the primary purpose is companionship). If you want to find out more, I have videos both on the gospels and on Genesis.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I never said childless couples don’t add anything to society; I said the role of marriage is to supplement the community and continue the legacy of mankind. That doesn’t mean couples have to have children, for not all couples can have children (my wife and I are such examples). Instead we live out our lives in ways that glorify God, foster care among them. I also never said the “only purpose” of marriage is to supply children. I said it is a role. The purpose is as Christ describes; when a man and a woman become one flesh. What comes from that is the ability to “be fruitful and multiply” and of course to glorify His name over generations. “I’m sorry” you didn’t understand that.
If childless heterosexual couples don't have to have children but can live out their lives in ways that glorify God, why can't gay couples (as indeed many gay couples do). I don't see the difference in terms of being fruitful and multiplying between gay and straight childless couples.
@@BibleandHomosexuality on the subject of marriage, what do two gay partners do to glorify god? Marriage is for a man and a woman to become one flesh, thereby creating a family covenant with God. How does a man who is sexually active with another man glorify God? What covenant are they establishing with Him? And why would they need the oaths of marriage to bind them together if their sexual activity is their only “necessity” for it? And if it’s not their sexual attraction that brings them together then why is marriage even needed at all? Friendships are made of more powerful bonds than a sexless contract between same sex people. There are simply so many blatant holes in the idea of gay “marriage” that even a Christian fundamentalist can deduce its irrelevancy. Does that mean we need to look the other way and exile gays? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t make same sex “marriage” a marriage either.
Hi Jack, I am bemused by your response. Two people can pledge oaths to each other of faithfulness, and then live out their lives in a way that glorifies God and fosters care. I am not sure how it makes a difference if the people are a man and a woman, two men, or two women. It is surely a life of mutual love that overflows to others that glorifies God, and I fail to see how gender affects the ability to do this.
The bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality: 1 Corinthians 6:9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor arsenokoitai 1 Timothy 1:9-10 having known this, that for a righteous man law is not set, but for lawless and insubordinate persons, ungodly and sinners, impious and profane, parricides and matricides, men-slayers, whoremongers, arsenokoitai, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse Leviticus 18:22 And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is. Leviticus 20:13 And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them. Romans 1:27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving. Arseno(Male)+Koitai(Bed) "Koitai implies Lying down hence reference to Leviticus" -Koitai is the origin of the modern term coitus meaning sexual intercourse Some ask "why didn't Shaul use any of the already existing words rather then make up a word. All of the words were too specific and he wanted an umbrella term to include the sin of homosexuality in all its forms. It was also the word used in the Septuagint, so it did in fact already existed it was just a bit rare. On top of this most of the words were completely inappropriate to use in polite conversation. One such word, lakkoproktoi, literally means "rear(Butt) cistern". Then there's Euryproktoi meaning "wide rectum" it refers to people who cross dress. Paideraste literally means "Children Lover" so it doesn't fit.
Hi Andrew, thanks for engaging. I address each of the verses you cite in specific videos, including the words used in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10. Just a couple of points: first, the word did not exist in the Septuagint. I think you may mean that the two halves of the word can be found close together in the Septuagint in the Levitical verses. When contemporary Jewish writers refer to these Levitical verses they do so in the context of talking about pederasty. Paul's use of arsenokoites is the first recorded use in ancient literature. Secondly, you are right that Paul may well have felt that existing words were inappropriate, either because they were vulgar or implied that the relationship was one of love. As I point out in my video on 1 Corinthians, early Christian literature coins an additional new word paidophthoria - child corruption. This word appears in vice lists where arsenokoites doesn't, and shows that pederasty was one of the major moral concerns of the early Christians, along with prostitution and adultery. In my opinion, arsenokoites and paidophthoria are synonyms. I find other explanations unlikely given the cultural context.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Let us agree to disagree. You are saying Jews were talking about pederasty in Leviticus even though the word used is "Man" and not "boy" or "Child". If this was the intent they would have said "A man shall not lie with a boy as one lieth with a woman, abomination it is". Let us not forget that in Numbers 31:18 it says "The Ha'taf Bannasim" who have never known a man you may keep for yourselves. Ha'taf means "The child(ren) and Bannasim means "women" or "female", implying they married young girls.
Hi Andrew, thanks for the reply. Leviticus does not use the word 'man' for who a man should not lie with, but 'male', and the difference is significant. Lev. 18:22 in the Septuagint uses 'male' (arsenos in Greek) not 'man'. This mirrors the Hebrew which also uses 'male' (zakhar in Hebrew) rather than 'man'. Lev. 20:13 is a command about a man (hos an - whoever - in LXX; ish in Hebrew) lying with a male (arsenos/zakhar again). And it was Jewish writers (eg Philo, Special Laws 3:37-42) of the time of Jesus and Paul who apply the verses to pederasty and pagan temple worship. So ingrained is the assumption that male same-sex activity is pederasty, that Josephus assumes that the angels in Genesis 19 (the Sodom story) must have appeared as beautiful boys (see Antiquities 1.11).
Yes, but then why not simply say "males shall not lie with boys"? Unless I'm mistaken there was more then one word in hebrew(Ivrit) that meant "boy" or "child". And what about Leviticus 31:18? As I already mentioned the Hebrews married little girls(Probably 14 yr old) "Ha'Taf Banashim" means "The children females". This is pederasty and it is in no way condemned in this verse, but rather permitted . Therefore Leviticus 18:22 MUST be about homosexuality and not pedophilia.
