Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

A Choice?

A careful reading of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 reveals that certain Christians in the ancient city of Corinth (infamous for its debauchery) were able to abandon their homosexual lifestyles. How was that possible?
maxximiliann maxximiliann 36-40, M 23 Responses Apr 12, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

And that means what? It also says in the bible that one can cure leprosy by killing a bird, bathing a second bird in its blood, along with cedar wood, and sprinkle it on the leper to cleanse them. (Leviticus 14:2-52). Let me know how that works out for you.

It means you are unable to think for yourself, and thus must rely on others arguing for you? :O

Hardly. The personal experiences of all these ex-gays belies the myth and propaganda of the contemporary gay movement.

And what of the thousands of "ex-straights"? For every "ex-gay" story you post, there are thousands of "ex-straights". Explain this. Propaganda? Then explain the science behind genetics? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679896/

It just means that human sexuality is much more supple and not as steely as once thought. It doesn't mean, though, that sexual perversion is normal, healthy behavior:

"The virus eventually entered male gay communities in large United States cities, where a combination of sexual promiscuity (with individuals reportedly averaging over 11 unprotected sexual partners per year[56]) and relatively high transmission rates associated with anal intercourse[57] allowed it spread explosively enough to finally be noticed.[53]"

56: Morris, M.; Dean, L. (1994). "Effect of sexual behavior change on long-term human immunodeficiency virus prevalence among homosexual men". American Journal of Epidemiology 140 (3): 217–232. PMID 8030625

57: Jin F et al. (March 2010). "Per-contact probability of HIV transmission in homosexual men in Sydney in the era of HAART". AIDS 24 (6): 907–913. doi:10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283372d90. PMC 2852627. PMID 20139750

53: Gilbert MT, Rambaut A, Wlasiuk G, Spira TJ, Pitchenik AE, Worobey M (2007). "The emergence of HIV/AIDS in the Americas and beyond". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104 (47): 18566–70. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10418566G. doi:10.1073/pnas.0705329104. PMC 2141817. PMID 17978186

"It just means that human sexuality is much more supple and not as steely as once thought."

And what evidence do you have to support this position?

So you are against homosexuality because of HIV? You are aware that HIV wasn't spread by homosexuality right? Of course you're not, because that's not what the watchtower told you. ;)

Riddle me this: Where did the first case of HIV in humans come from?

Are you hard of reading? As per verse 3, this purification rite was to be performed ** after ** the leper recuperated his good health, not before.

But this purification right purified a leper? ;)

Only ceremonially. It had no impact on his health since such was never its intent.

But it cleanses the leper?

How do you mean? Can you be more specific?

Do you practice this ceremony to cleanse lepers?

Why would I? Am I an ancient Israelite priest living in ancient Israel?

10 More Responses

anyway, in regards to your quotation of the bible. Its unfounded. Mostly because its an ancient account in a time where people were afraid of the gods that hold power over them. And by my understanding, that isn't love. Its abandonment by force and the fear of damnation. Taking a quote out of context doesn't justify it when its meant to be read as a complete whole and an allegory.

I don't follow. How is this passage inconsistent with God's unflinching condemnation of homosexual immorality as expressed throughout the Bible?

the fact the bible is written by man and not god. its a product of observation of an entity that defies reality itself and is constantly evolving.

If what you claim is in fact true, how do you explain all of these: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v?

do you actually believe these, you are just shoving the bible around again. It doesn't justify that you sound bigoted

I go where the evidence leads. Why can't you?

Does the evidence of splashing bird blood on lepers lead you to believe that biblical verse too? ;)

Because it was written by misogynistic men who hated homosexuality.

"There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1
This may surprise you, but a "REAL" Christian does not display judgmental, bigoted, and hateful attitudes toward others, just because they may sin differently than you do. It could be that in the eyes of God, YOU will be seen as less worthy to enter His Kingdom than MILLIONS of these homosexuals.
"Anyone who claims that he loves God, but hates his brother is a liar."
1st John 4:20.

5 More Responses

I wanted to ask. What is your opinion on transgender individuals. Since they really don't conform naturally to what's in the bible and are unique in their own right among common knowledge, it just seemed fascinating

She-males? They're distortions of what is normal and natural.

okay, that's fine. i was curious given your encyclopedic knowledge.

The statement is a little weird since she-male is a derogatory termand it doesn't accurately illustrate the spectrum of everyone that undergoes this. Willingly or unwilling.

I don't follow. How does one unwillingly become transgendered?

unwilling goes with emotional development, confusion, misplaced emotions, and the reason why most people transition. A feeling they can't send away and those the suffer birth defects.

Its really easy to understand.

i have a brother, and he believes in all her heart that she is my sister. And despite how unusual it is. I try my best to make her smile.

If you don't mind my asking, was he abused growing up?

there was no abuse involved. At least none i can see.

I'm happy to hear that :)

its her choice to be happy as much as its your choice to preach the way you do. But I know god already blessed her and that she is always welcomed with love in her heart.

How does hermaphroditism fit your delusion?

Natural is a term you know not the meaning of. Do we have to go through this again?

8 More Responses

@Aaron

You should of at least tried to read the personal experiences of ex-gays I shared with you ... (SMH)

"I had to undergo a complete metamorphosis, for I was living a feminine life. My speech, mannerisms, clothing, hairstyle, and choice of friends all needed changing. My former friends began to mock me, saying: “Why are you doing this? You were fine as you were. Don’t study the Bible. You have everything.” The most difficult things to change, though, were the practices of my immoral lifestyle.

Still, I knew that great changes were possible, for the Bible’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 had reached my heart: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean.” Jehovah helped people back then to make changes, and he helped me too. It took several years and a good deal of struggling, but the guidance and love of the Witnesses helped me a great deal.

HOW I HAVE BENEFITED: Today, I lead a normal life. I am married, and my wife and I are teaching our son to live by Bible principles. My former life is far behind me now." -http://bit.ly/17IId0n

And what about the thousands of "ex-straights" for every "ex-gay" story you see?

It just goes to show that human sexuality is much more pliant and not as steely as once thought.

@Aaron

So, in your opinion, homosexuals who abandon that lifestyle are never cisgenders who adopt heterosexuality?

If you read the WHOLE testimony, the person was molested, which lead to sexual confusion. Actually, Ik of one pastor who was molested by the same sex. Even after 22 years, he still struggles with same-sex attraction, even though he's now married to a woman. So my guess is, that it doesn't work for everyone.

Idk how many years this particular individual was struggling, but I truly hope they're being honest.

But all sedulous followers of Christ must struggle. In fact, it's what defines their worship of God!

"Whoever does not accept his torture stake [Gr., σταυρόν (stau·ron′)] and follow after me is not worthy of me." -Matthew 10:38 (Bracket mine.)

"Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, [leading off into life] because many, I tell YOU, will seek to get in but will not be able." -Luke 13:24 (cf Matthew 7:13,14) (Bracket mine.)

Read, also, Romans 7:14-25.

I agree.

Then the rest is cake! http://bit.ly/15B4YJv

2 More Responses

What are you talking about? Where do you come to this conclusion?

Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. It tells us that gays who wanted to become Christian repented and abandoned their heteroclitic lifestyle.

It doesn't say they became heterosexuals. I'm a homosexual. I don't act on my feelings, bc I still feel wrong about them, but I'm still gay. Just bc someone stops acting on something, doesn't mean they're changed. There are people who claim to be ex-gays who still admit to struggling with same-sex attraction. They are not ex-gays. Just bc homosexuals repented of their lifestyle, doesn't mean they became heterosexual.

You may have homosexual urges but that doesn't mean you must act on them. After all, doesn't God instruct us to "flee from fornication?" (1 Corinthians 6:18)

You're right. But that's not what we were discussing. You said 1 Corinthians 6:9 talks about people repenting from being a homosexual. What bible is that from? Some say, "Practicing homosexuals". And actually, not all bibles say anything about homosexuality @ all. For instance, The Message says, "Those who use and abuse sex" won't inherit the kingdom of God. You need to be more specific of what bible you're referring to. They don't all say the same thing. From what I've read of ex-gay testimonies, even the ones from people who are married to the opposite sex, the people who weren't confused about their sexuality, and actually are gay, admit to still being gay. No one is ex-gay. They can stop acting on their feelings, but that does not make them asexual or heterosexual. There are bibles that are misleading.

The rendering I shared of 1 Corinthians 6:9 is consistent with Paul's own words at 1 Corinthians 6:18:

Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὁ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει.

"Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body."


Note that this passages uses conjugations of the term πορνεία. What is πορνεία?


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

πορνεία
Strong's Number: 4202

Transliterated Word - Porneia - Phonetic Spelling - por-ni'-ah

Definition:

Illicit sexual intercourse -
1.1 adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1.2 sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1.3 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,


As you can see, with a basic understanding of the Koine term πορνεία, it's easy to see what is and is not natural sexual behavior in our Creator's eyes.

I agree. But porneia is a verb, not a person, which you clearly agree on. But to say that homosexuals can change to heterosexuals as a result of no longer practicing homosexuality, Idk about that.

I already read them. None of them say they became heterosexuals.

What, then, gave you the impression that any of them clung to their homosexual lifestyle?

What are you talking about? Please don't make assumptions, which you seem to be doing. I'm not under the impression that they cling to their homosexual lifestyles. I said that they don't claim to be heterosexuals. I said nothing else.

So if they're cisgenders who do not live a homosexual lifestyle, how are they not heterosexual?

They didn't claim to be cisgenders either. There are people who stopped living a homosexual lifestyle, but it does not make them heterosexuals.

And read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679896/

Unlike 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, it has been proven. ;)

11 More Responses

If this is true then the first chapter of Romans is baseless in this subject. That chapter says they turned from their natural order, and were turned over to their desires. If a homosexual was never a heterosexual, then being homosexual is their natural order. So that would make it unnatural to try and make them be heterosexual, just as it would be unnatural to try and make a heterosexual be homosexual, or to expect someone to fake a sexual orientation that isn't true to them.

I don\'t follow. Romans 1:24,26,27 clearly states, \"So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.\" (NLT)

@Itnaom

Jesus said in Mark 7 He speaks of sexual immorality.
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Also do you really trust Jesus?

Itnaom,

All God requires from us so that we can survive His judgment at Armageddon and enjoy eternal life on Paradise Earth can be summed up in a simple phrase - Loving obedience:

Jesus taught, “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’” - Matthew 22:37

“[T]his is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.” - 1 John 5:3

"Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him []. He that does not love me does not observe my words; and the word that YOU are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me." - John 14:23,24

"If YOU love me, YOU will observe my commandments. He that has my commandments and observes them, that one is he who loves me. In turn he that loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him." - John 14:15,21

"If YOU observe my commandments, YOU will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love." - John 15:10

“He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.” - John 3:36

I completely agree with you. What I do not agree with is that homosexuality as a whole is condemned in Scripture. Lets take one of the verses that you quoted and apply it to the gay or lesbian.

“[T]his is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.” - 1 John 5:3

"His commandments are not burdensome" or they are not too difficult. Correct? If this is the case, then why would God command someone to do something that they could not do, i.e. be heterosexual when they are innately homosexual. This is quite burdensome and tormenting. I am not talking about burdensome in terms of a difficult addiction or struggle. I am talking about asking for the impossible (based on history.) As I mentioned in an earlier comment, even Exodus International has admitted that not one of their "ex-gay" members has changed from gay to straight. Could this be because God doesn't require us to be changed into heterosexuals? If not, then why do ALL of these prayers to change get denied?

Even if one is to not ever become straight, it is also quite burdensome to ask someone to be single for their lifetime who has the capacity of love and longs for a life partner. Paul states that one should marry if they cannot control their desire because marrying will satisfy. Where does this leave the homosexual who's desires lie with the same gender? If they are to marry to opposite gender, this will not satisfy, and in fact be potentially harmful to the heterosexual partner to have a husband or wife that does not love them in that way. The verse I quoted earlier in Romans said that "if you love someone you will not harm them." Also that "love is all that the law demands." So this comes down to what is harmful (sin) and what is loving (not sin.) In what way does a consensual loving long-term relationship harm anyone, except for the offended that believe it is wrong? In which case, we should be respectful to those who do not agree, but not stifle the love that we have. As God said from the beginning, "it is not good for a man to be alone." A "suitable partner" was made for Adam which was Eve. This does not mean that the opposite gender is a suitable partner for every human on earth.

