One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
Jesus did talk about homosexuality
Page 1 of 2 next>
May 23, 2015 09:04:29   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
From BARB Wire

Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality.

They are wrong.

For starters, Jesus condemned the sin of “sexual immorality,” which is the English translation of the Greek word “porneia.” (Our word “pornography” is derived from this word.) The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon tells us that the meaning of this term is not restricted to what we quaintly call “fornication” but instead refers to “sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors.”

For instance, in Mark 7:21, Jesus says, “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,” etc.

The word translated “sexual immorality” (porneiai) here is in the plural in Greek, illustrating what the lexicons tell us, that it porneia is a generic word for sex outside the bounds of natural marriage, whatever form it may take.

Paul, for instance, uses porneia to condemn an incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5:1.

In its earliest and original sense, porneia referred specifically to prostitution, of both the female and male kind. Thus from the beginning, even before being expanded in range, it was a term that included illicit sex whether of the heterosexual or homosexual kind.

Demosthenes, for example, used porneia to refer to homosexuality centuries before Christ.

Other literary products of Judaism (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also use porneia to refer to the sin of sodomy

Jude uses the verb form of porneia quite explicitly to refer to homosexuality when he connects the word to the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. “…[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire…” (Jude 7).

So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.

So when Jesus condemned “sexual immorality,” and “porneia” is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.

Further, and just as importantly, Jesus himself also spoke directly against homosexuality through his apostles.

Paul was the most direct, unambiguous and explicit in condemning homosexual behavior, in places such as Romans 1:26-27 (“dishonorable, contrary to nature, shameless”), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (a sin that will keep one out of the kingdom of God, just like cheating in business), and 1 Timothy 1:10 (behavior that is the proper subject of the law, just like murder and the slave trade).

But, folks will argue, these are the words of Paul, not Christ. This, however, begs the question. Where did Paul get this teaching? Where did he get his message? Who taught him the things he preserved in writing in his epistles?

He tells us quite directly in Galatians 1:11-12. “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul goes on to make it clear that he could not have learned his gospel from the early apostles such as Peter since he only saw Peter once for about two weeks, three years after his conversion, and then didn’t see any of the other apostles at all for another 14 years.

No, Paul’s gospel – his message about Christ, God and the spiritual life – is a message he received directly from Jesus himself.

An apostle of Jesus Christ was quite literally “one sent” by Jesus Christ. He was someone selected, authorized, commissioned, and sent on assignment by Christ himself. Thus when Paul speaks as an apostle, Christ is speaking through him. He is speaking with not only the authority of Christ but with the very words of Christ.

Paul as an apostle was serving almost precisely in the role of an ambassador. An ambassador does not represent himself; he represents the one who sent him. And when the one who sent him gives him a message to deliver, he delivers that message faithfully in exact detail.

An ambassador is not a freelancer who thinks and speaks for himself. He is there to faithfully speak on behalf of the one who appointed him, to represent his interests, and to deliver his message.

Bottom line: Jesus rejected homosexuality in words that came from his own lips and with words he spoke through Paul, his chosen ambassador. We may not like what Paul said about homosexuality, but let’s drop the nonsense that he wasn’t speaking for Christ when he said it.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Reply
May 30, 2015 11:48:09   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
no propaganda please wrote:
From BARB Wire

Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality.

They are wrong.

For starters, Jesus condemned the sin of “sexual immorality,” which is the English translation of the Greek word “porneia.” (Our word “pornography” is derived from this word.) The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon tells us that the meaning of this term is not restricted to what we quaintly call “fornication” but instead refers to “sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors.”

For instance, in Mark 7:21, Jesus says, “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,” etc.

The word translated “sexual immorality” (porneiai) here is in the plural in Greek, illustrating what the lexicons tell us, that it porneia is a generic word for sex outside the bounds of natural marriage, whatever form it may take.

Paul, for instance, uses porneia to condemn an incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5:1.

In its earliest and original sense, porneia referred specifically to prostitution, of both the female and male kind. Thus from the beginning, even before being expanded in range, it was a term that included illicit sex whether of the heterosexual or homosexual kind.

Demosthenes, for example, used porneia to refer to homosexuality centuries before Christ.

Other literary products of Judaism (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also use porneia to refer to the sin of sodomy

Jude uses the verb form of porneia quite explicitly to refer to homosexuality when he connects the word to the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. “…[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire…” (Jude 7).

So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.

So when Jesus condemned “sexual immorality,” and “porneia” is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.

