Hahaha, God does not bless homosexuals/LGBTQ; he made it clear in Gen 2:18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor 7:2, that he only blesses male and female man and wife; this is affirmed by Yeshua (Jesus) in Matt 19:5 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife. I don't know where this guy got his information from, but he is wrong...😊😊
@@armymanssg508God isn't real and if she is she wouldn't make gay people and then tell everyone else she wants to punish them for no reason. Worry about your own soul. Do not twist your faith into a weapon or you will make a bad name for your faith and future generations will reject you, and rightly so.
Look at a graveyard Gen 3:19 there is the proof and the evidence, you're just too blind to see it; God is not female, and he didn't make gay people, Rom 1:25-28 explains why this unnatural sexual desire exists, and it has nothing to do with "love is love," but an unnatural lust which is due to disbelief and disobedience such as yours. If you don't believe God is real why are you talking about someone's soul being saved; I don't use my faith as a weapon, you only say that because you hate to hear the truth; you are the one giving the truth, and love a bad name, you have no idea what love is; you twist love into evil, and want to force others to accept what you say; Isiaha 5:20 woe unto them who call evil and good evil good; that is what you are doing. You are the ones destroying the next generations with your LGBTQAI ideology, a man can never be a woman nor a woman be a man; God never meant for the same sex to be together, he didn't design us that way, in Gen 1:27-28 he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, same-gender sex can not follow that commandment; how do you think you got here? Your lack of knowledge is apparent; your comment is flawed as are you.
Thank you for the essential work you continue to do! Never stop, and God bless all of you in the midst of fighting one of the most uphill, nuanced, and necessary battles in history.
@@theearthandeverythinginit5582Do you honestly think God would make gay people and then punish them for.... Reasons? Do you know how many people turn away from faith because of this one issue and how supposed "family value Christians" treat people? But it remains a great way to scare some people unreasonably, so they're easier to manipulate and distract.
There's just one point I'd like to make: "LGBT," "LGBTQ," and "LGBTQIA" are not synonyms for gay! LGB is sexuality. T is body issues. It is not a sexuality. T people can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual so, to refer to homosexuals, we should say "Homosexual," "Lesbian," or "Gay." To refer to transgender people, we should say 'Transgender." This way, we are accurate and avoid confusion about exactly who we are talking about.
Yet we all face much of the same harmful assumptions. Besides, we choose to be a community and so we have the letters. Also T is not necessarily "body issues", that's a gross generalization.
@@sabrinanaves7148 If you chose to be in a community with people who wish to nullify lesbians, women, and gay men, that's your choice. Also, T is about refusing to accept one's own body and/or nullifying the definitions of man, woman, boy, girl, lesbian, gay, straight, homosexual, and heterosexual, whether you want to admit that or not. Tens of thousands of other LGB people are saying we're not part of a community with people who want to define us out of existence and call us bigots and transphobes for being homoSEXual.
@@sabrinanaves7148 There can be no legal protections for something whose definition is meaningless. If "lesbian" is defined as a person who can have either male or female genitalia, legal protections for female homosexuals disappears because lesbian is no longer defined as a female homosexual.
@@michaelberthelot3594 That's nonsense. And that's why we base it off of self id. In order to be a lesbian, you merely declare you are, and you get the legal protections you deserve as such. You would still be bound by laws and decency not to violate another person's boundaries. You're wrong, flat out. Gay men aren't attracted to me so it's not about "genetalia". Your Bio- essentialist views are backwards and harmful.
I have a question. Why do many affirming Christians when discussing Leviticus say that those verses are addressing temple prostitution? And why does TRP (and Matthew Vines) argue instead they deal with gender norms? Why aren't affirming Christians responding the same? Thank you for all your work in helping the Church change it's mind. Blessings.
This a good question. Those are two different outtakes on emphasis, but they are not necessarily contradictory. Consider this insight: When we look at the way Greek and Roman temple prostitution was structured, the process itself was heavily influenced by gender norms. This becomes important when we look at how the Hebrews interacted with neighboring pagan tribes. We even see this distinction when Jesus condemns heterosexual male promiscuity and puts it on equal footing with heterosexual female adultery, calling both essentially the same. For the longest time, adultery was primarily understood as a crime only able to be committed by an unfaithful or unrighteous woman, and married men frequently had harlots and concubines in addition to their wives at home, and engaged in promiscuous sex with free reign while away. A man only fell into trouble when he interfered with another man's wife. Jesus essentially said that these men were no better than the prostitutes they were condemning and exploiting. Though these men obeyed the letter of the Mosaic Law, they were still breaking the spirit of it. They may have been "clean" to the Pharisees' standard of external purity, but to the Christ standard, they were unclean adulterers in their own hearts. In this sense, Jesus put men and women more near the same standard when it came to fidelity and added men to the definition of adultery to where it was not looked at as a sin that men and women could commit equally.
The evidence for it being about idolatry is (i) the reason given (toebah) and (ii) isolated mentions of it in the OT. That's weak IMHO. The evidence for it being about patriarchal gender norms is because of what it directly says. It didn't say "don't lie with a temple prostitoot", it said not to lie "with a male [as] you bed a wife/woman". It specifically said not to use a male (man or boy) like you use a woman in bed.
I listen attentively with patience. Recall the Bible says the teachers will be held to a higher standard in judgement. This heresy will lead many to face God’s judgement. May The Lord have mercy on you if you believe what he’s saying
don't believe lies; first of all read the bible, educate yourselves but with the word of God, the true one; listen to the God of the bible, please trust and obey only the true God; do not try to mold God to his preferences, because you are creating a false god; God is clear in his word, and I don't hate people, I love them, that's why I want them to find out the truth, read the scriptures; do not be carried away by your wishes; seek the will of God; I love you, and I don't want you to go to hell for believing the words of foolish and wicked men; repent as much as you can, seek God and his will, Jesus can cleanse his sins, and cleanse them from all filth and evil, believe in his name and make him Lord of his lives; repent while you find time; remember that Jesus said that you had to die to yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus; It is going to be difficult but remember that Jesus gave everything, even his own life out of love for us, there is no greater love than that of God; Please read the Bible, listen to God, believe him, and obey and repent.