So we as Christians (straight or gay) saved by the blood of Jesus follow God's commands which are summed up in whole to love God and love others. This is not a burdensome thing and can be done in loving obedience. Be weary of confusing your personal repulsion to homosexuality with true Spiritual conviction. It feels wrong to you because it is unnatural for you. But what is unnatural for one is not always unnatural for all.

Allow me to touch upon an important detail I highlighted in one of my earlier rejoinders where I referred you to 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5. Here this passage alludes to those things which can be deeply ingrained in ourselves.

There are many serving God today who, for instance, have had to battle against serious personality flaws such as fits of rage while others battled powerful habits that were an integral part of their lives for decades like the abuse of drugs or alcohol, addictions to gambling or sex and the like.

Yet, these faithful worshipers of Jehovah God were able to overcome the impossible, cleanse their lives and free themselves of these deeply entrenched things. How? We find the answer in Hebrews 4:12 where we read, "For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions* of [the] heart."

Now, I don't know if you're a practicing Christian or not, but this is where the study of God's word stops being merely an intellectual exercise and becomes something much, much more. As explicated in Ephesians 4:20-24, the transformation one experiences when taking in holy spirit on a daily basis by reading God's word meditatively is nothing short of an act of divine creation.

In short, while it may seem impossible for you to even conceive how anyone can abandon a homosexual lifestyle in favor of a heterosexual one, I recognize that for The Almighty, nothing is impossible. He is more than happy to recreate, as it were, anyone and everyone who sincerely looks to do His will rather than theirs.

Hello again,
I want to make clear that I am a Christian. This is why I am so compelled to research these passages. It is not all about academics, but moving deeper into the Word of God. I was raised as a Christian and went to Christian schools all my life. I have always had a great love for the Lord and the Holy Spirit has moved me to bring others to Christ since I was a child. When I realized that the Bible appeared to condemn me, I was devastated and heartbroken. I knew I had to try to “give up” being a lesbian. In high school I fell in love with my best female friend and I was so self-loathing that I cut off our friendship, switched schools and went into ex-gay reparative therapy. I felt miserable, lonely and suicidal. After more than half of my lifetime of praying that God would take away my feelings and make me straight, I even dated several men. In attempts to “make me straight” I even slept with several. I knew that having sex before marriage was a sin, but I thought God would forgive me because I was trying to change my other “bigger sin” of homosexuality. Being with these men felt like being raped because even though my mouth said “yes” my body was screaming “no.” It was the most unnatural thing and it repulsed me, just as homosexuality repulses heterosexuals. So Then I decided I couldn’t live in such misery so I tried to embrace my lesbian identity, but felt I had no choice but to “give up God.” This was equally as difficult! I felt condemned at every turn and I could not stand the two biggest parts of me in conflict. Finally, instead of praying that God would change my identity, I prayed for peace within my identity. I got the peace and realized that my identity was in Christ. The Holy Spirit is indwelled within me, therefore I am not condemned. In time, I decided to do more research into the Hebrew and Greek language and found all of the information that I explained to you here. Some of it I read from other people’s research, but I would not take that for a final answer. I had to check out each claim with my own eyes to be sure it was not a deception. Some of what I learned, I rejected. But other parts I learned I accepted and it was an astounding revelation. I have sense been with my Christian female partner for nearly 10 years and we grow in our Spiritual walk together. We attend a local Bible-based Christian church and study the Word together and pray together on a daily basis. It works because we put God first. I am convinced that this is the key to any successful relationship. God blesses us because we focus on Him and He is at the center of our union.

I know that nothing is "impossible" with God, but there are certainly things not done by God. I can promise you that if you ask anyone who is gay/lesbian or even claim to be "ex-gay/lesbian" they will all tell you that they continue to have desires to be close with the same gender. This is so much more than a desire for sex. It is the same romantic longings that you have as a heterosexual to have a deep romantic relationship with affection and a lifelong commitment. It is a longing for affection and love, not just a lustful sex. The only instances in which it would appear that someone has “switched” from being gay to straight are the bisexuals who choose to be with the opposite gender. In these cases, they were already bisexual, so they cannot claim a change took place. As I mentioned before, the “ex-gay” ministries just changed their definition of “gay” to suit their claim that “thousands have left homosexuality.” Instead of gay being an ATTRACTION to the same gender, they say being gay is being SEXUALLY ACTIVE with the same gender. So those who are “ex-gay” are just not having sex with the same gender, they have not turned straight. Remember I said this is the same logic as calling a heterosexual “ex-straight” if they are not engaged in a sexual relationship. This could even include married heterosexuals! Anyhow, my point is that it would seem to be that God has chosen NOT to change gays to straights. Why is this? It does not mean that God has limitations, but that it would appear that He somehow feels this is not a necessary change. It would be like an African-American woman praying every night that God would turn her into a Caucasian. God could certainly do this if He wanted to, but why would He when He created her this way for a reason?

You mentioned the ingrained feelings towards anger. I commented about this already the first time you said this. Rage and anger is harmful towards self or others, thus a sin. Loving someone else in a consensual commitment is not harmful, thus it is not even comparable. You also mentioned an addiction to alcohol. Let me touch on this, since I have personal experience! I have alcoholism in my family. Not my parents, but grandparents and extended relatives, so it is in my genes. Perhaps you could say I was born with the ingrained addictive potential towards alcohol. In the early days that I described in my first paragraph, I chose to drink. I became a total raging alcoholic. Mind you, this was when I was at first running from accepting who I am as a lesbian, and then also moving into trying to reject God (before acceptance of both came.) Thank the Lord almighty, my parents put me into a Christian rehab and I have been sober for over a decade. God healed me of my alcoholism completely…. But what if I never chose to pick up that first drink? Would I have battled life-long cravings for alcohol without even knowing what it was like? This is doubtful. On the other hand, I had my first crush on a girl at 6 years old. I fell in love with a girl at 15. I didn’t “act” on those feelings until I was 20, yet those feelings were always there. So although God has been gracious and helped me overcome my addiction to alcohol, this is nothing similar to my love for the same-gender.

Think back to your childhood and adolescent days. Think back to your past adult relationships. Imagine if the whole of society told you that your feelings were wrong and that you should not ever be with a woman. Hypothetically, imagine if the church told you the only way God would accept you is if you were with a man! Could you do it and be happy? What if instead they told you that you had to be alone for the rest of your life, with no possibility of any romantic closeness ever to come. Could you be happy? Now for some, celibacy is a Spiritual Gift and is done in joy towards the Lord. But the majority of society does not possess this Spiritual Gift of celibacy, so to force a gift that is not there is daunting and depressing beyond words. We were created to want to make connections with other people at a deep level. For the majority, it is the most important thing aside from serving God.

Although this is my experience and the experience of hundreds of others that I have met/interviewed, I have no problem with any avenue in which God is connected to the individual. As long as the Glory is given to God, than I accept it as that person’s individual path to God. I just don’t want people to be discouraged into believing they are forced to be alone if their heart longs for commitment.

Hiya!

First I’d like to express the overwhelming joy I feel in learning how your relationship with God is so important you’ve humbly done what was necessary to make your life conform to His expressed will. I’m certain you’ve gained more than anything you’ve had to sacrifice for it! :)

With this in mind, I’d like to conduct a brief thought experiment if you would indulge me. First, I’m going to assume you happily assent with this, one of Christ‘s various maxims, to wit -

“For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake is the one that will save it” - Luke 9:24

So here’s my question:

If forced to ‘resist as far as blood’ have you resolved to remain faithful to Christ even if it cost you your soul as it did the Apostle James - the Apostle John’s brother - Stephen and other Christian martyrs? Do you love God and Christ that much? (Hebrews 12:4; Acts 12;2; Acts 7:59,60)

1 More Response

Itnaom,

The pernicious doctrine of Hell is predicated on another mendacious doctrine, to wit, The Immortality of the Soul.

Adherence to such a doctrine, however, presents a serious challenge to believers.

Case in point:

Jehovah very pointedly warned Adam and Eve that if they touched the fruit of the trees in the middle of the Garden of Eden they would die. (Genesis 3:3)

Satan, on the other hand, promised Eve, “YOU positively will not die.” (Genesis 3:5)

So who is telling the truth? Jehovah God or Satan?

Are Adam and Eve dead or alive?

What say you?

So let me get this clear. You believe that the immortality of the soul is a lie. Do you believe that only those who choose Jesus will attain immortality? So when it talks about the eternal fires of hell, you believe it is not eternal because Satan is a liar and said "you will positively not die" in the Garden of Eden? Please correct me if I am wrong in your logic. I am not wanting an argument, just wanting to know more. How do you dismiss all the Bible passages that speak of Hell? What is Hell to you?

No worries. I know your questions are sincere and peaceable in nature :)

On to your queries then!

I believe God told Adam and Eve the truth and that Satan is the liar. I believe Adam and Eve are dead. Not alive in some nether realm or any other realm for that matter but dead.

As per your questions on Hellfire please inform me, how can hell be a place of eternal torment for the wicked when Jesus himself went to hell when he died?

Acts 2:31

King James Bible
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL, neither his flesh did see corruption.

American King James Version
He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Bible in Basic English
He, having knowledge of the future, was talking of the coming again of Christ from the dead, that he was not kept in HELL and his body did not see destruction.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in HELL, neither did his flesh see corruption.

Webster's Bible Translation
He seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL, neither did his flesh see corruption.

Concerning Jesus, Acts 2:27 informs us -

King James Bible
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

American King James Version
Because you will not leave my soul in HELL, neither will you suffer your Holy One to see corruption.

Bible in Basic English
For you will not let my soul be in HELL and you will not give up your Holy One to destruction.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

Webster's Bible Translation
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption:

Hi again, again,
Hehe. It is nice to talk to you about all these things. Happy Sunday, by the way. I hope you are well and thank you for talking to me. So now I am wondering if you believe that Adam and Eve are now dead, then do you not believe in Heaven either? Or is it more along the lines that we will be raised on the last day, then go to Heaven (or Hell temporarily?) Or that only the believers will be raised on the last day and go to Heaven? Or do we all just die and that is it? I am just trying to get a better idea of what you believe…

So regarding the verses you quoted. I think the only reason I would disagree is because Jesus is a one of a kind example. Jesus would not be trapped in Hell because He was resurrected from the dead. He paid the penalty for our sins and it was finished, for Him. But from what I can remember (if memory serves me as correct), Jesus spoke a lot about hell and its eternal flames. What do you make of that? I will be totally honest. I wish there was no such thing as hell. It is a scary thing and sometimes seems unfair. The thing that keeps me believing in it though is the sacrifice that Jesus made for us to save us from eternal punishment. He went in our place so that we wouldn’t have to go ourselves. If there were no hell at all, it would seem that all the sins would go unpunished. At the same time, eternity seems like a long time (obviously, haha) to punish anyone. So really, I would like to learn more about this idea. Do you have any more supporting verses? And how do you negate the verses that do call hell “eternal.” Am I just missing a Hebrew/Greek translation issue (because I haven’t checked it out)?

Hiya! Again! heh eh eh eh :)

Had a wonderful Sunday with my little boy despite still battling this lousy flu. Thanks for asking? What did you do?

Btw, quick question. When was the last time you read the Bible in its entirety?


Ok, onto your questions:


RE: Heaven

Revelation 20:6 -
“[T]hey [the chosen few selected to enjoy immortality in Heaven] will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will **rule as kings** with him for the thousand years.”

Question: Over whom will they reign? After all, you can't be much of a King if you don't have subjects, right? :)

We find the answer here in Revelation 5:10 -
“[The Lamb, Jesus,] made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”

Aha! So, they are to rule over the earth's new subjects, it's new inhabitants.

Question: Who are these inhabitants?

Let's turn again to Revelation this time to chapter 7 verses 9-12 which reads, in part -
“[L]ook! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And in response one of the elders said to me: “These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?” So right away I said to him: “My lord, you are the one that knows.” And he said to me: “These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Here we see a “great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues”. ““These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation” Jesus prophesied would occur as recorded in Matthew chapter 24.