@@amatsumikaboshi3000 Well, since it was listed right after "giving your seed to Molech" I think it points more toward gay temple prostitution. The consequence for that has an added justification: "their blood is on them". What could this mean? How is gay sex murderous? Or was it referring to the debased rituals of Canaan worship of Molech where they either sexually offered their children to priests or burned them alive or both, and engaging in ritualistic sex (with male or female temple prostitutes) afterwards? Remember, God is a jealous God whose name is Jealous, so I definitely think it was referring to gay idol sex worship.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
Hi AMZ Gaming. You will be glad to know that I address this verse directly in one of my other videos. You can watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html
Bible and Homosexuality Hi thanks for your reply 😊. I did check out video out. 1) In your 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 bible it says male prostitution. Where as I refer to Roman Catholic bible which clearly says male homosexual perverts. 2) Male bedders as you said it’s not talking about homosexuality cause Pilo said according to him it was men sleeping with boys. That’s what Pilo meant. But whatever the matter that man is practising homosexuality. God is against it. 3) Check out LEVITICUS 18:22 No man is to have sexual relations with other man; God Hate’s that.
Thanks for the reply. You refer to different translations of 1 Cor. 6:9-10. This is one of the issues with that verse - Paul uses a word that we haven't found in any earlier ancient Greek text, and so translation is difficult. My video (and linked website) go into some of the issues, and explain why simply translating as 'homosexual' is misleading in the extreme. Condemning men abusing boys is condemning an entirely different type of relationship from consensual, equal, loving, faithful, adult same-sex relationships. I don't think you can conclude condemnation of the latter from condemnation of the former. You mention Leviticus - I also have a UA-cam video on those verses - you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html
Bible and Homosexuality Thanks for the reply What if Paul meant that male bedder = homosexuality. Because the word was used only by Paul. I saw your video. Well it’s partly correct Jesus came so we do not need to follow most of the Old Testament rules. But hated same sex before and now as well. Read Romans 1:26-27 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. It is so clearly written here. That it’s against homosexuality. There is a reason why god made women. So that the two can give birth to the child and carry on their legacy. Homosexuality is nothing but lust. There is no lust in it. I will tell you why. You see some men in jail who are heterosexual they end up having sex with men cause they want to fullfill their lust. Jesus is against sexual immorality. And yes that includes homosexuality. Jesus didn’t specify but he already said it in book of leviticus. JESUS IS LORD. Hallelujah.
Thanks for the response. You ask what if Paul meant that male-bedder = homosexuality. What's apparent in the question itself is that there is significant uncertainty here. I give my reasons in the video and on the website as to why I think Paul was referring in particular to pederasty, as that was a dominant form of abuse in the culture, whereas homosexuality (as we understand it today) was not. You also refer to Romans 1. And I have a video for this passage too! You can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html I am sure there are some men who have sex with other men purely because of lust. But that is also true of some men having sex with women. To categorise all people who are homosexual as simply lustful is slandering a whole group. I should also note that not all couples are capable of having children - but the quality of love in a relationship is not dependent upon whether or not that couple can have children. I can at least agree with you that Jesus is Lord - hallelujah.
Religion is homophobic . I think some religions are not that worthy to understand the quality of. It's better to move on to a better religion which is more worthy
Hi Peter, Christianity is currently divided on the issue. I, and many others like me, do not consider homosexuality sinful. You will also come across others (like Caleb) who do. I find it often unhelpful to use blanket designations, as there is so much variation.
False equivalence. " Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised.Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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." Romans 1:22-27 "Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic." James 3:15
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, as you don't explain why you think it is a false equivalence, I can't respond to your point. You also quote from Romans - this is addressed directly in one of my videos. I hope you find it helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I didn't explain why it is a false equivalence because there's no need for me to make you guys any smarter so that later you can come up with more excuses/counter-arguments. ;) 1 Corinthians 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." Seek God genuinely, seek His will first. Love Him first before the others by obeying his commandments. You will find the truth and freedom once you give up your worldly desires and lead a godly life through Jesus Christ. Isn't Jesus and what He has done for us more than enough for you? ua-cam.com/video/-N_178ASBg0/v-deo.html
The Bible’s standard regarding homosexual acts is clear. God’s Word says:
“You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman.”-Leviticus 18:22.
“Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.”-1 Corinthians 6:9, 10
The Bible teaches that sex should be engaged in only by a male and a female who are married to each other.-Genesis 1:27, 28; Proverbs 5:18, 19.
Although the Bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not encourage prejudice, hate crimes, or any other kind of mistreatment of homosexuals.-Romans 12:18.
That is what true Christians believe, and they have a right to it.
At the same time, God's Witnessess strive to “pursue peace with all people.” (Hebrews 12:14) While they reject homosexual acts, his people do not force their view on others, nor do they participate in homophobic hate crimes or rejoice when they hear of them. Christians strive to follow the Golden Rule by treating others the way they themselves would like to be treated although they do not agree with homosexuality.-Matthew 7:12
Thank you 🫂💙
Hi Kimberley, thank you for engaging.
I gladly agree that we should pursue peace with all people, and that hate crimes or any kind of mistreatment of others is wrong, alongside prejudice.
However, I disagree with you that the Bible's standard is 'clear'. You mention Leviticus; I have a video that covers this verse here: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html and one covering 1 Corinthians here: studio.ua-cam.com/users/videoZFCKWJ7uk2o/
I also have videos covering some of the other verses usually brought up in this debate (including Genesis).
I hope you find them helpful.
The Bible explicitly condemns a man laying with another man. God understands the long term implications of normalizing such an act. No longer can there be an emphasis on family, or child-rearing, because that would be offensive to gay couples. Birth rates drop, sexual disease increases, following one’s desires and lusts becomes applauded, society as a whole gets weaker. And that is the point.
