The organic process of doing theology you describe is a great way to describe it. I'm not protestant (Orthodox), but I've always felt close to Weslyians because they seem to understand this well.
Sexualy immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Most of us have immoral thoughts but we don't for the most part act on them. Who will deliver me from this body of sin? Praise God it has been done by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is pretty clear about sinful thoughts being as bad as the acts themselves. "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Perhaps Christians would do better to see to their own moral failings rather than obsess about what the LGBTQ+ community believes.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:21-22, 32 ESV
That's a bit of anti-pagan rhetoric that is essentially imported from the Wisdom of Solomon. Paul sets it up, and then proceeds to knock it down from Chapter 2 on. It's an example of prosopopeia, a rhetorical device Paul would have learned as a rabbi.
Just to throw a little context on everyones' comments based on 1Co. 6:9, Paul has already defined who the "unrighteous" person he is referring to, in 6:1. He is upset because believers are suing one another and allowing non believers to judge the case. He touches on it again in verse 6 and so the unrighteous of verse 9 are the nonbelieving judges. He then reminds the believing members of this church who they really are in verse 11. If one really believes Christ is the Anointed One, The Lamb of God Who took away their sin, then you have been washed, sanctified, and justified In Christ. On the other hand, if you think you are in or out based on your actions, you have an old covenant mentality which will block you from The New Covenant Reality. ( 2Co. 3:7-18.) Don't try to live your life under the law or force others to, as you judge so will you be judged. Christ fulfilled The Law on our behalf, because we are unable. He who knew no sin was made to be sin, so that, we might become the righteousness of God "IN HIM"!!!!
Whether people are arguing that scripture should be taken literally or not, one just needs to find the answer in Genesis 2:18-24. If sexual immorality or homosexuality is accepted in the eyes of God it simply is not. If God would allow this, then in Genesis it would say, 'he brought him to him, & her to him & her to her.' Why do people think God will allow immorality? He is a God of perfection and he will wipe out everything which is unclean. Don't test God. He maybe a God of love, but due to our inner sin, he has ordained a time when his patience will run out. The only way to be saved is to believe Jesus came and was offered as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. One MUST become a believer, in our heart and profess it from our mouths. Romans 10:9-10 Jesus clearly affirmed the covenanted union of one man and one woman as the only normative expression of human sexuality. Q. DO you think in heaven and on the new earth, Jehovah and King Jesus will allow homosexuality to continue? Yes or No.
Love obviously forms God's exemplary complement that no one can separate. Relationships based on the Flesh end in divorce. Because they don't have God's blessing.
2Thessilonians 2:8-12 Dude, you will have no excuse because you seem to know the Scriptures. God hates the act of homosexuality but died for the one who practices it. Change while you have time..time is running out
@@Liberalismisadisease809 Of course it is. Slyly alluding to someone suffering a fate worse without sincerely engaging them is the very definition of passive aggression. Invoking "For the Bible tells me so," doesn't change that fact.
@@marcfischer114 Good point. The idea that God cannot abide imperfection (assuming for a moment that being gay is an imperfection) would beg the question, why allow any imperfection in the first place. After all, there is no reason why God had to create anything else. He could have remained in perfection for eternity.
Mr. Little’s fundamental problem is thinking that his interpretation of the Bible is as infallible as he assumes it to be. He is basically equating himself to the Holy Spirit while claiming that the Bible is so clear that he somehow is as irrelevant as the rest of us. Nice try Craig, you aren’t fooling anyone.
This is spot on. Whether one believes homosexual relationships are sinful or not (I'm personally inclined towards the first), we shouldn't hold a superficial dogma that has huge implications upon millions. The first job of all Christians is to sympathize with those around us (not that this implies we have to negotiate the truth of the Bible).