I think inclusion for those ppl who understand even the Conservative take on Christianity just means you are considered a sinner like everyone else but under the guise of inclusion what these people are doing is making arguments that reinterpret the bible to reclass what is taught as a sin is no longer a sin. Perhaps this is good but I think the way they are selling it is dishonest. Many ppl are just going to leave the church.
@antproofcase I have God And The Gay Christian. Matthew Vines is a heretic and the exegetical gymnastics required to come to the conclusion God would affirm same sex marriage is sad.
Fun Fact: Well, interesting fact I guess. There is sort of a loophole that allows Catholic priests to be married. Let’s say you’re a Lutheran (or pick any other denomination) minister, with a wife, & you convert to Catholicism. You are allowed to become a full fledged, ordained priest & of course stay married (especially since they don’t believe in divorce). I actually saw a news story the other day about a man who did just that. He’s a husband, with grown kids & a Catholic priest. Personally, I think they should just let them get married like every other (or most) Christian denominations allow their clergy to. The married priest in the story I saw (not to mention countless married ministers, preachers etc) are perfect examples that you can serve your flock & still have someone to love & come home to.
@@michaelfamiano2147 Same I’m not Catholic. Originally priests were allowed to marry but starting in the 11th century the Catholic Church disallowed marriage & required celibacy. Why? Long story short many priests at the time were actually quite wealthy & had vast estates (which they would naturally pass on to their wives/children) so the church decided it would be more financially beneficial to them if priests didn’t marry & took a vow of celibacy (therefore leaving their estates to the church). If you think about it, they really should just let them marry because aside from celibacy being highly unnatural (except for a minority of people) priests aren’t exactly rolling in dough these days like back then & the Catholic Church is wealthy enough (not a judgment, just a fact). Who knows maybe one day.
And I would add that a priest should be either a man or a woman, and be free to marry either a man or a woman in either case. We Anglicans now have accepted it all. Trans, too much I'd say.
@@matthewscott1091 Yeah and if you think about it it was 11th century where the sodomy laws so that means all the gay priest had nowhere to go except into the church so now they're controlling gay priests their pedophiles are hiding in the church and the land is being diverted straight to the church with the Septuagint oh what a wicked web we weave. We must worship the Creator which is God not the creature which is man Who exchanges the truth for a lie. When they lied about LGBT children. I'm 60 years old I've been doing the Bible my whole life if there was ever a devil it's in the church and the Catholic priests know it gay people are created by God and they're good and their loving there's bad gay people there's bad heterosexual people but there's a spectrum of genders and people are tired of living under hierarchy of lies and thank God for the reformation project you might not understand this now because of the hardness of your heart which produces hate love perfect love drives out fear I believe the holy Spirit is doing this and I'll believe it till the day I die I'm 60 years old gay grandma in Texas I'm following 🙏😇
Another problem is that it seems can be dangerous to live your life and the life of the community by a book. I think there is a good argument to say that we don't use the bible really at all unless we can find arguments within the bible that supports our argument.
Hahaha, how do you argue with death and the grave? God is the one who said you will and can't stop it; Gen 3;19, Rom 3;23, Rom 6;23, take a look at a graveyard; no one is arguing there. Speck for yourself. I don't argue with the Bible; I just accept what is written in it...😊😊
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God. When something is an ABOMINATION unto God himself, how can that be the law of Moses?
You need to get your priorities right. In the bible, seafood is called an abominashon more times than anything else. What we should be fighting for is banning it. It's sickening how much money is squandered on expensive lobsters and squids and caviar that should be spent on helping the poor and healing the infirm. The number of people who fall ill and die from food poisoning is a shame to our culture.
@@opengates777 please appreciate that my original comment was sarcasm. Leviticus as part of the Law of Moses has been annulled by the coming of Christ and is no longer binding. That's why we no longer follow all those food rules or anything other than love God and love others. I was trying to say that if you want to impose the command on clothing, then you need to obey the whole law. In fact, imposing any command in a way that hurts or harms people is misuse of God's holy word. And anyway, if for example a woman transitions to a man, then obeying the command means they would have to wear men's clothing, so it's not even a real issue anyway.
Love the work of this group just two critiques for Matthew. 1) David and Jonathan was indeed covenental not only is there the covenent they make in private it seems as if there is some solemnization of teh union by Saul himself and he gives what is comprable to a bride priice to Jesse similar to Seus when he takes Ganamede. They seem to both be single -- david evades marying to daughters of saul though later marries Michael. Sauls outrage aboutt tthe ofence to his mothers nakedness also how this relationshipo is paralleeled to and yet so contrasted with the affair with bathsheba which exemplifies the idea of exual exxess of passion. 2) Have you read james davisdsons book greeks and greek love. I think you will apreciate his textual; commitments and while I agree that by and large and possibleyy the only form known in the first centrury when it comes to same sex couples wouyld have been of a wholy other kind thatn what we have today -- There is this period where there are some rather strilking celebrations of a form of same sex love which dispite what we are often todld is not intended to have this abusive exploitative aspect nor did it demand an age and role distinction that is largely anaconistic and it is an interprretation that is in full seing even after several hundred years but there was a modell of a kind of mutual domesticity which starts with passionate erotic desire-- now there is a likely avenue for it being contractual through the process of adoption thisi would not make it covenental as adoption was only accomlished in teh executing of a woill and through that priocess the two wouuld share teh same house but as briothers so there is that. So it isnt going to matter to many but i think it is maybe of some value for those who think well there never have been this sorytt of gay relationship or no culture ever before found anything good about homosexuality and it is also usefull when you have arguments that homosexuality led to teh fall of tehe roman empire when it is easier to say that was the result of tightening prohibitions against it and more and more depraced iterations of it.
Should there be at least ONE example of a same sex union in a positive light in the Bible? Why would God see this as good and never say so? This is too big an issue for Him to have remained silent and it's extremely pompous to give the finger to the Jewish community and say they got it wrong.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Wayt would be giving no one the finger, only saying that the translators got it wrong, not the Jews, not blaming any ethnic group. The Old Testament was heavily concerned with lineage and progeny, ancestry, for good reason because it was the medium through which Jesus came, so it makes sense that there was little to no mention of homosexuality. Having the Bible as the sole source of truth and authority is relatively recent phenomenon and standard of judgement.
