Right, that is quite enough, stop all this nonsense. Jesus supports homosexuals in Scripture.

Op, I would like to apologize. Another poster had shared passages from Romans text and I found myself reading further in research and found this passage in Romans 14:

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I believe this instruction definitely fulfills the fact that Jesus would be supportive of Homosexuals based on true personal faith rather than the laws. So whatever you personally believe about homosexuality, you should keep it between yourself and God.

So with that find, I will humbly apologize again.

Edit add: bolding emphasis added by me. Too bad there was not an addendum verse 24but it seems obvious what it would be. He who has no doubt in their faith shall not be condemned. That which comes faith cannot be sin.


So I will have to say if you believe homosexuality is a sin, it is, for you and you alone. If you believe that it is not, it is not, for you and you alone.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But what is religion but a societal construct we use to define God(s), determine the message of God(s) and the intentions of God(s).

We don't get to define God. God defined it for us. If society had it's way, we'd all opt to do whatever we wanted with whomever we wanted (and some do). God always knew better than we did what would keep a civilization thriving and peaceful and we're a poor example of it. Always have been. That's the point the Bible makes to us. Without God, we'd all be out of control worse than we are now.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Those verses all pertain to the Mosaic laws regarding food.

I don't think you can put anything sexual into the same category as food when it comes to "nothing is unclean in itself", especially if we start talking about pedophilia or sex with animals.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Edit add: Thus why many who followed Jesus teachings back then began to abstain from sex, even some married women. Their husbands were displeased with Jesus teachings. I will see if I can find the scripture regarding that. Jesus was very much an abstainer abdicator above all else.

1 Corinthians 7:3
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

a reply to: CynConcepts
We need to love everyone, we are commanded to love each other, but we are also told there are certain behaviors that are not acceptable.WE are not to judge what people do it is god that will judge, but we are to know what we should and should not do so we need to judge right from wrong.

(Romans 1:26-27)
"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 19:4-5 New International Version (NIV)
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

a reply to: CthruU

Everyone sins.

The problem is when you insist that a sin is not a sin, or worse insist that others accept your sin as not a sin. It's one thing to understand that sinners sin because we're all sinners and we all sin and to be understanding on that score, but it's quite another to justify and sin and insist it is not sin both for yourself and for others.

Now, I don't have to go around pointing fingers at people like my gay coworkers. They are who they are, and in many ways I quite like them. But they aren't demanding I call their lifestyles perfectly blameless in God's eyes, either. I hope they never do.

But truthfully, most people who are divorced and remarried are in a similar boat. So are people who are living together instead of married.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Who cares what fictional anthropomorphized characters have to say on where people choose to consensually stick there tallywacker?

It's not my cup a Tea but who am i or God for that matter to judge?

Fecking nobody that's who.

If Homosexuals need the approval of Jesus, they are doing it all wrong. LoL

Jesus also said:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." -- Matthew 5:17

And what was one of the laws of the prophets?:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13

So...

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Jesus also said:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." -- Matthew 5:17

And what was one of the laws of the prophets?:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13

So...

The predictions of the Prophets concerning the Messiah would be realized in Jesus; the holy standard of the Law would be perfectly upheld by Christ, the strict requirements personally obeyed, and the ceremonial observances finally and fully satisfied.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Prophets in that, in His first coming alone, He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies concerning Himself (e.g., Matthew 1:22; 13:35; John 19:36; Luke 24:44).

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in at least two ways: as a teacher and as a doer. He taught people to obey the Law (Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 1:44), and He obeyed the Law Himself (John 8:46; 1 Peter 2:22).

In living a perfect life, Jesus fulfilled the moral laws; in His sacrificial death, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws. Christ came not to destroy the old religious system but to build upon it; He came to finish the Old Covenant and establish the New.

www.gotquestions.org...

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: CynConcepts

Those verses all pertain to the Mosaic laws regarding food.

I don't think you can put anything sexual into the same category as food when it comes to "nothing is unclean in itself", especially if we start talking about pedophilia or sex with animals.

Actually if you read the whole chapter of Romans 14, you would see that the author was simplifying his message with an example. He does so regarding the day of the week too. It is not speaking about just food, it is speaking about all the mosaic laws.

It is using food as an easy to understand example for understanding. I did not want to copy and paste the whole chapter nor the one after in a post. I discovered these passages by seeking out the book of Romans online to put another's post share into perspective.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Do you read Disraeli's Friday threads? This past week's would be relevant here. Once of Christ's focuses was on how people were too caught up in the letter of the law as pertains to Mosaic Law over the spirit of the law.