Question: Aren't these of the “great crowd” the same who “[The Lamb, Jesus,] made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth”?

No. How can we be so sure? Revelation 20:1 & 3 helps us understand why this is so. Here we read in part -
“[L]ook! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. [These] hundred and forty-four thousand [] have been bought from the earth.”

For what purpose were they bought from the earth? Going back to Revelation 5:10 we read -
“[The, Lamb, Jesus] made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.”

Putting these two verses together - Revelation 20:1,3 and Revelation 5:10 - we can understand that those gathered together to be made kings and priests over the earth total just 144,000.

For this reason we can conclude that the “great crowd” mentioned in Revelation 7:9-12 is not the same group referred to as those who would be kings and priests over the earth.

This understanding harmonizes with what Jesus said when, hanging alongside an evildoer who exerted faith in him he promised him, “You will be with me in Paradise” - Luke 23:43

Jehovah's original purpose for the earth and mankind will be fulfilled. The entire earth will be restored to the paradisaic conditions the Garden of Eden once enjoyed.

“Look! I am making all things new”, God says. (Revelation 21:5)

“[I] will reside with [mankind]”, he promises, “and they will be [my] peoples. And [I myself] will be with them. And [I] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” - Revelation 21:3 & 4

When Jehovah God goes into action to bring the last of his promises to completion we will finally see the fulfillment of what he prophesied so long ago as recorded in the Bible book of Psalms -

"For evildoers themselves will be cut off,
But those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth.

And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more;
And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be.

But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,
And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

For those being blessed by him will themselves possess the earth,
But those upon whom evil is called by him will be cut off.

The righteous themselves will possess the earth,
And they will reside forever upon it.

Hope in Jehovah and keep his way,
And he will exalt you to take possession of the earth.
When the wicked ones are cut off, you will see [it]." - Psalms 37:9-11,22,29,34


Let's turn to where the release of Satan is detailed, Revelation chapter 20:7-9 -
“Now as soon as the thousand years have been ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth [] to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea.”

If you notice, the scripture here says that “ he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the EARTH” thus clearly indicating that the earth will remain inhabited.

RE: The Resurrection of the Dead

There were those faithful persons of old times of whom Paul speaks: “Women received their dead by resurrection; but other men were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection.” (Heb 11:35) These men exhibited faith in the resurrection hope, knowing that life at that time was not the all-important thing. The resurrection they and others will have through Christ comes after his resurrection and appearance in heaven before his Father with the value of his ransom sacrifice. At that time he repurchased the life right of the human race, becoming the potential “Eternal Father.” (Heb 9:11, 12, 24; Isa 9:6) He is “a life-giving spirit.” (1Co 15:45) He has “the keys of death and of Hades [Sheol].” (Re 1:18) With the authority now to give everlasting life, at God’s due time he performs “a better resurrection,” since those experiencing it can live forever; none of such unavoidably need to die again. If obedient, they will continue living.

Those who are “called and chosen and faithful,” Christ’s footstep followers, his “brothers,” who are spiritually begotten as “God’s children,” are promised a resurrection like his. (Re 17:14; Ro 6:5; 8:15, 16; Heb 2:11) The apostle Peter writes to fellow Christians: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you.”—1Pe 1:3, 4.

Peter also describes the hope such ones possess as “precious and very grand promises, that through these you may become sharers in divine nature.” (2Pe 1:4) They must undergo a change of nature, giving up human nature to obtain “divine” nature, thus sharing with Christ in his glory. They must die a death like Christ’s—maintaining integrity and giving up human life forever—and then they receive immortal, incorruptible bodies like Christ’s by a resurrection. (Ro 6:3-5; 1Co 15:50-57; 2Co 5:1-3) The apostle Paul explains that it is not the body that is resurrected, but rather, he likens their experience to the planting and sprouting of a seed, in that “God gives it a body just as it has pleased him.” (1Co 15:35-40) It is the soul, the person, that is resurrected, with a body to suit the environment into which God resurrects him.

In the case of Jesus Christ, he gave up his human life as a ransom sacrifice for the benefit of mankind. The 40th Psalm is applied to him by the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews, who represents Jesus as saying, when he came “into the world” as God’s Messiah: “Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me.” (Heb 10:5) Jesus himself said: “For a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (Joh 6:51) It follows that Christ could not take his body back again in the resurrection, thereby taking back the sacrifice offered to God for mankind. Besides, Christ was no longer to abide on earth. His “home” is in the heavens with his Father, who is not flesh, but spirit. (Joh 14:3; 4:24) Jesus Christ therefore received a glorious immortal, incorruptible body, for “he is the reflection of [Jehovah’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places. So he has become better than the angels [who are themselves mighty spirit persons], to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.”—Heb 1:3, 4; 10:12, 13.

Christ’s faithful brothers, who join him in the heavens, give up human life. The apostle Paul shows that they have to have new bodies repatterned, or refashioned, for their new environment: “As for us, our citizenship exists in the heavens, from which place also we are eagerly waiting for a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has.”—Php 3:20, 21.

While Jesus was hanging on a stake, one of the evildoers alongside him, observing that Jesus was not deserving of punishment, requested: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.” Jesus replied: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Lu 23:42, 43) In effect, Jesus said: ‘On this dark day, when my claim to a kingdom is to outward appearances highly unlikely, you express faith. Indeed, when I do get into my kingdom, I will remember you.’ This would require a resurrection for the evildoer. This man was not a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. He had been engaged in wrongdoing, lawbreaking meriting the death penalty. (Lu 23:40, 41) Therefore, he could not hope to be one of those receiving the first resurrection. Additionally, he died 40 days before Jesus ascended into heaven and hence before Pentecost, which was 10 days after that ascension, when God through Jesus anointed the first members of those who will receive the heavenly resurrection.—Ac 1:3; 2:1-4, 33.

The evildoer, Jesus said, would be in Paradise. The word means “a park or pleasure ground.” The Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word for “garden” (gan), as at Genesis 2:8, by the Greek word pa·ra′dei·sos. The paradise in which the evildoer will be would not be “the paradise of God” promised to “him that conquers,” at Revelation 2:7, for the evildoer was not a conqueror of the world with Jesus Christ. (Joh 16:33) The evildoer would therefore not be in the heavenly Kingdom as a member of it (Lu 22:28-30) but would be a subject of the Kingdom when those of “the first resurrection” would, as kings of God and Christ, sit on thrones, ruling with Christ for a thousand years.—Re 20:4, 6.

The apostle Paul said to a group of Jews who also entertained the hope of a resurrection that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”—Ac 24:15.

The Bible makes it plain who are “the righteous.” First of all, those who are to receive a heavenly resurrection are declared righteous.—Ro 8:28-30.

Then the Bible calls faithful men of old such as Abraham righteous. (Ge 15:6; Jas 2:21) Many of these men are listed at Hebrews chapter 11, and of them the writer says: “And yet all these, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not get the fulfillment of the promise, as God foresaw something better for us [spirit-begotten, anointed Christians like Paul], in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us.” (Heb 11:39, 40) So, the perfecting of them will take place after that of the ones having part in “the first resurrection.”

Then there is the “great crowd” described in Revelation chapter 7, who are not members of the 144,000 “sealed” ones, and who consequently do not have “the token” of the spirit as being spirit-begotten. (Eph 1:13, 14; 2Co 5:5) They are described as coming “out of the great tribulation” as survivors of it; this would seem to locate the gathering of this group in the last days shortly before that tribulation. These are righteous through faith, being clothed in white robes washed in the blood of the Lamb. (Re 7:1, 9-17) As a class, they will not need to be resurrected, but faithful ones of that group who die before the great tribulation will be resurrected in God’s due time.

Also, there are many “unrighteous” persons buried in Sheol (Hades), mankind’s common grave, or in “the sea,” watery graves. The judgment of these along with “the righteous” resurrected on earth is described in Revelation 20:12, 13: “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds.”

We note that this judgment is placed in the Bible in the account of events occurring during Christ’s Thousand Year Reign with his associate kings and priests. These, the apostle Paul said, “will judge the world.” (1Co 6:2) “The great and the small,” persons from all walks of life, will be there, to be judged impartially. They are “judged out of those things written in the scrolls” that will be opened then. This could not mean the record of their past lives nor a set of rules that judges them on the basis of their past lives. For since “the wages sin pays is death,” these by their death have received the wages of their sin in the past. (Ro 6:7, 23) Now they are resurrected that they might demonstrate their attitude toward God and whether they wish to take hold of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ that was given for all. (Mt 20:28; Joh 3:16) Though their past sins are not accounted to them, they need the ransom to lift them up to perfection. They must make their minds over from their former way of life and thought in harmony with God’s will and regulations for the earth and its population. Accordingly, “the scrolls” evidently set forth the will and law of God for them during that Judgment Day, their faith and their obedience to these things being the basis for judgment and for writing their names indelibly, at last, into “the scroll of life.” - http://bit.ly/W9IY1Q

I know I’ve given a lot to digest but don’t hesitate to ask me to clarify anything you need help with :)

RE: Christ's Teachings on Hell

It's interesting to note that The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that Luke 16:19-31 is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you?

If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith?

But the Bible does not contradict itself (Or do you believe otherwise?)

What does the parable mean? The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54.

Accordingly, Christ never taught anywhere that Hell - Sheol (in Hebrew) or Hades (in Koine) - was a physical location where immaterial souls would experience eternal fiery torment because that’s just not what he believed. His thoughts on what happened to man at death were in complete harmony with the teachings found in such passages as Genesis 3:19 and Ecclesiastes 9:5 & 10. Compare with John 11:1-14.

3 More Responses

Itnaom,

Even if your reinterpretation of those Pauline passages traditionally used to show the sinful nature of homosexuality are correct, how can it possibly harmonize with what the rest of the Bible teaches, to wit, “God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene”? (Romans 1:26, 27)

Hi there,
Thanks for your replies.... Once again, study the Scripture in context. Instead of making this incredibly long (which it already will be) Romans is explained in these 2 videos here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZrKMn2MlqM and http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aKswoVivGp8

Just remember that the entire first chapter of Romans is addressing the Roman people who exchanged their knowledge of God for Idol worship. It over and over concludes that Paul was talking to these men and women who had exchanged their knowledge of God for worship of idols. I am not sure what translation you are using (above), but I can see that it uses a lot of "fillers" and misleading sexual terminology. I will explain this later.

Furthermore (aside from the information in the videos), it never said women were with women, but that "they did that which was unnatural." One must realize what function shrine prostitutes had in idol worship. WARNING: THIS IS GRAPHIC BUT FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES. A male idol worshiper would give their "seed" as a sacrifice to the gods through the intercessory shrine prostitute. These included both men and women. But traditional, or "natural" intercourse was not had between either the man nor the woman shrine prostitute. Instead, the idol worshiping man would "give his seed sacrifice" to the woman shrine prostitute anally as to avoid pregnancy. (I warned you this was graphic and I apologize if it offends anyone.) LIKEWISE the men left the natural (or traditional intercourse) with women and had anal intercourse in these idol worship ceremonies with the women (anally) and the men (anally). The male shrine prostitutes served the same function as the female shrine prostitutes, as the idol worshiping males would give their seed anally to the male prostitutes.

When it says that they "burned in lust towards one another" this is completely misleading. Go into the Greek and see we insert "filler" words to make the sentence flow better. It simply says " they burned in lust for another; men with men performing unseemly." There are two things to note here. One, the word "another" can have a double meaning. It could mean "an additional to the same" or "distinctly different from the first." Example: "John had another cup of coffee." (Meaning that John had an additional cup of coffee.) or "John had another cup of coffee." (Meaning that John had a different type of coffee from the first.) Second big issue is the Greek word for "unseemly" which is "aschemosune." When we think of "unseemly" we automatically think of something perverted or unsuitable. This is a definition of aschemosune, but only one. Another definition of aschemosune is "a woman's genitals." So here, retranslated within the Scripture we have an entirely different meaning:

"They burned in lust towards another (something different); men with men performing sex on woman's genitals." When we take the liberty to translate it in this manner (as the meanings of words permit), it seems that the men burned in lust for something other than natural intercourse which were the orgies that were also commonplace in Roman Idol worship ceremonies. I will not get any more graphic, but please realize what 2 men with a woman is referring to... This is unnatural and completely tied to the Idol worship ceremonies which is repeatedly mentioned throughout Romans 1.