Further, and just as importantly, Jesus himself also spoke directly against homosexuality through his apostles.

Paul was the most direct, unambiguous and explicit in condemning homosexual behavior, in places such as Romans 1:26-27 (“dishonorable, contrary to nature, shameless”), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (a sin that will keep one out of the kingdom of God, just like cheating in business), and 1 Timothy 1:10 (behavior that is the proper subject of the law, just like murder and the slave trade).

But, folks will argue, these are the words of Paul, not Christ. This, however, begs the question. Where did Paul get this teaching? Where did he get his message? Who taught him the things he preserved in writing in his epistles?

He tells us quite directly in Galatians 1:11-12. “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul goes on to make it clear that he could not have learned his gospel from the early apostles such as Peter since he only saw Peter once for about two weeks, three years after his conversion, and then didn’t see any of the other apostles at all for another 14 years.

No, Paul’s gospel – his message about Christ, God and the spiritual life – is a message he received directly from Jesus himself.

An apostle of Jesus Christ was quite literally “one sent” by Jesus Christ. He was someone selected, authorized, commissioned, and sent on assignment by Christ himself. Thus when Paul speaks as an apostle, Christ is speaking through him. He is speaking with not only the authority of Christ but with the very words of Christ.

Paul as an apostle was serving almost precisely in the role of an ambassador. An ambassador does not represent himself; he represents the one who sent him. And when the one who sent him gives him a message to deliver, he delivers that message faithfully in exact detail.

An ambassador is not a freelancer who thinks and speaks for himself. He is there to faithfully speak on behalf of the one who appointed him, to represent his interests, and to deliver his message.

Bottom line: Jesus rejected homosexuality in words that came from his own lips and with words he spoke through Paul, his chosen ambassador. We may not like what Paul said about homosexuality, but let’s drop the nonsense that he wasn’t speaking for Christ when he said it.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
From BARB Wire br br Homosexuals activists are fo... (show quote)


Nice post :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 11:20:08   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
Nice post :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


There are many groups who help those who want to change their same sex attraction. the progressives claim that is nonsense, as it cannot be changed these thoughts and facts are worth thinking about in that context


The Neurosis of the Anti-change Brigade

by aflame @ Monday, 27. Apr, 2015 – 12:18:33

On April 14th I attended the Transformation Potential Conference in London put on by CORE Issues Trust, Christian Concern and Anglican Mainstream. Of course the media decided to attend and reported the conference with varying degrees of inaccuracy claiming that we were trying to "pray away the gay" (The Independent) or were into "conversion therapy" (The Telegraph), but this was nothing to the attitude of the BBC.

If you read the details of the BBC Trust they are meant to be independent and to provide equal access to both sides of a debate. This though is not the case as they manipulated the subject both on Newsnight and on the Victoria Derbyshire programmes allowing the pro-gay and anti-SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts) voice to interrupt the pro-SOCE speaker and by not allowing the pro-SOCE speaker the right to reply. Considering how many people believe the BBC can be trusted - despite the deliberate misquotes of politicians by their chief political editor - this institutional bias is concerning. But through this bias something more was exposed - the neurosis of many anti-SOCE campaigners, in this case Dr Christian Jessen and Patrick Strudwick.

Dr Jessen, famous for his part of the Embarrassing Bodies show on Channel 4, "debated" against Dr Joseph Nicolosi. When, on Newsnight, Dr Nicolosi stated that through SOCE therapists help people become the people they want to be Jessen lept up and stated that this was false and all SOCE did was make people into what society wanted them to be. As Jessen knows this is nonsense. The various UK mental health bodies have taken a position, supported by the outgoing government, that to change sexual orientation is "unethical". Stonewall, despite High Court rulings that their adverts are in breach of equality guidelines, continue to run posters claiming that people are "gay" and have on their website discredited science claiming a higher percentage of twins where one is gay the other is gay than actually exists as well as claiming that a higher percentage of the population is gay (they claim 10% when the reality is 2%). Programmes like Challenging Homophobia In Primiary Schools (CHIPS), Schools Out, and Stonewall's own anti-bullying package tell people that they are gay, and this is fine. Both Schools Out and Stonewall through their work on Gay History make claims about people being gay which are extremely dubious (someone must be gay because they slept in the same bed as someone of the same gender in an age where this was common as people did not have separate bedrooms). These same programmes tell people that they were "born gay" and cannot change - despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the World Health Organisation saying differently. This is why clients tell me that they are rejecting the mindset, the idea that they are gay. Rather than helping them be who society wants them to be we are helping them go against the flow of media like the BBC, The Independent, The Telegraph and Dr Jessen's pseudoscientific "Cure Me, I'm Gay". Jessen knows this but cannot admit it, interestingly the presenter did not give Nicolosi a proper chance to reply allowing Jessen's statement to go unchallenged.

