What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? 

oh but he does tickle ears. his message appeals to humanity's basest instinct of suspicion to those who are different, to the self-righteousness of those who "thank God I'm not like that tax collector", to those who feel power by oppressing vulnerable minorities, to those who need to justify what they've thought and preached lest they end up with egg on their face to be proved wrong. this guy is wrong. none of his arguments stand to scrutiny. i can look up my critique if you're interested. the saddest part is his claim that Jesus can "change" people. This idea has been extensively tested, but no one's secs orientation has changed as a result of coming to faith or repenting. On the contrary, that idea has been extremely destructive, ruining faith, families, lives and relationships. Children have died as a result of it. He should be ashamed.

Musical, I'm not listening to the preacher as I have it muted. I assume he must stick by the bible. Still something you said is hilarious... " to those who feel power by oppressing vulnerable minorities " Gays aren't vulnerable nor are they minorities today!!!! I live in the gay capital of the United States ATLANTA GEORGIA!!!! I'll bet you live pretty close, or it wouldn't shock me!!!!! THE BIBLE IS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY PERIOD!!! It's not only a few scriptures either. Jesus himself said TO LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF GOD! Meaning the old testament!!!! Israel put homosexuals to death if caught in the act and by God's command!!!! Jesus never took one word away from the scriptures!!!! Jesus said, " I have not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but rather to FULFILL THEM!!!!! Jesus came to die for the SIN of the world. Yours and mine!!!! Still you absolutely MUST RECEIVE THE FREE GIFT OF SALVATION BY RECEIVING CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVOUR!!!! You must confess Christ with your mouth to others and believe that God raised him from the dead!!!! MOST IMPORTANTLY AFTER THAT.......YOU CAN'T BE PROUD OF SIN!!!!! Telling lies, murder, adultery are all sin. Sin is breaking the very first of the commandments. TO LOVE GOD WITH EVERYTHING IN YOU!!!! God gave very specific laws of morality to his people. And one example is " A man shall not lay with a man as he would a woman. It's is an ABOMINATION ( unclean) to the Lord! (Christ) Christ Jesus was the God of the old testament and the new!!!!! Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, idolatry, and unnecessary violence!!! All three sins were mentioned!!! Jesus himself mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah and didn't excuse them!!! Jesus didn't say the biblical story had errors. Not once will you see Jesus or his followers say that homosexuality is right. They taught that it was sin. Romans chapter 1 talks about all kinds of idolatry and evil. Including homosexuality and lesbianism!!!! Read it.sometimes!!! Christians are supposed to LOVE EVERYONE but not sin!!!! We are supposed to HATE SIN!!!! All sin not just homosexuality!!!!! Nevertheless it's time for all who desire to be saved. REPENT which means BE SORRY FOR SINNING!!!!! CHRISTIANS WHO GO TO PARADES TO CELEBRATE MURDER ARE WRONG AND NOT SAVED!!!!!!! Same for ADULTERY and ALL SIN!!!!!! You cannot be saved by going to gay bars and gay parades. Celebrating what God hates!!!! GOD DIDN'T CREATE GAYS!!! . GOD CREATED ADAM and EVE! . SATAN AND THE FALL OF MAN CREATED ALL LIST, EVIL AND SIN!!!! NOT GOD!!!! PS. If you want to follow Christ repent and stop celebrating evil!!!! N

These issues are also covered in church sermons. Members of the lgbtq tend to make their sexuality the center of all thought, and typically are not looking for any sermons that are not about lgbtq acceptance specifically.

15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Seek truth.

Not sure you understand the definition of irony but ok.

its not a speck...everything should be addressed

This is me. I lost my faith over this issue. I spent hours pleading with God to change me. The same God that supposedly loved me and had the power to create the moon and the stars either couldn't or wasn't willing to change me. I cannot underestimate the amount of damage this has caused me.

@@abigailechols6369 this speaker is utterly misled and twisting what the Bible says into an insidious ideology. every one of his arguments is full of holes. I can try and find my critique and repost it for you if you like. rest assured there are many gay christians who have a better understanding of the christian faith. here's one talks you might find useful. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zW5ZZtdziwU.html there are other channels with more talks. you can search for "the reformation project" and "q christian fellowship".

@@abigailechols6369 Stay true to yourself. Just because people want the Soddom story & Leviticus verses (and others) to condemn homosexuality, doesn't make it a fact. Soddom is all about gang rape, not a loving relationship. And the sexual perversion in both Soddom and Leviticus is Pedophilia, not homosexuality. There is no condemnation against a loving relationship between two men/women in a committed relationship. Unnatural desires, etc condemn heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Sex outside of marriage is the issue in that regard. The Hebrew translation of Leviticus states "A man shall not lay with a male....". Why the distinction? A man is a grown adult, a male is a boy. If homosexuality was the abomination, it would read a "a man with a man". I love God but hate the judgement by Christians.

@@alexhepburn8410 but it does read a man with a man. Nonetheless members of the lgbtq community are not the only people who has to deny their flesh, we all, have to deny our flesh. And yes the struggle is real.

most people believe there is only black and white, but there is gray. some men are born with more estrogen, and some women are born with more testosterone. and this is what makes people whom they are. more estrogen in a male give him more female like qualities. same for a woman.

🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽Got to get from around any one who is practicing... Don't listen to God is Love and He loves everybody. He is Love and loves everyone, but everyone doesn't love him. However, he is a God of love and wrath. He said, "If you love me, you will obey me." Keep crying out to God and don't go to people who want tell you the truth. Go to someone who loves and understands the Bible 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

Your orientation is not something you can control and God is not in the business of changing it. What God cares about is doing good and not hurting people, not which gender he has granted you the capacity to love.

@@MusicalRaichuwrong , there is nothing good in man we’re totally depraved.

As Christian I could say the same of finding a good muslim.

well u could what u couldn't is to deny the fact that the Muslims they are serious with their religion than the Christian is a universal fact... unfortunately

@@ali_nurudeen I'm a devout Christian but unfortunately I have to agree with u.

@@j-genx2395 unfortunately

An individual and there relationship with Jesus should not be questioned by a church or religion! That relationship is sacred between the man or woman and Jesus and that relationship will be judged by Jesus and god ! No one else! We are all judged the same way ! No matter any religion! I don’t judge anyone! Not my place or rite in any way shape or form ! God bless all of god’s children amen 🙏

The Bible says Rom 13.8-10 that ALL God's commands are satisfied by loving your neighbour. That means that two men or two women in a mutually respectful, caring, faithful relationship doing nothing to hurt anyone must necessarily be obeying all God's commands and therefore not be sinful. I don't see any way around this. We are not in a position to oppose or condemn loving relationships or we are going against the clear teaching of scripture. The texts you quote are commonly misused. Leviticus is an obsolete code that only ever applied to the Israelites and was annulled by the coming of Christ. Even then, it did not prohibit two women, and only prohibited acts between men where one was taking the role of a woman. It had nothing to do with "homosecsuality" which they didn't even know about but with violating patriarchal gender norms. 1 Cor 6 surely you must know by now that this is the mistranslation that caused this entire mess. It says male-bedders, a word of unknown meaning, not homosecsuals which again is a modern concept not even known about in that era. Gen 1 says nothing about marriage, only that God blessed all life by allowing it to reproduce. It doesn't say that secs is sin unless it's for reproduction. Prov 5 is about marital unfaithfulness and does not state the exaggerated claim you make. I would argue that the need for marital faithfulness applies equally to same and opposite secs relationships. Hope this gives you a different perspective.

@@MusicalRaichu what ur saying don't make no sense

@@kimberly6200 basically since all God's commands are satisfied by loving each other, then two people who are loving each other are satisfying all God's commands. the other texts you quote do not say "it's a sin for two men or two women to be in a secsual relationship", they are about other issues such as marital faithfulness and secsual abyuse. what is your specific uncertainty?

@The Calling Peter's response to calls to impose the Law of Moses: "Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Paul's understanding of the Law of Moses: "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit." There are more references to how it has been annulled. It is one of the clearest teachings of the New Testament. Something isn't wrong because it's in the Law. The reason something is prohibited by the Law and also observed to this day is because it's wrong in the first place. There is a difference between a male bedding a male and a male bedding someone of the same secs. The former has been known throughout all history. The latter is a modern artificially created categorization. Think of it this way. If Leviticus prohibit it, why doesn't it say "do not lie with someone of the same secs"? Or at least "men don't lie with men" and "women don't lie with women"? But it says none of those, showing that the assumption is incorrect. Leviticus prohibited violation of patriarchal gender norms founded on the assumption that women were considered inferior to men. Thanks to the influence of the gospel, this is idea has now been discarded and people are not conscious of it. That is why they don't understand the concept of "lying with a male as one beds a woman". Nor do they see how immoral it is to impose this prohibition today. Whether male-bedders was based on Leviticus is conjecture. It has not been proved and it is grammatically dubious since it combines the object of one clause with the verb of another. A range of possible meanings of male-bedders has been proposed, and if you look at every Bible, it has been translated in a myriad of mutually inconsistent ways. You cannot base your theology on something uncertain, especially when it ruins the lives of millions of people. God's "plan" was fabricated in the 80s to support the church's insistence that homosecsaality is wrong in the face of research showing it wasn't and society consequently changing its mind. I happened to be in synod in my church the year they were bringing it in. I never heard of it before then. And if you read the Bible, it makes no mention of said "plan". Gen 2 explains why men and women get married, but neither makes the claim it's a "plan" for all, nor does it contain any command or prohibition to suggest two men or two women cannot get married. On the contrary, the reasons given for marriage apply seamlessly and with no contradiction to the text to two men or two women. As for promoting sin, it is those who insist that it's wrong and consequently ruining people's lives that are sinning, not people who are doing nothing wrong but only want to love and be loved in the only way God has granted them. People have died as a result of this "destructive herasy" that has "crept into the church unawares". The church has blood on it's hands. Please come to grips with what the Bible actually says and stop twisting it.