As a thought experiment imagine in some future year, the gay population rate and heterosexual population rate flipped, meaning 90-some % of people were gay and only a small minority straight, humanity would cease to exist. There are no two ways about it. The family unit is the most important aspect of any society. God’s commands are not random.
It is not about me as a straight male thinking gay men are worse than me. Not at all. I know we are equal in the eyes of the Lord because even the best of my deeds are done with sin-stained hands. It is about perpetuating Truth and helping others find it, allowing them to avoid lifestyles embedded in sin which keep them from the Lord.
Hi Christian, with the best will in the world, your comment comes over as scare-mongering. Gay couples do not find it offensive when straight couples marry, or raise kids; they just want to be able to do that themselves. I don't know why you call it following desires and lusts - you wouldn't use this language for straight couples wishing to marry.
Your thought experiment is bizarre. Why on earth would 90% of people be gay? You could make exactly the same statement about celibacy - does that make celibacy bad?
You say that you know we are all equal, but you are using language like 'lust' for gay people that you are not using for straight people.
@@BibleandHomosexuality the Bible clearly outlines what constitutes morally good sex. It is between a man and his wife. Gay sex, pre-marital sex, adultery, non-consensual sex etc. all fall under the category of immoral sex because it does not follow God’s clear commands. I say the same thing for straight people who are embedded in lifestyles of sin. I see no difference between gay sex and pre-marital sex. Many in modern culture do not adhere to God’s commands but that does not change God’s commands. To be clear, I WOULD call straight sex which is outside of monogamous marriage lustful.
I do not personally find it offensive when gay people are together, it does not affect me directly. However, the same way I would advise a friend not to jump off of a bridge because of the associated dangers, when the topic comes up I do not hesitate to speak the truth on God’s expectations. God sees gay sex as a lustful act.
You say my thought experiment is bizarre, but why is that? What is preventing 90% of people from being gay? Is being gay only okay if it’s exclusive and in small numbers? In a future society which is “more fair” by your standards, which allows and advocates for gay rights, what is preventing a majority of people from being gay? People born between 1980-1999 show rates of homosexuality over 5-times greater than those born between 1913-1945 (8.1% vs 1.4%). Is it completely ridiculous to extrapolate a pattern we already see? I do not think so. Even if that number were 50%, we would not have nearly the population production needed to fill jobs and maintain our modern society. With this as an example we can begin to see the rationale behind straight couples being more beneficial for society, and perhaps why we are not supposed to see gay sex as equal to straight sex (within the confines of marriage).
As for celibacy, Jesus says he wishes all could live such a lifestyle so as to commit their full lives to the Lord. It takes a lot of time and effort to maintain a relationship, and if that time is spent instead on spreading God’s word, that makes God happy. Every person has an innate desire for procreation, if we choose to act on it instead of maintaining celibacy then there are certain ways which God says we are supposed to express that desire. God has rules and they are clearly outlined. The point of my original comment was to share a perspective which may provide reasoning for those rules which you and others may not have considered. Our human understandings of morality pale in comparison to God’s, we must not bend the word of God to fit our own desires but rather seek to understand the Truth in God’s word.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I do hope for a response as I understand open dialogue on difficult topics is essential for Truth to be uncovered. God bless.
Hi Christian,
Thank you for your response. I shall try to deal briefly with your points.
First of all, I disagree with you about how clear the Bible is about morally good sex. For example, the Bible does not explicitly condemn intercourse between unmarried consenting adults. And the Old Testament not only allows for polygamy, in some situations it demands it (Levirite marriage). And the Bible does say that intercourse during menstruation is an abomination, which we now ignore.
Secondly, I disagree that intercourse within a committed, faithful marriage is sinful, whether gay or straight.
Thirdly, the reason that it is unlikely that 90% of the population will be gay is that it is not a choice but something that forms before birth. There seems to be a 'natural' rate of around 2% in males. The rise above that is mainly owing to a larger number identifying as bisexual.
Thirdly, the reason for the rise is (almost certainly) the fact that it is now easier (still not easy) to come out than in the past. If you look on Google, you can find a similar shape graph for people who identify as left-handed (2% in the nineteenth century, when there was often punishment for trying to use your left hand, compared to 10-12% now).
Fourthly, your argument seems to assume that procreation is the only reason for intercourse. But that is not the case. You also say 'God has rules and they are clearly outlined'. But they are not. God has given us one clear rule: love one another. I do not consider it loving to prevent two people who are committed to each other and who love each other to marry.
Thanks once again for your response.
@@BibleandHomosexuality 1/2
I appreciate your response. I think a key distinction between your argument and mine is that yours centers around human definitions of morality, while mine is rooted in the words of the Bible. I know you will disagree with this statement, but I will explain why I believe this to be the case. As an initial indicator I will point to your final paragraph when you say “I do not consider it loving..”. My argument is that it is not your consideration which defines what is moral and good, but the word of God, and the word of God alone. What you consider never supersedes what God considers.
I will address your refutations one at a time. Your first refutation is that you do not believe the Bible is explicit about what constitutes morally good sex. I would ask you to refer to Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Or Romans 1:26-28 “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done”. Leviticus 20:13, Jude 1:7, and Mark 10:6-9, among others, confirm this same sentiment. One has to manipulate the text tremendously in order to view it as approving homosexual relationships.