The case of Patrick Strudwick on Victoria Derbyshire's programme is even more enlightening. Strudwick is the journalist who has called for "war" against those who offer SOCEs, who attacks gay rights activists who question the born gay argument because he knows that he was born gay and let no-one tell him differently. In debating with Dr Mike Davidson, of CORE Issues Trust, Strudwick told Davidson that he was as "gay as a goose" and should accept who he really was. Again this was allowed to go all but unchallenged - something I experienced on the Big Questions when Sharon Ferguson, then head of the Gay Christian Movement, stated that Jesus had blessed the homosexual relationship between the Centurion and his slave, and that the "vast majority" of Biblical scholars believe this to be the case but no-one was allowed to correct her. Strudwick has shown that he cannot accept the scientific truth that sexuality can change. Even gay rights activists who are psychiatrists and have written reports against SOCEs such as Jack Drescher and Michael King recognise this - hence the recent change of statements from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the World Health Organisation. So now we must ask why this is the case?

Why can Jessen not admit that the overwhelming message from society, from films like the Imitation Game to soaps like Eastenders to comedies like Modern Family to education programmes, is that homosexuality is normal? Why can he not admit that some people want to reject this message to become who they want to be? Why can Strudwick not admit that people can and do change from gay to straight? Why can he not admit that there are people who do not want to be gay?

Firstly, their sexuality has become their identity. Jessen and Strudwick can no longer see themselves as anything but homosexual. Jessen is not a doctor, he is not even a doctor who is gay - he is a homosexual doctor. Strudwick is not a journalist, he is not even a journalist who is gay - he is a homosexual journalist. Their meaning and reason for being has become their sexuality above and beyond anything else.

Secondly, despite their sexuality having consumed and subsumed everything else (and because their sexuality has consumed and subsumed everything else) their sense of self is extremely brittle and fragile. For Davidson and others to speak of their own experience of change is a direct attack on what they have become, on the idol of sexuality that controls their life. We also see this phenomena in the US amongst activists such as Wayne Bessen and Dr Jack Drescher as well as here in the UK in Dr Michael King, Dr Qazi Rahman, and Peter Tatchell amongst others. Like anyone who allows something other than self, whether that be sexuality or work, Jessen and Strudwick have started to appear neurotic and paranoid concerning other people. They need to control things to protect their false sense of self, and the way they do this is to attack, often in the nastiest of terms. This is worrying as, putting sexual orientation aside, can alienate people and leave them more and more isolated making the sense of self more and more brittle. It is those who, when the crash comes, cannot cope as their sense of identity crumbles because of a loss of job or whatever - leading sadly to attempted suicide, drug/alcoholic abuse or some other form of self-harm.

This is also why the pro-SOCE issue must be careful of their language, just as any therapeutic movement must be. While someone is willing to allow sexuality, work, or any behaviour pattern to become their identity people will feel under attack from those who could be the very ones who can help them when the sky falls in.

Reply
 
 
Jun 4, 2015 12:48:11   #
dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)
 
Of course they are born that way just as I was born an alcoholic. I don't have problems with alcohol today because I don't use it anymore but I know that even one small beer would set me off on another run. I didn't choose it but thankfully I found help and a way to live, "happily and usefully free."

Homosexuals are treated so badly that there is no way they'd continue with their behavior if they had a choice. The one place we should all be able to turn to in our darkest hours, our church, is the first place that rejects and condemns the homosexual. "It's an abomination, you're going to Hell!" Nice God you all have there. Loving? Forgiving? Not so much.

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 12:58:28   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
dennisimoto wrote:
Nice God you all have there. Loving? Forgiving? Not so much.


The act of Homosexuality is an abomination, however, for the Church to turn away the homosexual is a worse abomination.

We do have a Nice God, for I do not see the fire and brimstone coming down from heaven by the angels command to smite Sodom and Gomorrah again do we? Where is the raining down of fire and ice against the homosexual? Where is the destruction of their cities of San Francisco, and Las Vegas, as well as Los Angeles?

No, God is merciful, and therefore is not raining down judgement yet, because He is giving the homosexuals time to repent of their sins.