@The Calling You're making some pretty serious accusations merely because I disagree with you. There is a reason why I can't go to bed with my father, and that is that it violates a strongly ingrained social taboo. Society differentiates between familial relationships and secsual ones, a married couple being the only one where the two go together. And insest is not harmless as it can result in inbreeding. Paul prohibits nothing in Romans 1. He says ancient Roman idolatrous males were doing unseemly things with other males. That's an observation, not a prohibition. You cannot logically deduce from that statement that all same-secs acts are inherently sinful, especially when he doesn't even go so far as calling it sin. And it's not gay secs anyway, it's pagan revelry. It's about males who "set aside the natural use of a female", not about guys who never had a use for a female in the first place. Sorry but all the evidence points against you. And the immense harm wrought by your teaching clearly demonstrates how wrong it is. I mean seriously, what do you expect a gay guy to do? Stay single his whole life, when God explicitly said it's not good to be alone?

That happens to preachers on both sides of the debate. The american church is split 50-50 on the issue, so when a preacher argues one side, half the congregation leave.

What determines whether you go to heaven is explained in John 3.16. It has nothing to do with one's secsual orientation. The guy in this video is way out of line with a false doctrine that has done incalculable harm and is pushing people away from God's grace. I have analysed his arguments and they have literally more holes than swiss chees.

Brother, if you believe in Jesus then it follows that you'll be believe in what Jesus stands for!

You are wrong God taught us to Love all not to hate when God made this earth and us he was pleases with his creation he taught us to Love our enemies and our neighbors as we Love ourselves Jesus Died for all of us and spent 3 days In hell to break the chains of bondage so we as humans have a way to heaven for all of us his children those who say God hates your blasphemous God will judge you as God says DO NOT JUDGE FOR YOU WILL BE JUDGED ON JUDGEMENT DAY I as a NON DENOMINATIONAL CHRISTIAN I will not stand for My God's teaches to turn into hate we are all human we are not God remember that

@@MusicalRaichu have you read the whole Bible?

@@darlingjesus5805 Yes. That's why I know that the guy in the video is completely wrong. Every single argument he makes is faulty and unbiblical. This error has had serious ramifications and has led to lives ruined, families destroyed, and children ending up sick, homeless or dead. No one should even think of holding such an evil idea.

The Bible refers to and justifies marriage between man and woman, but never says that other possibilities are wrong. We see people having concubines and multiple wives without being told they would "not inherit the kingdom of God". Certainly there is no explicit statement or reason to reject same-secs marriage, which is fully compatible with the teaching of the Bible. The idea that "secs is only acceptable within marriage" is not stated in the Bible. It's only a Christian tradition. Not that I want to encourage promiscuity, but it's not like the Bible says that premarital secs is a sin, only that once married you should be faithful to your partner.

@@MusicalRaichu "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew:5:27-28 This Scripture passage is a direct quote from Jesus.We are not to lust after others in deed and in heart.Marriage justifies that natural affection and is made pure.Therefore, unless you engage in premarital sex without lusting(of course it's foolish to think you can have sex like that), you are/had been committing sin.

@@jeri7027 "Adultery" assumes the woman is married to someone else. And the word translated "lust" is just the ordinary word for "wish" or "desire". Jesus is saying that obedience to God is not a matter of following rules but of actually showing respect towards God and really caring about people. If someone else's partner looks hot to you, obviously you can't help yourself noticing her. But that doesn't mean you should entertain the thought of going to bed with her. You should straightaway tell yourself no, she belongs to someone else, and move on with your life. That has nothing to do with premarital relations. In Jesus' world, women were usually married off as teenagers, so the opportunity for bf/gf relationships like today didn't exist. Thus you won't find direct advice on them in the Bible. I think the church really needs to rethink the issue. Personally, I think marriage should be our ultimate goal, but I don't see anything against bf/gf relationships if they exhibit mutually respect, care, faithfulness, sincerity, etc. But that's just my opinion, and I don't claim to have the right answers.

Um ... how about ... every single argument he makes is riddled with holes. Here was my critique: "Few verses" As we know, exploitativ secs was common in Graeco-Roman society so it's mentioned a few times by the apostle to the gentiles, but not among Jews so it's not mentioned in other parts. "Teaching about marriage" It only contradicts unfounded interpolations. Jesus said "men and women get married and should be treated as permanent", not "every man must only ever marry a woman or it's a sin". "Seven points" 1 "no implied reference that the scriptures were speaking of anything other than general homoxesual behaviour" Patently false. Leviticus is not a general prohibition but a specific one against a subset; So-Dom is about raip, Rom 1 about "unseemly" acts by straight male idolaters and fails to describe loving relationships, meaning of 1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1 is disputed but context indicates secs abbuse. 2 "rooted in the created order". no evidence provided to support this claim. 3 "word coined by Paul based on Leviticus". Unproven speculation. Even if true, both passages are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. The word is literally "male-bedders", which could refer to the Graeco-Roman attitude to ideal masculinity that was exploitativ and abusiv. 4 "'consumed with passion' sounds more like romance than domination". This claim is outrageous. The Greek says "burned with appetite", cannot mean earnest, loving, romantic intimacy. Rom 1 is about unhealthy desires. No reason to exclude feelings of superiority and domination as part of the pleasures desired. 5 "no references to domination in lesbian relationships". That would explain why Paul only speaks of males with males. Notably, Rom 1 does not say "females with females". 6 "language of exchange." Precisely! Those with gay or Les orientation have not exchanged natural relations because they never had them. Children raised in Christian homes and accept the faith have not exchanged God for idols yet still come out as gay (and suffer for it). 7 "not historically accurate to say the only kind of same-secs relationships known were exploitative ones. Committed partnerships were present" That Paul condemned the most prevalent form of same secs practice is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful relationships. No mention of loving same-secs relationships in the Bible. "it’s unfair, no one chooses" Rightly says resisting temptation is for all. However, such an argument is only valid if one proves that homoxesuality is wrong in the first place which he has failed to do. While the argument that it's unfair is inconclusive, it still lends weight and is a plea for people who have been hurt by this terrible teaching to be loved by their fellow Christians. The idea that Jesus "changes" people is too close to the deadly idea that people can "repent" from a secs orientation. Too many have died from this lie. This video should be taken down for that alone.

Far from "fabulous", every single argument he makes is riddled with holes. Here was my critique I've copied for you: "Few verses" As we know, exploitativ secs was common in Graeco-Roman society so it's mentioned a few times by the apostle to the gentiles, but not among Jews so it's not mentioned in other parts. "Teaching about marriage" It only contradicts unfounded interpolations. Jesus said "men and women get married and it should be treated as permanent", not "every man must only ever marry a woman or it's a sin". "Seven points" 1 "no implied reference that the scriptures were speaking of anything other than general homoxesual behaviour" Patently false. Leviticus is not a general prohibition but a specific one against a subset; So-Dom is about gang raip; Rom 1 is about lustful acts by straight male idolaters and fails to describe loving relationships; meaning of 1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1 is disputed but context indicates sec abbuse. 2 "rooted in the created order". not a single word was provided to support this claim. 3 "word coined by Paul based on Leviticus". Unproven speculation. Even if true, both passages are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. The word says "male secs", which could refer to the Graeco-Roman attitude to ideal masculinity that was exploitativ and abusiv. 4 "'consumed with passion' sounds more like romance than domination". This claim is outrageous. The Greek says "burned with appetite", cannot mean earnest, loving, romantic intimacy. Rom 1 is about unhealthy desires. No reason to exclude feelings of superiority and domination as part of the pleasures desired. 5 "no references to domination in lesbian relationships". That would explain why Paul only speaks of males with males. Notably, Rom 1 does not say "females with females". 6 "language of exchange." Precisely! Those with gay or Les orientation have not exchanged natural relations because they never had them. Children raised in Christian homes and accept the faith have not exchanged God for idols yet still come out as gay. 7 "not historically accurate to say the only kind of homxesual relationships known were exploitative ones. Committed partnerships were present" That Paul condemned the most prevalent form of same secs practice is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful relationships. There's no mention of loving same secs relationships in the Bible. "it’s unfair, no one chooses" Rightly says resisting temptation is for all. However, such an argument is only valid if one proves that homoxesuality is wrong in the first place which he has failed to do. While the argument that it's unfair is inconclusive, it still lends weight and is a plea for people who have been hurt by this terrible teaching to be loved by their fellow Christians. The idea that Jesus "changes" people is too close to the deadly idea that people can "repent" from a secs orientation. Too many have died from this lie. This video should be taken down for that alone.