Therefore (note the information provided in the videos as well), Romans is not condemning homosexuality as a whole. It certainly cannot by condemning committed God-centered same-gender relationships because 1) The offenders in Romans rejected worshiping God and worshiped idols instead 2) The offenders had promiscuous sexual relationships outside of monogamy.

While I certainly recognize your unseemly reinterpretation of these passages I must, respectfully, defer to what the Bible actually teaches.

For example:

“You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”—Leviticus 18:22.

As part of the Mosaic Law, this prohibition was one of many moral laws given specifically to the nation of Israel. Even so, the commandment expresses God’s view of homosexual acts, whether by Jews or non-Jews, when it says: “It is a detestable thing.” The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, inc3st, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean. (Leviticus 18:24, 25) Did the Bible’s viewpoint change during the Christian era? Not at all:

“That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural [phy·si·ken′] use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”—Romans 1:26, 27.

Why does the Bible describe homosexual acts as unnatural and obscene? Because it is wrong for men and women to use their bodies in any way that is out of harmony with the functions for which God created them. What is unnatural in that sense is sinful.

Conspicuously, homosexual acts cannot produce offspring. In this way such acts go against our Creator’s objective purpose for human sexuality. As Jesus himself explained, “from [the] beginning of creation ‘He made them male and female. On this account a man will leave his father and mother, and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”” (Mark 10:6-9)

The Bible even goes so far as to compare homosexual activity to the sexual relations that rebellious angels, who came to be known as demons, had with women before the Deluge of Noah’s day. (Genesis 6:4; 19:4, 5; Jude 6, 7) God views both acts as unnatural and, thusly, sinful.

Ahhh Max,
You are going to keep me glued to the computer all day responding! Haha. Anyway, There are of course explanations for all of the verses that appear to condemn homosexuality. I really wish you would just read the guided study. It explains it all in detail. Once again, it is http://turn.to/gaychristians

I know I am not going to be able to get to all of it due to the limitation of plain text on EP. But let me try to explain the best I can on here anyway. First I am going to go over what you last said (which will explain Genesis 19 and the story of Sodom.) Second I will explain Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

YOU SAID – “The Bible even goes so far as to compare homosexual activity to the sexual relations that rebellious angels, who came to be known as demons, had with women before the Deluge of Noah’s day. (Genesis 6:4; 19:4, 5; Jude 6, 7) God views both acts as unnatural and, thusly, sinful.”

I love that you brought this up. This is going to blow your mind. For those who aren’t familiar with what Max speaks of, the verses he quoted are about the Nephilim. These were human/angel hybrids, because as he said, the angels had relations with human women…. So when you say “the Bible compares homosexual activity to relations with angels,” you are so close to hitting the target you don’t even realize it. Remember Sodom. What do you think of? Most would say that all the men of Sodom requested to have sex with the two male visitors in Lot’s house, consequently, God destroyed the city because they were homosexuals. This translation goes so deep that we even use the English word “Sodomy” to describe, well, you know… Anyway. Look again. 1) The two visitors that were under the protection of Lot’s roof were not human men, but ANGELS. 2) The men of the city surrounded the house and wanted to have sex WITH THE ANGELS against their will which is RAPE. How can the attempted gang-rape of angels be homosexuality?????????????? Men in the time of Sodom would often rape other men as a sign of power and/or punishment. When Lot refused to give the angels up, they Sodomites said “we will deal with you (Lot) worse than them (Angels).” This clearly seems like a punishment, not a friendly request for sex. It was not uncommon for an inhospitable land to attempt the rape of foreigners as a sign of power. If you think this sounds crazy, please read Judges 19 and you will see an almost identical story to Sodom in a town called Gibeah. We can also see the intentions of the Sodomites played out in Gibeah, as when the foreign men were protected from rape, the woman was given over as a substitute punishment, raped all night and then murdered and mutilated. If these men were just gay and horny, why did they accept the woman as a substitute? There was clearly a power play of punishment involved here, as the men not only murdered the woman after rape, but mutilated her into 12 pieces. This has nothing to do with modern-day committed consensual same-gender relationships. Thus, we cannot group all gay people in this category of rapists and/or those who want sex with angels.
Furthermore, Jude 1:7 speaks of those in Sodom going after “strange flesh” (Greek words: sarkos heteras) which is equated to “going after one NOT of the same nature or class.” It is obvious that two people of identical gender would be of the same nature or class even more than a male and female. Humans are in a different nature and class to angels just as we are in a different class to animals. Therefore, “strange flesh” is referring to angel and human relations and/or inner-species sex, not gay/lesbian sex.

Moving on…

Lets now focus on Leviticus: The word for "to lie with" in regards to a man lying with a man in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 is shakab (ושכב). “You shall not lie with (shakab-ושכב) mankind…” (Lev. 18:22). There are multiple words for "to lie with" in Hebrew, many with multiple meanings aside from sex. "Shekobeth" is the only one that means sex and only sex. It is used in the verse following Lev. 18:22 when describing **********. Shakab is unique, in that we find the meaning through reading the Scripture which leads us to some shocking conclusions... Let me explain.

Shakab has multiple meanings. It is easy to learn the sexual context of the word since it can be found 213 times in 194 verses in the Bible. Referring back to the definitions, over half of the verses used shakab to simply “lie down to sleep.” A good portion of the verses used shakab as “to lie down in death.” There are 52 incidences in which shakab is used in a verse which means “to MAKE one lie down,” which is descriptive of “sex by force or deceptive coercion” which by modern definition would be RAPE. There are no instances of regular sex within any use of "shakab." It is always used in a rape situation or deceptive coercion. Here are some examples:

“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie (shakab) with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.” -Genesis 19:32 (The daughters of Lot get him drunk and rape their father to have children.)
When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force (shakab). -Genesis 34:2 (Shechem rapes Dinah.)
“That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie (shakab) with me, and I cried with a loud voice.” Genesis 39:14 (A woman falsely accuses Joseph of raping her.)
“However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay (shakab) with her.” 2 Samuel 13:4 (Amnon rapes his sister Tamar.)
“For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled , and the women ravished (shakab)…” Zechariah 14:2 (Speaking of the rapes of women in opposing cities.)
“If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed (engaged/unmarried) unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie (shakab) with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (Sexual coercion of an engaged woman.)

Looking at all the verses that contain Shakab in the ENTIRE Bible, we see it never means just regular sex. Therefore, every verse that uses shakab is talking about sex by deceptive coercion (rape.) So why would Leviticus be the exception and be the only time it uses the term for sex without rape? If apply this in this way, it is irresponsible, misleading and highly unlikely. This is clearly a time where words have been used in too broad of a sense.

Let me make something else clear. There is a second part to the verse, which would seem like we were saying that a man can rape a woman if we applied “shakab.” Let it be known that this is not the case. The second half of the Leviticus verse is “lie with (mishkab-משכב) womankind.” Before I describe the other Hebrew word for “to lie with” which is “mishkab,” lets step back for a moment and recall what I said in the last message about “filler words.” Remember the English translators insert words that are not in original text to make the sentence flow easier. There is no “AS YOU lie with womankind.” In full it literally says:
“[Thou shalt not] shakab mankind mishkab womankind: abomination.”
Looking at all the context in all the verses in the Bible, we can see that mishkab is always used in a feminine sense. It is used in verses that show submission to sex. So applying mishkab to the second half of the verse we could conclude that Leviticus in whole is condemning men raping men as well as men submitting to rape of other men. Why would the man submitting also be condemned since he is the victim? Just look back at the last verse given (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) and it gives this example of the condemnation of submission to coerced sex. In Deuteronomy, the man overtook the woman in sex (shakab), but she did not fight back, consequently, both the man and woman were killed. Note that this is in the Old Testament with much harsher punishments due to the lack of Jesus’ blood sacrifice for sins. So going to the second mention of shakab with males in Leviticus 20:13, we see that these men would both have a death punishment, just like the man who shakab the engaged woman and both were put to death.

That is only one part of the explanation. I still encourage you to go to the guided study, because now this is going to get confusing without the capability of color coded text like on the website. When viewing the entire chapter of Leviticus 18, we see that there are “groupings of forbidden acts.” So first we have a greeting Leviticus 18:1-5, then specific acts to being with people near of kin in Leviticus 18:6-20, then we have acts that are specific to the Idol worship of Molech in Leviticus 18:21-24. The last part in Leviticus 18:25-30 describes the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan which committed these customs before the Israelites came into the land. So when we look at these groupings in categories, we can see that the majority of Leiticus 18 is speaking about forbidden acts with those near of kin (6-20). Then we change geers completely. In the 21st verse we see this: Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to be consecrated to the idol Molech, nor defile the name of thy God. (Following is the famous 22nd verse) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”

Remember that the Bible was broken up into chapters and verses much much later, so these things can easily be taken out of context when pulling out verses without reading pages of context. As you can see, we have the mention of a male giving their seed to the Idol Molech. Remember as described before about the Male Shrine prostitutes? Here they are in association with idols once again. Shakab is always in the context of rape OR coerced sex, and certainly these idol worshiping men were coerced to give their seed as a sacrifice, even if they didn’t want to. It was their only option. So lastly, we have **********, which was sadly another idol worship practice. These are all grouped together. If you look in Leviticus 20 (which mentions male shakab again), it talks about the punishments associated with shakab and with giving your seed to the idol Molech in extensive detail.

So now do you see, when looking at all the verses that appear to condemn homosexuality (refer to my other comments as well) that there are true alternate translations WITHIN the Scripture? Now that you are aware of this, how can you without a doubt condemn homosexuality as a whole? One must prayerfully use discernment and make sure that they are not confusing their repulsion towards homosexuality (because they do not have natural feelings towards the same gender) with their true Spiritual conviction. The Bible condemns homosexual rape, homosexual prostitution, homosexual sex acts in idol worship and ********** (this last one I can explain later if you would like.) It does NOT condemn committed consensual God-centered same-gender relationships. Therefore, we cannot condemn all of homosexuality. Would God want an entire group of potential followers to be excluded from His Kingdom due to the wrongful judgment of others? Certainly not.

Ooops, I missed something… You mentioned “from [the] beginning of creation ‘He made them male and female. On this account a man will leave his father and mother, and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.” (Mark 10:6-9). This can also be found in Matthew 19:4-6: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
In both cases, Jesus is ANSWERING A QUESTION. Read in context and you will see what he was answering. The Pharisees were asking about divorce in Matthew 19:3- “Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” Likewise in n Mark 10:2- “Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” They did NOT ask “Is it lawful for gay and lesbians to marry?” This is a question about permitted grounds for divorce between a man and a wife, not a commandment that all people must marry heterosexually and have children. To say this is to say that all men and women who do not reproduce are sinful. What about the infertile man or woman? Is he/she sinning against God? “Let not man put asunder” or “do no pull apart” means that men should not set their wife aside and divorce her, because God has joined them in a Holy Union. This appears to be an instruction by Christ to value commitment in marriage, not a prohibition against same-sex love and relationships. In fact, there is no written documentation within the entire Bible where Jesus mentioned homosexuality as a sinful act.
If you read on in this same chapter, Jesus actually states that there are some people for which marriage between male and female are not relevant. Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word (about a man and woman marrying), but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:11-12). A eunuch is most commonly known as a male whose testicles have been crushed/cut off, i.e castrated. Castration was not practiced by Jews, so these men were of Gentile origin and many times performed this to emulate their female idols for worship. Many eunuchs in Biblical times worked as brothel guards because there was no risk of them having sex with the females.

The Law of Moses forbade eunuchs from giving offerings or approaching the alter of God in Leviticus 20:21, most likely due to their known association to idols and immoral occupation. Some theologians believe that eunuchs were referring also to homosexuals because they were men without sexual desires towards females, otherwise Jesus’ wording of “some were born that way” would only be talking about a minuscule amount of men who were born deformed without testicles. Others believe Jesus is talking to celibate men. I, however, have my own conclusion to who Jesus was referring to after a lot of prayer and research. I believe it was three different classes of men, all under one umbrella of eunuchs. Let me explain:
For there are eunuchs who were born that way (gay and lesbians), and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others (castrated males made that way by men)—and there are those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (people who choose celibacy, gay or straight.)