However, the fire and brimstone will be worse for the Churches who refused the soul seeking change! If the homosexual is hit with fire and brimstone by say for sake of argument, a 500 megaton bomb, the Christian who refused to help the homosexual change, will be hit with a 50,000 megaton bomb.

Churches who turn away the homosexual are evil. Churches who conform to the homosexual are just as evil. Churches who help the homosexual to change are blessed.

He who has ears understand, He who can see, understand. Sheesh!

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 13:23:55   #
dennisimoto Loc: Washington State (West)
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
The act of Homosexuality is an abomination, however, for the Church to turn away the homosexual is a worse abomination.

We do have a Nice God, for I do not see the fire and brimstone coming down from heaven by the angels command to smite Sodom and Gomorrah again do we? Where is the raining down of fire and ice against the homosexual? Where is the destruction of their cities of San Francisco, and Las Vegas, as well as Los Angeles?

No, God is merciful, and therefore is not raining down judgement yet, because He is giving the homosexuals time to repent of their sins.

However, the fire and brimstone will be worse for the Churches who refused the soul seeking change! If the homosexual is hit with fire and brimstone by say for sake of argument, a 500 megaton bomb, the Christian who refused to help the homosexual change, will be hit with a 50,000 megaton bomb.

Churches who turn away the homosexual are evil. Churches who conform to the homosexual are just as evil. Churches who help the homosexual to change are blessed.

He who has ears understand, He who can see, understand. Sheesh!
The act of Homosexuality is an abomination, howeve... (show quote)


"Sheesh!" Indeed.

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 14:32:13   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
The act of Homosexuality is an abomination, however, for the Church to turn away the homosexual is a worse abomination.

We do have a Nice God, for I do not see the fire and brimstone coming down from heaven by the angels command to smite Sodom and Gomorrah again do we? Where is the raining down of fire and ice against the homosexual? Where is the destruction of their cities of San Francisco, and Las Vegas, as well as Los Angeles?

No, God is merciful, and therefore is not raining down judgement yet, because He is giving the homosexuals time to repent of their sins.

However, the fire and brimstone will be worse for the Churches who refused the soul seeking change! If the homosexual is hit with fire and brimstone by say for sake of argument, a 500 megaton bomb, the Christian who refused to help the homosexual change, will be hit with a 50,000 megaton bomb.

Churches who turn away the homosexual are evil. Churches who conform to the homosexual are just as evil. Churches who help the homosexual to change are blessed.

He who has ears understand, He who can see, understand. Sheesh!
The act of Homosexuality is an abomination, howeve... (show quote)


You do realize I know that "change" is a swear word in the LGBTQ agenda, even though it has ben done a large number of times. I hope that you find this article interesting,


The Neurosis of the Anti-change Brigade

by aflame @ Monday, 27. Apr, 2015 – 12:18:33

On April 14th I attended the Transformation Potential Conference in London put on by CORE Issues Trust, Christian Concern and Anglican Mainstream. Of course the media decided to attend and reported the conference with varying degrees of inaccuracy claiming that we were trying to "pray away the gay" (The Independent) or were into "conversion therapy" (The Telegraph), but this was nothing to the attitude of the BBC.

If you read the details of the BBC Trust they are meant to be independent and to provide equal access to both sides of a debate. This though is not the case as they manipulated the subject both on Newsnight and on the Victoria Derbyshire programmes allowing the pro-gay and anti-SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts) voice to interrupt the pro-SOCE speaker and by not allowing the pro-SOCE speaker the right to reply. Considering how many people believe the BBC can be trusted - despite the deliberate misquotes of politicians by their chief political editor - this institutional bias is concerning. But through this bias something more was exposed - the neurosis of many anti-SOCE campaigners, in this case Dr Christian Jessen and Patrick Strudwick.