@@MusicalRaichu make all the excuse you want, man with man, woman with woman is an abomination. the vile mind of people wanting to do their own thing will make any excuse to defy God, there is nothing on a man to receive another man, go find a woman.

@@endofdays7708 So a reasoned argument is "excuses"? Point out specific mistakes, with corroborating evidence please. The obsolete Israelite law code you allude to makes no statement about woman with woman. I'm not gay myself, but telling a gay man to find a woman has been tried and failed miserably. Tell me, why are you making excuses to defy God? Don't tell me you have a ... "vile mind"?

@@MusicalRaichu From the very beginning God made male and female and declare "therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh Genesis 2:24. Leviticus 20:13 calls it an abomination. Jesus reaffirm what marriage is : Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, as it was from the beginning, this should be enough but people will do what they want to do. Romans 1:26, 27 declare there is nothing natural about it, one man bending over another, no matter how much love you want to put on it, eventually one of those men will have to bend over, there is nothing there to receive another man. this act is an abomination. the few verse is theB ible that shed light on the subject have nothing good to say about it, you may say loving relationship, but its better to obey that sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22).

@@MusicalRaichu "God's unconditional love is not the same as unconditional approval of my behavior,"

Disobedient to PARENTS???!!! Where would we be if everyone obeyed their parents?

You already are in a bad state you've been given a reprobate mind.

If every one obay there paŕient a great lot would be destined for hell but if everyone obay god it would be well now in this life and in the life to come

Leaving the natural use...does that mean that men were attracted to women but wanted more so engaged with men as well?

@@jenisebrooks4308 take the Word of God at face value, it means what it says, the whole problem starts when humans don't give God the glory and recognized the Lord in their lives, than there's a process where God himself gives people their due reward, God abandons them to a reprobate mind etc.

We don’t follow that rule because it is one of the old rules. Jesus said that when he died on the cross, he made these rules null, the only rules still standing are those of the 10 Commandments. The verse you speak of it right beside the verse condemning a man laying with men. 2 problems with that. Firstly, like I said before, it no longer applies to us. Secondly, if you’re supposed to wait till marriage for sex, then you can’t “lay with men” even if you’re a female cause that’s multiple guys. I’m not sure which side you’re on, pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT, but I have many reasons and verses why I’m pro LGBT. (None of what I said was said in anger. I am having a peaceful conversation with you. Sorry if any part of it could be misconstrued as to be thought I was upset.)

Sounds like a smart and reasonable rule to me, I can wait a few days.

@@erkkijunkkarinen9303 That is a very gracious reply.

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the old testament laws and there categories

@@The1stPurpleCat Produce the verse where Jesus “made all these rules null”. You won’t find it because that is not scripture. I contend that not only are people picking and choosing what scripture they will follow, but people are also making stuff up. Upon close examination, we can see it’s not sound doctrine but pure trash!

I've been through his arguments very carefully. Practically everything he says is full of holes. References in the Bible to males having secs with males are about specific issues. Most of them even fail to describe homoxesuality.

it's worse. he's relying on the bible but it doesn't even say that all same secs behaviour is categorically wrong. all it says is in the old testament not to feminize a male and in the new testament that ancient roman idolatrous males were doing unseemly things. then there's a word whose meaning is disputed and an explanation of why men and women get married, yet from those few things he's bought into and actively supports a teaching that has proved extremely damaging. and it gets even worse. he has the gall near the end to dress statements like gais are "broken" and that they can "change" in spiritual language, talking of suppressing their God-given needs as "repentance".

@david jones So what? This talk is about people's relationships, not a biology lesson on how to make babies.

Nice try Kimberley but it ain't gonna fly

@@garym4500 ~ Undoing mistranslations, miscommunications, and misunderstandings of the Bible is “not gonna fly?” Do you wanna tell that to the slaves in the south in the US a long time ago?

Do you have a link to the specific video that you're talking about? I checked out her channel, and she has a lot that seem somewhat relevant. I'm curious about which one(s) you consider to be the most convincing.

how can you call him brilliant when every single argument he makes is full of holes. here's my critique: "few verses" doesn't make it right, but makes it easier to debunk his views. Exploitative same-secs acts were common among the gentiles so mentioned by the apostle to the gentiles, but not among Jews so obviously don't appear there. It does not contradict teaching about marriage, only unfounded interpolations. Jesus said "men and women get married and that relationships should be permanent", not "every man must only ever be married to a woman". seven points against the "it's not the same thing": 1 "no evidence scriptures were speaking of anything other than general homosecsual behaviour." No, only male behaviour, and guess who had the power to abuze in patriarchal society. Lev is not a general prohibition against both males and females but a specific one against a subset of male acts; So-Dom is gang raip; Rom 1 is explicitly about lustful acts by idolatrous heterosecsuals and fails to describe loving same-secs relationships; meaning of 1 Cor/1 Tim is disputed and context indicates deliberate hurtful acts. 2 passages "rooted in the created order". Only Rom 1 might be so construed, but to Paul, "unnatural" meant "not what you'd ordinarily expect" with no inherent immorality. 3 "word coined by Paul based on Leviticus to refer to the same sin". unproved speculation. Even if true, both passages are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. The word literally says "masculine sex", which could more simply refer to the Graeco-Roman attitude to ideal masculinity which was exploitative and/or abusiv. 4 "'consumed with passion' sounds more like romance than domination". Greek says "burned with appetite". It's about unhealthy desires, wanting to experience pleasure for oneself regardless of the cost to the other person. There is no reason to exclude feelings of superiority and domination as part of the pleasures desired. 5 "no references to domination in lesbian relationships in ancient literature". Exactly why Paul never says anything against them. Rom 1 does not say "woman with women", it says "women were doing something you wouldn't expect". 6 "language of exchange." Precisely! Those with same-secs orientation have not exchanged something they never had. What of children born in Christian homes who accept the faith and have not exchanged God for idols yet come out as gay. Has God still treated them as idolaters and given them up to unclean desires? 7 "not historically accurate to say the only kind of same-secs relationships known were exploitative ones. Committed partnerships were present." Illogical. The view that Paul is condemning the most prevalent form of same-secs practice, which was exploitative, is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful long-term relationships. "not a big deal, let's agree to disagree." On this point, I agree. We need to resolve it convincingly. However, to say that because secsual sin is serious then homosecsuality is wrong is circular. We need to first prove conclusively that same-secs relationships are wrong before it becomes valid to cite general condemnations of secsual immorality. makes tragic comments about "people who hate their brokenness and put their faith in Christ that he might redeem them and change them out of that brokenness", followed by a call to "repent". The psychological harm inflicted by calling "broken" what scientific investigation has found to be harmless has been well documented. So has the failure of attempts to "change" or "repent" from one's secsual orientation. Such remarks have an air of spirituality and compassion but in reality are insidious and devastating. he should be ashamed of himself. children have died as a result of these false ideas. "it’s unfair, no one chooses" rightly says resisting secsual temptation applies to all. However, such an argument is only valid if one proves that homosecsuality is wrong in the first place which he has failed to do. While the argument that it's unfair is not conclusive, it still lends weight, and it's a plea for people who have been hurt by this terrible teaching to be loved by their fellow Christians. claims the authority of the Bible is at stake. No, there are solid arguments against his view that fully affirm both the authority of the Bible and same-secs relationships. He cites people who have resorted to rejecting the Bible because his interpretation has failed them. That's a sign that we've got it wrong, not that we've got it right! More concerning is his approval of unbelievers who reached the same conclusion as he has. Since when has non-Christian exegesis ever been the basis for Christian belief? Have we been honest with them that there are differences of interpretation on this matter? Not only have we convinced the world that the Bible condemns same-secs relationships in the face of more than satisfactory arguments to the contrary, but when the outside world realizes the unreasonableness of such a precept, they then conclude that the Bible must not be valid as a standard of moral teaching. When someone’s conscience is clear but they are led to believe that God still accuses them, how would you expect them to react?

@@MusicalRaichu : Nicely written. Like many passages of scripture, most are led by teachings from generational misinterpretations therefore has become deeply ingrained and elicits a reflex response blindly in defense of a long held belief. Without query many follow these teachings because you are taught not to question a “man of God”, so much so that individuals believe that the teacher is the high priest and law maker but forgetting their place in the new way of Jesus. Jesus is the only conduit for man and certainly not some man being the conduit for man.