How are God’s words a “superficial dogma”? The Bible is God’s authoritative word, there’s nothing superficial about it. There’s no scripture in the Bible that says the first job of Christians is to sympathize with people, especially at the expense of compromising the truth. The most loving thing you can do is warn homosexuals that they are going to hell. Even if the truth does hurt their feelings
@@NilsWeber-mb5hg God did not write the bible. Human beings wrote the bible, over many centuries and out of and for very many different contexts. It is not a set of magic formulae that fundamentalist preachers can use to chuck
Then why are they singled out for so much opprobrium and censure by Christians who continue in their own sins? “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
There’s a difference between inheriting the kingdom and entering the kingdom. Inheritance requires familial identity, unless the word doesn’t mean anything. Moreover, Jesus was pretty clear about what it takes to get INTO the kingdom. Inheritance is about reward and status in the kingdom rather than membership. More importantly, the word homosexual in the 1946 RSV was later corrected in 1971 because the committee discovered that it was in fact wrong. The word malakos and aresenkoites refer to abusers of sex and sexual abusers, respectively. An oversimplification for sure, but captures the original meanings of those words in history, including biblical history. THe gatekeepers of historic Christianity are confused by their usurping of authority that is not theirs to wield. THere’s just NO case for thinking the word homosexual makes any sense in the Bible.
@@craiglittle7367 no, it doesn’t. Paul invented the word and used it twice. The next 71 times it was used in the centuries that followed, it referred to exploitative sexual abuses and abusers. The lexicons are simply wrong and history proves it. In fact, what history shows is that the meaning kept changing to reflect the current cultures progressively wrong understanding of the meaning of the words. This error persisted from roughly the Middle Ages through the 20th century when the RSV committee discovered their error. I know that you want the lexicons and the men who wrote them to be infallible, but that is stupid. They are just men. Uninspired men.
@@craiglittle7367 no one knows if Paul was referring to Leviticus 18 or 20 when he made up the word arsenokoites. Furthermore, no one knows that the first century audience “clearly understood” it. If anything, they clearly didn’t because NO ONE ever used the word to refer to homosexuals, a word whose concept was new in the late 19th century and thought to be the result of excessive masturbation. NO Bible until 1946 used the word, and in fact translated arsenokoites as “boy molester.” Luther’s Bible, for example. The 1971 correction for the RSV got close to the truth by using “perverts,” but even that betrays the original meaning evident in writings proximal to the invention of this word. The Greek of Pauls day had several words that would give the clarity needed for your errant view, but he didn’t use it, and no one reused his invention the way gatekeepers of historic Christianity do today.
The pairing of malokos with arsenokoites actually works agains the gatekeepers errant viewpoint because that word technically refers to heterosexual men who abuse sex to an excess. Being “soft” in that cultural frame is the same as being a “player” in ours. Men who bed too many women. Excess was a vice in Greco-Roman culture. Being “soft” had more to do with excess and/or simply NOT being a warrior than anything else. The view that the Bible is referring to homosexuality is just modern dogma with no foundation other than errant lexicons. The history of the word makes that crystal clear.
@@craiglittle7367 what's important to you: your self-preservation or loving someone else? What looks more like a same-sex relationship? Who's really a coward?
@@craiglittle7367 how adorable “my friend” … you think that declaring that I’m wrong is all it takes. 🤦🏻♂️ Pointing to the historical data on the word that you want to weaponize isn’t a rationalization, it’s just telling the truth. The word keeps changing meaning since its original usage in a way that reflects the immediate culture rather than the original meaning. Scholars admit that no one really knows what Paul meant with his unusual conjunction of words, but they do admit how it was used after he made it up. It wasn’t used to describe homosexuals. Period. Ultimately, the word study doesn’t matter if you take Romans 2:1 seriously, which I doubt you’ll do.
"For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
@@dansaber4427 no, we’ll be justified by repentance of sins, placing faith in Christ, and actually obeying his commandments. If you’re a sodomite you need to repent and get right with God
@@Liberalismisadisease809 More like you were grafted into the original sin. Who do you know good and evil as? If I said your father was a liar from the beginning would you say that was a fair observation? Because you sound like the religious people from the story. I find no fault with the LGBT whatsoever. What say you?