In this case, some men were born to be unmarried to the opposite gender or celibate rather than choose it or have it forced upon them. Either way, it is no longer the command that man should marry and reproduce as it was in the Law of Moses. Isaiah 56:3-5 states, “Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord or say, ‘The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.’ And let no eunuch complain, ‘I am only a dry tree.’ For this is what the Lord says: ‘To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.” Therefore, God recognizes those who feel cast out and has a place at the table for all Christians whose heart is faced towards God!
Learn more in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxvmQBF_iq8&feature=player_embedded

Happy Sunday my dear!

I appreciate your sincere efforts, I really do, however you're still not addressing the elephant in the room - the fact that not a single homosexual relationship is ever referenced favorably the way heterosexual relationships are.

The Bible is replete with the experiences of heterosexual marriages - oftentimes holding them up as examples worth imitating - but never, not once, does it tell us of faithful servants of God who were homosexuals.

Against this backdrop, your exegesis exists wholly in a vacuum; permanently disconnected for the reality that no loyal worshiper of God ever practiced homosexuality with God's approval.

2 More Responses

Eaay they had to adopt or else killed for what they were. Homosexuality was punishable by death, still is in some countries. So yes it was a choice but something theu were made to do when normally its not. :)

The Christian congregation wasn't executing unrepentant homosexuals. Where are you getting your warped information from?

That was the general viewpoint way way way way way back then. I am talking about early times. Never mind what I do, why do you deny bad stuff happened?

I don't. I simply contend your claim that the Christian congregation executed unrepentant homosexuals. What's your basis in fact?

After seeing my friend EdieZen's activity on my profile page and reading all the comments. I'm going to have to say a few things. First of all your judgemental behavior is frowned upon by God. Secondly I think it's very ignorant that you compare rape to homosexuality. I'm pretty sure God frowns on that too. Thirdly I think you are being a bible thumper that only pick out peices of the bible that fits and leaves out the rest.

Is it judgmental if I tell someone they can't breathe underwater 'cause they weren't designed with gills?

That's not what you said. copy paste--->Our Creator designed us as male and female for a reason. Trying to go against our own design by practicing homosexuality makes as much sense as trying to breathe underwater.-----I do not think you are being wise in all of the things you are saying. I was talking about the thing you say that are judgemental. like copy paste--->Had your rapist claimed to love you would that have made what he did to you ok?--- That is you judgeing that rape and homosexuality is equal in God eyes. This post of yours alone is a sign of judgement on your part. The bible say to love your enemy as you love your brother. And it also speaks about how we aren't to judge for He is the judge. And I believe that God is frowning on you for useing His words against others. I don't believe that you are suppose to be doing that either. So all this speaks loudly on how unwise you really are.

I'm done. I have read the bible and have had to deal with bible thumpers like you before.

You are mistaken my good friend. It is our Creator who designed us and established what is right and what is wrong, not I. Therefore, it is our Creator who only approves of heterosexual marriage, not I. As I've already shown, all other forms of sexual conduct are proscribed against.

Having a fit over this makes as much sense as a child throwing a temper tantrum because he can't live underwater.

But, like I said, if you don't like what God has to say feel free to write your own 'holy book' and start your own religion like J. Smith and E.G. White. Problem solved! :)

Oh point proven, you are unwise. God and Jesus loved all. Jesus loved a prostitute and the gays. He loved all. And he forgives us of our sins when we repent. Those are Gods words not mine. There's more to the bible then what you are putting out and what you are useing. I'm not having a fit I pointing out that you are useing Gods word to judge. You are wrong in this judgement. I do not judge anyone for anything they do. I say to myself "What Would Jesus Do?" Jesus was the son of God and we are suppose to live as he did. He didn't judge for that was his Fathers job. But he loved all. If a person is saved then they are forgiven for their sins. I would hope so because my best friend in church was a gay guy. NO ONE IN CHURCH JUDGED HIM IN OUR CHURCH!!!!! Again you have proved so well how unwise you are. You use the same lines over and over because that is all you have. That isn't wisdom my friend that is ignorance. Define ignorance--->the choice to ignore something.

NO HUMAN CAN LIVE UNDERWATER, no man woman or child can

My point exactly silly girl! In the same fashion no human being can live underwater, homosexuals cannot procreate which is why our Creator made us male and female in the first place.

Pointing out this obvious fact isn't prejudice anymore than telling a child he can't live underwater because he doesn't have gills.

You guys are makin' a mountain out of a molehill.

4 More Responses

@Willow, max asked a question and i answered it. Sorry, you don't like what God has to say about sin. It to say about sin.

Other normal behavior, which comes before the block, insult them. Insults are all one has to offer when they don't have the mercy of Jesus.

I've been reading all these comments and I see that you have presented scripture in the new testament where Christ advocates marriage between a man and a woman. I have one question though. Most people that want to claim that homosexuality use scripture from the old testament where there are places where they actually directly present that homosexuality is bad. It is my understanding that when Christ came, he changed a lot of those old beliefs.....eye for an eye to turn to the other cheek etc. So, if you are a Christian, you must take his word literal and the word of God, his father. Where in the new testament is there scripture that directly says that Christ was against homosexuality or that his father was against it? Please give the chapter and verse number please?

God is consistent throughout the Bible making your distinction between OT and NT moot. Consider the following:


1 Corinthians 6:18 -

Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν. πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὁ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος ἐστιν· ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει.

"Flee from fornication. Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but he that practices fornication is sinning against his own body."


Note that this passages uses conjugations of the term πορνεία. What is πορνεία?


The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

πορνεία
Strong's Number: 4202

Transliterated Word - Porneia - Phonetic Spelling - por-ni'-ah

Definition

illicit sexual intercourse
1.1 adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1.2 sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1.3 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,


As you can see, with a simple understanding of the Koine term πορνεία, it's easy to see what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior in our Creator's eyes.

Jesus speaks of sexual immorality in Mark 7:20-23
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

I am not Christian, but there are many aspects of the Christian faith that I do appreciate. One of those is humility. Maybe you should check yourself and read over some of your comments, especially where you minimized rape that the woman here experienced. You were rather heartless in that matter. As I read, she deleted her experiences. This is supposed to be a place where people like her should be able to express herself with love and support. That was not Christ like of you.

Thank you, for informing me where the homosexuality issue is in the Christian bible. In the past, I searched it out, but never found such things.

You're welcome :)

And thank you for reminding me why I chose to step away from the Christian church as a young teen. I'm even more thankful now that I chose a different spiritual path.

Everyone is free to do as they please. You can even write your own 'holy book' and start your own religion just like J. Smith and Elena H. White.

Sorry to hear that. However you shouldn't let those folks keep you from your relationship with Jesus. Thatis why it is so important to focus on and keep our eyes on Jesus and not others ( believers, lukewarms, fans or unbelievers).

It is people like you that discourage people from Christianity.

Even Jesus had people who didn't like the truths he shared. In fact, these murdered him for what he had to say. So, in a way, your disapproval honors me :)

Here is the problem with defining "porneia" as homosexuality and/or lesbianism. The concept of homosexuality (and lesbianism) was defined in the late 1800s. Sexual orientation (the desire to want closeness, affection and/or sex with a certain gender) was defined as a concept only a little more than a century ago. The Bible cannot mean now what it did not mean then. Secondly, it is a newer concept of using Greek words in the Bible to define homosexuality. The word most commonly modernly associated with homosexuality in the Bible is arsenokoitai (coined by The author Paul) which is used in the 1 Corinthians verse that you originally quoted. The word "homosexuals" was first inserted into the Bible in the Revised Standard Version in 1946. Arsenokoitia simply means "man" and "beds." Long before "homosexuals" was inserted into these newer translations, it was originally "male prostitutes" (among other practices not meaning homosexuality.) This makes more sense, as it is a man in many beds. Once again, the Bible cannot mean now what it did not mean then. History shows that male prostitution was widespread in the ancient world, especially in Idol worship practices.

The argument to define "arsenokoitai" as homosexuals is that the Greek words "arsen" (male) and "koites" (beds) are found in the famous Leviticus verses that appear to condemn a male lying with male (in the written Greek Old Testament, not Hebrew original.) What the translators have completely failed to notice (or mention) is that the Greek words "arsen" and "koites" are paired in 37 other verses in the Bible with absolutely no possible association with homosexuality. So this translation is invalid. If it is associated with Leviticus, than it refers to the male shrine prostitution that was practiced in idol worship and was forbidden for the Levites due to its association with Idol worship. Read the context of these groups of forbidden acts in Leviticus and you will see it is paired with Idol worship of the false god Molech. As further proof, reading non-Biblical texts after the time of Paul reveals that "arsenokoitai" is used in ways that could not possibly mean gay sex. (Committing arsenokoitai with their sisters and mother-in-law, etc.)

There are homosexual sex acts in the Bible that are condemned, but they are homosexual sex acts involving male prostitution (1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy) idol worship sex acts (Leviticus, Romans) and rape (Genesis in regards to Sodom.) So if we condemn all homosexuality due to these texts, than we should also condemn all heterosexuality because the Bible condemns heterosexual prostitution, heterosexual adultery, heterosexual rape, etc. As you can see, this logic does not make sense. Read more about these verses in a guided study of the Hebrew and Greek text: http://turn.to/gaychristians Please do not make a conclusion until you have prayerfully become familiar with this, as a true alternate translation exists WITHIN the Scripture.)

When considering the original language, culture, and context, one cannot find homosexuality condemned as a whole in Scripture, but only in these contexts. Thus, we can NOT conclude from these verses that committed God-centered same-gender relationships are sinful. Therefore, the residents of Corinth did NOT change from homosexual to heterosexual, but stopped engaging in male prostitution.

Sexual orientation is not a choice, and even one of the largest "ex-gay" ministries has recently admitted that NOT ONE of their members has changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Could this be because it is not something that needs to be changed for God, hence the unanswered prayers for change? The reason that these "ex-gay" ministries have been able to claim that "thousands have come out of homosexuality" is because they have re-defined the word "gay" without telling you. To the mass of society, a gay person is "someone attracted to the same gender." To the ex-gay ministry, a gay person is "someone sexually active with the same gender." So simply put, these "thousands who have come out of homosexuality" have not "turned straight," but simply have stopped having sex with the same gender. If we use THEIR LOGIC, than any heterosexual who is not having sex is an "ex-straight." As you can see, the term is very misleading and deceptive. Furthermore, speaking personally to those gay and lesbians who choose to marry the opposite gender for the sake of their perceived idea of Salvation requirements have not "turned straight." They all still have desire towards the same gender and have just chosen to live how they perceive that God wants them to live. They have not changed their sexual orientation, only chosen to marry someone whom they are not innately attracted. Therefore, sexual orientation is not chosen nor is it able to be changed. In conclusion, the residents of Corinth turned from their idolatrous prostitution acts, not homosexuality.

The Bible doesn’t comment on the biology of homosexuals, although it acknowledges that some traits are deeply ingrained. (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) Even if some are oriented toward the same sex, the Bible tells Christians to shun homosexual acts.

For instance, many claim that violent behavior can have a genetic root and that as a result, some people are predisposed to it. (Proverbs 29:22) What if that was true? As you know, the Bible condemns fits of anger. (Psalm 37:8; Ephesians 4:31) Is that standard unfair just because some may be inclined toward violence?