As for your point on polygamy, let us not confound two separate practices. Polygamy has to do with how many wives one can morally take. If God says it is okay to take multiple wives, then it is okay, despite what is “common” today, and since moral sex is defined as that which is enacted between a man and his wife, sex within the confines of those marriages would be considered moral. We could get into how polygamy was necessary during certain periods in history and why we don’t see it in modern society, but that is besides the point. Regardless if God allows multiple wives, his command on sex remains unchanged: moral sex is that which is enacted between a man and his wife.
I am curious why you refer to the modern commonality of practices as the ultimate informer of their morality. It is common to have sex during menstruation today so therefor God was wrong when he said it is an abomination? Why does it make it okay? Using The Lord’s name in vain is also rampant in modern society, so God made a mistake with that command? That is a backwards argument. The commonality of a practice does not inform whether or not it is moral.
In your second point you say you disagree that sex within a committed marriage is sinful. I never said sex within marriage is sinful, I have said this is the only type of morally good sex. We as humans, however, do not get to re-define the term “marriage” so that our perversions fall into it. God already took the liberty of defining clearly what constitutes marriage. It is the holy union between a man and a woman. Do we think God cares more about the man-made redefinition of marriage, or the definition which he created and gave to us? If in some future year we change the legal definition of marriage to include that between men and animals, do we then cross-out more of the Bible and say God must have been wrong when he said sex with animals is an abomination? The point here is human definitions, preferences, and common practices change, and are fallible, but God’s word does not and is not. As Christians we understand God’s word is superior to man’s. The hope is that man’s law reflects God’s law in its entirety, we should aim to bring heaven to earth, however in the case of contradiction between man’s law and God’s we understand by default God’s authority supersedes man’s.
Your third argument revolves around the nature of gay people. You say that being gay is not a choice but something that forms before birth. How do you know this? You do not know this. Neither of us can prove sexual identity is innate at birth or develops as we grow. I can’t say I understand why that would matter, but the fact remains you cannot make that claim with any certainty. What we do know is that rates have steadily increased over time. Appealing to historical rates of 2% and stating that that is the “natural rate” is unfounded. Even if it is granted that this is the natural rate, we have clear evidence that show rates can and do stray wildly from the “natural rate” at times, for whatever reasons. With this in mind, my hypothetical scenario of a society with 50% or 90% gay population cannot be dismissed as ridiculous or impossible. In fact, gen Z adults today identify as LGBTQ at a rate of 19.7%. How do we reconcile this fact with the 2% “natural rate” theory. Why do we see over 10x growth in less than 100 years? Even if it were strictly a matter of genetics, and external factors had zero impact on ones propensity to be attracted to the same sex, the argument cannot be made that propensity overrules the commands of God. Certain people are predisposed to alcoholism, does that mean we do away with the idea that alcoholism is detrimental to those people? Of course not. The truth is that alcoholism is a lifestyle which binds people from living up to their potential, and regardless how strong their cravings or desires, that fact will remain true. Regardless how many alcoholics there are in the world, that fact will remain true. Regardless how the alcoholic re-defines the phrase “living up to ones potential” so that his alcoholism fits within it, the fact remains true. It does not matter if people are born gay, or what number of them exist in society, God says in receiving the Holy Spirit we are born-again, and will be given new hearts which are in line with the word of God. Did God now also lie when He promised us this? We all have a deep proclivity to sin, gay people are not special in that regard.
I think you support my point instead of your own when you reference the left-handedness graph. You use it to say rates of homosexuality are increasing because society is more accepting of it now. You say “It is now easier (still not easy) to come out than in the past”. So then in 100 years when society is more right and just, by your standards, and it is extremely easy to come out, what will happen to rates of homosexuality? They will revert to the “natural rate” of 2%? Of course not. If rates are 19.7% for the current young generation and it is “still hard to come out”, can you still say honestly that my hypothetical proposition of 50% or 90% is ridiculous? Obviously not. If rates of homosexuality are directly related to the “ease of coming out”, or in other terms, the “Godlessness of the society”, then how can we say there is any “natural rate” at all. You prove my point rather than your own in saying rates are correlated to social norms.
when you omit things that don’t support your point you think you’ve made your point but you haven’t.
Hi Jeffrey, thanks for your comment, but it's a bit vague. Could you be more specific? It might be that something you think I have omitted I've covered in one of my other videos.
I’m no expert so this is what Other you tube commentators such as Voddie Baucham a very learned and articulate pastor point to Matthew 5 and 19 for starters.
ua-cam.com/video/4RmpplTFDTY/v-deo.html
I have a UA-cam video on the gospels - you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/fa2KvJ7SR4A/v-deo.html
(And I also have videos on Genesis 1 & 2, Genesis 19 (Sodom), Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians).
No wonder the Church of England is so confused and in such a mess.
Hi Stephen. You can blame me for many things, but I don't think I am responsible for the Church of England being confused and in a mess - I only wish I had the type of influence you attribute to me.
@@BibleandHomosexuality thank God you don't
@@BibleandHomosexuality The bible CLEARLY condemns homosexuality. Man shalt not lie down with Man. It's in the old and new testament. There's no room or misintrepation around it. Men were clearly not designed to have sex with other men. It's beyond crazy that the church is even debating this topic.
"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them."
[Leviticus 20:13]
Hi Bella, I have an entire video devoted to Leviticus; you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html
It doesn't seem to matter how often we quote verses. Many false teachers will continue to preach false teachings no matter what.
Just started your video and i love it. I've subscribed and added a lot of your videos to my watch later playlist so i can watch them all slowly. This video is very logical in regards to context. The first example that comes to mind is divorce. IIRC Jesus condemns divorce, period, stating that Moses only allowed it because their hearts were hard. But in modern society I don't think anyone would refuse a divorce for a woman who is being abused by her husband, for example.