Dr Jessen, famous for his part of the Embarrassing Bodies show on Channel 4, "debated" against Dr Joseph Nicolosi. When, on Newsnight, Dr Nicolosi stated that through SOCE therapists help people become the people they want to be Jessen lept up and stated that this was false and all SOCE did was make people into what society wanted them to be. As Jessen knows this is nonsense. The various UK mental health bodies have taken a position, supported by the outgoing government, that to change sexual orientation is "unethical". Stonewall, despite High Court rulings that their adverts are in breach of equality guidelines, continue to run posters claiming that people are "gay" and have on their website discredited science claiming a higher percentage of twins where one is gay the other is gay than actually exists as well as claiming that a higher percentage of the population is gay (they claim 10% when the reality is 2%). Programmes like Challenging Homophobia In Primiary Schools (CHIPS), Schools Out, and Stonewall's own anti-bullying package tell people that they are gay, and this is fine. Both Schools Out and Stonewall through their work on Gay History make claims about people being gay which are extremely dubious (someone must be gay because they slept in the same bed as someone of the same gender in an age where this was common as people did not have separate bedrooms). These same programmes tell people that they were "born gay" and cannot change - despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the World Health Organisation saying differently. This is why clients tell me that they are rejecting the mindset, the idea that they are gay. Rather than helping them be who society wants them to be we are helping them go against the flow of media like the BBC, The Independent, The Telegraph and Dr Jessen's pseudoscientific "Cure Me, I'm Gay". Jessen knows this but cannot admit it, interestingly the presenter did not give Nicolosi a proper chance to reply allowing Jessen's statement to go unchallenged.

The case of Patrick Strudwick on Victoria Derbyshire's programme is even more enlightening. Strudwick is the journalist who has called for "war" against those who offer SOCEs, who attacks gay rights activists who question the born gay argument because he knows that he was born gay and let no-one tell him differently. In debating with Dr Mike Davidson, of CORE Issues Trust, Strudwick told Davidson that he was as "gay as a goose" and should accept who he really was. Again this was allowed to go all but unchallenged - something I experienced on the Big Questions when Sharon Ferguson, then head of the Gay Christian Movement, stated that Jesus had blessed the homosexual relationship between the Centurion and his slave, and that the "vast majority" of Biblical scholars believe this to be the case but no-one was allowed to correct her. Strudwick has shown that he cannot accept the scientific truth that sexuality can change. Even gay rights activists who are psychiatrists and have written reports against SOCEs such as Jack Drescher and Michael King recognise this - hence the recent change of statements from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the World Health Organisation. So now we must ask why this is the case?

Why can Jessen not admit that the overwhelming message from society, from films like the Imitation Game to soaps like Eastenders to comedies like Modern Family to education programmes, is that homosexuality is normal? Why can he not admit that some people want to reject this message to become who they want to be? Why can Strudwick not admit that people can and do change from gay to straight? Why can he not admit that there are people who do not want to be gay?

Firstly, their sexuality has become their identity. Jessen and Strudwick can no longer see themselves as anything but homosexual. Jessen is not a doctor, he is not even a doctor who is gay - he is a homosexual doctor. Strudwick is not a journalist, he is not even a journalist who is gay - he is a homosexual journalist. Their meaning and reason for being has become their sexuality above and beyond anything else.

Secondly, despite their sexuality having consumed and subsumed everything else (and because their sexuality has consumed and subsumed everything else) their sense of self is extremely brittle and fragile. For Davidson and others to speak of their own experience of change is a direct attack on what they have become, on the idol of sexuality that controls their life. We also see this phenomena in the US amongst activists such as Wayne Bessen and Dr Jack Drescher as well as here in the UK in Dr Michael King, Dr Qazi Rahman, and Peter Tatchell amongst others. Like anyone who allows something other than self, whether that be sexuality or work, Jessen and Strudwick have started to appear neurotic and paranoid concerning other people. They need to control things to protect their false sense of self, and the way they do this is to attack, often in the nastiest of terms. This is worrying as, putting sexual orientation aside, can alienate people and leave them more and more isolated making the sense of self more and more brittle. It is those who, when the crash comes, cannot cope as their sense of identity crumbles because of a loss of job or whatever - leading sadly to attempted suicide, drug/alcoholic abuse or some other form of self-harm.

This is also why the pro-SOCE issue must be careful of their language, just as any therapeutic movement must be. While someone is willing to allow sexuality, work, or any behaviour pattern to become their identity people will feel under attack from those who could be the very ones who can help them when the sky falls in.

Yes we should always welcome with open arms those who want to leave the "gay lifestyle" behind and heal from the incomplete identity that for so many seem to be part of homosexuality. We should welcome into our homes and churches all those who are seeking a change, but we should not welcome those who want to change us.

Reply
 
 
Jun 4, 2015 14:58:42   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
no propaganda please wrote:
While someone is willing to allow sexuality, work, or any behaviour pattern to become their identity people will feel under attack from those who could be the very ones who can help them when the sky falls in.


NPP, the above is my favorite statement to come out of the reference you stated. For it is here that the problem lies. It is not the fact that people of the same sex desire each other, it is just that this behavior is becoming the identity of a person. A person is not identified by their sexual behavior, they are identified by their "self." The inner activities of their mind, develop self identity. By being given a body in which to dwell in the spirit learns how to live with in what has been given the person.