Wait, wait , wait should we not test the spirit and know the truth? First get born again and you will be a new person. Your knowledge is just that and from the tree of knowledge. Follow thou me
The most high said it 1 Corinthians 6/9 do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of the most high do not be deceived neither fornicators/ nor idolaters / nor adulterers/ nor homosexual according to the bible
You sir show me where in the bible we read of two men who were married or two women who were married or show us where we read of two married kings or married queens ? This is an unnatural marriage let us read the bible what our Lord and savior Jesus said Mark 10-12 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Very easy to understand what the true marriage ordained my God himself between a man and women. You don't need to study years of Greek to understand that God made a women for the man. If your struggling with that sin of homosexuality you need to be born again as the bible tells us.
ἀρσενοκοῖται has a meaning and in context, Paul is indeed referring to male on male sex. The context is unclear within the passage itself. Also, although second-generation evangelicals will interpret this context as anti-homosexual, it doesn't mean that third-generation evangelicals have to accept this. Paul's letters speak to a specific theological, and cultural context that no longer exists. I think younger exegetes are looking to interpret Pauline doctrine within cultural contexts that are very different now. Many of the things Paul references, such as the subjugation of women, the acceptance of slavery, the assumption of a client-patron system, and even the existence of Pharisees themselves no longer exist. The very Roman state religion and its theocratic governance that impacted Paul's early Church communities literally no longer exist, it's extinct. Because he wrote about it should we bring back gladiators and throw people into wild beasts too? As a pastor and a theologian, it's my role to interpret the bible within its contemporary context and then ask...so what? Does this apply right now? Can my congregation use this? Will this keep people from experiencing the fullness of God? Do we have a greater grasp of God that literally changes the meaning? Second-generation evangelicals are on the decline. They are dying off, they are falling into new heresies of Christian Nationalism and generally being seen as believers for whom evangelicalism may have passed by them as we gain greater knowledge of Eternity itself. For second-generation evangelicals the answer is clear, for younger evangelicals the jury is out and the prior generation can't live forever.
@@Justas399 can you think of one verse in the Bible that endorses divorcing a spouse on the basis of domestic violence? A plain reading of the Bible would seem to say that domestic violence is by no means a valid reason for divorce, but I don't think many Christians would condemn a woman for leaving a marriage where she's being regularly beaten
There's not really any meaningful distinction. Why should a gay person whose sexuality is determined from birth have to repent of the way God made them? It's asking something of them that's insanely difficult -- denying their entire sexuality to the utmost, i.e. not even allowing oneself to love another person as man or woman loves a spouse, until death -- and I'd wager, something very few people have ever done.
@@EnglishMike The same way anyone has to repent of any sinful proclivity they may have. The Bible clearly is only in favor of relationships that are in wedlock and marriage is between man and a woman. Therefore there is no such thing as a godly sexual or romantic relationship between 2 men or 2 women. You have to realize there are a lot of Christians who can't get into a consenting relationship one way or another and they're expected of the same abstinence. We don't all face the same struggles and some people have it worse than others, that's how it's always been.
@@yunusahmed2940 Sexual identity is not just a proclivity. Not even remotely. And no, it's not remotely the same as someone choosing not to engaging in some other form of sexual activity, like sex before marriage, or having an affair, or a vow of celibacy. Those "proclivities" have solutions -- marriage and divorce, leaving the priesthood, etc. These are bad faith arguments which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it's like to be gay or lesbian.
@@EnglishMike No one can understand what it's like to be something unless they are that thing. I dont claim to understand. All I claim is what the Bible says, and clearly it is against same sex relationships. Whether you like that or not. And no marriage isn't a guarantee, if someone is ugly or undesirable in some way they may never get the chance to marry. And they have to deal with being unable to to have intimate relationships because no one is entitled to one. God didn't promise anyone the ability to have sex with whom they want or at all.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Romans 1:18 ESV
@@Liberalismisadisease809 You're from the ministry of bringing the woman caught in adultery to jesus. The ministry of stone after the order of aaron. Not melchizedek. Jesus has already written a message in the sand for your church of the nicolations. Jesus said to do as you say but not as you do because you receive everything in Parable so you don't understand
@@Liberalismisadisease809 I've read some of your other comments, it seems that you hold the heretical (anti-Augustinian) view that people actually need to DO something in order to get to Hell instead of just being born with original sin. Is that correct?
You do know that you are a false teacher excusing sins, this is like saying adultery is not sin. You don't have a scriptural basis for saying what you are saying.
