GAY TRUTH

How significant are the prohibitions of same-gender behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Are these passages limited to Israel ’s purity code and her separation from the surrounding gentile nations, or are they universal? The Revisionist Answer The context limits the prohibitions to the cult or religion of Israel, as shown by the use of the word abominable (Heb. toʿeba, Gk. bdelygma). These regulations belong solely to the purity laws applied to Israel in the Old Testament and have no on-going value as moral standards. These passages are never quoted in the New Testament as part of the Christian ethic . Establishment of the death penalty for violators does not help determine whether the texts apply to the modern world. The texts have no relevance. The Biblical Answer Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly describe homosexual behavior , with the second passage calling for the death penalty. The words abomination or detestable occur in both passages. Among the vices listed

What is the meaning of arsenokoitai, which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:10–12? Pastors who agree with Homosexuals Arsenokoitai cannot refer to “homosexuals” because there is no preceding occurrence of this word with such a meaning. In the lists of vices, the word means “homosexual acts,” “pederasts,” or “active male prostitutes” or refers to ritual impurity. These were the prevalent forms of homosexual activity that found some disapproval in contemporary codes or among the Jews. Paul’s word cannot refer to those of a homosexual orientation or to those who live in a mutually respectful and committed homosexual relationship; these are modern phenomena, unknown to Paul. Biblical Pastors Answer The English term homosexuals is an appropriate correspondent to arsenokoitai, given both ancient sexual practice and today’s usage. We have ample evidence that ancient Greeks and Romans knew about homosexual orientation and that some Greeks practiced a mutually respectful,

History condemns Attorney-general George Brandis  who has told young gay Australians the great lie the great false narratice  "there is nothing wrong with you" in a speech supporting immoral homosexual marriage  in the Australian  Senate . On Tuesday morning, Brandis brought to an end speeches from over 50 senators as part of the debate on a immoral homosexual marriage bill that parliamentarians expect to pass. Brandis said the passage of the bill will "demolish the last significant bastion of legal discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality". "At last, Australia will no longer be insulting gay people by saying: different rules apply to you," he said. "After centuries of prejudice, discrimination, rejection and ridicule, [this bill] is both an expiation for past wrongs and a final act of acceptance and embrace." Brandis has misunderstood history and why homosexuality has always been an issue in history.  God clea

"Whether you're gay or whether you're straight, to follow Jesus will demand a taking up of your cross. When we start to throw out clear teachings of scripture about the lordship of Jesus over sexuality and what marriage is and what celibacy is and what singleness is--and we begin to change those to fit into culture thinking that we're gonna make the church relevant to the masses--what you actually do is make the church offensive to Jesus, the head of the church. Gay or straight, you can't do anything to earn your salvation. It's done. Jesus did it. Gay or straight, to follow Jesus means he will relentlessly pursue every bit of your soul because he loves you too much to let you have lesser gods. This obedience that we're talking about to Jesus, (here's the big idea), this obedience is actually not burdensome. It's actually a light yoke because He loves you. He said, 'My yoke is easy; my burden is light.' What does that mean? It means that

Russell Moore 's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has posted a flawed "Evangelical Declaration on Marriage" entitled " Here We Stand ." While I appreciate the effort at getting evangelical leaders to declare affirmation of a male-female requirement for marriage, I think that every evangelical leader who signed this (and there are already quite a few) signed a statement that errs at some points and gives the wrong advice at others. This is not an attack on those who have already signed the document. Doubtless, many signed simply because it does contain a number of good statements. For example, the first paragraph states, "We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot"; and the second paragraph affirms strongly Jesus' own affirmation of marriage as a male-female union. Nor should my comments be construed as a personal attack on any formulators of the statement or an accusation of doctrinal heresy. Ho

