I am same sex attracted and agree with some of what Matthew Vines says here like his thoughts on the popular notion of "living your truth" as if truth is up to the individual to decide truth. But isn’t this the fruit of false teaching on gay relationships? Isn’t this the slippery slope that traditional Christians warned about? Do homosexual attractions have to define us? I feel like the affirming movement has to continually cajole itself into an affirming thought pattern rather than accepting that perhaps traditional Christians were right all along. "Gay marriage" is not marriage.
I person I politely asked to debate the issue of homosexuality on a Christian Discord server server keeps deleting my comments. His profile picture has the letter V. I would like to challenge anyone here to debate this issue on a Christian Discord server, afterall isn't this what The Reformation Project is all about.
To a traveler in the desert inhospitality could be a death sentence; the true sin of Sodom was inhospitality, jealousy and greed. They jealousy guarded their wealth and sought to make an example to other strangers by gang raping two angels of the Lord. Of course God would be angry about that, so would I. That has nothing to do with a manogomous, committed, loving relationship. The folks at that time had no real concept of sexual orientation the way we understand it today. There are a lot of folks today still jealously trying to protect their wealth, status and power.
The Apostle Paul clears this whole thing up “Do not be deceived, neither the homosexual or the effeminate will inherit the kingdom of God”. It has nothing to do with love or commitment. It has to do with obedience. God is the author and as such He can set whatever limits He wants. Everybody wants Heaven, but they want to get there on their own terms. That is a fools errand. Sexual sin is a problem doe all of us. We must not try to compromise Gods Word to accommodate our individual weaknesses. God can deliver anybody.
1:09:05 No, nothing has changed. A majority voted, and we think nature changed. Had the committee considered offering its nature changing services to NASA?
Sick movement bringing sin and perversion into the church Christ Jesus died for. St. Paul warned us that wolves would arise from among us leading the people into sin with strange doctrines and that God would send strong delusions because the people loved lies more than truth. Shame on you for telling people it’s okay to live sin filled lives
I want everyone to know in these comments that spreading hatred and violence is not what God wants. Please remember that God loves all. God is supposed to be good and forgiving. Whether you believe these things are sinful or not it is not your decision to condemn others. Your words only bring damage to people, human beings with beautiful lives that you cant even imagine, and that hatred only reflects upon yourself. Choose acceptance, choose love.
Even today there are many places in the world where abandoned or widowed women are in a difficult situation so they often join forces in order to get through life - no homo, though.
Ok there’s a lot of people here who are obviously a bit dim. If god created you perfect from the moment you were born, that includes your brain and your mind. Trans people have been demonstrated by brain scans to have brains more similar to the opposite sex. If you believe that changing your body to improve your life chances and happiness is a sin, I assume all of you who decry surgery as unnatural will refuse heart transplants, apendectomies, or even goldarn haircuts. Bet half of the self styled “true believers” here have crew cuts. And probably eat bacon and shellfish. I pray that god gives you all a brain one day *sigh*
Jude 1:7 speaks of “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” (KJV). In context, Jude is assuring his readers that God has punished sin in the past and, therefore, He will continue to do so in the future. Jude gives a list of incidents as evidence of God’s judgment, and one of the incidents that he cites is the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. The King James Version and the New American Standard Version are similar in the translation of Jude 1:7, and both use the term strange flesh. “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (NASB). The ESV has a more interpretive translation: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” The ESV includes an alternate translation, “different flesh,” in a footnote. The NIV provides the most interpretive translation: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” The traditional understanding of this passage is that the “strange flesh” refers to homosexual desire similar to what was exhibited in Sodom in Genesis 19. Two angels (appearing as men) visited Sodom. Lot, not knowing that they were angels, asked them to come into his home. The men of the city learned of the visitors and mobbed Lot’s house, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (verse 4). In recent years, there has been an attempt to legitimize homosexual desire and even to look for ways to make it compatible with biblical teaching. Some have challenged the traditional understanding that the pursuit of “strange flesh” refers to homosexual lust. Jude 1:7 begins with “in the same way,” which calls our attention to the situation in the previous verse. Verse 6 says, “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.” This has often been understood as a reference to Genesis 6. The first verses of that chapter highlight the wickedness that precipitated the flood. Many interpret the Genesis passage as referring to angels who in some way had sexual relations with human women. According to some, the logic in Jude 1 runs this way: in verse 6 angels have sexual desire for human beings, and in verse 7 human beings have sexual desire for angels. The conclusion is that the desire for “strange flesh” in Jude 1:7 refers to human-angel relations, not any kind of human-human relations. This interpretation has several problems. First, it is far from clear that Jude 1:6 is a reference to Genesis 6:2-4. Second, it is far from clear that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 refers to angels or that human-angel sexual activity is what is in view. Third, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah warranted judgment before the angels ever showed up (Genesis 19:20). In fact, pending judgment was the reason the angels went to Sodom in the first place. It is not as though angels were being assaulted on a regular basis in Sodom. And, finally, the men of Sodom had no idea that the “men” visiting Lot’s house were angels, so the issue could not be an unnatural attraction to angels. The next issue that needs to be addressed is the term translated “strange “ in the phrase “strange flesh.” The word translated “strange” is hetero, which means “different.” The issue is complicated by the fact that we use the term heterosexual to refer to attraction to the opposite gender and homosexual to refer to same-sex attraction. Jude 1:7 says that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of