The bible also tells us not to condemn/judge those in the world but that we should not only judge those within the church but also remove some of them depending on what kinds of sexual sins they're involved in...however, gay people are the ONLY ones I've ever seen thrown out of the church over it. Js

Homosexuals are not hated by most Christians. They should accept that Christians who read and adhere to biblical teachings do not condone homosexuality ( just as they do not condone k__lling, fornication, or envy). Lgbtq members often expect Christians to go against what they know to be true in order to appease someone's feelings. It is interesting that lgbtq members are not comfortable simply accepting themselves as they are.

actually, every argument he makes is full of holes. there is no mention in the Bible on homoxesuality and there is nothing that says that a loving relationship hurting no one is sinful. this guy's teaching is toxic and only serves to harm people. whatever your take on the issue, we now know that who people are attracted to is not of their choosing, nor can anyone change it. forcing people into marrying someone they have no capacity for intimacy with has been tested, doesn't work, and is unfair to the innocent partner. forced lifelong singleness is unbiblical and immoral. the option consistent with scripture is a loving relationship in accordance with one's secs orientation.

you have got to be kidding. this message has more holes than swiss cheese, and is both concerning and dangerous. "Few verses refer to it" works both ways. Means we don't know enough to draw accurate conclusions. In the NT, only mentioned about gentiles where exploitation of boys and slaivs was rife. "few verses" makes it easy to refute the claim that there is a "consistent voice of scripture". Furthermore, it does not contradict teaching about marriage, only his unfounded interpolations on the teaching about marriage. "It's not the same thing" Well it's not. The category of "people doing it with the same secs" only came into existence a century ago. Until recently people thought of men who like men and women who like women as two categories, and Bible only refers to the first. Seven points: - "no implied reference that the scriptures were speaking of anything other than general H behaviour". Untrue. Only speaks of males with males. Lev not broad prohibition but specific against subset of male acts; Gen 19 about gang raip; Rom 1 is explicitly about "unseemly" acts by idolatrous males and fails to describe loving relationships based on orientation; meaning of 1 Co 6/1 Tim 1 is disputed but the context indicates deliberate, hurtful behaviour. - "Rooted in created order." No, only Rom 1. Even there, a search for Paul's usage of "nature" reveals it has no moral imputation. It means what happens as a matter of course. There are examples where unnatural is good and natural bad. Rom 1 says is that "ancient Roman idolatrous males were doing unseemly things", not "all same-secs acts are sinful". - Word coined by Paul based on Lev to refers to same sin. Speculation. Even if true, both passages are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. Lev does not say "men don't do it with men, women don't do it with women" as we would expect, not even "men don't do it with men", but "men don't do it with men in the same way you do it with women". Paul's word refers to behaviour which people can change, but people can't change who they're attracted to, nor can they remove their inherent human needs for companionship and intimacy. - "Consumed with passion” sounds more like romance than domination. But Greek actually says "burned with appetite" which does not sound like romantic intimacy. Modern English translations are biased because of the presumption they're about men in love with men. Rom 1 sounds like unhealthy desire, wanting pleasure for oneself regardless of the cost to the other. No basis for excluding feelings of superiority as part of the pleasure desired. - "no references to domination in les relationships in ancient literature" If true, it explains why there is no reference to it being wrong! NB Rom 1 does not refer to women lying with woman but with women doing something they don't usually do which could be a range of things. - "language of exchange" Precisely! Those with same-secs orientation have not exchanged natural relations because they never had them. What of children born in Christian homes who accept the faith and have not exchanged God for idols yet come out as gay? - "not historically accurate to say the only kind of such relationships were exploitative ones" So since Paul condemns exploitative relationships, the fact that a few committed relationships existed means that Paul is also gratuitously condemning them too!? Illogical. Paul condemning the most prevalent form of such practice, which was exploitative, is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful relationships. "Let's agree to disagree." agree need to resolve because his views are doing too much harm. But to say because sexual sin is serious then same-secs relationship are wrong is circular. First need to prove conclusively that they're wrong before it's valid to cite general condemnations about immorality. Tragic comments about "people who hate their brokenness and put their faith in Christ that he might redeem them and change them" followed with a call to "repent". Psychological harm inflicted by calling "broken" what research has found to be harmless is well documented. Attempts to "change" or to "repent" from one's orientation have proved disastrous even deadly. His remarks have an air of spirituality and compassion but in reality are insidious and devastating. He should be ashamed of himself. "unfair since no one chooses to be that way" Rightly argues that resisting temptation is for all, there are situations someone may be unable to satisfy those needs. But only a valid argument if one proves that such relationships are wrong in the first place. While the argument that it is unfair is not conclusive, it still lends weight, and underlying it is a desperate plea for people who have been maligned and wounded to be loved. We ignore this plea to our condemnation. "authority of the Bible is at stake" Vehemently disagree. There are convincing arguments that fully affirm both the authority of the Bible and same-secs relationships. Resorting to rejecting Bible as moral authority because it has failed them is actually a sign we've got it wrong! Approval of unbelievers who reached the same conclusion is concerning - since when has non-Christian exegesis been the basis for Christian beliefs!? Have we been honest with such people that there are differences of interpretation on this matter? Not only have we convinced the world that the Bible "condemns" such relationships in the face satisfactory arguments to the contrary, but when the outside world realizes the unreasonableness of such a precept, they conclude that the Bible must not be valid as a standard of moral teaching. When someone's conscience is clear but they are led to believe that God still accuses them, how would you expect them to react? It's our error, our misrepresentation of God, that has led people away from the scriptures God has graciously provided, and thus away from God himself!

This video is really dogma

Reevaluate the story of Ruth.

Lot slept with both his daughters. Reevaluate the story of Ruth. Lol 😆

It is SO *hypocritical* for Christians to CONDEMN homosexuality. Little do they know, is that the VERY BIBLE that they read from was translated, EDITED, and *NAMED* after a *homosexual* KING ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0tYz0-HP2aA.html Its a fact that escapes most Christians and Christian pastors

Jesus commands the crowds to “judge with righteous judgment” not by outward appearance (John 7:24). The preacher, Jim Jones killed over 800 of his church members, because they didn't want to judge. So many people are going to hell, because, their preacher says isn't ok, but the Bible says it's not ok. Don't you judge a person's character? Don't you judge if that person is someone you want to invite in your life, home, etc?

"what you did to the least of these you did to me"

When you worship a god of human blood sacrifice what would you expect?!?!

@@alanroberts7916 More subtle than that. Human blood SELF-sacrifice, who also told us to love one another the same way - treat other people well even if it costs us. How much easier should it be to treat others well when it doesn't even cost us - like not rejecting them for something that hurts no one and they can't even do anything about.

i think there is a positive case but it's too subtle for legalists to figure out.

should we not use contraception or whats the point youre making?

@@MusicalRaichu If there is a positive case please make it for me. In Scripture children are always presented as a blessing and childlessness is a curse. In Genesis 1 we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and that is never rescinded. There is no example in the Bible of a couple using contraception and that being commended. The nearest example (Onan in Genesis 38) is more complex and he arouses God's anger by wasting his seed. By all means advance your argument. Your comment comes across as snide and I am unsure who you are calling legalistic? Kevin de Young? Me?

@@BodyandMindfulness My point is that we should be consistent. If we feel the Bible does not homosexual behaviour and we therefore call on homosexuals to be celibate for life, we should also be strict in following the Bible in other areas of sexual ethics e.g. contraception not being permitted. It's the hypocrisy that is nauseating.

@@davidkennedy6251 hey David. Seen your brave comment about your journey in and out of celibacy and the the metal health that you’re living with now as a result. I myself have left a faithful 3 year relationship with my same sex partner out of fear and am now considering celibacy but now I’m on a journey to understanding the issue of the ethics we Christians hold ourselves to. It’s not just about same sex at this point. You’re right, it’s concerning our ethics in general and what motivates us to look down our noses at other people’s walk with god. I hear a lot of non affirming Christians saying “I don’t understand how they don’t understand the gender roles”. Well duh of course you don’t understand because it’s OUR experience!

yes, same-secs relationships are perfectly natural, harmless variation and can be just as beneficial as opposite-secs relationships. yet the person in this video is trying to make out that it's evil, just like isaiah says. someone that intelligent must know how much harm his views have done, how many lives have been ruined ... unbelievable.

I dont understand that passage its like a riddle to me. What does it mean?

@@MusicalRaichu I challenge you to present one same sex marriage presented in a positive light in the Bible. Present affirmation of same sex attractions in the Bible. Present an example that presents same sex marriage mirroring Jesus Christ and the church.

@@The_Word_Is_The_Way There is no example of same-secs marriage in the Bible because it was not widespread practice at the time. There is neither affirmation or rejection because it didn't make cultural sense. Patriarchy meant that one partner was dominant and the other submissive. Two men or two women in marriage wouldn't have made sense. That's why marriage under patriarchy can mirror Christ and the church - one wields authority while the other submits. Even then, the gospel meant a radical change to the social norm at the time: the dominant partner has to use their power for the benefit of the submissive partner. The gospel message, however, is that all people are equal before God. Since God, unlike culture, does not see men superior and women inferior, today we see marriage as a partnership of equals. That change needed to happen first before same-secs marriage could make cultural sense. What we are seeing today is the result of a long, slow history of changes to marriage, a lot of it as a result of the infusion of the gospel message into society. It's very important not to use the Bible as a source of precedents. Any precedent is contextual. Just because it was unacceptable for a man to violate strict norms by feminizing a male (Lev 18.22) in a patriarchal era does not mean the same meaning can be attributed to the very same act today. If you follow your reasoning, then there's no precedent for getting rid of slaivry, women getting the vote, compulsory education, audiovisuals in church, weekly printed bulletins, accessibility for the impaired, and a host of other improvements that are never affirmed in the Bible. We need to understand the broad principles the scriptures teach, the morality underlying the rules we see, the changes the gospel brings, and most importantly the saviour the scriptures reveal.