By denying this, one denies self, not the worldly self, that Jesus speaks of, but rather the God given body, in which man feels he has mastered. The body is physically set, no man nor woman, nor the angels in heaven can change the human body. For if a man is created as a man, he has certain attributes that is common to that man from other men. Like wise when a woman is created, she is created with certain physical attributes that is similar to other women. Because of these attributes we say there are women and there are men. We cannot modify, nor can we change this permanent fact of life.

For example, a cruel punishment in the days of ancient times was to turn a man into a Eunuch. This stopped the man from engaging in the normal pattern of sexual relations. However, it did not change the fact that the Eunuch was a man. Turning a man, and even worse a boy, into a Eunuch was a sin greater than rape. For at least the rape victim could engage in sexual activity, but the Eunuch could not. Christ recognized that some, in order to prevent themselves to engage in sexual activity, would take a vow of celibacy, and in turn act as a Eunuch. To these people, Christ gave a special blessing to. This is found I think in Mt. 19.

Therefore the identity of the person is lost, by succumbing to an act of human behavior. We see this with alcoholism, drug use, gluttony, all the time. This "sexual pride" of lustful behavior, if allowed to continue, will ultimately destroy the human person. And this sin is three fold, pride, lust and gluttony.

In the name of Jesus Christ, no sinner should ever be turned away! However, it is the sinner who turns themselves away and they defend this by the fear of being turned away.

no propaganda please wrote:
Yes we should always welcome with open arms those who want to leave the "gay lifestyle" behind and heal from the incomplete identity that for so many seem to be part of homosexuality. We should welcome into our homes and churches all those who are seeking a change, but we should not welcome those who want to change us.




:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 15:51:08   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Some information about sex change surgery you will find interesting. Help others by giving them the information that might keep them from this kind of mistake. As Christians, isn't our obligation to show people the way to the truth, which will guide them to God's love and peace

Trans Change Regret x 2

Young or old, early in transition or years later, changing genders ends in regret, and often, in a total nightmare.

I realize different people will draw different conclusions about the people who make the difficult decision to go back. I just feel you should see the stories of those who regret their transition.
Chelsea going back after 7 years
matthew/chelsea

Seven years ago, Matthew, a male drag queen, became Chelsea. Now Chelsea wants to become Matthew again. In the article published Oct. 1, 2014, Chelsea says:

'I have always longed to be a woman, but no amount of surgery can give me an actual female body and I feel like I am living a lie.

'It is exhausting putting on make-up and wearing heels all the time. Even then I don't feel I look like a proper woman.

'I suffered from depression and anxiety as a result of the hormones too.

'I have realised it would be easier to stop fighting the way I look naturally and accept that I was born a man physically.'"

You can read the account at Daily Mail UK.
Britain's youngest sex swap patient to detransition

After all the favorable publicity in the US about children "needing" sex change treatment, it's refreshing to read that it is not "happily ever after."

This young person made the decision at age 16-17 to start the transition, and now regrets it only one year later. She has cancelled the operation scheduled for January and halted hormone treatments.

She (or he) confirms the point I made in my book, Paper Genders--the brain hasn't matured enough to make this decision until the person reaches their mid-20s. So why would we encourage any child to undergo "treatments" with such long-term consequences?

The following is an excerpt from the article (Oct. 29, 2012):

Although Ms Cooper underwent a thorough psychological assessment and counseling at Hull Royal Infirmary prior to starting her sex change therapy she has suffered such torment living as a women that she has tried to commit suicide twice.

She told told the Sunday Mirror: 'The hormones have made me feel up and down. One minute I feel moody and the next minute I feel really happy.'

'The night I tried to slash my wrists I'd downed a bottle of Jack Daniel's and just thought about how alone I am, and how my decision has alienated my family and how I will have to become a boy again to resolve it.'

You can read the entire article here: Daily Mail

The insanity of hormone blockers for kids

One controversial treatment for children with gender dysphoria is the administration of drugs called hormone blockers to delay puberty. The practice is gaining traction without any scientific proof that it is appropriate or effective, and despite the evidence that it can be harmful:

Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. [1]
The FDA has not approved hormone blockers for use in transgender children—not even for experimental use.
A search for one hormone blocker, Lupron, shows that people are reporting serious long-term, debilitating side effects from having used the drug.

Given these facts, why would anyone inject these drugs into children?

Doctors and parents want to help the child cope with the distress he or she is experiencing. Is relief of adolescent distress really worth the risk?