@@michaelegan3774You didn't refute my claim. The New Testament authors were all Jews as well, making The Way (what you now call "Christianity") very Jewish in its origin from both a religious and cultural standpoint. The Messianic Jewish community rejects this revisionist stance through and through, hence my original statement. For this Progay position to be of merit, one has to isolate Christ from His Israelite/Jewish heritage which essentially is creating a "new Christ,", one not of the Bible. This is consistent with the fact that all these scholars cited by the likes of the Reformation Project to corroborate their position are NEVER any rabbinical sources. That speaks volumes. 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJVS But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. Moreover, it's quite the phenomenon that people with your line of logic declare translators and teachers got it wrong for thousands of years until LGBTQ revolution of the late 20th to early 21st century. It's not until this mass campaign do we finally "really" understand what the Bible says about sexual ethics. Jesus Christ held the Torah and the prophets (the entirety of the OT being the Tanakh) in high regard. The argument of Scripture being insufficient is a calling card of progressive/revisionist doctrine! It is necessary to render certain passages as ambiguous in order to make room for secular and liberal interpretation. In fact, Brownson argues Paul was appealing to the gentiles in Romans chapter 1 from a position of stoicism and disregards his background as a Pharisee. This is especially egregious considering the mention of creation from Genesis. This doctrine is a house of cards that only the naive and those with itching ears will fall for!
@@The_Word_Is_The_WayAll that would prove is that homophobia has been around for a looooooong time. Y'all need a devil to make yourselves feel good so you attack gays and call it "Godly".
@@armymanssg508God made every sin possible. What a ridiculous notion that we are all waiting to be judged. It's comfort for those who can't cope with life. Not to be enforced on others.
I would walk right out of any church that teaches sin is just ok to warm the feelings of sinners. Long symantic lectures doesnt alter God. Leviticus 18
Jesus warms the heart of sinners. (Luke 24:31-32) Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
Can I ask a very real question? Do you and your community abide by Deuteronomy 25:5? If not, how do you justify living in Sin and bending the Bible to your will?
@@tinmariposa not bending anything. You seem to know the bible. Again , i would walk right out. You can stay if you want. I dont care what you would do , why do you carec what i would do?
Amazing how you make the point for heterosexual marriage by arguing that Jesus was talking about kinship by quoting Genesis 2. Yes he was talking about marriage...which is why he said MALE and FEMALE.
The Earth and Everything in it I think they were saying that although people argue that becoming “one flesh” is an argument for fem/male marriage. “One flesh” is not meant to be literal/physical, but refers to an emotional connection between the two parties.
"bone of my bone", "flesh of my flesh" always refers to kinship, e.g. two male relatives. "one flesh" only occurs in gen 2. Jesus refers to it as the union that happens in marriage, a social construct, hence divorce destroys this construct. Paul refers to it as a secsual union. my guess is that "one flesh" is the ultimate form of "flesh of my flesh", indicating the closest possible kinship bond. but the term also has obvious secsual overtones, so both aspects are correct.
Jesus wasn't being asked if two men or two women could marry. He had asked about divorce. There's nothing to infer beyond that unless you just feel like reaching. If I ask you a question about the sump pump in your basement and I reference a handbook that mentions the attic, that doesn't mean I've shared an opinion about your attic.
Dr Brownson isn’t very convincing with his arguments. Basically, that for this or that he creates some sort of exception to reach his conclusion without really distinguishing the underlying argument.
In this presentation he’s certainly not convincing. I read a chapter of his book years ago. I don’t remember the specifics, but let’s just say it’s novel. Novelty in a field like biblical studies needs to be peer reviewed, to my knowledge his research hit the real world before it was rigorously tested.
Things you all need to know. God created males and females and put them together from his love for them to love and be with each other Gen 2:18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, affirmed by Jesus in Matt 19;5 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife. In Rom 1:24-28, it is written that God gave them over to vile affections: The woman gave up the natural use for a man as did the men give up the natural use for woman, burning in their lust for another man doing unspeakable acts one to another. In 1 Cor 6:9-11, and Rev 21:8-10, it is written neither the effeminate nor the homosexual/LGBTQ/the sexually immoral will inherit heaven or the earth but will be cast into the lake of fire. From the beginning to the end, the Bible does not include homosexuals/LGBTQ as intended for humankind; all information is directed to male and female, man and wife. There was no significant same-sex couple in the history of the Bible; David and Jonothan were not lovers; they were just good friends; the same was true for Ruth and Naomi. The word of God is specific about who can have sex and who cannot, and that is, "man and wife" are the only ones authorized...😊😊
Points that make many uncimfortable. Why do they want to be part if something that condems their lifestyle? Or di they just want comunal acceptance and expect others to ignore the word
Intersex is a defect, and one doesn't work; whichever sexual organ is more developed is the sex of the person sex. God defined male and female from the beginning Gen 1:26-27, Gen 2:22-24. There is no such thing as a third sex, which would be someone born with both male and female sexual organs that are fully developed and work; they can get pregnant and give birth, or they can get someone pregnant (another woman); this kind of person doesn't exist.
Wow, where did you get those ideas? I hope you've sorted yourself out since then. In response to your points ... How do you jump from "God created male and female" to "men can't be attracted to men" or even "men shouldn't marry men"? I don't get the logic. I don't get your quote from Mat 19. Are you saying newlyweds can't stay with their parents? What if they have nowhere else to go? Your translation of Rom 1 ridiculously ratchets up the language. Please check original Greek. In any case, no gay person I've ever known did a single word of Rom 1. It's irrelevant. 1 Cor 6 says none of that. Again, please consult original Greek. It's important not to misquote the Bible. The first thing Jonno did when he saw Dave was to ask his dad to get Dave to move in with him. You really think they weren't lovers lol? The "word of God" is not particularly specific or consistent. The Bible doesn't "authorize", people do and quote proof texts to justify themselves. And it has no word for "wife". In the Bible, men could have multiple women including secs slaivs. Nothing against premarital acts per se, just guys wanted to marry girls in mint condition.