@@MusicalRaichu why are you spelling it "same-secs"?

@Charles Case the meaning of lev 18.22 etc are not as clear as you think and assume cultural knowledge we no longer possess. in any case, Christian morality is not based on law, it is based on doing good to one another. to impose a specific interpretation of a command from the old covenant, even more so as seen through modern eyes when it was directed to another culture that no longer exists, is an affront to christian freedom gal 5.1. loving one another as christ loved us is to seek to understand each other and work out what works best to promote respect for God and is in one another's best interests. God did not give us his word to put barriers between us, and certainly not leviticus which is part of the wall which God destroyed eph 2.14.

@@MusicalRaichu So in order to advance Christian freedom and ethics of love would you allow homosexuals to marry?

@@davidkennedy6251 sorry i didn't get a notification about your question. As a society we need to ask that question, weigh up the pros and cons, and make a decision. Just off the top of my head here, but I think the church opposing same-sex marriage pushes people away from the gospel's influence, discourages faithful partnerships and encourages self-seeking and risky behaviours. I would suggest that extending the formal recognition of a faithful, permanent relationship might encourage such relationships, discourage discrimination and extend both the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to homosexuals. The fact that they're pushing for it is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Alex what are you referring to? I asked, where In the old testimate does it say anything about singles having sex, or the word fornication? I want you or anyone to show me

No matter what the bible clearly says, men will always have the free will to choose...but sometimes, they will not accept God's word. They choose to please their flesh instead. Eternity is way too long for people to be on the wrong side. Consider this when choosing to please the flesh and keep rejecting God's perfect plan for your life.

@@alexssandraocriciano1489 the problem with you pharisees is you like to judge and condemn people on how they live. But you can not show me where your authority comes from. Even more. You should stay stay quiet if you have no knowledge of God's word. People who talk about stuff they know nothing about erks me.. shhh..🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️. If you have no scripture then shet up.

@@stevenresto3067 dude... what the hell are you talking about? Who are you talking to? Man get it together man.

Amen sister listen this word Arsen is masculine and it doesn’t mean boy or man it’s male. Male is the generic term to generalize and categorize young boys and men and old men it’s the middle and always has been. If it was anything else it would be more specific as of for boy there’s a way under the male to say that in Greek as well as man or men in Greek. But Arsen is masculine by definition it’s can be for boy and man.

Because it was men who had the power to abuze.

This guy's arguments are completely wrong. I posted a detailed analysis on another thread but if you're interested I can try posting again. people with 2 sets of organs is extremely rare. but if you include other ambiguities relating to external appearance, genetics, gender identity and so forth, and add them to attraction to other than the opposite secs, then we're talking about a significant percentage of the population that does not fit the standard mould in some way. My take on it is that God has created a world rich in diversity. Sometimes these variations may impact someone's life, other times they don't. A lot depends on how supportive society is. Returning to gay people, you are right. No one has changed who they're attracted to (can you choose to like someone you don't?). The few who appear to change just modify their behaviour to match what they've been led to believe is right. Sometimes it works out, often it doesn't. Many such "mixed" marriages end up failing because the gay partner either gets fed up with living a lie or they end up meeting someone and fall in love for real and discover they've been led astray. But the majority who attempt to change fail at doing so. When this is coupled with rejection from family and church, it frequently results in significant harm including shame, depression, substance abyus, self-harm, and sue-side. For this reason, many are rejecting this teaching and taking a closer look at what both the Bible says and what scientific research has revealed.

fyi Here's an older video from another point of view ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ezQjNJUSraY.html

@@MusicalRaichu yes please!!

@@jacobusvdmerwe910 Here is an outline. Let me know if you need further details. "Few verses refer to it" Yes, poor argument, but works both ways. Means we don't know enough to draw accurate conclusions. In the NT, only mentioned about gentiles where men bedding men was common, but so was exploitation of boys and slaivs. Only few verses makes it easy to refute the claim that there is a "consistent voice of scripture". Furthermore, it does not contradict teaching about marriage, only unfounded interpolations on the teaching about marriage. "It's not the same thing" Well it's not. The category of "people doing it with the same secs" only came into existence a century ago. Until recently people thought of men who like men and women who like women as two categories, and Bible only refers to the first. Seven points: - "no implied reference that the scriptures were speaking of anything other than general H behaviour". Untrue. Only speaks of males with males. Lev not broad prohibition but specific one against subset of male acts; Gen 19 about gang raip; Rom 1 is explicitly about unseemly acts by idolatrous males and fails to describe loving relationships based on orientation; meaning of 1 Co 6/1 Tim 1 is disputed but the context indicates deliberate, hurtful behaviour. - "Rooted in created order." Only Rom 1 refers to this. Even there, a search for Paul's usage of "nature" reveals it means what happens as a matter of course or if there is no intervention, without moral imputation. Examples where unnatural is good and natural bad. Rom 1 says is that "ancient Roman idolatrous males were doing unseemly things", not "all same-secs acts are sinful". - Word coined by Paul based on Lev to refers to same sin. This is speculation. Even if true, both passages are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. Lev does not say "men don't do it with men, women don't do it with women" as we expect, not even "men don't do it with men", but "men don't do it with men in the same way you do it with women". word coined by Paul refers to behaviour which people can change, but people can't change who they're attracted to, nor can they remove their inherent human needs for companionship and intimacy. - "Consumed with passion” sounds more like romance than domination. The Greek says "burned with appetite" which does not sound like romantic intimacy. Modern English translations are biased because of the presumption they're about men in love with men. Rom 1 is probably specifically about idolatry, but even if it's about everyday life, sounds more like unhealthy desires, wanting pleasure for oneself regardless of the cost to the other. No reason to exclude feelings of superiority as part of the pleasure desired. - "no references to domination in les relationships in ancient literature" If true, it explains why there is no reference to it being wrong! NB Rom 1 does not refer to women lying with woman but with women doing something they don't normally do which could be a range of things. - "language of exchange" Precisely! Those with same-secs orientation have not exchanged natural relations because they never had them. What of children born in Christian homes who accept the faith and have not exchanged God for idols yet come out as gay? - "not historically accurate to say the only kind of such relationships were exploitative ones" So since Paul condemns exploitative relationships, the fact that a few committed relationships existed too means that Paul is also gratuitously condemning them!? Illogical. Paul condemning the most prevalent form of such practice, which was exploitative, is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful relationships. "Let's agree to disagree." I agree, too important to have varying opinions, need to resolve. But to say because sexual sin is serious then same-secs relationship are wrong is circular. First need to prove conclusively that they're wrong before it's valid to cite general condemnations about immorality. Tragic comments about "people who hate their brokenness and put their faith in Christ that he might redeem them and change them" followed with a call to "repent". Psychological harm inflicted by calling "broken" what scientific investigation has found to be harmless is well documented. Attempts to "change" or to "repent" from one's orientation have proved disastrous even deadly. Sorry strong words here but such remarks have an air of spirituality and compassion but in reality are insidious and devastating. He should be ashamed of himself. "unfair since no one chooses to be that way" Rightly argues that resisting temptation is for all, there are situations someone may be unable to satisfy those needs. But only a valid argument if one proves that such relationships are wrong in the first place. While the argument that it is unfair is not conclusive, it still lends weight, and underlying it is a desperate plea for people who have been maligned and wounded to be loved. We ignore this plea to our own condemnation. "authority of the Bible is at stake" Vehemently disagree. There are convincing arguments that fully affirm both the authority of the Bible and same-secs relationships. Resorting to rejecting Bible as moral authority because it has failed them is actually a sign we've got it wrong! More concerning is his approval of unbelievers who reached the same conclusion. Since when has non-Christian exegesis the basis for formulation of Christian beliefs? Have we been honest with such people that there are differences of interpretation on this matter? Not only have we convinced the world that the Bible "condemns" such relationships in the face satisfactory arguments to the contrary, but when the outside world realizes the unreasonableness of such a precept, they conclude that the Bible must not be valid as a standard of moral teaching. When someone's conscience is clear but they are led to believe that God still accuses them, how would you expect them to react? It's our error, our misrepresentation of God, that has led people away from the scriptures God has graciously provided, and thus away from God himself!

@@MusicalRaichu I agree of what you say. God is ..love will he condemn christians that loves him back. I think we formed a total wrong picture of God!!

Most of what he says is twisting the Bible to suit his preconceptions.

@@MusicalRaichu It's truthful, every bit of it, no twisted.

@@keithjohnson5906 Every argument he makes is flawed. I explained his mistakes in more detail in the other thread you commented on. It's very much twisting the Bible, which doesn't say anything like what he claims. You won't find any clear unequivocal statement or instruction anywhere in the Bible that says "all same secs relationships/acts are inherently wrong". That's something people made up mid to late last century. The church inadvertently absorbed the cultural attitudes of the time into its theology.