Most will grow out of the dysphoria. Isn't there some way to work through the distress than experimenting on our children?
[1] J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;47(12):1413-23. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31818956b9., "Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children", Wallien MS, Cohen-Kettenis PT., Department of Medical Psychology, Graduate School of Neurosciences, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gender Regret News
If Sex Change Regret Is Rare, Why Are Surgeons Offering Reversal Surgery?

I've been reporting about the widespread regret for years while everyone in the media says regret is rare. The Belgrade Center for Genital Reconstructive Surgery says that they have received requests for reversal surgery.

If sex change regret is so rare, why are so many requesting reversal surgery?

If sex change regret is so rare, why are surgeons offering reversal surgery?

These surgeons are known to perform the reversal surgery:

Dr. Sava Perovic, Sava Perovic Foundation Surgery
Dr. Rados Djinovic, Sava Perovic Foundation Surgery
Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic, Belgrade Center for Genital Reconstructive Surgery
Dr. Stan Monstrey, Universitair Ziekenhuis
Dr. Sherman Leis, The Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery

Of course the answer is: sex change regret is not rare at all.
Regret Is Real—and Transgenders Are Going Back...

From a physician:
"If I could only go back to the day before my surgery in March of 2005 -- I would run from that surgeon's knife. I have lived and worked as a surgically altered man trying to play the part of a woman for six years. I spared no expense at trying to make it work." Read more
Regret Is Real—and Sometimes Quick

"Although I thought I was completely sure of what I was doing, I began to regret the decision a mere three weeks after the operation. Some might say I was experiencing post-op depression, but it was definitely more than that.Read more
Detransition because NOT "born in the wrong body"

A University of Rome study proves transsexuals have normal Y chromosomes. The SRY is the main sex-determining gene. AZF a, b and C are genes for male infertility. Transsexuals do not even have a smidgeon of abnormality there.

The DAX1 and androgen receptor genes were theorized to cause transsexualism since they can lead to intersex and can turn a person with a normal Y chromosome into a XY woman. Yet there is no alteration in these genes in any of the transsexuals. this is interesting and important information for Dance therapist, but she probably would not be receptive.

See the article.
Some Research Findings

2003 Study from Sweden

"...suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism."



Transgender Suicide

"A staggering 41 percent of transgender people in the United States have attempted to commit suicide, according to a new survey."

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 16:27:23   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
no propaganda please wrote:
Some information about sex change surgery you will find interesting. Help others by giving them the information that might keep them from this kind of mistake. As Christians, isn't our obligation to show people the way to the truth, which will guide them to God's love and peace


That's one heck of a report NPP!

Reply
Jun 4, 2015 16:41:32   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
That's one heck of a report NPP!


If we have the information that may help people keep from harming themselves, and can present it in a helpful loving way, isn't it our obligation to share it. If it helps one person it will be worth the hours I have put into the research.

Reply
 
 
Jun 4, 2015 17:25:17   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
no propaganda please wrote:
If we have the information that may help people keep from harming themselves, and can present it in a helpful loving way, isn't it our obligation to share it. If it helps one person it will be worth the hours I have put into the research.


If the information you gathered helps.just one person, then the information gathering was not done in vain.

Reply
Jun 9, 2015 08:17:11   #
Artemis
 
no propaganda please wrote:
From BARB Wire

Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality.

They are wrong.

For starters, Jesus condemned the sin of “sexual immorality,” which is the English translation of the Greek word “porneia.” (Our word “pornography” is derived from this word.) The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon tells us that the meaning of this term is not restricted to what we quaintly call “fornication” but instead refers to “sexual sin of a general kind, that includes many different behaviors.”

For instance, in Mark 7:21, Jesus says, “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,” etc.

The word translated “sexual immorality” (porneiai) here is in the plural in Greek, illustrating what the lexicons tell us, that it porneia is a generic word for sex outside the bounds of natural marriage, whatever form it may take.

Paul, for instance, uses porneia to condemn an incestuous relationship in 1 Corinthians 5:1.

In its earliest and original sense, porneia referred specifically to prostitution, of both the female and male kind. Thus from the beginning, even before being expanded in range, it was a term that included illicit sex whether of the heterosexual or homosexual kind.

Demosthenes, for example, used porneia to refer to homosexuality centuries before Christ.

Other literary products of Judaism (e.g., the Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, and Jubilees) during the period between the Testaments (from 400 BC to the time of Christ) also use porneia to refer to the sin of sodomy

Jude uses the verb form of porneia quite explicitly to refer to homosexuality when he connects the word to the behavior of Sodom and Gomorrah. “…[J]ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire…” (Jude 7).

