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 ...
Wrong. Jesus said we'd know them by their fruit. 1 John tells us to test all spirits to see if they are of God.
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; . . Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit. 1 Thess 4:1-8
Regarding so-called gay Christianity, Ms Powers needs to read the Holy Bible. More specifically, although Romans 1:25-26 is probably the most explicit condemnation of same-sex sexual relationships in the NT, Corinthians 1:6-9 contains the warning, “Be not deceived ...” (KJV) with respect to engaging in such practices.
He has converted many atheists in NYC and for the most part is theologically sound. But his message on homosexuality is watered down because (I think) he is in NYC and doesn't want to chase away potential gay converts (who he expects will give up their homosexual behavior once they become born again).
And like most pastors, he might be a little naive when it comes to the absolute perversion of the gay life-style.
Here an audio of Tim Keller's sermon on Sexuality (which includes a discussion of his approach to homosexuality).
I would like to ask Dr. Keller how he reconciles his belief with the Bible's use of the term "abomination" for homosexuality.
that’s a great post. especially the last paragraph.
When did FR become a hotel for saints?
It's a Holiday Inn Express for theologians.;-)
LOL
We’ll have to trust her for her testimony of faith. Now she needs to be taught what’s in her Bible.
Nothing but a Trojan horse.
She CANNOT be a Christian if she supports abortion. That is a flat-out contradiction in terms, OR QUEERS.
Right now Kirsten has gone from being an atheist airhead to an airhead professing Christianity.
Like Juan Williams, whenever she starts talking sense politically, the next night Kirsten is back in liberal la-la land. Probably with a menacing phone call in between, this time from the faggies.
“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.”
Hmmmm....
1-2 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and immorality of a kind that even pagans condemn—a man has apparently taken his father’s wife! Are you still proud of your church? Shouldn’t you be overwhelmed with sorrow and shame? The man who has done such a thing should certainly be expelled from your fellowship!
3-5 I know I am not with you physically but I am with you in spirit, and I assure you as solemnly as if I were actually present before your assembly that I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done this thing, and I do this with full divine authority. My judgment is this: that the man should be left to the mercy of Satan so that while his body will experience the destructive powers of sin his spirit may yet be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6-8 Your pride in your church is lamentably out of place. Don’t you know how a little yeast can permeate the whole lump? Clear out every bit of the old yeast that you may be new unleavened bread! We Christians have had a Passover lamb sacrificed for us—none other than Christ himself! So let us “keep the feast” with no trace of the yeast of the old life, nor the yeast of vice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of unadulterated truth!
9-13 In my previous letter I said, “Don’t mix with the immoral.” I didn’t mean, of course, that you were to have no contact at all with the immoral of this world, nor with any cheats or thieves or idolaters—for that would mean going out of the world altogether! But in this letter I tell you not to associate with any professing Christian who is known to be an impure man or a swindler, an idolater, a man with a foul tongue, a drunkard or a thief. My instruction is: “Don’t even eat with such a man.” Those outside the church it is not my business to judge. but surely it is your business to judge those who are inside the church—God alone can judge those who are outside. It is your plain duty to ‘put away from yourselves that wicked person’.
TinCris be one mixed up biatch!
LOL! You are too easy.
Now let me assume the persona of "Gayla X Agete", the confused "Gay Christian Ally" --- although I could just as well assume the name "Kristen Powers."
Mr. Rogers: "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."
Gayla: Exactly to the point. God does connect his Scriptural condemnation to sex expressed in idolatry, forcible rape, temple prostitution, and soft people addicted to luxury ("malakoi"). He made this distinction so we could see it's exploitative sex He objects to, not loving marital sex. He says this so clearly n Hebrews 13:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
Marriage honorable for "all" means honorable for "all." It's “only” the whoremongers and adulterers He will judge."
Mr. Rogers: “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.)
Gayla: Biblically, sharing the same bones and flesh is a common metaphor for kinship. In Genesis 29:14, Laban greets his nephew Jacob as "my bones and flesh"; and in 2 Samuel 19:12-13, David greets some of the men of Judah as "my brothers, my bone and my flesh"; see also, Judges 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 1 Chr 11:1)…" It doesn’t mean one is a male and theother is a female, nor does it mean that they’re married, or meant to be married!
In the NT, the way Paul uses “one flesh” shows that it doesn’t mean “to be married”: 1 Cor. 6:16: “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." Paul, in using this verse, is saying that when a person has sex with a prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her. Paul is in no way saying that the man and the prostitute are now married!