Happy gay pride month to all! 🌈❤️

Amen....Very Clear!

Please don’t compare people of color’s struggle to the LGBT community which you people are deciding to let folks know how you want to participate sexually. that’s not the same as being born a certain color and cannot conceal your color! Come for me if you like! You can svck my cddch

Give that confusion to Jesus He will change you,He still loves you.

You want understanding and pity. That doesn't fly with God.You will have to answer just like the rest of us.

Tare

@@athensbharat8224 There’s no confusion that needs fixing, lesbianism is perfectly natural and fine.

truth 247 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Nice try. Now we are sharpening each other like iron. Thats Good.. But this scripture says nothing about two single people having sex. You just assume. And you are wrong. Impurity or the word fornication is never ever mentioned in the Bible to describe two single people having consensual sex..your wrong.

@@truth2478 how so? It says fornicators in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and adulterers. That they shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Where did you get “iron sharpening iron” from that verse?

@@joshuacstorlie "sharpening iron" is just an expression. The word translated fornicators is 1 Co 6 literally means prostitution and is also metaphorically used to refer to idolatory. Whether it refers to anything more than that seems to be a matter of debate. I haven't seen any convincing proof that the word includes all (consensual) premarital sex, but if you know of any, please let me know. Whatever the word means, it does seem to be consensual, and of course adultery usually is too. I think what 247 is referring to is that there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly says premarital sex is wrong. That's just a Christian tradition that might stem from the church's traditional view of sexuality as something to be tolerated rather than God's gift to be enjoyed.

@@joshuacstorlie because those who are not married are not supposed to interact in that fashion says it all over.

Yes, this guy refers to this passage and reads into it things it doesn't even say. It basically says that ancient Roman idolatrous males were doing unseemly things with other males. It's impossible to logically deduce from that (or any other passage) that all same-secs acts are sinful. Romans 1 is about people who exchanged normal relations. Someone who is gay has not exchanged anything. A gay guy never had the capacity for a relationship with a women to give up. And it says people exchanged the real God for idols, but gays can be Christians brought up in Christians home never having worshipped an idol in their life. That shows you how irrelevant Rom 1 is to this conversation. It's about something completely different.

This guy is completely wrong. He badly misrepresents God's word. I can find a copy of my critique if you're interested. Meanwhile the following channel has far better content that's much more accurate to the Bible: ru-vid.com/show-UCvxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ

those verses are not referring to homoxesuality. Consider a boy raised in a Christian home accepting the faith, reaching adolescence to find himself attracted to boys instead of girls, always behaving respectfully and decently, and entering a committed relationship with another guy. Now compare with Rom 1. He has not worshipped idols, seta side the use of a woman since he never had it, burned with appetite, behaved unseemly, been filled with all kinds of evil, or approved of wrongdoing. Not a single word describes him. What Rom 1 called shameful and unnatural is secs in pagan rituals, not loving relationships. 1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1 are about "male-bedders", a word of unknown meaning and cannot possibly mean homoxesual as it includes women who like women (no "male"), people are still gay even if they're single (no "bedding"), people can be in loving relationship harming no one (not a sin), no one can change their orientation (no "such were some of you"), and that way of categorizing secs did not exist until modern times. Jude 7 says that they "sought 'hetero' flesh". it cannot mean "males sought males". it meant "humans sought angels". Despite the attempts of some to twist the meaning of those verses (idolatry and secs abbuse), the Bible could not be clearer that homoxesuality is fine. After all, "love your neighbour" is enough to obey ALL God's commands (Rom 13.8-10). Not "love your neighbour and no gay secs". JUST "love your neighbour". Furthermore, when God himself said it's not good to be alone, who are you to contradict God? When Paul saw different orientations as different gifts of God 1 Cor 7.7, who are you to claim something not only harmless but beneficial is a sin?

@@MusicalRaichu Ninety nine percent of all great Biblical scholars who have lived in the past 1,500 years would strongly disagree with you.

@@dblshotgun Have you read all of them to calculate such a statistic? Or are you making it up? Given that the concept of homoxesuality was only invented less than a century and a half ago, there is no way for your statistic to be correct. The earliest reference to homoxesualtiy being a sin I've come across is from 1959! You're probably confusing it with so-do-my, non-reproductive secs. The church early on got a hang-up with secs and thought people should only do it to make babies. Two men in bed was considered equally wrong as say man and wife having oral secs. It had nothing to do with the Bible. It was human reasoning. The Bible says nothing against secs for pleasure. But when they came across negative references in the Bible like Rom 1.27, it just confirmed their faulty preconception that you should only go to bed to make a baby. Just like people today think homoxesuality is wrong and when they come across Rom 1.27 it just confirms their faulty idea. But if you look at what the text actually says, it says nothing against either so-do-my or homoxesuality. It's literally a reference to shameful practices in pagan cults. Most protestants today disagree with the scholars throughout history that thought that non-reproductive acts were sinful. Isn't it also possible then that in the future they'll disagree with scholars today who think homoxesuality is sinful? And what about scholars who think differently today? Have you bothered to listen to their arguments?

yes clear that people will come up with contrived arguments to defend the indefensible.

Yes brother Joel King. It’s clearly just not made with men to men or women to women being together as one. No rules, laws, or positions for homosexual marriage. Such as goes for in Sodom and Gomorra as they all wanted to lay with the disguised angels. These angels were almost sexually attacked.

Are you convinced that homosexual people have to live celibate and miserable lives, being given no option for any romantic life and left with the horrible stunted life that you wouldn't have touched with a bargepole? You are convinced of that?

I can only suggest reading Genesis 18:16-33, 22.Mark 18 9-20, and John 8

You tried it! Lol

this guy's arguments are full of holes. nothing he says stands up to scrutiny. i can try find my critique if you're interested.

Jesus says i come to set the captive free jesus tells his diciple to lose them that are bound in the scripture i am telling every homosexual the answer to your problem is in the bible

@@philologustate4464 a gay person's problem is that Christians have this warped idea that someone not doing anything to hurt anyone is still sinning. the answer lies in the Bible: "it is for freedom Christ has set us free". The only thing he asks is that we love one another. Any other imposition is man-made.

God create man as we read in the bible adam and eve and said unto them go and multiply and fill the earth they did that that why we are here if we love other ways we hurt god

@@philologustate4464 the story of the man and the woman in gen 2 says not one word against same-secs relationships. the stated reasons for marriage apply to everyone. the stated condition for marriage is that the man recognized the woman as one like him, a suitable helper. if a man is incapable of recognizing a woman but only another man, then for the same reason he should marry the man. God blessed life saying multiply. God has fulfilled that blessing. a small number of people who don't have kids pose no risk to God. But reproduction is never cited as a reason for secs or marriage. if you were right, then women past menopause for example should not be allowed to marry, and infertile couples should divorce. sorry but your arguments are silly.

I've never heard this argument before, but it's great XD

Misused and misinterpreted

@Drewstar What Paul meant by his use of the word "nature" was what happens if there is no intervention, like in our expression "let nature take its course". There is no inherent moral meaning in something being natural or unnatural. To confirm this, just use a Greek New Testament concordance and see how he uses the term. What Paul meant was that women were doing something which he does not specify that is not what women typically did (e.g., in that culture it was unnatural for a woman to get oral secs from her husband), and married men were not doing doing what you'd expect going to bed with their wives but instead were using male prostitoots.

@david jones He's not addressing all the moral issues. He's merely pointing out the flaw in arguments about "nature". While you both raise valid points - his argument would be silly if it's the whole argument. But it's sensible if it's countering deYoung's flawed idea about "nature".

Lions kill their young, as do humans at times. Is it right because animals do it? Some insects tear off the heads of their mates after mating with them. Is it ok for humans to do it? Dogs and pigs eat poop. Should we encourage humans to eat poop because it occurs in nature? Should they all be considered natural and normal because animals also do them?

@@QuatMan exactly. just because something happens or doesn't happen in nature is irrelevant.

It is SO *hypocritical* for Christians to CONDEMN homosexuality. Little do they know, is that the VERY BIBLE that they read from was translated, EDITED, and *NAMED* after a *homosexual* KING ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0tYz0-HP2aA.html Its a fact that escapes most Christians and Christian pastors

Jesus is The Living word He is not old We get old He’s eternal I am the lord God I change not Malachi 3:6

2 Timothy 3:16 will tell you, God bless!! 2Tim. 3 Verses 16 to 17 [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This guy's video is, unfortunately, convincingly presented but every single point in his argument has holes in it which go over people's heads because they've been so indoctrinated. In Old Testament references, it appears that marriage is frequently an arrangement between the prospective husband and a girl's father (or nearest male relative). The girl had no say and was effectively treated like property in a business transaction. There was no assumption of or necessity for romantic interest. The church at some point in its history changed marriage so that the bride also had to consent but I think it was later than you suggest. Society itself subsequently changed marriage for it to be primarily romantic. Compared to those changes, extending marriage as we know it today to gay couples is hardly any change at all. Do you have any references that explain about secsual practices related to Roman idolatry? I've been trying to find some, but most unbiased material is hard to access on the internet, and there's very little I could find in public libraries.