Your comment is completely flawed; in Rom 1:25-28 God is clear that he didn't make anyone homosexual/LGBTQAI it is due to disbelief and disobedience to his word; God gave them over to unnatural affections, women with women and men with men; in the original text, Paul used the word ASENOKOITAI which literally men who bed men, not boy. I don't know where you got that God includes homosexuals into his kingdom and he made them that way because from beginning to end the Bible clearly teaches against the practice Jude 1:7, Gen 1:27-28, Gen 2:22-24, Mark 10:6, and 1Cor 7:2 affirmed by Jesus in Matt 19:4-5 quoting God from Gen 2:22-24 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife, and the two shall become one; in 1 Cor 6:9 and Rev 21:8-10 God is saying no homosexual/LGBTQIA will enter into his kingdom, but be cast into the lake of fire, meaning he does not include those who practice homosexuality/LGBTQAI into his kingdom. There is no indication that David and Jonathan were in a romantic relationship, nor were Naomi, and Ruth that's your misinterpretation of the text, in Ruth 3:14 Naomi tells Ruth I must find you a husband; David and Jonathan were just good friends, Jonathan would let David wear his princely robes because he knew David would be king of Isreal; even if they were in a romantic relationship (which they were not) the Bible still teaches against the act. David disobeyed God many times, but he atoned for his transgressions (read Psalms 51) he never asked to be forgiven for a romantic relationship with Jonathan because it never happened, his sins were adultery and murder. In Cor 6:9 God clearly says neither the effeminate nor the homosexual/LGBTQAI will inherit the kingdom of heaven; I don't know where you Got it doesn't say that; you must be reading the Queen James Bible which is an abomination in itself as is the practice of same-sex relations Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13 (man not boy). The original Bible doesn't say homosexuality is not a sexually immoral sin, the act has always been a sin; you can be attracted to the same sex; the sin is if you act on it; you are the one misquoting the Bible; because you hate God's law against same-sex relations and think you can change it by inserting your mistranslations to justify a lie, but you will not succeed in redefining God's law to unto what he created and put together. You are an APOSTATE.
You quote Romans 16 and 1 Corinthians 11 to support your claim that women should lead in some situations (which I agree), how about Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 on homosexuality? Any comments on those verses?
This is a very disturbing video which emphasises secular atheistic standards prevalent in our ungodly society playing with the meaning of basic vocabulary to justify deviant behaviour and to conflate infertility with gay sex is disgraceful
Let me help all you sinners who can't understand or discern scripture because you continue to serve the father of this world, and no it's certainly not God. Sin is sin is sin and no matter what ignorant heretical love is love woke nonsense you throw at it sin will always be sin. The wages of sin is death, pretty clear to understand! 66 books in the Bible and only 4 chapters don't discuss sin in some measure, first 2 of genesis last 2 of revelations...now why would God put so much effort into one subject? Was Jesus's brutal murder all so that false Christian's could say your death meant nothing my sinful lifestyle can be justified because I say so, a real believer dosen't coddle sin they expose it in love so the individual repents and seeks God's forgiveness. Other than the seriously blind that watched this vid does anyone believe on judgement day you will stand before Jesus full of sin or twisting His word then Him letting you enter??? Honestly anyone? Stop acting like the church mixes with the world's agenda because it dosen't, it dosen't take up sins causes or promote it's desires with chold like word salads from twisting and adding and taking away from God's sovereign words...how dare anyone promoting sin as cohesive with scripture as truth, I assure you the God who creates something out of nothing and raise the dead sees this hypostacy for what it is...He isn't fooled one bit...
There is no god and if there were she wouldn't make gay people and then tell everyone else to make their lives miserable for.... Reasons... You are the only ones bound by your rules, we are not and we have no need of them. I don't need god to tell me to be nice to people or be a decent person.
Genesis chapter 2-3 And God made them male and female, Romans chapter 9-10 male and female,1&2 Timothy,1&2 thessalonians,1,2,3 john,Jude,James, Ephesians all state clearly that a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife and likewise the woman. But 1&2 Timothy and 1&2 thessalonians state that to be a preacher,bishop or deacon or leader in the church you must be the husband of one wife and a man that ruleth his house well in admonition of biblical principles and God. That leaves women leaders in the church out.
Are you serious? Just because God approves of men marrying women doesn't mean he disapproves of two men or two women. That's like saying someone likes cheese means he doesn't like yogurt. Advice given in a completely different historical context doesn't mean you should blindly follow it without assessing its relevance in your situation or considering the impacts. That's reneging your moral responsibility.
Jesus' ministry is about redemption and same sex unions was sin in the biblical world and is still sin today....and all you need to repent of it and be born-again! And it is very clear that God has commanded roles for men and women in the home and in the churches..and there are clearly stated qualifications for church leadership and women are forbidden to teach and exercise authority over men. All of you need a large dose of the loving fear of the Lord!
They category of "same secs unions" did not exist back then. Their concerns were quite different. I suggest you study some ancient history before you make ill-informed comments, no matter how good your intentions.
God bless you for continuing to work towards LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church. Following from Latin America (Colombia), I deeply thank you.
Hahaha, God does not bless homosexuals/LGBTQ; he made it clear in Gen 2:18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, 1 Cor 7:2, that he only blesses male and female man and wife; this is affirmed by Yeshua (Jesus) in Matt 19:5 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife.
I don't know where this guy got his information from, but he is wrong...😊😊
@@armymanssg508 hahaha joke’s on you. Nobody cares what you think.
th-cam.com/users/livel10C0ZEtfT8?si=K3I5uGWxg2f-uPii
@@armymanssg508God isn't real and if she is she wouldn't make gay people and then tell everyone else she wants to punish them for no reason. Worry about your own soul. Do not twist your faith into a weapon or you will make a bad name for your faith and future generations will reject you, and rightly so.
Look at a graveyard Gen 3:19 there is the proof and the evidence, you're just too blind to see it; God is not female, and he didn't make gay people, Rom 1:25-28 explains why this unnatural sexual desire exists, and it has nothing to do with "love is love," but an unnatural lust which is due to disbelief and disobedience such as yours.
If you don't believe God is real why are you talking about someone's soul being saved; I don't use my faith as a weapon, you only say that because you hate to hear the truth; you are the one giving the truth, and love a bad name, you have no idea what love is; you twist love into evil, and want to force others to accept what you say; Isiaha 5:20 woe unto them who call evil and good evil good; that is what you are doing.
You are the ones destroying the next generations with your LGBTQAI ideology, a man can never be a woman nor a woman be a man; God never meant for the same sex to be together, he didn't design us that way, in Gen 1:27-28 he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, same-gender sex can not follow that commandment; how do you think you got here?
Your lack of knowledge is apparent; your comment is flawed as are you.