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | with Moowan ( Bacon Time Vs Talon )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CCEDhu6dPN8/mqdefault.jpg)
I wonder how many gay people have had the path to their suicides paved with Bible verses?
Probably in reality more due to their lifestyle. The commandments of God are not burdensome (1 John).
The organic process of doing theology you describe is a great way to describe it. I'm not protestant (Orthodox), but I've always felt close to Weslyians because they seem to understand this well.
Sexualy immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Most of us have immoral thoughts but we don't for the most part act on them. Who will deliver me from this body of sin? Praise God it has been done by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is pretty clear about sinful thoughts being as bad as the acts themselves. "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Perhaps Christians would do better to see to their own moral failings rather than obsess about what the LGBTQ+ community believes.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:21-22, 32 ESV
Sounds a lot like you...
That's a bit of anti-pagan rhetoric that is essentially imported from the Wisdom of Solomon. Paul sets it up, and then proceeds to knock it down from Chapter 2 on. It's an example of prosopopeia, a rhetorical device Paul would have learned as a rabbi.
Just to throw a little context on everyones' comments based on 1Co. 6:9, Paul has already defined who the "unrighteous" person he is referring to, in 6:1. He is upset because believers are suing one another and allowing non believers to judge the case. He touches on it again in verse 6 and so the unrighteous of verse 9 are the nonbelieving judges. He then reminds the believing members of this church who they really are in verse 11. If one really believes Christ is the Anointed One, The Lamb of God Who took away their sin, then you have been washed, sanctified, and justified In Christ. On the other hand, if you think you are in or out based on your actions, you have an old covenant mentality which will block you from The New Covenant Reality. ( 2Co. 3:7-18.) Don't try to live your life under the law or force others to, as you judge so will you be judged. Christ fulfilled The Law on our behalf, because we are unable. He who knew no sin was made to be sin, so that, we might become the righteousness of God "IN HIM"!!!!
Whether people are arguing that scripture should be taken literally or not, one just needs to find the answer in Genesis 2:18-24.
If sexual immorality or homosexuality is accepted in the eyes of God it simply is not.
If God would allow this, then in Genesis it would say, 'he brought him to him, & her to him & her to her.'
Why do people think God will allow immorality? He is a God of perfection and he will wipe out everything which is unclean.
Don't test God.
He maybe a God of love, but due to our inner sin, he has ordained a time when his patience will run out.
The only way to be saved is to believe Jesus came and was offered as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. One MUST become a believer, in our heart and profess it from our mouths. Romans 10:9-10
Jesus clearly affirmed the covenanted union of one man and one woman as the only normative expression of human sexuality.
Q. DO you think in heaven and on the new earth, Jehovah and King Jesus will allow homosexuality to continue? Yes or No.
Love obviously forms God's exemplary complement that no one can separate. Relationships based on the Flesh end in divorce. Because they don't have God's blessing.
@@dansaber4427 “Relationships based on the flesh” perfect definition of homosexual unions
@@Liberalismisadisease809 do you marry someone for their flesh or because you love them?
I marry because I love my Wife. Homosexuality isn’t love, its lust
@@Liberalismisadisease809 is that how you feel about jesus?
2Thessilonians 2:8-12
Dude, you will have no excuse because you seem to know the Scriptures. God hates the act of homosexuality but died for the one who practices it. Change while you have time..time is running out
Ah, the passive aggressive approach. The last resort of scoundrels...
@@EnglishMike stating the truth isn’t being passive aggressive or a scoundrel. You just don’t like what the Bible says
@@Liberalismisadisease809 Of course it is. Slyly alluding to someone suffering a fate worse without sincerely engaging them is the very definition of passive aggression.
Invoking "For the Bible tells me so," doesn't change that fact.
And WHY would a supremely loving Being hate homosexuality? It is neither harmful for the individuals nor for society as a whole.
@@marcfischer114 Good point. The idea that God cannot abide imperfection (assuming for a moment that being gay is an imperfection) would beg the question, why allow any imperfection in the first place. After all, there is no reason why God had to create anything else. He could have remained in perfection for eternity.