@@MusicalRaichu Another thing to note is that half of Romans 1 is not about idolatry per se but is rather a critique of Stoicism and Epicureanism. Some scholars have argued that Paul sets this up as a literary device for the Jewish readers to boast in their own tradition, only for the very next chapters to surprise, re-frame everything and include the gentiles in the covenant. But, anyway, it's mostly a critique of Stoicism and its getting rid of God by philosophizing his role in creation out of existence. So essentially Paul is covering both bases: 1. the pagan world of the godless philosophers 2. and the pagan world of those who believed in gods but were idolaters.

Romans 1:29-31 is an incredibly important clarification of what Paul is talking about. And the homophobes love to ignore it. - fornication: sex between people who are strangers or who have no committed relationship. - covetous: often temple rituals elicited envy depending on what offerings people would bring, somewhat showing social status. (*This is especially important in light of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, which is one sacrifice for all equally, and there is no ground or cause for envy or covetousness of who's offering is better.) - murder: often pagan magic and spells would involve prayers for the death of a person. (Tell me exactly how all gays are murderers by being gay?) - debate, deceit, haters of God: pagan philosophers would rationalize God away, so they could explain the universe naturalistically. - backbiters: pagans lack the charity and goodwill of God, so they are prone to slander and vilify one another without feeling remorse or repentance. - wickedness: see 2 Maccabees 6:4-5, "upon the altar they put abominable offerings that were forbidden by the laws." Homophobes and ignorant people who think Romans 1 is all about homosexuality have no explanation for these verses (29-31); or how that possibly relates to a loving, consensual, committed, monogamous, homosexual relationship.

@The Calling Gagnon's work has been discredited by Jim Brownson's work. Don't know anything about Loader, but sounds like he's been led astray by modern Christian thought. Leviticus did not forbid homsoxulaity because the concept didn't exist. it prohibited violation of patriarchal gender norms. Paul was unimpressed by pagan revelry and spoke out against secsual abyus. However, we are not privy to his attitude to same-secs acts in general. Since God in his providence has not preserved that information for us, I guess it's not relevant.

@The Calling Paul's personal opinions are irrelevant. What matters is what God has providentially allowed to be preserved in the Bible. And it fails to say what you've just said. It does not say that it's limited to marriage, although I'm not arguing against that. And it does not say that same-secs relationships are inherently wrong. It mentions specific legitimate wrongdoings such as attempted raip (Gen 19), violating social taboos (Lev 18), indecent idolatrous practices (Rom 1) and secsual abyus (1 Cor 6/1 Tim 1). Paul did say that all God's commands are satisfied by loving one another. What God cares about is doing good to each other, faithfulness, compassion, respect, kindness, and avoiding harming each other, including selfishness, conceit, being judgemental and excluding people. If Paul understood what we know now about secsual orientation, knew that patriarchy and its implications have been largely dismantled substantially through his own influence, and seen two men and two women in long-term committed loving relationships, then he would have totally been on board with it.

Is it? Here's my critique: "Few verses refer to it ... poor argument" works both ways. Means we don't know enough to draw accurate conclusions. In the NT, only mentioned about gentiles where men bedding men was common, but so was exploitation of boys and slaivs. Only few verses makes it easy to refute the claim that there is a "consistent voice of scripture". Furthermore, it does not contradict teaching about marriage, only unfounded interpolations on the teaching about marriage. "It's not the same thing" Well it's not. The category of "people doing it with the same secs" only came into existence a century ago. Until recently people thought of men who like men and women who like women as two categories, and Bible only refers to the first. Seven points: - "no implied reference that the scriptures were speaking of anything other than general H behaviour". Untrue. Only speaks of males with males. Lev not broad prohibition but specific one against subset of male acts; Gen 19 about gang raip; Rom 1 is explicitly about "unseemly" acts by idolatrous males and fails to describe loving relationships based on orientation; meaning of 1 Co 6/1 Tim 1 is disputed but the context indicates deliberate, hurtful behaviour. - "Rooted in created order." Only Rom 1 refers to this. Even there, a search for Paul's usage of "nature" reveals it has no moral imputation. It means what happens as a matter of course. There are examples where unnatural is good and natural bad. Rom 1 says is that "ancient Roman idolatrous males were doing unseemly things", not "all same-secs acts are sinful". - Word coined by Paul based on Lev to refers to same sin. This is speculation. Even if true, both passages are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. Lev does not say "men don't do it with men, women don't do it with women" as we would expect, not even "men don't do it with men", but "men don't do it with men in the same way you do it with women". Paul's word refers to behaviour which people can change, but people can't change who they're attracted to, nor can they remove their inherent human needs for companionship and intimacy. - "Consumed with passion” sounds more like romance than domination. Greek says "burned with appetite" which does not sound like romantic intimacy. Modern English translations are biased because of the presumption they're about men in love with men. Rom 1 is probably specifically about idolatry, but even if it's about everyday life, sounds like unhealthy desire, wanting pleasure for oneself regardless of the cost to the other. No reason to exclude feelings of superiority as part of the pleasure desired. - "no references to domination in les relationships in ancient literature" If true, it explains why there is no reference to it being wrong! NB Rom 1 does not refer to women lying with woman but with women doing something they don't usually do which could be a range of things. - "language of exchange" Precisely! Those with same-secs orientation have not exchanged natural relations because they never had them. What of children born in Christian homes who accept the faith and have not exchanged God for idols yet come out as gay? - "not historically accurate to say the only kind of such relationships were exploitative ones" So since Paul condemns exploitative relationships, the fact that a few committed relationships existed means that Paul is also gratuitously condemning them too!? Illogical. Paul condemning the most prevalent form of such practice, which was exploitative, is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful relationships. "Let's agree to disagree." I agree, need to resolve because it's doing too much harm. But to say because sexual sin is serious then same-secs relationship are wrong is circular. First need to prove conclusively that they're wrong before it's valid to cite general condemnations about immorality. Tragic comments about "people who hate their brokenness and put their faith in Christ that he might redeem them and change them" followed with a call to "repent". Psychological harm inflicted by calling "broken" what scientific investigation has found to be harmless is well documented. Attempts to "change" or to "repent" from one's orientation have proved disastrous even deadly. His remarks have an air of spirituality and compassion but in reality are insidious and devastating. He should be ashamed of himself. "unfair since no one chooses to be that way" Rightly argues that resisting temptation is for all, there are situations someone may be unable to satisfy those needs. But only a valid argument if one proves that such relationships are wrong in the first place. While the argument that it is unfair is not conclusive, it still lends weight, and underlying it is a desperate plea for people who have been maligned and wounded to be loved. We ignore this plea to our condemnation. "authority of the Bible is at stake" Vehemently disagree. There are convincing arguments that fully affirm both the authority of the Bible and same-secs relationships. Resorting to rejecting Bible as moral authority because it has failed them is actually a sign we've got it wrong! More concerning is his approval of unbelievers who reached the same conclusion. Since when has non-Christian exegesis been the basis for formulation of Christian beliefs!? Have we been honest with such people that there are differences of interpretation on this matter? Not only have we convinced the world that the Bible "condemns" such relationships in the face satisfactory arguments to the contrary, but when the outside world realizes the unreasonableness of such a precept, they conclude that the Bible must not be valid as a standard of moral teaching. When someone's conscience is clear but they are led to believe that God still accuses them, how would you expect them to react? It's our error, our misrepresentation of God, that has led people away from the scriptures God has graciously provided, and thus away from God himself!

@@MusicalRaichu WELL THOUGHT OUT! Bravo

@@jeroenamador7001 This guy's arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese.

What that she was gay? Not true and where do you see that she was?

No, it's an attempt to save face when the church is moving away from such unbiblical beliefs that have been discredited morally, empirically, theologically and scientifically. All his arguments are like swiss cheese.

@@MusicalRaichu it seems to me that the Bible is like Swiss cheese. What did the Bible say about homosexuality?

@@teresaamanfu7408 It doesn't say anything about it because secsual orientation was only discovered very recently. The closest it comes to is an old testament rule against feminizing a man which meant there was a restriction on what two men could do in that era. There's also an observation in the creation story that "it is not good for man to be alone" so that would mean it's wrong to tell two gays they can't have a relationship.

@@MusicalRaichu After everything God created, He said "it is good". But after He created the human he said "it is not good [that the human be alone]." So God admitted to making a mistake and creating a situation that was not good.

@@sigalius interesting observation. my thinking is that you're reading the stories too literally and conflating them in ways they weren't intended to be. the first story is a reflection on creation as a whole, created by God to function in an ordered way, the totality being good from God's point of view. interestingly, the story is biased pro-God and omits some pretty nasty things like animals killing and eating each other, people hurting each other, natural disasters, etc. the second story is a narrative between various characters, God, a human being later divided into a man and a woman, and the animals most notably the snake. it addresses quite different aspects, namely personal relationships between God and man, man and creation, and between man and woman. it reflects on how sin affects these relationships. bottom line, good things are marred. God observing that something is not good moves him to address it. It's not a mistake, it's a literary device, an intermediate step towards the final situation, reality as we experience it.