Thank you for the essential work you continue to do! Never stop, and God bless all of you in the midst of fighting one of the most uphill, nuanced, and necessary battles in history.
Do you honestly think God blesses sliding the church into secularism one "sermon" at a time?
th-cam.com/users/livel10C0ZEtfT8?si=K3I5uGWxg2f-uPii
@@theearthandeverythinginit5582Do you honestly think God would make gay people and then punish them for.... Reasons? Do you know how many people turn away from faith because of this one issue and how supposed "family value Christians" treat people? But it remains a great way to scare some people unreasonably, so they're easier to manipulate and distract.
There's just one point I'd like to make: "LGBT," "LGBTQ," and "LGBTQIA" are not synonyms for gay! LGB is sexuality. T is body issues. It is not a sexuality. T people can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual so, to refer to homosexuals, we should say "Homosexual," "Lesbian," or "Gay." To refer to transgender people, we should say 'Transgender." This way, we are accurate and avoid confusion about exactly who we are talking about.
Yet we all face much of the same harmful assumptions. Besides, we choose to be a community and so we have the letters. Also T is not necessarily "body issues", that's a gross generalization.
@@sabrinanaves7148 If you chose to be in a community with people who wish to nullify lesbians, women, and gay men, that's your choice. Also, T is about refusing to accept one's own body and/or nullifying the definitions of man, woman, boy, girl, lesbian, gay, straight, homosexual, and heterosexual, whether you want to admit that or not. Tens of thousands of other LGB people are saying we're not part of a community with people who want to define us out of existence and call us bigots and transphobes for being homoSEXual.
@@michaelberthelot3594 No one is capable of nullifying Lesbians, Bisexuals, Gays or Trans folks, and we stand together as a community. 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
@@sabrinanaves7148 There can be no legal protections for something whose definition is meaningless. If "lesbian" is defined as a person who can have either male or female genitalia, legal protections for female homosexuals disappears because lesbian is no longer defined as a female homosexual.
@@michaelberthelot3594 That's nonsense. And that's why we base it off of self id. In order to be a lesbian, you merely declare you are, and you get the legal protections you deserve as such. You would still be bound by laws and decency not to violate another person's boundaries.
You're wrong, flat out. Gay men aren't attracted to me so it's not about "genetalia". Your Bio- essentialist views are backwards and harmful.
I have a question. Why do many affirming Christians when discussing Leviticus say that those verses are addressing temple prostitution? And why does TRP (and Matthew Vines) argue instead they deal with gender norms? Why aren't affirming Christians responding the same? Thank you for all your work in helping the Church change it's mind. Blessings.
Sex cults were rampant in those days and men and women would prostitute themselves to sex cult idolatry, forbidden by God.
This a good question. Those are two different outtakes on emphasis, but they are not necessarily contradictory. Consider this insight: When we look at the way Greek and Roman temple prostitution was structured, the process itself was heavily influenced by gender norms. This becomes important when we look at how the Hebrews interacted with neighboring pagan tribes.
We even see this distinction when Jesus condemns heterosexual male promiscuity and puts it on equal footing with heterosexual female adultery, calling both essentially the same. For the longest time, adultery was primarily understood as a crime only able to be committed by an unfaithful or unrighteous woman, and married men frequently had harlots and concubines in addition to their wives at home, and engaged in promiscuous sex with free reign while away. A man only fell into trouble when he interfered with another man's wife. Jesus essentially said that these men were no better than the prostitutes they were condemning and exploiting. Though these men obeyed the letter of the Mosaic Law, they were still breaking the spirit of it. They may have been "clean" to the Pharisees' standard of external purity, but to the Christ standard, they were unclean adulterers in their own hearts. In this sense, Jesus put men and women more near the same standard when it came to fidelity and added men to the definition of adultery to where it was not looked at as a sin that men and women could commit equally.
The evidence for it being about idolatry is (i) the reason given (toebah) and (ii) isolated mentions of it in the OT. That's weak IMHO.
The evidence for it being about patriarchal gender norms is because of what it directly says. It didn't say "don't lie with a temple prostitoot", it said not to lie "with a male [as] you bed a wife/woman". It specifically said not to use a male (man or boy) like you use a woman in bed.
@@MusicalRaichuth-cam.com/users/livel10C0ZEtfT8?si=K3I5uGWxg2f-uPii
Complimentarity isn’t even a real word, as it’s underlined in red every time I type it out.
I listen attentively with patience.
Recall the Bible says the teachers will be held to a higher standard in judgement.
This heresy will lead many to face God’s judgement.
May The Lord have mercy on you if you believe what he’s saying
Agree! If theyre telling the truth which i dont think they are, then they will be glorified else they will be judged the highest penalty.
So your faith demands punishing homosexuals? That's what you get out of it? Maybe try Buddhism instead.
The parts don't fit? Geesh, you never tried.
don't believe lies; first of all read the bible, educate yourselves but with the word of God, the true one; listen to the God of the bible, please trust and obey only the true God; do not try to mold God to his preferences, because you are creating a false god; God is clear in his word, and I don't hate people, I love them, that's why I want them to find out the truth, read the scriptures; do not be carried away by your wishes; seek the will of God; I love you, and I don't want you to go to hell for believing the words of foolish and wicked men; repent as much as you can, seek God and his will, Jesus can cleanse his sins, and cleanse them from all filth and evil, believe in his name and make him Lord of his lives; repent while you find time; remember that Jesus said that you had to die to yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus; It is going to be difficult but remember that Jesus gave everything, even his own life out of love for us, there is no greater love than that of God; Please read the Bible, listen to God, believe him, and obey and repent.
How can you be a “married” Christian gay couple? The man is the head of the household. To the glory of God-amen ❤
I think inclusion for those ppl who understand even the Conservative take on Christianity just means you are considered a sinner like everyone else but under the guise of inclusion what these people are doing is making arguments that reinterpret the bible to reclass what is taught as a sin is no longer a sin. Perhaps this is good but I think the way they are selling it is dishonest. Many ppl are just going to leave the church.
@antproofcase I have God And The Gay Christian.
Matthew Vines is a heretic and the exegetical gymnastics required to come to the conclusion God would affirm same sex marriage is sad.