Hi Ashley, thanks for the kind comments. I hope you enjoy all the videos.
I’ve seen a lot of heresy in my life, from oneness/modalism, to dispensationalism, to the Bible supporting evolution. But now this new claim of “the Bible not condemning homosexuality.” This claim is built on faulty logic throughout the video, this is just some of it that I’ve noticed.
0:45 Money lending being condemned by the Bible? The verse I think you were talking about (I could be wrong) is Exodus 22:25 “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” The Bible says it’s okay to lend money, but it’s NOT okay to charge usury (interest on debt). Which leads me to my second point...
1:30 money lending=usury? You seemed to have confused the 2, but they are not the same. Once again in the verse, it’s okay to lend them money, but it’s NOT okay to charge usury. If they were the same thing, why is God allowing one but condemning the other? (The same thing is said in Ezekiel 18:17)
2:20 Authority of the Bible vs Interpretation: The Bible says in 1 Cor 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” God wants us to understand his word, and he makes it easy for us. But don’t get it wrong, some things require a bit more reading and understanding to get, such as prophecy and parables, but over, it’s easy to get. The Bible is the word of God, it is the Authority. And for the most part, it’s easy to interpret, it’s more like people don’t like what it says, so they make it say something else.
2:50 Usury and money lending. You seem to have a habit of mixing up the 2. Like someone who mixes tribulation and wrath and fall into the pre tribulation rapture, but they are distinct (different). Otherwise it would make no sense to allow one, and condemn the other.
3:40 the logic? Items X and Y (whatever they may be) may be related, but they are distinct. For example, the Bible does not support smoking, but what lights up a cigarette? A lighter. So I could say, “well because a cigarette is bad, and you need a lighter to start a cigarette, the lighter is also bad” that logic is just nonsense.
Why don’t you read Romans 1. From 1:20-32 and get the context (and no it’s not about idolatry) people who tell me that have red the first 3 verses and come to that conclusion, but reading the whole thing, you will see what it’s true context is.
And I’ve noticed something to, someone posted me this link, but I’ve seen it before, specifically from atheist, no believers and people of other faith trying to “prove to me” the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I find it odd that you are supported by the non believing world. It makes me want to think of the verse Luke 6:26 when the Bible says “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” Really something to think about.
Hi Ernesto, thank you for your detailed comments.
I appear to have led you to misunderstand the point made in the video. When I refer to money-lending in the video, I am using it as a shorthand for money-lending including interest (this would include any type of loan including any amount of interest, including mortgages, or having an interest-bearing saving account). You have taken it to mean money-lending without any interest being paid at all. Sorry for confusion here. But all types of lending with any amount of interest were seen as universally wrong by the Church up until the time of Calvin. We (the Church broadly) now allows lending money including interest, so long as the interest is not high and oppressive. I hope this clarifies the point I was making.
Secondly, I have an entire video which covers Romans 1; you can find it here: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
Finally, I am supported by many Christians. But this is immaterial in any case: what matters is whether the argument is true or not. You can be right and the world be against you, but you can also be wrong and the world be against you.
Thanks again for engaging.
"Usury" means lending money at EXORBIANT interest. It's not just lending money for a profit, it's EXCESSIVE profits. There's nothing wrong with lending money for a small profit and it isn't condemned at all. In fact Jesus talks about the story of a man given a gold talent who could've put it in a bank to make interest off of it, instead of burying it. Banks would fail if they didn't lend money at interest. It's when they overcharge for interest that it becomes usury. On the other points I agree with you.
Thank you Jonathan - this is a much needed resource.
Thanks for the encouragement.
Tell me, how do you suppose of going around these written word’s of truth that are fixed in its meaning’s and cemented in clarity.
Genesis 19:1-11
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Judges 19:16-24
1 Kings 14:24
1 Kings 15:12
2 Kings 23:7
Romans 1:18-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Jude 7
Please Indulge me..
Hi Antonio, I suggest you have a look at the rest of the channel. There you will find:
videos on Genesis 19 & Judges 19 (both examples of gang rape) ua-cam.com/video/ZG2Ic-45tyE/v-deo.html
And on Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html
And on Romans 1:18-32: ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
And on 1 Cor. 6:9-11 & 1 Tim 1:8-10: ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html
The references in 1 & 2 Kings are to male temple prostitutes. This actually makes one of the points for me in explaining some of the context for the Leviticus verses. They certainly aren't applicable to faithful loving relationships (I am assuming that you would agree that female temple prostitutes would also be condemned?).
The reference to Jude 7 is not covered in the videos, but I do cover it in the linked website. You can find it near the end of this post: www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/what-has-sodom-got-to-do-with-homosexuality/
Hope you find this helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality
You contradicting yourself, if they weren’t applicable as you say then, Scripture wouldn’t say, that no man shall lay down with another man for it is against GOD and is a sinful act.
Your trying to fit positivity into negativity for loving relationships.
I’ll pray for you, may the Holy Spirit open your eyes and give you understanding of GODS word.
@@FAMA-18 simplistic interpretation of the English translation from Hebrew, through Aramaic, Greek and Latin.
@@FAMA-18 may the holy spirit open your eyes
@@yvonne3745
Thank you , I’ll pray for you as well my friend.
1 Corinthians 6:9,1 Timothy 1:10: 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[a].
Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Hi Zone Dron, I address these verses in these videos: ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html
This video is superb. It makes a strong case for the acceptance of homosexual unions by Christians without compromising on a high view of Scripture. Great food for thought.
