GAY TRUTH

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

What was Jesus ’ and the apostles’ attitude toward homosexuality? The Revisionist Answer Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we. The Biblical Answer Jesus did not mention the word homosexuality, but He referred to Sodom and its destruction more frequently than did anyone else ( Matt. 10:15; 11:23; Luke 17:26–37). In each context, Jesus assumes the divine judgment on Sodom, which He links to the Flood as an example of divine intervention. It becomes a portent of His own second coming. “Remember Lot’s wife,” he warns (Luke 17:32). He views the sin of Sodom as a serious matter. Jesus also upheld the monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage as a universal norm. He linked the outward deed to the inner thought or motive (for example, Matthew 5). He cited the heart, the inner being, as the origin of evil deeds (for example, Matthew 15). He warns against annulling even the least commandment, which He came to fulfill, not destroy.   Jesus perhaps hint

The interpreter’s attitude toward the authority of Scripture is especially significant as we approach the Old Testament . Homosexual Revisionist interpreters tend to dilute Old Testament authority, especially in its references to homosexuality.  For example, Boswell ’s attitude appears in his statement, “Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details.” Boswell believes that the nonbinding details include both the dietary laws and any prohibitions of homosexual behavior . The basis for such claims is that the ancient world, especially Roman citizens , “knew no such hostility to homosexuality,” hence, non-Jewish converts to Christianity could hold no such views. Boswell believes that Old Testament strictures against homosexuality would appear to be arbitrary to Roman citizens. They would not consider them to be different from the prohibition against cutting the b

Homosexuality, in some cases in Scripture, called for the death penalty. Despite the fact that such a definitive judgment would stand against those who are in violation of this portion of the Bible ’s standards of morality, those who claim that the Bible and homosexuality are compatible often introduce the death penalty into the discussion. The death penalty for homosexuality is found in Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”  From verses such as this one, it is not difficult to see why Leviticus must be, for some, removed from the discussion. For other homosexual advocates within the church, however, the death penalty is actually brought up as an attempt to win the argument. After all, who would advocate the death penalty against practicing homosexuals today? It is not uncommon for anyone who dares to affirm s

REVISIONIST WANT TO REINTERPRET THE BIBLE BUT FAIL Justification of homosexuality from the Bible must take into account the record of Creation in Genesis 1–2. Such revisionist interpreters as Boswell have not overlooked this matter. They so interpret these passages that homosexuality escapes condemnation. The assumption that the record of Creation and the Old Testament emphasis on marriage show tacit rejection of one-gender sexual relationships is “insupportable in a modern context,” asserts Boswell. “It does not seem to have occurred to early Christians.” Indeed, “intense love relations between persons of the same gender figure prominently in the Old Testament.”  Boswell cites Saul and David , David and Jonathan,    Ruth and Naomi . Boswell does not argue that these relationships were sexual. He suggests as much, however, by observing that literature of the Middle Ages sometimes represented these relationships as erotic. He believes that Genesis employs symbols and myt

Christine Boutin, French politician (Photo credit: Wikipedia )French politician and former housing minister Christine Boutin was convicted of “hate speech” on Wednesday by the Court of Appeals of Paris for having called homosexuality an “abomination” in an interview with the high-brow political magazine Charles in March 2014. Boutin was ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 euro (more than $5,500 USD), as well as 2,000 euro each in damages to three gay associations, “Mousse,” “ Le Refuge ,” and “Inter- LGBT .” This amounts to being fined for quoting the Bible . In two separate occurrences, Leviticus uses the word abomination, which is the same in French as in English, in chapter 18, verse 22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  Clearly, the judgment also means that Christians should not express their agreement with this form of prohibition of homosexual acts if they do not want to be sanctioned for a criminal offense . The public prosecutor a

Homosexual advocate: It’s time Australia stopped being so bloody backward. New homosexual marketing tries to manipulate moral thinking but fails! Cath Flack-Crane says her daughter shouldn’t have to wait for politicians to pull their finger out so she can live the life she chooses. In other words, all politicians should support my lesbian immoral lifestyle choice . All politicians should 'pull their finger out' and pass any legislation that I want! The homosexual lobby are trying to appeal through a new TV advertisement to the public that homosexual sin isnt sin but it is moral, clean, worthy, even righteous. But nobody believes it. But they tried! They involves mums and dads, a Vietnamese grandmother, a couple of straight mates and even a pair of gay beef farmers to promote and push sodomy onto all Australians . Homosexual campaigners will launch a new TV commercial — to be broadcast on channels 7, 9 and 10 and Foxtel — seeking to portray 'ordinary' Austral