Fun Fact: Well, interesting fact I guess. There is sort of a loophole that allows Catholic priests to be married. Let’s say you’re a Lutheran (or pick any other denomination) minister, with a wife, & you convert to Catholicism. You are allowed to become a full fledged, ordained priest & of course stay married (especially since they don’t believe in divorce). I actually saw a news story the other day about a man who did just that. He’s a husband, with grown kids & a Catholic priest. Personally, I think they should just let them get married like every other (or most) Christian denominations allow their clergy to. The married priest in the story I saw (not to mention countless married ministers, preachers etc) are perfect examples that you can serve your flock & still have someone to love & come home to.
@@michaelfamiano2147 Same I’m not Catholic. Originally priests were allowed to marry but starting in the 11th century the Catholic Church disallowed marriage & required celibacy. Why? Long story short many priests at the time were actually quite wealthy & had vast estates (which they would naturally pass on to their wives/children) so the church decided it would be more financially beneficial to them if priests didn’t marry & took a vow of celibacy (therefore leaving their estates to the church). If you think about it, they really should just let them marry because aside from celibacy being highly unnatural (except for a minority of people) priests aren’t exactly rolling in dough these days like back then & the Catholic Church is wealthy enough (not a judgment, just a fact). Who knows maybe one day.
And I would add that a priest should be either a man or a woman, and be free to marry either a man or a woman in either case. We Anglicans now have accepted it all. Trans, too much I'd say.
As long as it's the opposite sex as God commanded...😊😊
@@matthewscott1091
Yeah and if you think about it it was 11th century where the sodomy laws so that means all the gay priest had nowhere to go except into the church so now they're controlling gay priests their pedophiles are hiding in the church and the land is being diverted straight to the church with the Septuagint oh what a wicked web we weave. We must worship the Creator which is God not the creature which is man Who exchanges the truth for a lie. When they lied about LGBT children. I'm 60 years old I've been doing the Bible my whole life if there was ever a devil it's in the church and the Catholic priests know it gay people are created by God and they're good and their loving there's bad gay people there's bad heterosexual people but there's a spectrum of genders and people are tired of living under hierarchy of lies and thank God for the reformation project you might not understand this now because of the hardness of your heart which produces hate love perfect love drives out fear I believe the holy Spirit is doing this and I'll believe it till the day I die I'm 60 years old gay grandma in Texas I'm following 🙏😇
As far as I am aware not even pagans were as inclusive as modern day Christianity on the matter.
Another problem is that it seems can be dangerous to live your life and the life of the community by a book. I think there is a good argument to say that we don't use the bible really at all unless we can find arguments within the bible that supports our argument.
Hahaha, how do you argue with death and the grave? God is the one who said you will and can't stop it; Gen 3;19, Rom 3;23, Rom 6;23, take a look at a graveyard; no one is arguing there.
Speck for yourself. I don't argue with the Bible; I just accept what is written in it...😊😊
th-cam.com/users/livel10C0ZEtfT8?si=K3I5uGWxg2f-uPii
Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God.
When something is an ABOMINATION unto God himself, how can that be the law of Moses?
You need to get your priorities right. In the bible, seafood is called an abominashon more times than anything else. What we should be fighting for is banning it.
It's sickening how much money is squandered on expensive lobsters and squids and caviar that should be spent on helping the poor and healing the infirm. The number of people who fall ill and die from food poisoning is a shame to our culture.
@@MusicalRaichu Where does it say sea food is an abomination in the Bible???
@@opengates777 Leviticus 11. IIRC might be in Deuteronomy somewhere too.
@@MusicalRaichu Please copy and paste the evidence to me?
@@opengates777 please appreciate that my original comment was sarcasm. Leviticus as part of the Law of Moses has been annulled by the coming of Christ and is no longer binding. That's why we no longer follow all those food rules or anything other than love God and love others.
I was trying to say that if you want to impose the command on clothing, then you need to obey the whole law. In fact, imposing any command in a way that hurts or harms people is misuse of God's holy word.
And anyway, if for example a woman transitions to a man, then obeying the command means they would have to wear men's clothing, so it's not even a real issue anyway.
Technically we’re traditional we believe before what was written in 1946 lol it’s kinda true tho yah know
Be fruitful and multiply - hmmm ….
Love the work of this group just two critiques for Matthew. 1) David and Jonathan was indeed covenental not only is there the covenent they make in private it seems as if there is some solemnization of teh union by Saul himself and he gives what is comprable to a bride priice to Jesse similar to Seus when he takes Ganamede. They seem to both be single -- david evades marying to daughters of saul though later marries Michael. Sauls outrage aboutt tthe ofence to his mothers nakedness also how this relationshipo is paralleeled to and yet so contrasted with the affair with bathsheba which exemplifies the idea of exual exxess of passion. 2) Have you read james davisdsons book greeks and greek love. I think you will apreciate his textual; commitments and while I agree that by and large and possibleyy the only form known in the first centrury when it comes to same sex couples wouyld have been of a wholy other kind thatn what we have today -- There is this period where there are some rather strilking celebrations of a form of same sex love which dispite what we are often todld is not intended to have this abusive exploitative aspect nor did it demand an age and role distinction that is largely anaconistic and it is an interprretation that is in full seing even after several hundred years but there was a modell of a kind of mutual domesticity which starts with passionate erotic desire-- now there is a likely avenue for it being contractual through the process of adoption thisi would not make it covenental as adoption was only accomlished in teh executing of a woill and through that priocess the two wouuld share teh same house but as briothers so there is that. So it isnt going to matter to many but i think it is maybe of some value for those who think well there never have been this sorytt of gay relationship or no culture ever before found anything good about homosexuality and it is also usefull when you have arguments that homosexuality led to teh fall of tehe roman empire when it is easier to say that was the result of tightening prohibitions against it and more and more depraced iterations of it.
Question soooo .... No matter what your sex and whom you’re with God wants you to be married
Yes, if marriage is right for you. Not everyone wants to marry.
Praying to God this is true. It seems right.
Should there be at least ONE example of a same sex union in a positive light in the Bible?
Why would God see this as good and never say so?
This is too big an issue for Him to have remained silent and it's extremely pompous to give the finger to the Jewish community and say they got it wrong.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Wayt would be giving no one the finger, only saying that the translators got it wrong, not the Jews, not blaming any ethnic group. The Old Testament was heavily concerned with lineage and progeny, ancestry, for good reason because it was the medium through which Jesus came, so it makes sense that there was little to no mention of homosexuality. Having the Bible as the sole source of truth and authority is relatively recent phenomenon and standard of judgement.