Thank you! I hope you find the future videos in the series as helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality you are a antichrist you will be judged you will be sent to the wrath of hell
Made the mistake of looking at the comments section. All the anti-lgbt people judging and forcing their opinion on the lgbt community (of which i am apart of, being a gay woman) is precisely why all I do nowadays is watch sermons on youtube. I've tried telling these types of people my opinion on the christianity reddit but it goes nowhere and only gets me hurt emotionally. The law is built on justice, mercy, and love, we are commanded to love god and love others, and love does no harm. Our words and actions in how we treat others and the theology we teach others should produce good fruit. That's what I've learned these past few weeks from the bible with help from other lgbt and lgbt-ally christians and that's all i believe there is to it. Without even getting into the argument about the context of the verses they quote at us as weapons. But will they ever understand or be willing to try to listen? No. Its disheartening and it affects my walk with God.
Hi Ashley, I hope you manage to find a fully inclusive, LGBT affirming church one day. I'm sure you know this, but if you find the arguments affecting your walk with God you are under no obligation to enter into them with others.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply! All I meant was that seeing the comments is disheartening, even without responding.
I feel the same way
No forcing our opinions. Just standing on the truth of God's word. Unlike this so called reverend who is his own authority.
Your premise is wrong from the start, using one argument to cancel out another. Poor logic. Deal with the texts, and check out James White.
Hi Stephen, I'm unclear exactly what you mean by 'using one argument to cancel out another'. I was showing that the way that the Church has dealt with issues is to see how similar the situation we are dealing with is to the situation in the Bible, as Calvin did with the issue of debt. So the next task is therefore to see if the Bible is covering the same issue that we are considering (faithful, loving, same-sex relationships). I then go on to 'deal with the texts' in my other videos.
I also checked out one video by James White, where he argued strongly for scriptural authority and the need for holiness. You will be delighted to know that I have no argument with him over this. However, I consider his interpretation of scripture on this issue to be wrong. The authority of scripture is not the same as the authority of his (or, for that matter, mine or yours) interpretation of scripture.
There’s one question that stumps me, if Leviticus condemns being gay why does Lev 18:22 and 20:13 address men but Lev 18:23 address both men and women, I’ve never heard it given a serious answer.
This remains so helpful and I send it to enquirers often. Thank you
Thank you Sally - appreciated!
Leviticus
You shall not lie with Zakar as with Issa.
I have a video on Leviticus - check it out.
As a bisexual woman who believes in the Lord, those arguing against you are a good example of why I haven't engaged in the church community. I'm sure there are specific quotes from the Bible about he who without sin casting the first stone, but it is so disheartening to be turned away for being different. And then we wonder why in America Christianity continues to drop drastically
Hi Chelsea, I'm really sorry to hear about your poor experience. I am not in America, so my context is different, but I hope you manage to find a Christian church where you can truly belong.
"(1) Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true fath; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. (2) These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead. (3) They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth. (4) Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. (5) For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer." - 1 Timothy 4 verses 1-4
And such people in the church community conveniently ignore this passage. I guess the doctrine of man feels "holier" than God's for them.
@@OmegaF77 I literally teared up not only hearing the good news but also your comment. I am always humbled by those who spread the love and not the hate
@@chels1991g Thanks Chelsea. God Bless. If you allow me, I found more from the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
1 Corinthians 6:12
""Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything."
Following Jesus in Matthew 11:28-30 even said, "28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”"
The Church dethroned God's word and replaced it with man's doctrine, which if you can believe once stated that undressing your wife was a sin, and having sex with her during the day is a sin.
@@chels1991g So don't mind what I call "faith jockeys", since they believe by abstaining from things it makes them holier than us. When the fact is, we are made right with God from the blood of Yeshua (Jesus Christ). Sadly, many modern day Christians failed to know that they're freer than they think.
I think you have a good point. It's like if saying did the Bible condemn all tattoos as well within context. The only critique would be how homosexuality is dealt with in a modern setting , especially in light of activism which is often sinful and promotes sinful attitudes toward God.
Brillant Video. Thank you so much.
Glad it was helpful!
“A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” Genesis 2:24
Just as rules in baseball give us the freedom to play baseball so too do the rules of life give us the free will to follow God’s plan.
The statement Christ gave us about marriage is so certain that He never needed to say, “a man may marry a man” or “a man may never marry a man” because the role of marriage is to supplement the community and continue the legacy of mankind.
Gay marriage is not a marriage at all as it does not add anything to society and produces nothing but satisfaction of the flesh.
I am sorry you feel that all childless couples don't add to society and produce nothing but 'satisfaction of the flesh'. I am also sorry if you think the only purpose of marriage is to supply children. That isn't a very biblical view (in Genesis, the primary purpose is companionship).
If you want to find out more, I have videos both on the gospels and on Genesis.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I never said childless couples don’t add anything to society; I said the role of marriage is to supplement the community and continue the legacy of mankind. That doesn’t mean couples have to have children, for not all couples can have children (my wife and I are such examples). Instead we live out our lives in ways that glorify God, foster care among them.
I also never said the “only purpose” of marriage is to supply children. I said it is a role. The purpose is as Christ describes; when a man and a woman become one flesh.
What comes from that is the ability to “be fruitful and multiply” and of course to glorify His name over generations.
“I’m sorry” you didn’t understand that.
If childless heterosexual couples don't have to have children but can live out their lives in ways that glorify God, why can't gay couples (as indeed many gay couples do). I don't see the difference in terms of being fruitful and multiplying between gay and straight childless couples.
