GAY TRUTH

Homosexuality, a word for which there is no specific equivalent in the Hebrew Bible or in the Greek NT, since the concept of homosexuality as a “sexual orientation” originated only in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, there are a few biblical references to people who engage in sexual acts with persons of the same sex. In the Hebrew Bible, the most explicit references to sexual acts between men are in the Holiness Code of Leviticus , where, under penalty of death, a male is strictly prohibited from lying with another male as he would with a woman (18:22; 20:13). In addition to these passages, the Bible contains two narratives in which men desire to have sexual relations with other men.  The first of these is set in the city of Sodom and provides the derivation for the term “sodomy,” which in modern English is sometimes used as a pejorative term for “homosexual sex acts.” In the biblical account, the men of Sodom intend to rape two male visitors who have come to the house of

In an effort to be compassionate and loving, popular Christian author Jen Hatmaker came out in support of LGBT relationships , referring to them as “holy.” While other Christian influencers have come out in favor of affirming theology, this caught my attention because many have benefitted greatly from her books. Rosaria Butterfield wrote a poignant reply to Jen Hatmaker, which is worth reading, regardless of where you stand on the issue. And so have Jake Meador and Kevin DeYoung . The issue seemed closed to me, until a close friend sent me a link to a Facebook post by Jen’s husband Brandon Hatmaker , clarifying their position on LGBTQ . This particular post needs to be addressed.  Essentially, Brandon describes how he and Jen have been on a yearlong journey trying to reconcile the pain they see in the lives of LGBTQ people with the “historic Christian position” on homosexuality. After much study and prayer, they mutually concluded that God blesses homosexual relationships in

Launched on Monday, the campaign's called "Until We All Belong," and it has the backing of Google as well as Australia 's largest airline, Qantas, and national bank ANZ . Why is ANZ, QANTAS spending shareholders money on sexual immorality? Does Airbnb really think homosexual marriage will bring belonging and acceptance? Sodomy will always be sodomy. Designed by Marc Newson , the matte black "Acceptance Rings" (which don't completely link up to make a full circle) are a symbol of the need to "close the gap" in marriage equality. This is no different than Kylie Minogue and her sexual partner who said they would not marry until immoral homosexual marriage was made legal. They promoted another gimmick - a very corny t-shirt. Unfortunately, their promise fell flat as her boyfriend ran off with another woman. So much for marriage promises! This is Airbnb justification for supporting sodomy: Airbnb CEO and head of community, Brian Chesky , sa

Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice , he would play a decisive role in the demise of immoral sodomy marriage in the United States. The Court held in its 2015 - 1 vote majority -  Obergefell decision that there is a supposed nationwide right of homosexuals couples to marry, by beleiving the constitution is an evolving documents.  But no Supreme Court decision is written in stone. Gorsuch’s statements on the issue in his 2004 Oxford University dissertation for his Doctorate in Philosophy reveal that he thought it obvious that the United States Constitution does not support homosexual marriage. If he still holds this view, he could join forces with other justices to reverse the Court’s protection of this right. This would be a good outcome. In order to understand why Gorsuch’s statements are potentially a great outcome for the dismissing of immoral homosexual marriage we must look closely at the constitution. Gorsuch is critical of this legal doct

Various other attempts are designed to justify homosexuality as acceptable with biblical morality. When it is shown that the passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality actually do condemn homosexuality, then the revisionists must find other ways to defend their preferences. The arguments that follow are those that did not fall precisely into our discussion of the various biblical texts that were surveyed. These arguments, as with the others we have considered, are also put forth as “biblical.” These are supposedly based upon the truths of Scripture when taken as a whole. To these we now turn. Objection Stated   The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are not found in the Bible . This is one of the most common objections raised by those who teach the compatibility of homosexuality and the Bible . This statement has become mantra-like due to its frequency of utterance and is one of the first comments heard from those who argue for the Bible’s acceptance of homosexualit

The Distinction Between the Ceremonial and Moral Law As Necessary for Biblical Interpretation Recognizing this distinction between the ceremonial and moral law is vitally important in properly understanding such passages as 1 Samuel 15:22: “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.” The Lord has commanded of His covenant people adherence to both His moral and His ceremonial law ; however, in this passage, obedience “is better than sacrifice.”  How can this be since God has commanded both? The answer is that, even for the children of Israel who were commanded to offer sacrifices in accordance with the ceremonial law that regulated their lives and worship, loyalty to the Lord by obeying His moral law came first. Persons who disregarded the commandments of God’s moral law were not welcome to present their offerings. This fact is clearly seen

THE MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAWS DISTINGUISHED The chief failure of those who reduce the book of Leviticus to a non-applicable status is in not recognizing the proper biblical distinctions between that which God intended to be temporary and that which is permanent and applicable to all persons.  The Bible does make distinctions between what was temporary, solely intended for the children of Israel , and that which is universal, unchanging, and obligatory upon all peoples in all places. We have not denied that parts of the book of Leviticus offer temporary instruction. Some regulations are no longer observed due to divine amendment. We have already seen this to be the case with regard to the dietary laws and the ordinances that pertained to the priesthood. Bible scholars and theologians have recognized these distinctions and categorized them as the ceremonial and moral law. God’s moral law refers to those precepts that are perpetually binding upon all peoples in all time (

Returning the Challenge—Leviticus, Bestiality , and Pedophilia Those who propose that we no longer consider the Leviticus prohibitions of homosexuality as binding must tell us what is to be done with the rest of the book.   They are left in the inconsistent position of either rejecting it all (which Jesus did not do, as seen in Matthew 22:39—Jesus citing Leviticus 19:18) or revealing their true colors and showing their own subjectively selective approach to biblical interpretation.  We can discern what is permanent and what is temporary in God ’s Word.  If God has not repealed His Law at any given point, His Law stands, which poses a problem for those advocating the acceptability of homosexuality with the Bible , for they must answer why bestiality and pedophilia are moral evils.   Such practices are sinful because God declares them so. Specifically, bestiality is condemned in Leviticus 18:23, just one verse after the first Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality, and yet n

ANSWERING THE EVASIONS AND REVISIONS Even professing Christians encounter difficulties when they consider the book of Leviticus . Few people understand this third book of the Bible. Discussions become bogged down due to a lack of Bible reading and knowledge. Some people will make grandiose claims and bold assertions about the Law of God , about the book of Leviticus, and about “Holiness Codes” despite the fact that they are woefully misrepresenting the truth of God ’s Word (1 Timothy 1:7). A great deal of confusion could be avoided if those who bear the name of the Lord would spend more time reading the Bible. Often, this is enough to refute the revisionists’ contentions. Leviticus Only for the Jews? A Case of Geographical Morality Rabbi Jacob Milgrom has taught that the laws against homosexuality in the Old Testament were exclusively Jewish in scope and application. He has attempted to prove his point by going to the text of Leviticus and making reference to the land. He