@@michaelegan3774You didn't refute my claim. The New Testament authors were all Jews as well, making The Way (what you now call "Christianity") very Jewish in its origin from both a religious and cultural standpoint. The Messianic Jewish community rejects this revisionist stance through and through, hence my original statement. For this Progay position to be of merit, one has to isolate Christ from His Israelite/Jewish heritage which essentially is creating a "new Christ,", one not of the Bible. This is consistent with the fact that all these scholars cited by the likes of the Reformation Project to corroborate their position are NEVER any rabbinical sources. That speaks volumes.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJVS
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Moreover, it's quite the phenomenon that people with your line of logic declare translators and teachers got it wrong for thousands of years until LGBTQ revolution of the late 20th to early 21st century. It's not until this mass campaign do we finally "really" understand what the Bible says about sexual ethics.
Jesus Christ held the Torah and the prophets (the entirety of the OT being the Tanakh) in high regard. The argument of Scripture being insufficient is a calling card of progressive/revisionist doctrine! It is necessary to render certain passages as ambiguous in order to make room for secular and liberal interpretation. In fact, Brownson argues Paul was appealing to the gentiles in Romans chapter 1 from a position of stoicism and disregards his background as a Pharisee. This is especially egregious considering the mention of creation from Genesis.
This doctrine is a house of cards that only the naive and those with itching ears will fall for!
Proverbs says there is a way that seems right but leads to death
@@The_Word_Is_The_WayAll that would prove is that homophobia has been around for a looooooong time. Y'all need a devil to make yourselves feel good so you attack gays and call it "Godly".
Great info. This should be mainstream
It is mainstream: "We are more important than anything this old Bible says and we can explain our ways out of the troublesome bits." #loveislove
Hahaha, this guy is just so wrong; he just trying to justify his sexually immoral with lies Rom 1;24-28...😊😊
th-cam.com/users/livel10C0ZEtfT8?si=K3I5uGWxg2f-uPii
@@armymanssg508 We can the same arguments with women being submissive to men and slavery being the norm.
@@armymanssg508God made every sin possible. What a ridiculous notion that we are all waiting to be judged. It's comfort for those who can't cope with life. Not to be enforced on others.
I would walk right out of any church that teaches sin is just ok to warm the feelings of sinners. Long symantic lectures doesnt alter God. Leviticus 18
Amen.
They are mocking God, preaching a “new Jesus” and leading many to sin.
What does the Bible say about teachers?
No it doesn't alter God. But it might alter us to help us understand God better. Rom 13.8-10
Jesus warms the heart of sinners.
(Luke 24:31-32) Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
Can I ask a very real question? Do you and your community abide by Deuteronomy 25:5? If not, how do you justify living in Sin and bending the Bible to your will?
@@tinmariposa not bending anything. You seem to know the bible. Again , i would walk right out. You can stay if you want. I dont care what you would do , why do you carec what i would do?
Amazing how you make the point for heterosexual marriage by arguing that Jesus was talking about kinship by quoting Genesis 2. Yes he was talking about marriage...which is why he said MALE and FEMALE.
The Earth and Everything in it I think they were saying that although people argue that becoming “one flesh” is an argument for fem/male marriage. “One flesh” is not meant to be literal/physical, but refers to an emotional connection between the two parties.
"bone of my bone", "flesh of my flesh" always refers to kinship, e.g. two male relatives.
"one flesh" only occurs in gen 2. Jesus refers to it as the union that happens in marriage, a social construct, hence divorce destroys this construct. Paul refers to it as a secsual union.
my guess is that "one flesh" is the ultimate form of "flesh of my flesh", indicating the closest possible kinship bond. but the term also has obvious secsual overtones, so both aspects are correct.
Jesus wasn't being asked if two men or two women could marry. He had asked about divorce. There's nothing to infer beyond that unless you just feel like reaching. If I ask you a question about the sump pump in your basement and I reference a handbook that mentions the attic, that doesn't mean I've shared an opinion about your attic.
Dr Brownson isn’t very convincing with his arguments. Basically, that for this or that he creates some sort of exception to reach his conclusion without really distinguishing the underlying argument.
In this presentation he’s certainly not convincing. I read a chapter of his book years ago. I don’t remember the specifics, but let’s just say it’s novel. Novelty in a field like biblical studies needs to be peer reviewed, to my knowledge his research hit the real world before it was rigorously tested.
Things you all need to know. God created males and females and put them together from his love for them to love and be with each other Gen 2:18, Gen 2;22-24, Mark 10:6-9, affirmed by Jesus in Matt 19;5 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife.
In Rom 1:24-28, it is written that God gave them over to vile affections: The woman gave up the natural use for a man as did the men give up the natural use for woman, burning in their lust for another man doing unspeakable acts one to another.
In 1 Cor 6:9-11, and Rev 21:8-10, it is written neither the effeminate nor the homosexual/LGBTQ/the sexually immoral will inherit heaven or the earth but will be cast into the lake of fire. From the beginning to the end, the Bible does not include homosexuals/LGBTQ as intended for humankind; all information is directed to male and female, man and wife.
There was no significant same-sex couple in the history of the Bible; David and Jonothan were not lovers; they were just good friends; the same was true for Ruth and Naomi.
The word of God is specific about who can have sex and who cannot, and that is, "man and wife" are the only ones authorized...😊😊
Points that make many uncimfortable. Why do they want to be part if something that condems their lifestyle? Or di they just want comunal acceptance and expect others to ignore the word
Is a person born with intersex traits male or female? How does God define male and female?
Intersex is a defect, and one doesn't work; whichever sexual organ is more developed is the sex of the person sex. God defined male and female from the beginning Gen 1:26-27, Gen 2:22-24.
There is no such thing as a third sex, which would be someone born with both male and female sexual organs that are fully developed and work; they can get pregnant and give birth, or they can get someone pregnant (another woman); this kind of person doesn't exist.
Wow, where did you get those ideas? I hope you've sorted yourself out since then. In response to your points ...
How do you jump from "God created male and female" to "men can't be attracted to men" or even "men shouldn't marry men"? I don't get the logic.
I don't get your quote from Mat 19. Are you saying newlyweds can't stay with their parents? What if they have nowhere else to go?