Mr. Little’s fundamental problem is thinking that his interpretation of the Bible is as infallible as he assumes it to be. He is basically equating himself to the Holy Spirit while claiming that the Bible is so clear that he somehow is as irrelevant as the rest of us. Nice try Craig, you aren’t fooling anyone.
@@Justas399 looks like you didn’t understand what I said.
This is spot on. Whether one believes homosexual relationships are sinful or not (I'm personally inclined towards the first), we shouldn't hold a superficial dogma that has huge implications upon millions. The first job of all Christians is to sympathize with those around us (not that this implies we have to negotiate the truth of the Bible).
How are God’s words a “superficial dogma”? The Bible is God’s authoritative word, there’s nothing superficial about it. There’s no scripture in the Bible that says the first job of Christians is to sympathize with people, especially at the expense of compromising the truth. The most loving thing you can do is warn homosexuals that they are going to hell. Even if the truth does hurt their feelings
@@Liberalismisadisease809 The bible isn't God. It can be wrong.
@@Liberalismisadisease809 Amen
@@nfpbadmin5944 No, it cannot. God wrote the Bible
@@NilsWeber-mb5hg God did not write the bible. Human beings wrote the bible, over many centuries and out of and for very many different contexts. It is not a set of magic formulae that fundamentalist preachers can use to chuck
Like the rest of us sinners all homosexuals need do is except Christ as savior, change their ways and repent , like the rest of us sinners.
Then why are they singled out for so much opprobrium and censure by Christians who continue in their own sins?
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
@@EnglishMike Leave South USA thats one thing
All I say is what did God say just as in the garden what God says is true and the only thing that matters 👍
It's a myth not history
@@nfpbadmin5944 who said that that's a myth and not true 🤣😂
@@kurthill7030 Pretty much every single decent biblical critic, and every scientist.
@@nfpbadmin5944 that's a myth not all so could be a myth 👍
There’s a difference between inheriting the kingdom and entering the kingdom. Inheritance requires familial identity, unless the word doesn’t mean anything. Moreover, Jesus was pretty clear about what it takes to get INTO the kingdom. Inheritance is about reward and status in the kingdom rather than membership. More importantly, the word homosexual in the 1946 RSV was later corrected in 1971 because the committee discovered that it was in fact wrong. The word malakos and aresenkoites refer to abusers of sex and sexual abusers, respectively. An oversimplification for sure, but captures the original meanings of those words in history, including biblical history. THe gatekeepers of historic Christianity are confused by their usurping of authority that is not theirs to wield. THere’s just NO case for thinking the word homosexual makes any sense in the Bible.
@@craiglittle7367 no, it doesn’t. Paul invented the word and used it twice. The next 71 times it was used in the centuries that followed, it referred to exploitative sexual abuses and abusers. The lexicons are simply wrong and history proves it. In fact, what history shows is that the meaning kept changing to reflect the current cultures progressively wrong understanding of the meaning of the words. This error persisted from roughly the Middle Ages through the 20th century when the RSV committee discovered their error. I know that you want the lexicons and the men who wrote them to be infallible, but that is stupid. They are just men. Uninspired men.
@@craiglittle7367 no one knows if Paul was referring to Leviticus 18 or 20 when he made up the word arsenokoites. Furthermore, no one knows that the first century audience “clearly understood” it. If anything, they clearly didn’t because NO ONE ever used the word to refer to homosexuals, a word whose concept was new in the late 19th century and thought to be the result of excessive masturbation. NO Bible until 1946 used the word, and in fact translated arsenokoites as “boy molester.” Luther’s Bible, for example. The 1971 correction for the RSV got close to the truth by using “perverts,” but even that betrays the original meaning evident in writings proximal to the invention of this word. The Greek of Pauls day had several words that would give the clarity needed for your errant view, but he didn’t use it, and no one reused his invention the way gatekeepers of historic Christianity do today.
The pairing of malokos with arsenokoites actually works agains the gatekeepers errant viewpoint because that word technically refers to heterosexual men who abuse sex to an excess. Being “soft” in that cultural frame is the same as being a “player” in ours. Men who bed too many women. Excess was a vice in Greco-Roman culture. Being “soft” had more to do with excess and/or simply NOT being a warrior than anything else. The view that the Bible is referring to homosexuality is just modern dogma with no foundation other than errant lexicons. The history of the word makes that crystal clear.