So porneia, while it can be used in a narrower sense to refer to fornication, when used in a general sense it refers to every kind of illicit sexual intercourse, every kind of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relationship between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is included.

So when Jesus condemned “sexual immorality,” and “porneia” is the word used in the biblical text, he was condemning every form of sex outside marriage, including that of the homosexual variety.

Further, and just as importantly, Jesus himself also spoke directly against homosexuality through his apostles.

Paul was the most direct, unambiguous and explicit in condemning homosexual behavior, in places such as Romans 1:26-27 (“dishonorable, contrary to nature, shameless”), 1 Corinthians 6:9 (a sin that will keep one out of the kingdom of God, just like cheating in business), and 1 Timothy 1:10 (behavior that is the proper subject of the law, just like murder and the slave trade).

But, folks will argue, these are the words of Paul, not Christ. This, however, begs the question. Where did Paul get this teaching? Where did he get his message? Who taught him the things he preserved in writing in his epistles?

He tells us quite directly in Galatians 1:11-12. “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul goes on to make it clear that he could not have learned his gospel from the early apostles such as Peter since he only saw Peter once for about two weeks, three years after his conversion, and then didn’t see any of the other apostles at all for another 14 years.

No, Paul’s gospel – his message about Christ, God and the spiritual life – is a message he received directly from Jesus himself.

An apostle of Jesus Christ was quite literally “one sent” by Jesus Christ. He was someone selected, authorized, commissioned, and sent on assignment by Christ himself. Thus when Paul speaks as an apostle, Christ is speaking through him. He is speaking with not only the authority of Christ but with the very words of Christ.

Paul as an apostle was serving almost precisely in the role of an ambassador. An ambassador does not represent himself; he represents the one who sent him. And when the one who sent him gives him a message to deliver, he delivers that message faithfully in exact detail.

An ambassador is not a freelancer who thinks and speaks for himself. He is there to faithfully speak on behalf of the one who appointed him, to represent his interests, and to deliver his message.

Bottom line: Jesus rejected homosexuality in words that came from his own lips and with words he spoke through Paul, his chosen ambassador. We may not like what Paul said about homosexuality, but let’s drop the nonsense that he wasn’t speaking for Christ when he said it.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
From BARB Wire br br Homosexuals activists are fo... (show quote)


This is your own translation to make you feel better, I didn't read one thing in what you wrote to validate your accusation.

It is also second hand news.

Not all go by "Your" philosophy the judgmental one, the Bible. You don't have to preach to the quire, and nor to any one else who doesn't mesh with your ilk. Go in peace.

Reply
Jun 9, 2015 11:15:14   #
Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan
 
no propaganda please wrote:
From BARB Wire

Homosexuals activists are fond of arguing that Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality.

They are wrong.


To wit:

1. Santa Claus doesn't give toys to bad little boys and girls.
2. Vishnu defeated Hiranyaksha who had mischievously taken the Earth (Bhumi-devi) to the bottom of the sea. The incredible fight between the two lasted for a thousand years but Vishnu prevailed and finally raised the Earth from the watery depths.
3. All forms of life were believed to have been created by Ra, who called each of them into existence by speaking their secret names. Alternatively humans were created from Ra's tears and sweat, hence the Egyptians call themselves the "Cattle of Ra."

It's a good thing that we create laws that are philosophically detached from beliefs. Beliefs however high minded, don't ignore facts. Facts beget ethics, that is, how one is to be a member of society.

Reply
Jun 9, 2015 17:07:14   #
Artemis
 
Dummy Boy wrote:
To wit:

1. Santa Claus doesn't give toys to bad little boys and girls.
2. Vishnu defeated Hiranyaksha who had mischievously taken the Earth (Bhumi-devi) to the bottom of the sea. The incredible fight between the two lasted for a thousand years but Vishnu prevailed and finally raised the Earth from the watery depths.
3. All forms of life were believed to have been created by Ra, who called each of them into existence by speaking their secret names. Alternatively humans were created from Ra's tears and sweat, hence the Egyptians call themselves the "Cattle of Ra."

It's a good thing that we create laws that are philosophically detached from beliefs. Beliefs however high minded, don't ignore facts. Facts beget ethics, that is, how one is to be a member of society.
To wit: br br 1. Santa Claus doesn't give toys to... (show quote)




Facts beget ethics, please expound.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.