Your translation of Rom 1 ridiculously ratchets up the language. Please check original Greek. In any case, no gay person I've ever known did a single word of Rom 1. It's irrelevant.
1 Cor 6 says none of that. Again, please consult original Greek. It's important not to misquote the Bible.
The first thing Jonno did when he saw Dave was to ask his dad to get Dave to move in with him. You really think they weren't lovers lol?
The "word of God" is not particularly specific or consistent. The Bible doesn't "authorize", people do and quote proof texts to justify themselves. And it has no word for "wife". In the Bible, men could have multiple women including secs slaivs. Nothing against premarital acts per se, just guys wanted to marry girls in mint condition.
Your comment is completely flawed; in Rom 1:25-28 God is clear that he didn't make anyone homosexual/LGBTQAI it is due to disbelief and disobedience to his word; God gave them over to unnatural affections, women with women and men with men; in the original text, Paul used the word ASENOKOITAI which literally men who bed men, not boy.
I don't know where you got that God includes homosexuals into his kingdom and he made them that way because from beginning to end the Bible clearly teaches against the practice Jude 1:7, Gen 1:27-28, Gen 2:22-24, Mark 10:6, and 1Cor 7:2 affirmed by Jesus in Matt 19:4-5 quoting God from Gen 2:22-24 For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother to be with his wife, and the two shall become one; in 1 Cor 6:9 and Rev 21:8-10 God is saying no homosexual/LGBTQIA will enter into his kingdom, but be cast into the lake of fire, meaning he does not include those who practice homosexuality/LGBTQAI into his kingdom.
There is no indication that David and Jonathan were in a romantic relationship, nor were Naomi, and Ruth that's your misinterpretation of the text, in Ruth 3:14 Naomi tells Ruth I must find you a husband; David and Jonathan were just good friends, Jonathan would let David wear his princely robes because he knew David would be king of Isreal; even if they were in a romantic relationship (which they were not) the Bible still teaches against the act.
David disobeyed God many times, but he atoned for his transgressions (read Psalms 51) he never asked to be forgiven for a romantic relationship with Jonathan because it never happened, his sins were adultery and murder.
In Cor 6:9 God clearly says neither the effeminate nor the homosexual/LGBTQAI will inherit the kingdom of heaven; I don't know where you Got it doesn't say that; you must be reading the Queen James Bible which is an abomination in itself as is the practice of same-sex relations Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13 (man not boy).
The original Bible doesn't say homosexuality is not a sexually immoral sin, the act has always been a sin; you can be attracted to the same sex; the sin is if you act on it; you are the one misquoting the Bible; because you hate God's law against same-sex relations and think you can change it by inserting your mistranslations to justify a lie, but you will not succeed in redefining God's law to unto what he created and put together.
You are an APOSTATE.
You quote Romans 16 and 1 Corinthians 11 to support your claim that women should lead in some situations (which I agree), how about Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 on homosexuality? Any comments on those verses?
12:12 addresses Romans 1... did you watch the rest of the video or just the first 5 minutes?
@Jesse Brown they are talking about god. THEIR god - which is sex and their sexual identity.
May God have mercy on you people teaching the highest form of lies
Found the gaslight pro. god doesn't exist.
This is a very disturbing video which emphasises secular atheistic standards prevalent in our ungodly society playing with the meaning of basic vocabulary to justify deviant behaviour and to conflate infertility with gay sex is disgraceful
Let me help all you sinners who can't understand or discern scripture because you continue to serve the father of this world, and no it's certainly not God. Sin is sin is sin and no matter what ignorant heretical love is love woke nonsense you throw at it sin will always be sin. The wages of sin is death, pretty clear to understand! 66 books in the Bible and only 4 chapters don't discuss sin in some measure, first 2 of genesis last 2 of revelations...now why would God put so much effort into one subject? Was Jesus's brutal murder all so that false Christian's could say your death meant nothing my sinful lifestyle can be justified because I say so, a real believer dosen't coddle sin they expose it in love so the individual repents and seeks God's forgiveness. Other than the seriously blind that watched this vid does anyone believe on judgement day you will stand before Jesus full of sin or twisting His word then Him letting you enter??? Honestly anyone? Stop acting like the church mixes with the world's agenda because it dosen't, it dosen't take up sins causes or promote it's desires with chold like word salads from twisting and adding and taking away from God's sovereign words...how dare anyone promoting sin as cohesive with scripture as truth, I assure you the God who creates something out of nothing and raise the dead sees this hypostacy for what it is...He isn't fooled one bit...
There is no god and if there were she wouldn't make gay people and then tell everyone else to make their lives miserable for.... Reasons...
You are the only ones bound by your rules, we are not and we have no need of them. I don't need god to tell me to be nice to people or be a decent person.
Genesis chapter 2-3 And God made them male and female, Romans chapter 9-10 male and female,1&2 Timothy,1&2 thessalonians,1,2,3 john,Jude,James, Ephesians all state clearly that a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife and likewise the woman. But 1&2 Timothy and 1&2 thessalonians state that to be a preacher,bishop or deacon or leader in the church you must be the husband of one wife and a man that ruleth his house well in admonition of biblical principles and God. That leaves women leaders in the church out.
Are you serious?
Just because God approves of men marrying women doesn't mean he disapproves of two men or two women. That's like saying someone likes cheese means he doesn't like yogurt.
Advice given in a completely different historical context doesn't mean you should blindly follow it without assessing its relevance in your situation or considering the impacts. That's reneging your moral responsibility.
Fake news
Right cus Jesus said “God made them male, female, and everything in between”...
Jesus' ministry is about redemption and same sex unions was sin in the biblical world and is still sin today....and all you need to repent of it and be born-again! And it is very clear that God has commanded roles for men and women in the home and in the churches..and there are clearly stated qualifications for church leadership and women are forbidden to teach and exercise authority over men. All of you need a large dose of the loving fear of the Lord!
No such thing as god or sin, just a bunch of fairy tales written 2000 years ago. I learn more from the Qin dynasty than the bible any day.
They category of "same secs unions" did not exist back then. Their concerns were quite different. I suggest you study some ancient history before you make ill-informed comments, no matter how good your intentions.
Àq ok
Ichabod
Weak arguments.
It's easy for anyone who disagrees to make vague statements like that. What are the specific points you think are incorrect and what are your reasons?
Yep this is WRONG.
Could you explain how?