hetero attractions. However, the context is clear that hetero in this case does not mean “different gender” but “different from the norm,” as in “strange.” Romans 1:26-27 calls these urges and actions “unnatural”-that is, they are different (hetero) from the God-ordained design. Finally, some have charged that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality per se, but violence and attempted homosexual rape. They claim that Genesis 19 has nothing to do with loving, mutual homosexual desire. Certainly, the violence of the men of Sodom adds an additional layer to the problem. It may account for why Jude describes the incident in Sodom as one of “gross immorality,” but it does not explain why Jude says they desired “strange flesh.” Furthermore, it was not for the single incident with Lot that Sodom was judged; rather, that incident simply demonstrated and confirmed the kind of immorality that was rampant in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding areas. When all the evidence is considered, the traditional understanding is still the most consistent with the biblical data. Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding areas gave themselves over to all sorts of sexual perversion (rape would be included in this), but homosexual attraction and activity, described as a desire for “strange flesh,” is also included. Jude describes homosexual desire as a desire for hetero flesh because it is “different” from the God-ordained plan for sexuality. Jude says that the men of Sodom were judged for this and stand as an example of God’s willingness and ability to judge such actions in the future.
Very good. That was dead center. I would just like to add that insisting the "strange flesh" is an attraction to angels is flawed due to the inclusion of the surrounding cities being judged along with Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only is there no evidence of there being multiple visits by angels to these two cities, but the surrounding cities are not said to have received a visit at all.
Jude 1:7 in Greek: ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. In English: just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the around them cities - in like manner with them having indulged in sexual immorality and having gone after flesh strange are set forth as an example of fire eternal [the] penalty undergoing. What the strange flesh that is mentioned is (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας), is where the question comes in. Among those who agree that the Bible prohibits homosexual practice, there is a disagreement about whether the story of Sodom and Gomorrah should be used in support of this conclusion. Traditionally, the sin of Sodom has been considered, among other things, the sin of pursuing same-sex intercourse. Hence, the act of male-with-male sex has been termed sodomy. More recently, others have maintained that attempted homosexual gang rape is hardly germane to the question of committed, monogamous gay unions today. Sodom had many sins-violence, injustice, oppression, inhospitable brutality-but same-sex intercourse per se is nowhere condemned in the Genesis account. Some conservative scholars, while still holding conservative conclusions about marriage and homosexuality, have concurred with this line of reasoning, arguing that when it comes to deciding the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior, Genesis 19 is irrelevant. There are many important considerations to weigh when trying to make sense of Sodom and Gomorrah. Obviously, the Old Testament context matters. Knowing something about the Ancient Near East may help too. Looking at literature from Second Temple Judaism is also important. Most critical, however (at least for those with an evangelical view of Scripture), is how the New Testament understands the sin of Sodom. Which is why Jude 6-7 is so important. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (sarkos heteras), serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7) There is a case to be that Jude’s comment about sarkos heteras (“other flesh”) is a reference to sex with angels not sex with other men. Verse 6 is likely an allusion to the sin of the angels in Genesis 6:1-4, which according to Jewish tradition, involved angels having sex with the daughters of men. So it is not far fetched to think that the “other flesh” in verse 7 is a reference to the men of Sodom trying to have sex with Lot’s angelic visitors. If this interpretation is correct, it makes it less likely (though not at all impossible) to see the sin of Sodom as being, at least in part, the sin of homosexual practice. Which, of course, would do nothing to invalidate the other verses that speak on the subject, but it would set aside the most infamous account of homosexuality in the Bible. Having said all that, I still see good reasons to accept the traditional interpretation and conclude that Jude 7 is a reference to the sin of homosexual behavior. 1. This interpretation is in keeping with prevailing Jewish norms in the first century. Both Josephus and Philo not only condemn relations that are “contrary to nature,” they explicitly understand Genesis 19 as referring to homosexual acts. 2. As a striking example of sexual immorality, it would certainly be more relevant in a first century Greco-Roman context to warn against homosexual behavior as opposed to the non-existent temptation to have sex with angels (cf. 2 Peter 2:6). 3. It would be strange to refer to attempted sex with angels as pursuing other “flesh.” Of all the ways to reference angels, the very physical, human, and earthly sarx seems an odd choice. 4. The men of Sodom did not know they were trying to have sex with angelic beings. Even if sarkos heteras could be taken to mean a “different species” (and I don’t think it does), the men of Sodom had no idea that that is what they were pursuing. Isn’t it more likely to think they were guilty of pursuing sex with other men (as they saw them), then that they were guilty of pursuing sex with angels (which they did not understand)? 5. If pursuing “unnatural desire” is a reference to seeking out sex with angels, how do we make sense of the beginning of verse 7 which indicts Sodom and Gomorrah *and* the surrounding cities of this sin? Were Admah and Zeboim guilty of trying to have sex with angels? It makes more sense to think that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities all had a reputation for sexual immorality and that one flagrant example of such sin was homosexual practice. This is why the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:7-8 can depict Lot as greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of these cities. They had a reputation for lawlessness which did not rely on angels to be manifested. In short, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the whole region was not just a one-time attempted gang rape of angelic beings, but, according to Jude a lifestyle of sensuality and sexual immorality, at least one aspect of which was exemplified in men pursuing the flesh of other men instead of the flesh of women.