Hi there again,
I am really unsure how this relates or addresses a response to my specific comment. I just really wanted you to understand that the Bible has not condemned homosexuality as a whole as previously thought. Please explain to me how 1 Corinthians 10:4,5 (the verse you just quoted) has anything specifically to do with homosexuality or homosexual acts being "deeply ingrained." If you were able to read and absorb my previous comment, than you would see that this whole discussion about the residents of Corinth turning from homosexuality is invalid when we realize that the word that's been defined in 1 Corinthians (and 1 Timothy) as "homosexuals" for only 67 years is NOT truly "homosexuals" but "male prostitutes." Therefore, we are discussing a completely different subject matter, i.e. those men in Corinth who have left prostitution. Knowing this information (which is not new by the way) makes us responsible to stop targeting a group of people for something that does not exists within Scripture as we previously thought. If you would like to ignore this information in order to continue your argument, than be my guest. I just pray that you really know what you are doing and pray that you are not causing your fellow brother and sister to stumble or be hindered due to this discouraging viewpoint. Telling someone that they are going to go to hell for loving could discourage them into rejecting God all together. This is what worries me the most about your argument and makes me question it. Would God want you to discourage a potential group of His followers and cause them to reject Him because they could not conform to the mold of heterosexual? What good fruit comes from this?

Although I do not feel like you addressed my comment, I will address yours. I think you are trying to make an argument that it does not matter if you are born with a proclivity to have same-gender attraction because some are born with the disposition to be violent? Lets be honest that the verses you have in reference do not state anything of the sort, but just further speak of prohibitions against being angry. Being angry and acting in rage is harming someone else, physically and/or emotionally. All sin works to harm others.... But does "homosexuality" fall into this category? Loving someone in a consensual long-term God-centered relationship does not work to harm, as all other sin does. So does homosexuality fit the profile of sin? Thus it does not seem fitting to compare any sin, genetically ingrained or not, with homosexuality. What is truly condemned in proper context is homosexual sex acts within prostitution, idol worship practices and rape. This would also fall under the umbrella of adultery, as these practices are outside of monogamy. So the gay person who is promiscuous would be condemned in the same way as the straight person acting promiscuous. But neither are condemned in life-long monogamy under God. So lets set the record straight (no pun intended.)

“Let love be your only debt! If you love others, you have done all that the law demands. In the law there are many commandments such as ‘be faithful in marriage,’ ‘do not murder,’ ‘do not steal,’ ‘do not want what belongs to others.’ But all these are summed up in the commandment that says ‘love others as much as you love yourself.’ no one who loves others will harm them. So love is all that the law demands.” - Romans 13:8-12

This other verse comes to mind which, to me, relates to this argument; Those who believe homosexuality is forbidden and those who believe it is not forbidden. How should we proceed in dealing with those in this argument (on both sides)? Should we judge someone's actions by our own perception of unclean and persecute them as being condemned by God by our own argument? Please read:

”Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 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 Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.“-Romans 14: 1-14

When have I ever said homosexuals are going to burn in hell?

You do not explicitly state that "homosexuals will burn in Hell," but do promote it as a sin without reviewing the available alternate translations within Scripture. Sin separates us from God, therefore it would seem safe to conclude that you believe those who "commit" homosexuality without changing are unsaved, thus going to hell. But this is of course a viewpoint which challenges the extent in which the grace of Jesus covers our sin. Regardless, I am sorry for making assumptions, as it is easy to do when this viewpoint (that gays are damned) is heard so often. So let me rephrase what I think you are referring to, minus the hell thing... "Telling someone that *who and how they love is innately sinful* could discourage them into rejecting God altogether." Sadly, we see it all the time. There are many in gay and lesbian community that openly reject God, not because they are innately God-haters, but because they have been completely rejected by His followers to such an extent that they feel that they are not welcome to God. Now let me make note to you that I am not saying that you yourself are spouting off these extreme views. In fact, I wrote to you because you seem like a deep thinker and you present your beliefs in a respectful way, and I appreciate that... I wrote to you so that you could do more research into these topics and see that there is another way to look at it. I would still like you to consider this, wether you feel like commenting back about it or not. I would like your imput if you feel like doing the research.

Itnaom, you make some very interesting points here. Thanks for answering my question on his story with a different perception.

Thank you affinityterra. I have spent years doing research into the Bible in regards to the 6 verses that appear to condemn homosexuality. I have a passion for it and want all Christians to know there is an alternate view within Scripture. It hurts me that people are shut out without even given the full picture due to being innocently misinformed. If you ever want to know more about the topic, feel free to message me.

Happy Saturday!

Before I continue with our discussion I need to ask, when have I ever affirmed that those who sin “without changing are unsaved, thus going to hell?”

Now, getting back to the topic at hand, it seems you misapprehend the ambition of Christ’s preaching work. While he would certainly have loved to bring all of mankind back to God he was not naive. He recognized that only those correctly disposed would respond favorably to the Kingdom message.

This is the thrust of his parable recorded at Matthew 13: 47-50. Here Christ explicates, “That is how it will be in the conclusion of the system of things: the angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the righteous.” The result of this separation is that “these will depart into everlasting cutting-off [those who disobey God], but the righteous ones [those who obey God] into everlasting life.” (Matthew 25:46)

This is why it’s so vital that, instead of soft pedaling these issues, everyone needs to know exactly how God feels about conduct that is inharmonious with God’s will and purpose, like homosexuality.

After all, their very lives are at stake.

Happy Saturday to you as well. Okay Maxamillian, I feel like you are ignoring the topic at hand in the point I am trying to make by focusing only on one issue (that you feel I am wrongfully believing that you believe homosexuals are condemned to hell.) I skimmed through your profile and I see that you have interest in studying the Bible and not believing everything you are told. As a deep thinker, I hope you take this opportunity to spread your knowledge base by doing an intensive study into these passages that appear to condemn homosexuality to realize there is more to the story than the common interpretation. Remember the link I gave you that has a guided study (in my first response to you)? I strongly encourage you to read it. Also in looking through your "experience groups" I see that you do not believe in hell, so lets take that off the table completely. Let everyone reading this have it be known that you do not believe in hell (according to your experience group.) Is this correct, or did you just join the group? If this is true, this makes things more fascinating because a literal hell (a place of burning and eternal punishment) is a very common Christian belief. Somehow you have come to the conclusion that a literal hell does not exist, despite the 54 verses (based on the King James Version) that mention it. So please let me know what made you decide that the plain English version of Scripture was translated in a misleading way to make people believe that their souls burn in a literal fire for all of eternity. I truly would like to know, so perhaps you could teach me a thing or two, as this is not my area of expertise.

So, getting back to what you said. How do you feel that I "misaprehend the ambition of Christ's preaching work?" Your responses to me just seem to further the idea that homosexuality is a sin without considering that the Bible may be talking about something unrelated to homosexuality. Secondly, you say that "their (gays and lesbians) very lives are at stake." So are you saying that even if being gay was a sin, no gay person will go to Heaven because it is inharmonious with God's Will and purpose? I think we may be having trouble understanding each other because we may have a different viewpoint of Salvation. Please explain your idea of Salvation requirements. My beliefs on this are summed up by these verses:

How we are saved:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)

In regards to works:
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

The works God requires according to Jesus:
“Then they asked him, ‘What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent… Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.’” (John 6: 28-29, 47-49).

Living by the New Covenant Law:
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

“Let love be your only debt! If you love others, you have done all that the law demands. In the law there are many commandments such as ‘be faithful in marriage,’ ‘do not murder,’ ‘do not steal,’ ‘do not want what belongs to others.’ But all these are summed up in the commandment that says ‘love others as much as you love yourself.’ no one who loves others will harm them. So love is all that the law demands.” (Romans 13:8-12)

Living by the New Covenant in Jesus' blood:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:23-26).

How to take the narrow path/way/gate:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” (Matthew 7:13). [Jesus said] “I am the gate. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved.” (John 10:9).

So basically I believe we are living under the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, one had to be saved by their works by following The Law. But this covenant was imperfect ("For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” -Hebrews 8:7) because no one was righteous. Animals were sacrificed to the high priest for the forgiveness of sins, but no one was clean. Then, God sent His Son Jesus, the only perfect living sacrifice, to fulfill The Law by being the final sacrifice for sins. Now, anyone who comes into a relationship with Him can receive His grace and be saved. We are seen as righteous in the eyes of God ONLY because the blood of Jesus has sanctified us. "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:15). We are saved through grace by our faith and the Holy Spirit is indwelled within us as believers. To complete the Will of God is to believe in Jesus. To walk in the way of righteousness is to put God first in everything you do and to show love to all people. We all fall short, but God has said “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9). "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." (1 John 4:12).

This is what I believe. What do you believe requires Salvation? How does homosexuality fall out of these requirements (if this is what you believe)? Lastly, please re-read my first comment and respond about the different translation of the Greek word arsenokoitia, noting that this is only 1/6th of the argument against condemning homosexuality as a sinful behavior.

Please see my rejoinders posted as unique story comments.

I am not sure what you mean or where to find this... Sorry, I am very new to this site. I am interested though, so please let me know.

lol, No worries. Just look for the most recent story comments with your name in them. I've addressed my rejoinders to you personally :)

18 More Responses

btw i have a girl friend and our love is beautiful and pure. she makes me happy, so if we are goin to hell than we are goin to hell happy

If you don't like what God has to say feel free to write your own 'holy book' and start your own religion like J. Smith and Elena H. White. Problem solved! :)

* what does that have to do with me?

Well, it's pretty obvious you disagree with God, hence, my suggestion for you to write your own 'holy book' and start your own religion. That's what everybody else who disagrees with God does.

and where did i disagree with god at?? boy don't argue with me

You disagree with what God says at 1 Corinthians 6:18 silly girl.

It is really not anything to take so lightly.

silly girl? nah that be u and

hebrew arent yall the ones that had christ killed????

No, that would be the Jews.

so u admit to being racist as well as a homophobe?

If you don't having anything meaningful to contribute, might I suggest you bounce? heh eheheh :)

Where have I said anything racist or having a fear of homosexuals?

You consder God homophobic? It after all is His accordingtoHis standards, not mine or yours.

* and no i dont disagree with what god said cause he didn't say it it was written by someone then translated into different versions which by catholic law is illegal. So dont tell me u wouldnt write what u were being told to write down when it ment ur family would being killed if u didn't.

u have said that according to god that gays are goin to hell and then u made the statement the jews had christ killed

Prove it. I'd be very interested in seeing where you're getting your 'facts' from.

prove what? that translating the bible from hebrew to english is against catholic law?? um did u not read ur history book? if so ud know that king james was kicked out of the catholic church cause of him divorcing his spanish wife and that he wanted to translate the bible into english its history and history never changes

All the versions came from the one orignal text, God was the author ofthe text and used men as the printing press.

I said God said it is sin and those who die a sinner will go to hell. That is God's word not mine.

And it is a fact the Jews killed Jesus.So how does answering a question with a factual answer equal racist?

if it was racist then why say the race??? a simple no woulda done ok

No, silly girl, prove that God did not inspire Paul to record what's written in 1 Corinthians 6:18.

* where u there?? no i don't think u were so u PROVE to me that he did

Jews are not a race, but a nation. And for clairifcation as some the Romans killed Him, some say Christians killed Him.

they are a race too!!

The authenticity of First Corinthians, and also of Second Corinthians, is unquestionable. These letters were ascribed to Paul and accepted as canonical by the early Christians, who included them in their collections. In fact, it is said that First Corinthians is alluded to and quoted at least six times in a letter from Rome to Corinth dated about 95 C.E. and called First Clement. With apparent reference to First Corinthians, the writer urged the recipients of this letter to “take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle.” First Corinthians is also directly quoted by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. There is strong evidence that a corpus, or collection, of Paul’s letters, including First and Second Corinthians, “was formed and published in the last decade of the first century.”

once again that is translated into english by king james and there wasn't the technology we have today id be willing to bet if u translated the bible today u wouldn't get what was written in the king james bible

Honey, there are only 3 races in humans. basic racial groups: the Negroid, Europeoid, and Mongoloid races.

It has been translated from the orignial to English more recently than KJ and you know what. KJ did a pretty good job considering what he had to work with. The message isstill the same, maybe even clearer now with the later works.

* 1. don't call me honey 2. there are more than three if not where do mexicans come from? 3. if the jews are not a race of people why did hitler murder 6 million of them? oh wait its cause he was a racist bastard

mexicans would be part of the mongolid race. Killing a nation of people or any group of people does not make that group a race of people.