@@craiglittle7367 what's important to you: your self-preservation or loving someone else? What looks more like a same-sex relationship? Who's really a coward?
@@craiglittle7367 how adorable “my friend” … you think that declaring that I’m wrong is all it takes. 🤦🏻♂️ Pointing to the historical data on the word that you want to weaponize isn’t a rationalization, it’s just telling the truth. The word keeps changing meaning since its original usage in a way that reflects the immediate culture rather than the original meaning. Scholars admit that no one really knows what Paul meant with his unusual conjunction of words, but they do admit how it was used after he made it up. It wasn’t used to describe homosexuals. Period. Ultimately, the word study doesn’t matter if you take Romans 2:1 seriously, which I doubt you’ll do.
"For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
The Word is clear! Nuff said.
You guys sound like the religious people from the story. I find no fault with the LGBT whatsoever. Your turn.
You have absolutely no clue on Romans 1. Do you know the language of Romans 1? I do.
@@inYTbio_SiteLINKs2Verses_Bruv Enlighten us please.
@@flickedbic If my post is deleted, you can still find what I said in your Google notifications.
Never heard of poutine before, but now I want to try it.
The bible says mem who lie with men will not inherit the kingdom.
Will you be justified by your works of righteousness?
@@dansaber4427 no, we’ll be justified by repentance of sins, placing faith in Christ, and actually obeying his commandments. If you’re a sodomite you need to repent and get right with God
@@Liberalismisadisease809 More like you were grafted into the original sin. Who do you know good and evil as? If I said your father was a liar from the beginning would you say that was a fair observation? Because you sound like the religious people from the story. I find no fault with the LGBT whatsoever. What say you?
@@dansaber4427 what original sin?
@@dansaber4427 Do you mean we’re all born sinners? Show me where in the Bible it says that we’re all born sinners. People sin cause they choose to
Craig Little’s interpretation is clear. Your interpretation of Bible verse is not clear. Please post progressive’s view on homosexual acts.
Wait, wait , wait should we not test the spirit and know the truth?
First get born again and you will be a new person.
Your knowledge is just that and from the tree of knowledge.
Follow thou me
From which angle are you looking at this topic, if you know what i mean?
Assuming that it hasn't already, how do we receive word that your book is released?
I'll be announcing it on this TH-cam channel for sure.
The most high said it 1 Corinthians 6/9 do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of the most high do not be deceived neither fornicators/ nor idolaters / nor adulterers/ nor homosexual according to the bible
Bad translation that only appeared in 1946
@@nfpbadmin5944 The Sinaiticus, possibly the second oldest manuscript in Greek, says "sodomites".
So people who rape angels then. Okay....@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG
Paul said it.
No he didn't.
You sir show me where in the bible we read of two men who were married or two women who were married or show us where we read of two married kings or married queens ? This is an unnatural marriage let us read the bible what our Lord and savior Jesus said Mark 10-12 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Very easy to understand what the true marriage ordained my God himself between a man and women. You don't need to study years of Greek to understand that God made a women for the man. If your struggling with that sin of homosexuality you need to be born again as the bible tells us.
I've heard MANY sermons about the dangers of homosexuality and yet zero about revilers (which I think is a far more common sin). Strange.
They won't
I like the off the cuff style of this video. Nice work
ἀρσενοκοῖται has a meaning and in context, Paul is indeed referring to male on male sex. The context is unclear within the passage itself. Also, although second-generation evangelicals will interpret this context as anti-homosexual, it doesn't mean that third-generation evangelicals have to accept this. Paul's letters speak to a specific theological, and cultural context that no longer exists. I think younger exegetes are looking to interpret Pauline doctrine within cultural contexts that are very different now. Many of the things Paul references, such as the subjugation of women, the acceptance of slavery, the assumption of a client-patron system, and even the existence of Pharisees themselves no longer exist. The very Roman state religion and its theocratic governance that impacted Paul's early Church communities literally no longer exist, it's extinct. Because he wrote about it should we bring back gladiators and throw people into wild beasts too? As a pastor and a theologian, it's my role to interpret the bible within its contemporary context and then ask...so what? Does this apply right now? Can my congregation use this? Will this keep people from experiencing the fullness of God? Do we have a greater grasp of God that literally changes the meaning? Second-generation evangelicals are on the decline. They are dying off, they are falling into new heresies of Christian Nationalism and generally being seen as believers for whom evangelicalism may have passed by them as we gain greater knowledge of Eternity itself. For second-generation evangelicals the answer is clear, for younger evangelicals the jury is out and the prior generation can't live forever.