@@BibleandHomosexuality on the subject of marriage, what do two gay partners do to glorify god? Marriage is for a man and a woman to become one flesh, thereby creating a family covenant with God. How does a man who is sexually active with another man glorify God? What covenant are they establishing with Him? And why would they need the oaths of marriage to bind them together if their sexual activity is their only “necessity” for it? And if it’s not their sexual attraction that brings them together then why is marriage even needed at all? Friendships are made of more powerful bonds than a sexless contract between same sex people.
There are simply so many blatant holes in the idea of gay “marriage” that even a Christian fundamentalist can deduce its irrelevancy.
Does that mean we need to look the other way and exile gays? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t make same sex “marriage” a marriage either.
Hi Jack, I am bemused by your response. Two people can pledge oaths to each other of faithfulness, and then live out their lives in a way that glorifies God and fosters care. I am not sure how it makes a difference if the people are a man and a woman, two men, or two women. It is surely a life of mutual love that overflows to others that glorifies God, and I fail to see how gender affects the ability to do this.
Thank you so much, you have no idea how much I needed this video to exist
Really glad if you found if helpful - and thanks for the encouraging feedback. God bless.
@@BibleandHomosexuality god bless you too
The bible is very clear on the subject of homosexuality:
1 Corinthians 6:9 have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor arsenokoitai
1 Timothy 1:9-10 having known this, that for a righteous man law is not set, but for lawless and insubordinate persons, ungodly and sinners, impious and profane, parricides and matricides, men-slayers, whoremongers, arsenokoitai, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse
Leviticus 18:22 And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it is.
Leviticus 20:13 And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.
Romans 1:27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
Arseno(Male)+Koitai(Bed) "Koitai implies Lying down hence reference to Leviticus"
-Koitai is the origin of the modern term coitus meaning sexual intercourse
Some ask "why didn't Shaul use any of the already existing words rather then make up a word. All of the words were too specific and he wanted an umbrella term to include the sin of homosexuality in all its forms. It was also the word used in the Septuagint, so it did in fact already existed it was just a bit rare. On top of this most of the words were completely inappropriate to use in polite conversation. One such word, lakkoproktoi, literally means "rear(Butt) cistern". Then there's Euryproktoi meaning "wide rectum" it refers to people who cross dress. Paideraste literally means "Children Lover" so it doesn't fit.
Hi Andrew, thanks for engaging. I address each of the verses you cite in specific videos, including the words used in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10. Just a couple of points: first, the word did not exist in the Septuagint. I think you may mean that the two halves of the word can be found close together in the Septuagint in the Levitical verses. When contemporary Jewish writers refer to these Levitical verses they do so in the context of talking about pederasty. Paul's use of arsenokoites is the first recorded use in ancient literature.
Secondly, you are right that Paul may well have felt that existing words were inappropriate, either because they were vulgar or implied that the relationship was one of love. As I point out in my video on 1 Corinthians, early Christian literature coins an additional new word paidophthoria - child corruption. This word appears in vice lists where arsenokoites doesn't, and shows that pederasty was one of the major moral concerns of the early Christians, along with prostitution and adultery. In my opinion, arsenokoites and paidophthoria are synonyms. I find other explanations unlikely given the cultural context.
@@BibleandHomosexuality
Let us agree to disagree. You are saying Jews were talking about pederasty in Leviticus even though the word used is "Man" and not "boy" or "Child". If this was the intent they would have said "A man shall not lie with a boy as one lieth with a woman, abomination it is". Let us not forget that in Numbers 31:18 it says "The Ha'taf Bannasim" who have never known a man you may keep for yourselves. Ha'taf means "The child(ren) and Bannasim means "women" or "female", implying they married young girls.
Hi Andrew, thanks for the reply. Leviticus does not use the word 'man' for who a man should not lie with, but 'male', and the difference is significant.
Lev. 18:22 in the Septuagint uses 'male' (arsenos in Greek) not 'man'. This mirrors the Hebrew which also uses 'male' (zakhar in Hebrew) rather than 'man'.
Lev. 20:13 is a command about a man (hos an - whoever - in LXX; ish in Hebrew) lying with a male (arsenos/zakhar again).
And it was Jewish writers (eg Philo, Special Laws 3:37-42) of the time of Jesus and Paul who apply the verses to pederasty and pagan temple worship.
So ingrained is the assumption that male same-sex activity is pederasty, that Josephus assumes that the angels in Genesis 19 (the Sodom story) must have appeared as beautiful boys (see Antiquities 1.11).
Yes, but then why not simply say "males shall not lie with boys"? Unless I'm mistaken there was more then one word in hebrew(Ivrit) that meant "boy" or "child". And what about Leviticus 31:18? As I already mentioned the Hebrews married little girls(Probably 14 yr old) "Ha'Taf Banashim" means "The children females". This is pederasty and it is in no way condemned in this verse, but rather permitted . Therefore Leviticus 18:22 MUST be about homosexuality and not pedophilia.
@@amatsumikaboshi3000 Well, since it was listed right after "giving your seed to Molech" I think it points more toward gay temple prostitution. The consequence for that has an added justification: "their blood is on them". What could this mean? How is gay sex murderous? Or was it referring to the debased rituals of Canaan worship of Molech where they either sexually offered their children to priests or burned them alive or both, and engaging in ritualistic sex (with male or female temple prostitutes) afterwards? Remember, God is a jealous God whose name is Jealous, so I definitely think it was referring to gay idol sex worship.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
Hi AMZ Gaming. You will be glad to know that I address this verse directly in one of my other videos. You can watch it here: ua-cam.com/video/ZFCKWJ7uk2o/v-deo.html
Bible and Homosexuality
Hi thanks for your reply 😊. I did check out video out.
