i do know where the new covenant condems the homosexual act
Jude 1:7
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
and i have been in vary heated internal spiritual warfare over this one area my homosexuality im extremely conservative biblical gay man Jude 1:7 is one i cant dismiss
I don't think that Jude 1v7 is actually about homosexuality, CreationPhotography. I think that it probably makes more sense, in the context, to refer to an attempt to have sex with angels, which is what the men of Sodom were about to do.
They were certainly abominable people - so filled with sexual lust that they were willing to rape what ever visitors came to their town - male or female, angel or human. They had certainly "given themselves over to fornication."
it is true that mosaic law was abandoned by christians of pagan origin, but not christians of Jewish origin. It is very clearly seen in Acts, when Paul goes to Jerusalem called Paul undergoes all cleaning rites and clearly states that he did not abandon Moses law.
so as far as christians of pagan origin are concerned they are not bound by moses law
Thanks for your point, making it clear that Christians like me (Gentile origin) certainly aren't bound by the Law of Moses. I'm not sure about Jewish Christians. That is a difficult area. In Acts 21v17-26, there seems to be a difference placed between the Churches response to Jews and Gentiles, but I wonder if this may have been a compromise.
I think that you get a better understanding of Pauls view from verses like Romans 14v14. Paul simply wanted Christians to accept one another (Rom 15v7).
this is interesting argumentation but has one major flaw in my opinion. it is true that uncleanness of food and body has been abandoned in new covenant. however with out exception: Romans 1,23-27. uncleanness (akatharsia) here is clearly defined in context of homosexuality. It is then repeated out of this pagan rites context 1 Corr 6,9 and 1 Corr 12,21. world impudictia meant sexual male passive role especially homosexuality
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Could you clarify?
I've discussed I Corin 6v9 in another video. I'm not sure what Greek word you are referring to with "impudictia" (Latin is not the language that the Bible was written in), but if you are referring to "arsenokoitai," then you'll find an explanation of what I think Paul was getting at in that video.
it's funny because I was just having a conversation about that passage with a jewish friend on stickam. it would seem to me with the sexual prohibitions that the utility of the act of intercourse was something to be encouraged in mosaic law. building a fast and thriving nation - ergo any waste of "seed" is not fulfilling the use. Something Catholics, ironically, still maintain even though they accept the new covenant replacing the old. But the act of intercourse always has more -
Ancient sociology isn't something that I can claim to be an expert about, but, like you, I've thought a lot about this question of why the Mosaic Law prohibited homosexuality.
I've tried to place myself in a society of subsistence farmers, where families with lots of children were not only to be encouraged, but were also a matter of life and death for a society.
This need to maintain a line of descendants party explains the the Law about a man taking in his dead brother's wife in order to maintain his brother's inheritance.
One would think that this would be a horrible prospect for the brother's wife, but, when you read the Old Testament, you find that it is the women who fought the most to ensure that this happened, because, if they had no children, they would be left completely destitute, dependant on the extended family for the rest of their lives.
Imagine how that law would work, if the brother was gay?!!?
Having a line of descendants is not so important today, when people are no longer dependant on the contribution of children. But how would a homosexual man be maintained in ancient Israel as he got older?
This is probably the most important reason why purely homosexual relationships were almost unheard of - they needed to have children, which is problematic when you think of how their actions would effect their family.
I'm not so certain that there was a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The word 'ahabah' doesn't necessarily mean a romantic kind of love. It is also used in the Old Testament for God's love for his people, and a person's love for God. It simply means "love."
When Westerners from the 21st century look at the story of David and Jonathan they think that it looks odd, but I think that this is partly a probable with the translation of social norms across cultural barriers.
I'm not trying to imply a sexual relationship - but I think the diction there is profoundly interesting and denotes a romantic love. "one deeper than that of a woman"
I think this demonstrates how homosexual people dealt with themselves in the times of the old covenant.
When I was in India as a student, I went there with a staunch evangelical man from this country.
When he saw lots of men holding hands in the street, he was absolutely appalled. He thought that he was in the middle of a gay part of town. But he was wrong. Homosexuality is not widely accepted in India, and the men he saw holding hands were friends and brothers.
This seems odd for straight people in the West, but its normal for them. They are not gay, so don't even suggest it if you go to India.
actually in this particular case it could work for homosexual marriages. you know, we spoke on my channel about concubines. these women were sometimes a breeders, sorry for the word, I don't know how to express in english a "replacable" woman who brings children for infertile familiy.
there is greater problem with homomarriage. it has been never mentioned by God in the Bible as mean of sanctification for homosexual relations
Could you you tell us where you got your information about concubines in the early Church, and tell us exactly what their status was? Also, is it a form of polygamy that you are referring to?
There are lots of things that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible as OK (or good), yet Christians, led by the Spirit of God, still see that they are beneficial.
Hi gayChristian
i cannot explain this with few words
do you have skype
CreationPhotography 2 years ago
I'm afraid that I don't have skype. Sorry.
gaychristian 2 years ago
im a gay christian but
i do know where the new covenant condems the homosexual act
Jude 1:7
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
and i have been in vary heated internal spiritual warfare over this one area my homosexuality im extremely conservative biblical gay man Jude 1:7 is one i cant dismiss
CreationPhotography 2 years ago
I don't think that Jude 1v7 is actually about homosexuality, CreationPhotography. I think that it probably makes more sense, in the context, to refer to an attempt to have sex with angels, which is what the men of Sodom were about to do.
