Posted on 08/24/2014 7:06:43 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Fox News analyst who made headlines last December for saying she personally met Jesus is now entering the battle over homosexual relationships, suggesting U.S. Christians could support the concept.
“Could there be a future where most American Christians support same-sex relationships?” asks Kirsten Powers, a former atheist who went public with her conversion to Christianity last year.
“If so, it will be due to the emergence of conservative Christians who say orthodox believers can support life-long, monogamous gay relationships without undermining their commitment to biblical authority.”
In her column in USA Today, Powers mentions by name evangelical Matthew Vines, the homosexual author of the new book, “God and the Gay Christian,” as well as New Testament scholar James Brownson, who wrote the 2013 book “Bible, Gender, Sexuality.”
Powers says Brownson told her: “Male-male sex in the ancient world was episodic. It was mainly young boys with older men or male slaves and masters. It was not mutual. These were not relationships, they were not marriage and they were not meant to turn into marriage.”
Powers says the issue is not molding biblical teaching to satisfy a personal belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
“Male-male sex in the ancient world was episodic. It was mainly young boys with older men or male slaves and masters”
They got this from garbage on HBO, Starz and other immoral, trashy networks. The series Spartacus comes to mind. They want you to believe that all spartans were sodomites, which is absolutely a lie. Of course there were sodomites back then the way there are now, but the vast majority of men were not sodomite. And if sodomite “marriage” had been mentioned the person would have been beheaded.
If homosexuality in the Bible referred to homosexual rape, it would say so. If loving, monogamous homosexual relations were allowed, it would say so. God is not stupid, and He knows how to make distinctions, when there is one to be made.
“The word “therefore” connects the making of Eve from a part of Adam’s body with the “one flesh” sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage: it is the reunion of the two constituent parts of a sexual whole. It is not another man who is the missing part or sexual complement of a man, but rather a woman. (Jesus emphasizes this connection between the two different sexes, “male and female,” in Matthew 19:4–6 and Mark 10:6–8.)
Consistent with the pattern in Genesis 1–2, sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relationship between one man and one woman is prohibited. For example, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:18; cf. Romans 13:9; James 2:11). In addition, other specific kinds of sexual intercourse outside of marriage are also prohibited, such as prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:15–18), incest (Leviticus 20:11–21; 1 Corinthians 5:1–2), and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15–16).
Homosexual conduct is also viewed as a sin (something contrary to God’s will) in several passages of the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination [Hebrew to‘ebah, actions that are extremely displeasing to God].” Similarly, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination” (Leviticus 20:13; cf. Genesis 19; also Jude 7). These absolute Levitical prohibitions are grouped with other relevant sex proscriptions (incest, adultery, bestiality) and are considered first-tier sexual offenses that are grouped together in Leviticus 20:10–16...
...In a long list of sins, Paul also includes “men who practice homosexuality” (1 Corinthians 6:9).This phrase translates two different Greek terms: malakos means “soft” or “effeminate” and was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to refer to the “passive” partner in homosexual acts, while arsenokoites is a combination of Greek arsen (meaning “man”) and koite (here meaning “sexual intercourse”). The term arsenokoites was apparently coined by Paul from the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 20:13, and means (in plural) “men who have intercourse with men.” In 1 Timothy 1:10 Paul uses the same word arsenokoites in the midst of vices derived from “the law” (here, the second half of the Ten Commandments), which means that this verse also should be interpreted as an absolute prohibition of male-with-male intercourse, in keeping with Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. Early Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and early Christian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, also show that these verses were understood as absolute prohibitions against all types of homosexual conduct.”
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/04/the_bible_and_homosexuality
Mrs. Don-o, I know YOU understand the issue. What I don’t believe is that there is wiggle room that allows someone who has been a Christian for 8 years not to notice what God has said - particularly since she has been questioned at length on this issue for her entire time that she claims she has been a Christian.
Given that God’s natural revelation of His Will to man has allowed the vast majority of non-believers to figure it out, then someone who is aware of what God’s Word says - and KP certainly is by now - has no excuse whatsoever. It is simply open rebellion against God’s revealed will, and openly encouraging others to sin.