1) In your 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 bible it says male prostitution. Where as I refer to Roman Catholic bible which clearly says male homosexual perverts.
2) Male bedders as you said it’s not talking about homosexuality cause Pilo said according to him it was men sleeping with boys. That’s what Pilo meant. But whatever the matter that man is practising homosexuality. God is against it.
3) Check out LEVITICUS 18:22
No man is to have sexual relations with other man; God Hate’s that.
Thanks for the reply. You refer to different translations of 1 Cor. 6:9-10. This is one of the issues with that verse - Paul uses a word that we haven't found in any earlier ancient Greek text, and so translation is difficult. My video (and linked website) go into some of the issues, and explain why simply translating as 'homosexual' is misleading in the extreme.
Condemning men abusing boys is condemning an entirely different type of relationship from consensual, equal, loving, faithful, adult same-sex relationships. I don't think you can conclude condemnation of the latter from condemnation of the former.
You mention Leviticus - I also have a UA-cam video on those verses - you can find it here:
ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html
Bible and Homosexuality Thanks for the reply
What if Paul meant that male bedder = homosexuality. Because the word was used only by Paul.
I saw your video. Well it’s partly correct Jesus came so we do not need to follow most of the Old Testament rules. But hated same sex before and now as well.
Read
Romans 1:26-27 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
It is so clearly written here. That it’s against homosexuality.
There is a reason why god made women.
So that the two can give birth to the child and carry on their legacy.
Homosexuality is nothing but lust. There is no lust in it. I will tell you why. You see some men in jail who are heterosexual they end up having sex with men cause they want to fullfill their lust.
Jesus is against sexual immorality. And yes that includes homosexuality. Jesus didn’t specify but he already said it in book of leviticus. JESUS IS LORD. Hallelujah.
Thanks for the response. You ask what if Paul meant that male-bedder = homosexuality. What's apparent in the question itself is that there is significant uncertainty here. I give my reasons in the video and on the website as to why I think Paul was referring in particular to pederasty, as that was a dominant form of abuse in the culture, whereas homosexuality (as we understand it today) was not.
You also refer to Romans 1. And I have a video for this passage too! You can find it here:
ua-cam.com/video/qkUytjBXXUg/v-deo.html
I am sure there are some men who have sex with other men purely because of lust. But that is also true of some men having sex with women. To categorise all people who are homosexual as simply lustful is slandering a whole group. I should also note that not all couples are capable of having children - but the quality of love in a relationship is not dependent upon whether or not that couple can have children.
I can at least agree with you that Jesus is Lord - hallelujah.
didnt Paul say .. ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL FOR ME
HE WOULD NOT BE MASTERED BY ANYONE
Sodom and Gomorrah
Hi Pete, if you are interested in finding out more about these Biblical passages, you can find my video here: ua-cam.com/video/ZG2Ic-45tyE/v-deo.html
but jesus says in the beginning God made them male and female
Hi Eaude, check out my videos on Genesis and the gospels. I cover this point there.
Yes
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Corithians 6:9
I have videos on all of these.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Yes, but homosexuality is a sin
Yes, but it isn't.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Then what do you think Leviticus 18:22 is about if you don't think homosexuality is a sin?
@@zacharyrivas8074 my sweet, leviticus is not god, but a old chap that lived in a primitive and barbaric culture from acient times.
Just another step in your path may the lord guide you
The mortgage can’t be compared to the human soul, and our bodies are God’s temple. You are twisting the word of God to justify sin.
Homophobia is a sin
are you gay? a straight question pardon the pun
No I am not gay. I am straight, married, with kids.
Religion is homophobic . I think some religions are not that worthy to understand the quality of. It's better to move on to a better religion which is more worthy
Judging a religion based on what you want from it doesn’t sound like you’re searching for truth
@@slade8863 so what if people want justice and rights. And religion is against those rights
@@peterlabyrinth6220 Who defines Justice and who gives rights?
Hi Peter, Christianity is currently divided on the issue. I, and many others like me, do not consider homosexuality sinful. You will also come across others (like Caleb) who do. I find it often unhelpful to use blanket designations, as there is so much variation.
False equivalence. " Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised.Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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." Romans 1:22-27 "Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic." James 3:15
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, as you don't explain why you think it is a false equivalence, I can't respond to your point. You also quote from Romans - this is addressed directly in one of my videos. I hope you find it helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I didn't explain why it is a false equivalence because there's no need for me to make you guys any smarter so that later you can come up with more excuses/counter-arguments. ;)
1 Corinthians 2:14
"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."
Seek God genuinely, seek His will first. Love Him first before the others by obeying his commandments. You will find the truth and freedom once you give up your worldly desires and lead a godly life through Jesus Christ. Isn't Jesus and what He has done for us more than enough for you?
ua-cam.com/video/-N_178ASBg0/v-deo.html
@@NT-ih7ex no
@@NT-ih7ex yes. Agree
@Alf Maggadan explain levitus 18:22 to me
The word is the word, especially in sexual relationships, you’re desperate for attention and acceptance
I'm already accepted.
Why does every proponent of homosexuality look super … y’know….
No, I don't know. Super smart? Super handsome? Hoping it's one of those...
Fantastic!! 👏 It helped with my thesis
Glad it helped!
Spoken like a true homosexual
This comment says a lot about you and nothing about me. As it happens, I am straight (married, kids, pets etc).
Leviticus spoken as a true neurotic homophobic