@@Justas399 can you think of one verse in the Bible that endorses divorcing a spouse on the basis of domestic violence? A plain reading of the Bible would seem to say that domestic violence is by no means a valid reason for divorce, but I don't think many Christians would condemn a woman for leaving a marriage where she's being regularly beaten
@@Justas399 Can you think of one verse in the Bible that condemns slavery?
@@Justas399 And yet any Christian who affirms the institution of slavery today is rightly condemned.
@@Justas399 ummm. Is Jesus your husband?
@@matthayes8631 "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves His church". Obviously if a husband fails to love his wife that's also grounds for divorce.
It also depends on what someone means by that. As in anyone with that sexuality goes to Hell or only the unrepentant?
There's not really any meaningful distinction. Why should a gay person whose sexuality is determined from birth have to repent of the way God made them? It's asking something of them that's insanely difficult -- denying their entire sexuality to the utmost, i.e. not even allowing oneself to love another person as man or woman loves a spouse, until death -- and I'd wager, something very few people have ever done.
@@EnglishMike
The same way anyone has to repent of any sinful proclivity they may have. The Bible clearly is only in favor of relationships that are in wedlock and marriage is between man and a woman. Therefore there is no such thing as a godly sexual or romantic relationship between 2 men or 2 women.
You have to realize there are a lot of Christians who can't get into a consenting relationship one way or another and they're expected of the same abstinence. We don't all face the same struggles and some people have it worse than others, that's how it's always been.
@@yunusahmed2940 Sexual identity is not just a proclivity. Not even remotely. And no, it's not remotely the same as someone choosing not to engaging in some other form of sexual activity, like sex before marriage, or having an affair, or a vow of celibacy. Those "proclivities" have solutions -- marriage and divorce, leaving the priesthood, etc.
These are bad faith arguments which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what it's like to be gay or lesbian.
@@EnglishMike No one can understand what it's like to be something unless they are that thing. I dont claim to understand. All I claim is what the Bible says, and clearly it is against same sex relationships. Whether you like that or not.
And no marriage isn't a guarantee, if someone is ugly or undesirable in some way they may never get the chance to marry. And they have to deal with being unable to to have intimate relationships because no one is entitled to one. God didn't promise anyone the ability to have sex with whom they want or at all.
Come here... you can back up now 😂😂
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:18 ESV
You can be LGBT and Christian 👬
No you cant
@@Liberalismisadisease809 wrong
@@dansaber4427 no I’m not
@@Liberalismisadisease809 You're from the ministry of bringing the woman caught in adultery to jesus. The ministry of stone after the order of aaron. Not melchizedek. Jesus has already written a message in the sand for your church of the nicolations. Jesus said to do as you say but not as you do because you receive everything in Parable so you don't understand
@@Liberalismisadisease809 yes you are, evangelifascist.
These sort of comments all deserve the same response;
Better to Rule in Hell than Serve in Heaven
Are you insane? Hell ain't gonna be any fun
@@trevorkuun199 Says the pathetic weakling who would rather be a slave forever.
I’m sure you’ll be thinking that you get there 🙄
@@Liberalismisadisease809 I've read some of your other comments, it seems that you hold the heretical (anti-Augustinian) view that people actually need to DO something in order to get to Hell instead of just being born with original sin. Is that correct?
Do you genuinely feel that way?
Check out GRACE AND TRUTH MINISTRIES JIM BROWN HEBREW AND GREEK BIBLE STUDY 👍🏻
You do know that you are a false teacher excusing sins, this is like saying adultery is not sin. You don't have a scriptural basis for saying what you are saying.
Stop talking to yourself. People think you're crazy.