Addressing KP’s argument directly:
“Another objection is to say that the biblical passages concerning homosexuality only prohibit certain kinds of homosexual conduct, such as homosexual prostitution or pedophilia, or unfaithful homosexual relationships. (This is sometimes called the “exploitation argument”: the Bible only prohibits exploitative forms of homosexuality.) But there is no legitimate evidence in the words of any of these verses, or their contexts, or in evidence from the ancient world, to prove that the verses were referring to anything less than all kinds of homosexual conduct by all kinds of people. Two biblical counterarguments against the “exploitation argument” may be briefly mentioned: (1) In Romans 1:23–27 Paul clearly echoes Genesis 1:27, indicating that Paul viewed any sexual relationship that did not conform to the creation paradigm of “male and female” to be a violation of God’s will, irrespective of whether the relationship is loving. (2) Paul’s absolute indictment against all forms of homosexuality is underscored by his mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26, since this form of intercourse in the ancient world was not typically characterized by sex with adolescents, slaves, or prostitutes...
...Some object that the phrase “contrary to nature” in Romans 1:26–27 shows that Paul is only talking about people who “naturally” feel desires toward a person of the opposite sex but who then practice homosexuality. Paul says, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another” (Romans 1:26–27). According to this view, Paul is not saying anything about people who “naturally” feel desires for a person of the same sex, for such desires would not be “contrary to that person’s nature.” However, this is reading into the text a restriction that has no basis in the actual words that Paul wrote. He does not say “contrary to their nature,” but “contrary to nature” (Greek para physin), a phrase that is used several times in literature outside the Bible to speak of all kinds of homosexual conduct as something contrary to the natural order of the world. In other words, Paul is not saying in Romans 1:24–27 that some people switched their innate heterosexual urges for contrived homosexual urges, but rather that people exchanged or left behind sexual relations with a true sexual complement (someone of the other sex) to gratify their inward urges for sex with members of the same sex. Paul sees such people as choosing to follow their desires over God-ordained creation structures.”
From the link above.
#115 and following down the thread (LINK)
We've been discussing this this delusion in all of its aggravating detail.
““If so, it will be due to the emergence of conservative Christians who say orthodox believers can support life-long, monogamous gay relationships without undermining their commitment to biblical authority.”
Petitio principii.
She is and has been prolife for a long time.
Kirsten is intelligent and cute, but a slow learner. Here’s another example of the slow part: Back in the day, she dated Anthony Weiner for a while.
It’s not up to you to let her do anything. You should pray for her and let the grace of God do its work.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
So no one is going to heaven?
Life long monogamous gay relationships? Kristin needs to stop getting her info from the sit-com “Vicious.”
True. Sparta is a murky subject that most historians who cover this are just speculating on. Odd that they seem to imply that homosexuality was the norm however, as the only writer at the time to give it any broad attention was resolute in saying that unlike other Greek cities, Sparta had a culture that was antithetical to the practice. Xenophon actually says it was considered as outrageous as incest.
People will ALWAYS find a way to justify their sin and as is typical of the lies of the enemy, will twist the clearest meaning of Scripture to do so.
Ah, you wish me to repeat my statement:
like mankind in sin, need to repenting of all their sins(even homosexuality) - turning away from them , putting them on Him and to follow Him as Lord or there is no hope.
Biblical Christians? No.
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
SHE has a Public platform and can lead many astray.
She says she is saved, we have NO idea if she is.
THANK YOU!! EXACTLY!!
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachThroughout the Holy WORD of G-d, marriage is a metaphor
for the relationship of YHvH and his "called" people.
In the Tanach, YHvH is the Bridegroom and Israel is His Wife.
Later "called" gentiles are referred to as a Gentile Bride.
As a bride or wife we are asked to leave our family and
cling to our Bridegroom : YHvH and His salvation.A clear reading of Romans 1 in context beginning at
verse 16 shows that those who should know YHvH and his creation
but reject Him are given over to a perverse relationship
in direct opposition to the metaphor of marriage.Homosexuality is marriage to one's self and
the rejection for the need pf a creator of the universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.