In the context of the spirit, this would be earning a spiritual death rather than a physical one perhaps? But the ultimate message of Christ is that all may be forgiven if they seek God and die to themselves being made new again in the Spirit. But with that act comes a life of seeking to turn away from sin rather than embrace it, and the modern homosexual movement is about embracing sin as central to who they are.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Actually if you read the whole chapter of Romans 14, you would see that the author was simplifying his message with an example. He does so regarding the day of the week too. It is not speaking about just food, it is speaking about all the mosaic laws.

There's a whole argument in the Bible over circumcision too, but these all fall within the civil laws being practiced and not the moral laws that are supposed to be universal.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

Verse 27 tells you what "going against nature" means and verse 26 says that women did it too.

I’ll concede. On that point at least.

But why do you think, out of all of the “sins” laid out in the abrahamic religions, that this one is regarded as still valid, especially when others are completely ignored?

a reply to: Woodcarver

But why do you think, out of all of the “sins” laid out in the abrahamic religions, that this one is regarded as still valid, especially when others are completely ignored?

Because most people view it as being unnatural and only a minority practice it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue Shift

Do you read Disraeli's Friday threads? This past week's would be relevant here. Once of Christ's focuses was on how people were too caught up in the letter of the law as pertains to Mosaic Law over the spirit of the law.

In the context of the spirit, this would be earning a spiritual death rather than a physical one perhaps? But the ultimate message of Christ is that all may be forgiven if they seek God and die to themselves being made new again in the Spirit. But with that act comes a life of seeking to turn away from sin rather than embrace it, and the modern homosexual movement is about embracing sin as central to who they are.

You say they are embracing sin, but that implies that your religion is real, that sin is a thing, and that it should be avoided. It implies that everybody believes in your religion and should be judged as though your religion is real. the end all be all for how things should be.

You say they embrace sin, but the truth is that they just don’t believe in your god. And don’t care what you think your imaginary god thinks of things.

What reason would they have to stop being gay if your god isn’t real?

Besides the stigma that you attach to them and use to justify treating people poorly?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver

But why do you think, out of all of the “sins” laid out in the abrahamic religions, that this one is regarded as still valid, especially when others are completely ignored?

Because most people view it as being unnatural and only a minority practice it.

Why do you/they view it as unnatural? It has obviously been going on a long time, and even other mammals have been observed in homosexual acts and relationships. I mean to say that it has been proven not to be an unnatural act. It is clearly seen to happen in nature. Including in humans as far back as records show.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You say they embrace sin, but the truth is that they just don’t believe in your god. And don’t care what you think your imaginary god thinks of things.

There are plenty of people who believe that God exists yet still embrace their sins. It's called priorities and everyone's are different.

What reason would they have to stop being gay if your god isn’t real?

Nothing, but I think we're talking about homosexuals who actually want to attend Christian worship services, like Mayor Pete B.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

So you conveniently left out the scriptures that specifically condemn homosexuality...Apparently you figure those who read this tripe don't read the scriptures...Nice try tho...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue Shift
Do you read Disraeli's Friday threads? This past week's would be relevant here. Once of Christ's focuses was on how people were too caught up in the letter of the law as pertains to Mosaic Law over the spirit of the law.

A lot of folks tend to envision Jesus has a kind of kind, love-filled hippie with a "do your own thing" attitude, and that even hardcore sinners will be forgiven if they simply accept that he alone is the only way you can hope to get into Heaven (although he generally couched it as "being with the Father"). As long as you're sincere, of course, which I like to call the "Great Pumpkin" clause. But if you really read the New Testament instead of having it spoon-fed by somebody with an agenda, Jesus is much more aggressive and strict than that. He was more like the "Egyptian prophet," as told by Josephus.

Anyway, I guess my point is that even if you believe the NT to be true and not just a load of contradictory messiah stories (maybe not even about the same person), there are still a lot of people who like to interpret the Bible in whatever way makes their cause seem more just or acceptable, when the actual texts are almost never that clear-cut. And even when they are, people will find a way to twist it to justify their arguments.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Thank you for the injection of positivity in a thread filled with noxious hatred, either for Christians of for gay people> Seriously, I don't know what I was expecting, but perhaps it was a matter of over-reach with the ambitions for the thread. I really thought ATS would demonstrate a mature attitude towards the topic, but it seems that hatred of Christians is still in vogue, and hatred of gay people is still in vogue. Sheesh. Anyway, thanks again!