They were certainly abominable people - so filled with sexual lust that they were willing to rape what ever visitors came to their town - male or female, angel or human. They had certainly "given themselves over to fornication."
gaychristian 2 years ago
one more note.
it is true that mosaic law was abandoned by christians of pagan origin, but not christians of Jewish origin. It is very clearly seen in Acts, when Paul goes to Jerusalem called Paul undergoes all cleaning rites and clearly states that he did not abandon Moses law.
so as far as christians of pagan origin are concerned they are not bound by moses law
Thorsupremecommander 2 years ago
Thanks for your point, making it clear that Christians like me (Gentile origin) certainly aren't bound by the Law of Moses. I'm not sure about Jewish Christians. That is a difficult area. In Acts 21v17-26, there seems to be a difference placed between the Churches response to Jews and Gentiles, but I wonder if this may have been a compromise.
I think that you get a better understanding of Pauls view from verses like Romans 14v14. Paul simply wanted Christians to accept one another (Rom 15v7).
gaychristian 2 years ago
this is interesting argumentation but has one major flaw in my opinion. it is true that uncleanness of food and body has been abandoned in new covenant. however with out exception: Romans 1,23-27. uncleanness (akatharsia) here is clearly defined in context of homosexuality. It is then repeated out of this pagan rites context 1 Corr 6,9 and 1 Corr 12,21. world impudictia meant sexual male passive role especially homosexuality
What about these verses?
Thorsupremecommander 2 years ago
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Could you clarify?
I've discussed I Corin 6v9 in another video. I'm not sure what Greek word you are referring to with "impudictia" (Latin is not the language that the Bible was written in), but if you are referring to "arsenokoitai," then you'll find an explanation of what I think Paul was getting at in that video.
gaychristian 2 years ago
Awesome video dude
ki1ng 3 years ago
it's funny because I was just having a conversation about that passage with a jewish friend on stickam. it would seem to me with the sexual prohibitions that the utility of the act of intercourse was something to be encouraged in mosaic law. building a fast and thriving nation - ergo any waste of "seed" is not fulfilling the use. Something Catholics, ironically, still maintain even though they accept the new covenant replacing the old. But the act of intercourse always has more -
williamcardno 3 years ago
Ancient sociology isn't something that I can claim to be an expert about, but, like you, I've thought a lot about this question of why the Mosaic Law prohibited homosexuality.
I've tried to place myself in a society of subsistence farmers, where families with lots of children were not only to be encouraged, but were also a matter of life and death for a society.
gaychristian 3 years ago
This need to maintain a line of descendants party explains the the Law about a man taking in his dead brother's wife in order to maintain his brother's inheritance.
One would think that this would be a horrible prospect for the brother's wife, but, when you read the Old Testament, you find that it is the women who fought the most to ensure that this happened, because, if they had no children, they would be left completely destitute, dependant on the extended family for the rest of their lives.
gaychristian 3 years ago
Imagine how that law would work, if the brother was gay?!!?
Having a line of descendants is not so important today, when people are no longer dependant on the contribution of children. But how would a homosexual man be maintained in ancient Israel as he got older?
This is probably the most important reason why purely homosexual relationships were almost unheard of - they needed to have children, which is problematic when you think of how their actions would effect their family.
gaychristian 3 years ago
1 Samuel 18, 19, 20 and 2 Samuel 1
I would love you to do a video on David and Jonathan.
A key word there is "ahabah" which describes the love they shared - as well as what is plain and obvious is the english translation as well.
It doesn't seem God has much issue with a loving romantic relationship between two men, even in the times of the Old Testament.
People tend to either forget this, or ignore it... or even make up excuses for it. But it is right there in black and white. :D
williamcardno 3 years ago
I'm not so certain that there was a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The word 'ahabah' doesn't necessarily mean a romantic kind of love. It is also used in the Old Testament for God's love for his people, and a person's love for God. It simply means "love."
When Westerners from the 21st century look at the story of David and Jonathan they think that it looks odd, but I think that this is partly a probable with the translation of social norms across cultural barriers.
gaychristian 3 years ago
I'm not trying to imply a sexual relationship - but I think the diction there is profoundly interesting and denotes a romantic love. "one deeper than that of a woman"
I think this demonstrates how homosexual people dealt with themselves in the times of the old covenant.
williamcardno 3 years ago
When I was in India as a student, I went there with a staunch evangelical man from this country.
When he saw lots of men holding hands in the street, he was absolutely appalled. He thought that he was in the middle of a gay part of town. But he was wrong. Homosexuality is not widely accepted in India, and the men he saw holding hands were friends and brothers.
This seems odd for straight people in the West, but its normal for them. They are not gay, so don't even suggest it if you go to India.
gaychristian 3 years ago
actually in this particular case it could work for homosexual marriages. you know, we spoke on my channel about concubines. these women were sometimes a breeders, sorry for the word, I don't know how to express in english a "replacable" woman who brings children for infertile familiy.
there is greater problem with homomarriage. it has been never mentioned by God in the Bible as mean of sanctification for homosexual relations
Thorsupremecommander 2 years ago
Could you you tell us where you got your information about concubines in the early Church, and tell us exactly what their status was? Also, is it a form of polygamy that you are referring to?
There are lots of things that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible as OK (or good), yet Christians, led by the Spirit of God, still see that they are beneficial.
gaychristian 2 years ago
I'd like to favorite this video, but I think it would give people the wrong idea about me.
MarshalltheArtist 3 years ago