Question: Can a person with same-sex attraction change his or her orientation? If so, how? At one level we must answer this question with affirmative conviction. Yes, a person with same-sex attraction can change. Christians must proclaim that rebellious sinners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be redeemed by Christ and conformed to his image by the Holy Spirit.  We can affirm this without hesitation because of God 's promises in Scripture and because of the gospel's transformative power. At the same time, the process of sanctification and the radical change from sexual sinner to a life of purity and holiness is never simple.  The redemption of someone with same-sex attraction does not instantaneously produce a heterosexual orientation. The New Testament displays the difficulty of escaping patterns of temptation and sin. In Romans 7 , Paul demonstrates the tension Christians experience between new life in Christ and indwelling sin. There is simply no easy

Question: Aren't Christians being selective with Old Testament law when they appeal to it with respect to homosexuality, while ignoring Old Testament commands about clothing, food, etc.? In some sense, yes, because we are singling out the  moral law , which is exactly what the New Testament trains us to do. The book of Acts distinctly separates the ceremonial and liturgical laws from the moral law. The Lord told Peter not to distinguish between clean and unclean animals any longer (Acts 10:9-16). At the same time, the Jerusalem Council clearly confirmed the continuation of the moral law ( Acts 15 ). Paul tells us the gospel is for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, which obliterates that distinction in the holiness code.  Nevertheless, Paul regularly returns to the moral law of the Old Testament to show and defend the character of righteous living in general and rule commandments against same-sex acts in particular.   If we still depended on rule Levitical code

SODOM AND HOMOSEXUALITY. Almost a century ago, G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”  Though in many ways that remains true, in the issue of homosexuality it defines the controversy. Some today still consider homosexuality an evil, whether excusable or not. Others march for the rights of those they believe to be simply practicing an acceptable alternative lifestyle that expresses their sexual preferences . Though Genesis 19 is not a story about the evils of homosexuality, the narrative has traditionally been a starting point for discussion of the biblical view of homosexuality. We include this discussion under Breakout Points because in it we are digressing from the purpose of the author. Nonetheless, given the prominence of the issue in contemporary society, a brief comment is in order. The sin of Sodom. The first question to be asked is whether the text of Ge

There is a sense in which all sin is the same. Every sin is an act of rebellion against God . Any sin, no matter whether it is an angry thought or outright murder, is a declaration of independence from God, a means of saying, “I am going to do this my way instead of your way.   I choose my will rather than your will.”  In that sense every sin is sufficient to justify an eternity of separation from God . Every sin grieves God and arouses his just wrath. God hates sin because his very nature is contrary to sin. This is not God being mean or arbitrary, but God simply giving us the wages due to our rebellion. However, it is equally correct to express that some sins are more serious than others. Certain sins are more significant than others because the consequences are more significant. We observe this in the New Testament , in Paul’s description of sin in Romans 1.  Here we see the progression of sin so that as people are given over to their sin and rebellion, they progress i

HERE IS THE ARGUMENT FROM "WOULD JESUS DISCRIMINATE " The author attempts to say that a man born as a eunuch is homosexual and because Jesus talks about it - he approve of homosexual men . In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. (For a complete discussion of the term "born eunuch" and the connection with homosexuality, see The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man .) As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he very matter-of-factly asserts that some people are simply born that way. The

Sodom in the New Testament At this point, revisionist interpreters appeal to the New Testament, claiming with Boswell that Jesus “apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality.”30 In Matthew 10:14 –15 and Luke 10:10–12, the Lord does not cite the cause of Sodom’s destruction, but He identifies the destruction as a prime example of God’s judgment. The sin in the context is not inhospitality but failure to believe the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9). It is rejection of Christ (10:16). Sodom in the Septuagint One of the strongest supports for the traditional interpretation of what happened at Sodom comes from the LXX translation of Genesis 19:5, which uses the term syngenōmetha. Boswell believes that this use supports his interpretation. He points out that this word simply means “becoming familiar with” or “making the acquaintance of” in Genesis 19:5, whereas egnōsan and chrēsas clearly refer to sexual behavior in 19:8. However, in the paral