What was Jesus ’ and the apostles’ attitude toward homosexuality? The Revisionist Answer Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, and neither should we. The Biblical Answer Jesus did not mention the word homosexuality, but He referred to Sodom and its destruction more frequently than did anyone else ( Matt. 10:15; 11:23; Luke 17:26–37). In each context, Jesus assumes the divine judgment on Sodom, which He links to the Flood as an example of divine intervention. It becomes a portent of His own second coming. “Remember Lot’s wife,” he warns (Luke 17:32). He views the sin of Sodom as a serious matter. Jesus also upheld the monogamous, permanent, heterosexual marriage as a universal norm. He linked the outward deed to the inner thought or motive (for example, Matthew 5 ). He cited the heart, the inner being, as the origin of evil deeds (for example, Matthew 15 ). He warns against annulling even the least commandment, which He came to fulfill, not destroy. Jesus perhaps hints e

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 in

The only model of sexual expression contemplated in Scripture is that which finds its pattern in the Creation model of Genesis 1 –2. This is the pattern taught by our Lord and the apostles (see, for example, Matt. 5:27–32; 19:3–12). It is to occur in heterosexual marriage. If in Romans 1 Paul opposes all forms of sexual expression between people of the same sex, then his judgments are, as Scroggs admits, “eternally valid.” Revisionist interpretations would do well to come under the meaning and authority of Scripture. So What? Several reasons seem persuasive that Paul does oppose homosexual lust and expression:     1.      Paul writes as a Jewish Christian whose theology and ethics are formed by an Old Testament worldview, not Greek philosophy.98 Yet he speaks to Jewish and gentile readers with terms (the natural use and what is contrary to nature) that Greeks and Romans understood.     2.      For Paul, what is “natural” (vv. 26–27) reflects the being or nature of

Christians who support same-sex marriage are not “abandoning the Bible ” the Archbishop of Wales has insisted, as he told leading Anglicans that sex in a committed gay or lesbian relationship is perfectly “proper”. Dr Barry Morgan used his final address to the governing body of the Church in Wales , ahead of his retirement, to urge members to rethink traditional beliefs about homosexual relationships as being sinful. Even Biblical texts often cited as condemning homosexuality, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, could be “interpreted in more than one way”, he said.  The 'hospitality argument' is a well known liberal failed tactic written by Bailey and used by the Metropolitan Gay Churches.  Morgan should not be seeking to confuse and divert people away from the correct teaching of scripture. Dr Morgan, a prominent liberal figure in the church, is stepping down in early 2017 after 14 years as Archbishop, the longest serving primate

It is one thing to not believe the Bible, and another to misreport what the Bible says; the Bible does not say that Jesus was fine with or indifferent on homosexuality . Jesus also doesn't talk about cars. Those who fought to make homosexual marriage legal rebutted the objection of conservative Christians by invoking the separation between church and state allegedly imposed by the First Amendment to the Constitution . But that is irrelevant to what the church believes and what the state believes and neither can interfere or the state cant start its own church. Irrelevant! Now that such rights have been secured, that separation is being blurred as many LGBTQ people seek to find affirmation inside the church as well as outside. But it is not there. They will find affirmation in liberal non Bible believing churches led by false prophets and false teachers according to 2 Peter. An example of a modern false prophet, such as Pastor John Pavlowvitz of North Raleigh Community Ch

THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY felt an explosion quite unlike that which shook Sodom, an eruption of reinterpretation of Scripture regarding gay and lesbian sexuality. To varying degrees, these studies have found the traditional view of key texts wrongheaded and in error. The old interpretations were replaced by three approaches:     1.       References to homosexuality do not occur in passages where they traditionally have been seen (Gen. 19:1–8; Judg. 19:16–30; Ezek. 16:44–50; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–10; 2 Peter 2:6–8; and Jude 6–8). Identification of homosexuality in these passages is improper interpretation of Scripture.     2.       Homosexuality is in the context of certain passages, but these texts concern Israel ’s special ritual or sacred relationship to God (e.g., Levit. 18:22; 20:13). They are irrelevant to the Christian.     3.       Whatever references to homosexuality are in Scripture may be deemed outdated and irrelevant . They concern a form of homosexuality