After World War I, he saw that a lot of Germans were without jobs and struggling. Instead of looking at the war as the root cause of the economic problem, he blamed the Jews for the sorry state of affairs. Even during the hard times, the Jews were able to make good money in Germany. Through sheer resourcefulness they were able to land jobs as lawyers, doctors and skilled professionals. Hitler’s anger and hatred intensified because he felt that the Jews were taking away the opportunities that rightfully belonged to the Germans.

Have you even read the Bible in its entirety silly girl? 'Cause what you're saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just sayin'.

if u are racist therefore u hate a race therefore hitler hated the jews therefore the jews are a race of people and @maxx i may be a silly girl but this silly girl can run circles around u in her sleep neither one of u know anything about what u are talken about and mexicans are not part of the mongolid race they are decendents of aztec indians and spanish explores

So I take it your answer to my question is "No", silly girl? That actually would explain a great deal.

You are confusing race with ethnic. Hating someone because they are a threat (perceived or real) or different from you,or over greed or power does not make them a race or change their race.

So, basedon that logic, if it had been a group of Americans who had killed Jesus and then the Americans would be a race?

ethnic:
pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

descendant: a person or animal that is descended from a specific ancestor; an offspring.


There are 3 races of man, and you can have varying mixtures of the 3. You don't get a new race everytime there is a mix.

You don't believe me, maybe you will believe the Encyclopedia:
To classify humans on the basis of physical traits is difficult, for the coexistence of races through conquests, invasions, migrations, and mass deportations has produced a heterogeneous world population. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose, most anthropologists historically agreed on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid.

The Caucasoid, found in Europe, N Africa, and the Middle East to N India, is characterized as pale reddish white to olive brown in skin color, of medium to tall stature, with a long or broad head form. The hair is light blond to dark brown in color, of a fine texture, and straight or wavy. The color of the eyes is light blue to dark brown and the nose bridge is usually high.

The Mongoloid race, including most peoples of E Asia and the indigenous peoples of the Americas, has been described as saffron to yellow or reddish brown in skin color, of medium stature, with a broad head form. The hair is dark, straight, and coarse; body hair is sparse. The eyes are black to dark brown. The epicanthic fold, imparting an almond shape to the eye, is common, and the nose bridge is usually low or medium.

The Negroid race is characterized by brown to brown-black skin, usually a long head form, varying stature, and thick, everted lips. The hair is dark and coarse, usually kinky. The eyes are dark, the nose bridge low, and the nostrils broad. To the Negroid race belong the peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia.

To classify humans on the basis of physical traits is difficult, for the coexistence of races through conquests, invasions, migrations, and mass deportations has produced a heterogeneous world population. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose, most anthropologists historically agreed on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid.

The Caucasoid, found in Europe, N Africa, and the Middle East to N India, is characterized as pale reddish white to olive brown in skin color, of medium to tall stature, with a long or broad head form. The hair is light blond to dark brown in color, of a fine texture, and straight or wavy. The color of the eyes is light blue to dark brown and the nose bridge is usually high.

The Mongoloid race, including most peoples of E Asia and the indigenous peoples of the Americas, has been described as saffron to yellow or reddish brown in skin color, of medium stature, with a broad head form. The hair is dark, straight, and coarse; body hair is sparse. The eyes are black to dark brown. The epicanthic fold, imparting an almond shape to the eye, is common, and the nose bridge is usually low or medium.

The Negroid race is characterized by brown to brown-black skin, usually a long head form, varying stature, and thick, everted lips. The hair is dark and coarse, usually kinky. The eyes are dark, the nose bridge low, and the nostrils broad. To the Negroid race belong the peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia.

And never come back and say hey, thanks for sharing something with me I didn't know.

29 More Responses

@ Zen the bible has been translated from the original text to many languages. The message has never changed.

@hebrew why are you commenting on a different thread instead of just commenting directly to me?
i still dont like your God. hows that?

If you don't like what God has to say Edie, why not just write your own 'holy book' and start your own religion like Joseph Smith or Elena H. White? Problem solved.

because farther down where you responded I can't respond because Willow has a block on.

. Dont feel the need to do that. I'm just fine with my God. There's a difference between worship and pure hate. You hate and judge. That's not God's way. And your cutesy condescending tone just proves it. You gonna delete this comment too?

.i wonder why Willow blocked you..........hmmmmm

Nah, you actually made a half-way decent comment. I'll let it stand, lol :)


In any case, if your God is not the Creator, the author of the Bible, then you've done exactly that.

.Newsflash- your God didnt write the Bible either.

She doesn't like hearing what God has to say on a subject she disagrees with. Guess she thought blocking me would prevent me from responding.

That is very norma lbehavior to haters of the truth, those who the Holy Spirit may have stepped on their toes.

*curtsies* Am done with your bad vibes. This place stinks of hypocrisy. *winks*
I hope your God is right. That whole Judgment Day hoopla. thats gonna be grand.

It will be grand for the believers, not so grand for those who are not.

7 More Responses

@willow Quote"The love between a homosexual couple is no less beautiful than a heterosexual one.
God wouldn't hate such a beautiful thing."

God says that homosexuality is sin, all immoral sexaul activity is sin. God hates sin. So yes God would hate their sin.

.then i suppose your version of God just sucks.

It is not my version, It is what God said, no matter if you or I like it. It is what God said.

Hey Edie, who are you to judge anyone's moral values as right or wrong?

. i didnt say your values were right or wrong. I called YOU a bigot. Hebrew dude can believe what he wants.

.speaking of judging- isnt that your God's job? Instead of yours? Comparing homosexuality to rape is well bad

why do you assume it is a he?

It is about believing God and the truth, it isnot about me, or what I want.

.a million apologies Hebrew. Didnt realize you were a female.

You made that inaccurate disparaging remark based on your disapproving view my moral values. Who are you to judge anyone's moral values as right or wrong?

.what remark was that? That you're a bigot that compares homosexuality to rapists? Nah, i think im pretty accurate when i call you a bigot. I dont throw that word around usually.

Best1ality, rape, sodomy, ped0philia, adultery, fornication all fall under the category of sexual misconduct. This is why our Creator proscribes them. These are all sins just like murder, theft, fraud and Devil worship.

I don't make the rules, I just follow 'em :)

7 More Responses

How is it possible? Matthew 19:26 with God all things are possible. That is the transforming power of Jesus. That is the dieing to self putting off the old person and becoming a new creation in Christ Jesus. It is being sanctified.

You mustn't be serious?
Love is love.
You sound like an idiot.

Had your rapist claimed to love you would that have made what he did to you ok?

Did you just compare homosexual relationships to me being raped? Seriously? That is a comparable act in your mind.
How do you know about that anyways? I thought I deleted most stories relating to that crime against myself.
You really must have been searching through my stories at that rate.

Love is love, right?

But we both know it's not as reductive as you make it seem. Consent is necessary.

So now, to continue our thought experiment, if a 9 year old child falls in love with an adult and consents to a sexual relationship with said adult would that make it ok?

Now your relating child molestation. A 9 year old does not have consent.
Two consenting adults.
You honestly sound like a moron.

So, ultimately, it isn't just about love.

As you've clearly shown, it is important for sexual practices to be regulated in order to ensure the dignity and well being of mankind. These are the same reasons why our Creator proscribes homosexuality, **********, **********, rape and all other abhorent forms of sexual misconduct.

On a more personal note, I am truly sorry you were a victim of rape. For what it's worth, I admire your courage and stalwartness. I also have a better understanding why you're such an insufferable, albeit adorable, little girl.

Why did you delete every comment defending me?

Scared you're wrong ;)

Because you are.

Also none of what you said made any sense to what I suggested.

Love means two individuals who feel nothing but compassion for each other (excluding those who cannot provide consent).

You are closed minded and you are wrong. And you know you are otherwise you wouldn't have deleted those comments.

And don't condescend to me. You do not care for what I have been through otherwise you wouldn't have made that comparison. You care for no one but yourself. Admit it.

Maxximiliann........I am keeping an eye on what you say to this girl.....Surely as a Christian this is a good example for you to show Grace?

.<-----is watching you too

Because I have both the ability and authority to do so? heh ehehe :)

Also do not misunderstand. The comparison I made in my little thought experiment was so that you could feel you how offensive your world view is to our Creator.

He has proscribed homosexual acts and for you to dismiss such a proscription as illegitimate because homosexuals are simply expressing the love they have for one another is offensive to Him.

Why else do you think he literally burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground?

Thanks guys - I think I'm tired out though, there's only so much you can argue with someone this terribly closed minded and self centered. I think we've reached our limit, his poor brain must be going haywire. I'll give him a break (:

If that is how God is and how he thinks - I will 'never' worship such a thing.

The ideal of God is about love not hate.
When will you learn.

.quite possibly the most ignorant, narrow minded thing I've read today.

You're also overlooking the practical value of our Creator's proscription. Think about it. If everyone decided to be gay it would be the end of procreation, the end of the human race.

Our Creator designed us as male and female for a reason. Trying to go against our own design by practicing homosexuality makes as much sense as trying to breathe underwater.

Everything God does is out of love for those who love and obey Him.

And if everyone "decided" to be straight and procreate, the earth would be over run and our natural resources depleted in half the time. (Technically we can breathe underwater- it's called scuba.)

I attend to other matters for a moment and I come back to this. ..

Maxximiliann, may I ask a genuine question? Since you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, do you think homosexuals are the only people who engage in sodomy? Can a husband and wife engage in such a consensual act without concerns of being condemned by the Lord?

In truth, at the way things are going in this world, the end of pro-creation might not be a bad idea.

The love between a homosexual couple is no less beautiful than a heterosexual one.
God wouldn't hate such a beautiful thing.

@Willow

That is a purely subjective view. As I already showed you in my thought experiment, a ped0phile and a rapist can say the exact same thing. Are you saying your opinion is more valid than anyone else's?

Maximillian, allow me to give you an example. My best friend is gay and he lives in a very religious area. He is one of the brightest, most caring men I know, who does a lot of good in this world. He is honest, smart and an amazing friend.

He can also not take the Sacrament at church. Why? Because he is gay and not attracted to women. Therefore he is a "sinner" and can not be absolved. His other family members can though - including a relative having an affair with a married church head. My best friend, in contrast, is 100% monogamous.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this? I was taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. As well, judge not lest ye be judged.

So, my friend, who is the most honest and trustworthy person I am proud to know, is deemed less worthy than his relative who falsely repents. I dont think God had this in mind.

@Rubies

What our Creator says respecting "uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire" applies to all Christians, single and married. It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God's Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view. (2 Peter 1:5-8) The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as "disgraceful sexual appetites" and "obscene" practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own marriage and still be free in God's eyes from expressing "disgraceful sexual appetites" or "hurtful desire"?

@Bette

The overwhelming majority of the earth's population is heterosexual but there's still plenty of space and resources for all to enjoy.

Overpopulation only exists in cities. Famine would not be an issue if the earth's overabundance were equitably distributed.

Check your facts. I do :)

*face palm* You are aware that the bible has been translated a billion times, re written and edited right? You do know that there was not just "one inspired bible writer", right?
In any case, its a book. Not meant to be taken word for word. it is meant as a guide. It is not up to us to judge but for your God to judge. I say "your" God because he is certainly not mine.

Did you honestly just compare homosexuals with rapist and pedophiles?
Why are you comparing such unlike things. We are having a discussion not a simile competition.

And stop quoting the bible - but since we're quoting fiction...
"A persons a person no matter how small." - Dr. Seuss
Meaning everyone is a human being, we are all important. We may have flaws, we may be different, but we are human.

@Rubies

Two wrongs don't make a right and everyone reaps what they sow. While the adulterer(ess) may be getting away with it for now, he/she will get their just due at Armageddon if they do not repent.

As far as your friend is concerned, consider the situation of certain members of the Christian congregation of Corinth -

"Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom?+ Do not be misled. Neither fornicators,+ nor idolaters,+ nor adulterers,*+ nor men kept for unnatural purposes,+ nor men who lie with men,*+ 10 nor thieves, nor greedy+ persons, nor drunkards,+ nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.+ 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were.+ But YOU have been washed clean,+ but YOU have been sanctified,*+ but YOU have been declared righteous+ in the name of our* Lord Jesus Christ+ and with the spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

As you can see from this passage, there were members of the Christian congregation in good standing who were ** former ** homosexuals. What your friend should ask himself is, "How were they able to abandon their homosexual lifestyle and fully adopt a heterosexual one?" These who made this change in their lives were flesh and blood humans just like your friend.