Reevaluate the story of Ruth.

for a "best" sermon, everything he says is full of holes. here's my review: "few verses" means it's easy to refute the claim that there's a "consistent voice of scripture". There's an obsolete Israelite law about a male being used "as a woman", a description of pagan excesses and a word of unknown meaning. Hardly a sound basis for his claim. It does not contradict teaching about marriage, only unfounded interpolations on the teaching about marriage. It's illogical to jump from God's approval of men marrying women to his disapproval of two men or two women. "it's not the same thing" 7 points: i "no implied reference that the scriptures were speaking of anything other than general same-secs behaviour" Actually, there is: Leviticus is not a general prohibition against both but a specific one against a subset of male acts; So-Dom is about attempted gang raip; Rom 1 is explicitly about indecent acts by idolaters, fails to describe loving relationships based on orientation; meaning of 1 Co 6/1 Tim 1 is unknown but context indicates deliberate, hurtful acts (FYI today we call it secs abyus). ii "rooted in created order" Only Rom 1 has such overtones. even then, "nature" just means "what you typically expect people to do". iii "word coined by Paul was based on Leviticus to refer to the same sin" Speculation. Even if true, both texts are open to interpretation and inconsistent with his interpretation. iv "the Romans being 'consumed with passion' sounds more like romance than domination. No, sounds more like unhealthy desires, wanting to experience pleasure for oneself regardless of the cost to the other person. There is no reason to exclude feelings of superiority and domination as part of the pleasures desired. v "no references to domination in lesbian relationships in ancient literature" That would explain why the Bible says nothing against them. vi "language of exchange" Precisely! Those with same-secs orientation have not exchanged natural relations because they never had them. What of children born in Christian homes who accept the faith and have not exchanged God for idols yet come out as gay. His argument works against him. vii "not historically accurate to say that the only kind of male-male relationships were exploitative" So let's see ... since Paul condemns exploitative relationships, the fact that a few committed relationships existed too means he gratuitously condemns them also? I fail to see the logic here. That Paul is condemning the most prevalent form of same-secs practice, which was exploitative, is not contradicted by the presence of a few faithful relationships. "let's agree to disagree" Agree we need to resolve this matter convincingly. However, to say that because saxual sin is serious then homoxesuality is wrong is circular. First prove conclusively that it's wrong before valid to cite general condemnations. Tragic comments about "people who hate their brokenness and put their faith in Christ that he might redeem them and change them out of that brokenness" followed by call to "repent". The psychological harm inflicted by calling "broken" what scientific investigation has found to be harmless has been well documented. So has the failure of attempts to "change" or "repent" from secs orientation. Children have died from such attempts! Such remarks have an air of spirituality and compassion but in reality are insidious and devastating. "unfair since no one chooses" Rightly argues that resisting temptation is for all, that there are situations in which someone may be unable to satisfy their needs. However, such an approach is only valid if one proves it's wrong in the first place. While arguing against his view on the grounds that it's unfair is inconclusive, it still lends weight, and underlying it lies a desperate plea for people who have been maligned and wounded to be loved. We ignore this plea to our own condemnation. "authority of Bible at stake" disagree. There are convincing arguments against his view that fully affirm the authority of the Bible. He cites cases where people have resorted to rejecting the Bible as a moral authority because his interpretation has failed them. That's a sign that we've got it wrong, not that we've got it right! Even more concerning is his approval of unbelievers who reached the same conclusion as him. Since when has non-Christian exegesis ever been the basis for Christian belief? Have we been honest with them that there are differences of interpretation on this matter? Not only have we convinced the world that the Bible condemns same-secs relationships in the face of more than satisfactory arguments to the contrary, but when the outside world realizes the unreasonableness of such a precept, they reasonably conclude that the Bible must not be valid as a standard of moral teaching. When someone's conscience is clear but they are led to believe that God still accuses them, how would you expect them to react? It's our misrepresentation of God that has pushed people away.

ps there are very good talks on this channel ru-vid.com/show-UCvxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ

rather, it's sad that such an intelligent man will use his abilities to make up such fine-sounding arguments that are full of holes to defend a view that has caused nothing but harm.

That will give him a big head for being so great

NOT IF HE IS BORN AGAIN AND THEN HE CAN BE SET FREE FROM ALL SUFFERING.

@@mark5694 You do it then. You’re born again, I assume. 😊

If it isnt about sex then why cant they find companionship with the opposite sex?

It’s natural for the homosexual to want to be comforted from the same sex. That’s what the wound is all about and why it turns sexual. A lack of masculinity and coveting it in another. They must be properly affirmed in healthy male relationships.

There are also flaws in his argument and important context missing from the verses that deYoung and many homophobic Christians reference as well. It’s a shame that messages like these are spread through the church in such a harmful way and I hope that you have been able to reach a healthier and joyful place in your life after having to go through all of this💛

Where’s this second part from?

It’s awesome 🤩

@@theegodgeous I got it from here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TI6K1Y7fvW0.html God bless you.Take heed, the VAX is the abomination of desolation giving seat to the antichrist in the temple of God. - 1 Corinthians 3:16-18 King James Version 16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. - Do not take the VAX let no man decieve you Your not born agian or follow Jesus if your living in sin. Be ready The Lord is coming soon do not take the Mark of the beast. Soon the second phase will roll outand they will start to crack down on vaccine card counterfeitin implementing new vaccine placed on hand or forhead with Luciferase invisible tattoo patch. Preventing anyone without the Vax entry to stores to buy or sell. - Research Nano Patch / Luciferase invisible mark/ microneedle Array/ Mark of the Beast vaccine thats is placed on the hand or forhead for vaccine passport registered via your smart phone. Calvinist is not biblical it's heresy, Calvinist AKA reformed theology teach Jesus did not die for everyone but only for those whom God called. Beware of these false teachers like Allen parr/Good hope/ Paul washer,John Macarthur /James white/Jeff durbin/Voddie Baucham/John piper/Colin Miller/calvinist/ easy believeism/ once saved always saved/eternal security/ Hyper Grace. all of them practicing these Calvinist teachings. - 2 Peter 2:12-22 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. - Be not deceived your not born again if you walk in willful sin. By this we know that we know him - 1 John 3:6-10 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. - Ephesians 5:2-11 kjv 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them. 8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. - 2 Thessalonians 2:10-13 KJV And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth .

Before you feel like you can judge read our LORD and Savior Christ words in the old and new testament better bond a personal relationship with him your judging and that is a sin and that something you will have to be judged on your accepting in the kingdom being married with the opposite sex and commenting sins or let's say not being married to the opposite sex and your still having bad sex acts that is also a sin if you read its says men that's plural should not have sex with men that means many at once I could really go on and on but you pray and form a personal relationship with our LORD and Savior JESUS christ and people need to sweep on the on front doors instead of trying to belittle or down homosexuality like that is the only abonating sin ain't no sin greater then the next but if anyone gone speak on what was wrote or told and have a feeling about it seek GOD himself cause yall not going to judgment with each your gone be judged on what you have done your sins your life have a blessed day

he sounds convincing doesn't he. but he's wrong - every argument he makes has holes. i can try to find my other comments to explain why if you want. here's another channel that gives a completely different vew: ru-vid.com/show-UCvxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ

That’s your choice but it by no means annuls the truth You will stand before the judgement seat God and be judged by his laws

Yes, the very text he relies on goes against him. Gen 2 explains why marriage happens. It's about deep human needs for companionship, mutual support, familial relationship and intimacy, which gay people experience too. The man sees the woman and recognizes her as his suitable partner; "for this reason" they marry. What if man is incapable of recognizing a woman as suitable but only a man? For the very same reason, the two men should marry. It's not like the text says anything against it.

Seems like you prefer listening to Deyoung rather than Jesus.

not a bad idea

The view presented in this video is losing ground, which is probably what prompted him to make it in desperation to keep himself relevant in spite of the harm it's doing to innocent people. But all this guy's arguments are full of holes and present a theological view largely made up in the late 20th century.

Rom 1 is not about homoxesuality. I've known a few gay people and not a single one of them did even one word of Rom 1.

@@MusicalRaichu there's no possible way you can confuse what is being said here. Homosexuality is judgement, a reprobate mind completely devoid of God. Romans 1:18-20,24,26-27 [18]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; [19]Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. [20]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [24]Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [26]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

@@jdw-616 None of the homoxesual people I've known worshipped idols, "left the natural use of the woman" which they never had to begin with, behaved unseemly, were filled with evil, or approved of wrongdoing. I think you have the wrong people in mind.

Does he exist?

@@teresaamanfu7408 Do who exist?

@@teresaamanfu7408 King James lived in the 17th century. Isaiah lived in the 8th century BC. neither exist anymore.

Could you please tell more of that time when he related the both of you to pedophilia?

I'm pleased you saw through him. He's definitely not all there up top. He's dangerous and Possibly Gay too. Or at least sexually frustrated.

@@RockBlockbuster lol 4 months and she hasn’t said why-