Jen Hatmaker is a funny and engaging speaker but I couldn't help feeling that this talk had an edge to it. In any case, the fruits are about obedience. Bearing fruit isn't about happiness in our day to day lives. The fact that Christians did mean things to people that identify as gay does not mean that gay relationships are okay. I am same sex attracted. I used to believe this stuff. I decided to follow Jesus.
How kind (being facetious)of you to encourage the laughter and belittling towards those who believe differently than you. I feel sorry for you how you think it is ok to laugh at those who believe in the scriptures as they are written.
Notice how much she talks about herself instead of spreading the Gospel. I pray that her eyes will be opened to the lies that she is following and spreading.
I actually finished watching even though there is very little scripture used to back up this point of view. I highly recommend the book, Set Adrift by Sean McDowell and John Marriott. If you are in the process of deconstructing your faith, it is perfect for you. Let the totality of scripture be your guide, not your feelings. Feelings always change. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, Amen.
Likely lies and misrepresentation of the Bible. It's the same case of the false representation of homosexuality in ancient Greece (non Christian) related to Plato and Socrates. Homosexuality was seen even among them as something shameful. Pagans such as the Viking tolerated homosexuality but always viewed the man who "received" a a sissy, unmanly and not worthy of honor. In warfare, sodomizing the enemy was a form of domination and humiliation rather than pleasure and they knew very well the symbolism behind it. (no pun intended)
A reprobate mind, conforming to sin, consumed by fleshly desire. “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” Revelation 22:18-19
You are taking the bible, N T Wright and Preston Sprinkle out of context. Non are presenting these relationships as accepted by GOD. Just because humans sin and engage in sinful relationships does not mean that such relationships are accepted by GOD. GOD is clear in Scripture, these behaviors are NOT accepted by GOD. HIS view of relationships as marriage is male and female. It is explicitly affirmed in Scripture. I pray that the Holy Spirit reveals HIMSELF to you and shows you HIS truth. GOD Bless!
This was amazing… I have a few questions after watching 1946.’ How can I email them. I’ve have never felt so happy and sad at the same time, I cried for an hour and couldn’t sleep last night.. How can I support the broken that have walked away from God.
Jesus is being betrayed as a cuddly teddy bear who just wants to hold your hand. This whole thing is just terrible. It’s sad that a terrible act of violence happened at Pulse. Let’s not turn this into “We are victims forever bc/we have deviant sexual practices”. True love proclaims truth. Here are some of Jesus’ actual words: Matt. 18:7-9 Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. Matt. 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. The message of the Bible is about God and His holiness. We are sinful and He is perfect. We could not stand to be in His presence as we are, but God, being rich in mercy made a way for us by doing what we could not do. In sending His son, Jesus, God/man, who lived the perfect life, died for our sins, and defeated death. For those who REPENT and turn to Him, there is forgiveness of sin and life everlasting. For those who continue in their sin and idolatry (including sexual sin), and refuse to turn and repent, there is eternal separation from God: hell. The loving thing to do is proclaim this message to those far and those near. This message saves.
This is an overall, good presentation; it was particularly useful for clarifying how queer theology differs from affirming theology. There were a few of issues that stuck out to me though. First, the assertion that queer theory/theology are a prime example of the idea of expressive identity. At first glance there may appear to be numerous similarities, but correlation doesn't equal causation, as they say. Imho the arguments of queer theory need to be engaged with on their own merit, not strawmanned. Second, that queer theory/theology necessarily leads to a new good/bad dichotomy. As you point out, queer theorists criticise the existence of the dividing line at all, so any sort of good or bad that might arise from queering the norm cannot be placed at the feet of Queer, it is necessarily a result of reaction against that process. One more thing I'll mention, you say there's no "sex in the park"-type of person; what is an exhibitionist then? If you only define sex as something people do with their genitals then may be there isn't, but i think queer theorists would have something to say about that too. Again, good talk, love what you're doing, hugs and blessing. Now, off to join the queer revolution.