At the end of the day, it's about doing God's will, not our own.

Remember, Jesus could have saved his life and not allowed himself to be murdered but, again, it wasn't about him doing his will but doing God's - no matter what the cost.

.<-----happy fornicator.

You dare spit "God's" words and yet you compared homosexuals to rapists. I'll see you in Hell lovie.
You're the worst kind of bigot

Thank you for answering. I know of no point in the Gospel where Jesus condemns homosexuality.

Additionally, who is anyone as an individual to say what a husband and wife do in the privacy of their own bedroom is "unclean, hurtful desire, or lacking restraint"? For some that could mean having sexual relations with the lights on....for others, perhaps oral copulation. For still others, well... that could mean something significantly more adventerous.

The point being, both sexes might choose to indulge in marital acts that others would never dream of, and that is their right. I can't imagine Jesus ever intended for couples to have a checklist when expressing physical affection.

You are going to lead a very lonely life; however, this fact will allude you since you will only delve deeper and deeper into the false realm you've made for yourself. It's your comfort zone and you won't leave it for anyone. It's sad to know there is people out there like you who desperately need help, but won't reach out to anyone. No one will show you respect, no one will be able to stand to be around you, the mast majority of people will think you are ignorant. And you will be at home by yourself forever on.
Sit at home, alone, and ponder this thought. Is that how you want your life to be?

@Willow

I love you too silly girl :*

@Edie

Despite it being so profusely copied over the 1,600 plus years it took to compile the Bible, modern Bibles, miraculously, are as accurate today as they were when first written. This is amply attested to by the tens of thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts held in museums the world over.

In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible's. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it's clear that these accurately render the ancient texts. As such, there's no reason to worry that additions, deletions, edits, margin notes or other changes have affected the text of today's Bibles.

Moreover, one of the most compelling reasons why millions of reasonable people the world over believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God is the fact that it contains many, many highly specific prophecies that were fulfilled exactly as predicted. No other text – religious or otherwise – holds such an esteemed distinction. Given that it's humanly ** impossible ** for anyone to predict with full accuracy what's going to occur from one hour to the next it's clear that Bible prophecies are not of human – thus divine – origin :)

Way to avoid the question - you are terrified. Do not lie. That's a sin, remember? ;)

@Maxx - I am asking you directly as a Christian man to show Leadership and please not mock Willow or minimize what she has had to endure. Think of the strength it took for her to survive what she did.

If you wish to argue religion and homosexuality, fine. You are at least in the correct group. But kindly cease referencing what happened to her; it bears no relevance to the topic at hand. Thank you.

@Rubies

He doesn't specifically condemn best1ality, ped0philia or rape either. Does that mean they're ok?


More to the point, Jesus wholeheartedly supported his Father's view of what constituted normal sexual relations. Observe -

"“Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4,5)

@Willow

I really, really do love you too :*

That's astonishingly creepy.
I cannot imagine why you insist on treating me like a child when I clearly surpass you in intellect in every way.

Maxx, I don't see how best1ality, ped0philia or rape compare to what a husband and wife do in the privacy of their marital bed.

Normal is largely subjective. Dare I point out that sodomy between a man and woman does not conflict with the above quote? (Should you wish to get technical...)

@Willow

Maybe it has something to do with your overwhelming lack of life experience?

It's ok though. Enjoy life as a kid. You'll have plenty of time to be a grown up when you grow up :)

@Rubies

It's simply really. The aforementioned are all illicit sexual acts. Our Creator designed men and women to enjoy each other sexually within the protective bonds of marriage. Anything outside of this is abnormal and/or abhorrent.

Stating the obvious in this regard is no more prejudiced than telling someone they can't breathe underwater because they weren't designed to.

I'm sure everyone, besides you, will vouch on my side.
My experience? You haven't a clue what my experience is. Do not judge me in such a manner and never condescend me.
I am a better person than you ever were or will be.

@maxx - "The aforementioned are all illicit sexual acts"

Er... does that mean oral sex between a man and wife is illicit? If so, many men are cursing you right now....

@Rubies

I don't make the rules, I just follow 'em :)

But, hey, if you don't like what God has to say then write your own 'holy book' and start your own religion just like Joseph Smith and Elena H. White. Problem solved :)

@Willow

No need to take offense. Like I said, enjoy your childhood. You'll have plenty of time to be a grown up when you're done growing up.

Ahhh, I see a 100 wives running to their husbands having printed this out, and I see 100 men setting up EP accounts to "discuss your interpretation" of scripture.

I shall make popcorn ;-)

Where?! Where?! I'd love to chime in!!


Garsh! You guys are making me famous! he heh eh :)

You won't take me literally not from my lack of experience but rather you know I can out smart you.
It scares you to know you are not right.

Fear not, they shall find you. I'll help direct them ;-)

I would not mess with the wrath of a man whose wife has "evidence" of sexual practices that should be abstained from, lest they be heathens. That's pretty brave of you.

Oh, I hear the thundering footsteps now....

The more the merrier, lol :)

Hey, at least they're not Islamist militants with C4 strapped to their chests, heh h ehe :)

ROTFLOLSHIDMTBTOBIHFBTGBAO!!!

Oh Willow, you kill me!!! :D

I could probably arrange for said militants too... I'm handy like that.

Now... I have to work on an essay I don't want to do. Here are the rules:

- You will not be unkind to Willow. You will wish her the best that life has to offer and secretly acknowledge that she really is a smart cookie

- You are free to go on about Corinthians , Genesis, Leviticus, Confucious, Einstein, (your choice) as long as you do so in a respectful manner.

Failure to abide by the above will result in me abandoning my essay (please give me a reason...). I shall then make a concerted effort to construct a map directly to your account for the angered gentlemen above, who by now have registered an account and are undoubtedly trying to figure out how to use EP.

I trust that these are acceptable terms. I will be keeping an eye on you.

@Rubies

Was that your version of Operation Iraqi Freedom, lol. That's sweet but, my house, my rules.

I don't mind passionate debate but I have no patience for malicious rants riddled with profanity. Tell your boys that if that's their intent not to even bother showin' up for the party. They'll get bounced just as soon as they get here :)

That it was Maxx, that it was. Mine are more gentle than Operation Iraqi Freedom, though.

You drive a hard bargain Maxx.... I put forth two rules and you just can't let me have them, can you? (That's not a house, that's a bomb shelter....)

Yeah yeah, my friends know they shouldn't swear....I'll pass on the message just in case.

Be kind, Maxx.... as a man of faith, you of course will rise above the urge (unholy and deviant as it is) to ridicule or mock Willow, yes? Yes, I know you will.... Jesus would smile upon you for it.......

He couldn't conjure a actual insult even if he tried. All he can come up with is the I'm young - which is just stating fact. It's pointless.

@Rubies

Sweetheart, despite our animated exchanges, I have grown to have nothing but deep admiration and respect for Willow. Also you shouldn't worry so much. She isn't the fragile little girl you seem to think she is. That she can openly discuss her tragedy is proof positive of that. (That and her braggadocio to go toe-to-toe with me despite her overwhelming lack of life experience.)

Don't make me vomit - I don't want your respect or admiration.
I may have less experience - but I use that small amount of experience that I do have for much better purposes than you do.

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

"I have grown to have nothing but deep admiration and respect for Willow" -

See? That wasn't so hard was it? Maxx, you misunderstand. (Must be a man thing). I don't think of Willow as fragile at all. I think of her as a young lady who has been through some hell and is deserving of courtesy and respect. She really shouldn't have past events brought up on an unrelated topic.

PS: Didn't it feel good though to say something nice?? Dont deny it.

@Rubies

I've done nothing out of character. I'm actually a real sweetheart. Just take the time to get to know me a little better, you'll see :)

@Willow

You've got it any way :* No matter how hard you try you'll never make me hate you (that IS your goal, isn't it, h eh ehehe :D)

Now go get your beauty sleep Willow. We can pick this up again later. Sweet dreams! :*

59 More Responses

@Barry<br />
<br />
Actually, God can very much be offended by what we do - <br />
<br />
"So it came about after all your badness (“woe, woe to you,” is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah) 24 that you went building for yourself a mound and making for yourself a height in every public square. 25 At every head of the way you built your height and you began to make your prettiness something detestable and sprawl out your feet to every passerby and multiply your acts of prostitution. 26 And you went prostituting yourself to the sons of Egypt, your neighbors great of flesh, and you continued making your prostitution abound in order to offend me." - Ezekiel 8:23-25<br />
<br />
"The word that occurred to Jeremiah for all the Jews that were dwelling in the land of Egypt, the ones dwelling in Mig´dol and in Tah´pan·hes and in Noph and in the land of Path´ros, saying: 2 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘YOU yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this day, and in them there is no inhabitant. 3 It is because of their badness that they did in order to offend me." - Jeremiah 44:1-3<br />
<br />
"The word of Jehovah now came to Je´hu the son of Ha·na´ni against Ba´a·sha, saying: 2 “Inasmuch as IThe word that occurred to Jeremiah for all the Jews that were dwelling in the land of Egypt, the ones dwelling in Mig´dol and in Tah´pan·hes and in Noph and in the land of Path´ros, saying: 2 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘YOU yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought in upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah, and here they are a devastated place this day, and in them there is no inhabitant. 3 It is because of their badness that they did in order to offend me raised you up out of the dust that I might constitute you leader over my people Israel, but you went walking in the way of Jer·o·bo´am and so caused my people Israel to sin by offending me with their sins, 3 here I am making a clean sweep after Ba´a·sha and after his house, and I shall certainly constitute his house like the house of Jer·o·bo´am the son of Ne´bat. 4 Anyone of Ba´a·sha that is dying in the city the dogs will eat; and anyone of his that is dying in the field the fowls of the heavens will eat.”" - 1 Kings 16:1-4

Sin is another of the perceptions of man! It is thought by some that Paul had homosexual traits. Sin is a belief that you are big enough to offend God! YOU CANNOT! If there was only male and female then we still would not be entitled to judge them! Live in love and allow others to do the same! Just for the record I am straight.

Dear brothers of Jesus, children of God! I know that you are defending your beliefs and I respect that! All your arguments would be acceptable if they were not based on the Bible! This book was put together by the Roman Emperor Constantine and his cronies. In this they included the writings of Paul the self proclaimed apostle who was excommunicated form the early church by James(brother of Jesus and Peter a real apostle) because Paul teachings were the opposite of that of Jesus. It is love that I share this; I spent so much time trying to comprehend the incomprehensible.

Actually you're mistaken my friend. The "Protestant" canon agrees more with the very first Bible, The Tanakh, than with the Catholic and Orthodox canons. This is significant because The Tanakh is decidedly older than the Catholic and Orthodox canons making these illegitimate adulterations of the Bible :)


If you disagree so strongly with what God teaches in the Bible why not just write your own 'holy book' like Joseph Smith or Ellena H. White did and start your own religion.

Here's the passage - <br />
<br />
"Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither [] men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men [] will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU WERE. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9,11<br />
<br />
As you can see here, there were men of the Chrisitan congregation in Corinth who, in the past, used to be homosexuals or "lie [have sex with] men". How was that possible?

Just as a matter of interest Paul the very one who contributed such a lot to the Bible was himself a homosexual.....Wow man you gotta know where we all went wrong! BACK TO JESUS TEACHINGS so that the world will survive!

What proof do you Paul wasn't heterosexual?

Speaking of Jesus' teachings observe what he teaches here at Mathew 19:4,5 ""Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.'" As you can see, Jesus advocates heterosexuality, nothing else :)

I have to correct you on this. If you read on in that chapter, Jesus says that not everyone can accept this teaching. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb, eunuchs who were made so by men, and those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matthew 19:11-12). Please don't take scripture out of context. I also must mention that Daniel and Ashpenaz in the bible were eunuchs and were in a homosexual relationship. The bible says that Jesus set that up. Why would Paul prohibit homosexuals from inheriting the kingdom of God, if there is clear evidence of homosexual relationships and marriages in the bible?

1 More Response