Mr. Rogers: “”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).”
Gayla: I complertely agree with your argument here, since the Bible is clearly against any sexual intercourse outside of marriage. But our understanding of that has been a gradual thing. In the OT it was NOT clearly “one man and one woman”, because the Patriarchs and Kings all had plural marriages (plural wives) plus, concubines. Intercourse outside of marriage was sometimes clearly provided for (cf the distribution of virgin prisoners of war to the soldiers as part of the plunder --- that nasty business with the Midianites -- Numbers 31.) The definition of marriage has since been further refined to mean, no polygamy, no concubines, no gender discrimination, but just two people who love each other, regardless of gender. Paul sees the ultimate wrongness of gender discrimination when he says, Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” That’s very supportive of marriage equality.
Mr. Rogers: ”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].”
Gayla: The Biblical context makes it clear that this is an OT thing that no longer applies to us. That same chapter, Leviticus 18, says it is an abomination to have intercourse with a woman who is menstruating. the Bible further refines this to mean you have to wait 7 days after the last spot of menstrual blood. The OT says that for sex to be kosher, the women had to have ritual mikvah baths to be purified, and all the men had to be circumcised. You ready to apply that?
Other parts of the OT describe the eating of various birds --- owls, eagles, waterfowl, etc. -- as well as shellfish and any kind of non-kosher meat, as an “abomination”; then there other related offenses such as mixing two kinds of fabrics and the growing of two types of seed in one field. These were provisions meant to keep the Jews strictly away from other tribes by making all of their customs different: the way they ate, dressed, farmed, and related to each other. All these 616 Mitzvot from Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers have been superseded in the New Covenant.
Mr. Rogers: ”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.”
Gayla: There is excellent Biblical evidence that arsenokoitai means a man fornicating with a man, not just the act of having intercourse with a man. If it were the latter, it would also apply to a married woman “bedding” a man; but obviously it is lawful for her to do so, because they are spouses; they are married. Similarly with gay couples: if it were arsenokoitai, fornication, I would be a sin; but if they are spouses, in marriage, this is not a sin.
As for “malakoi,” it means, simply, “soft.” The same word is usually used to describe fine, delicate fabric. This is how Jesus uses it: “What did you go out to the desert? To see a man dressed in soft clothes (malakos)?” If applied to a person, it wold mean a delicate, perhaps weak and cowering man. Its application to sex is dubious. In the LXX this Greek word applies to those who live in luxury.
Mr. Rogers: “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”
Gayla: No, the Biblical criterion of the Commandment against “adultery” is not “straight or gay?” It’s “married or unmarried”? It is an absolute prohibition of all fornication and adultery. This text in itself gives us to understand that marriage is the only proper setting which sanctifies sexual union. It is a pro-marriage argument. It is not an argument against gay marriage.
Mr. Rogers: ”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.”
Gayla: That’s just -- as you said----interpretation. In other words, the traditions of men. Jewish “interpretation” is obviously nor authoritative: these are the same people that interpret the Scriptures to deny that Jesus is the Christ. Early Christian interpretation was similarly not free from error. I would rather depend on the words of Scripture alone, not human interpretation and the “traditions of men.”
Mr. Rogers, as you know -- and as other reads and lurkers I hope are aware -- I myself am not “Gayla” and I emphatically do not believe in “Gayla’s” -- or Kristen Powers’ -- arguments.
However, I deny that they are simply in open and knowing rebellion against God’s revealed will. They think they are DOING God’s will and holding strong AGAINST the “traditions of men” which have always been prone to error. Look at what the majority of Christians used to believe about the earth being the center of the Universe, slavery being OK, and discrimination against gay people being OK -- all based on erroneous interpretations of the Bible, ---they would say!
I think a good many of them have been seriously misled by clever teachers, and are further encouraged along this path because of the widespread bias against Christian Tradition (what all Christianity has agreed upon until approx. 15 minutes ago). They have, as well, an unfounded confidence in each person’s competence to correctly interpret the words of Scripture.
If she supports a party that believes in abortion on demand, and supports the most pro-abortion president in American history, SHE IS NOT PRO-LIFE. Now she can say she is till the cows come home, but she’s not.
“You will know them by their fruits” ~ Matthew 7:16
She is about as Christian as Jane Fonda.
as for discrimination, what is that? Not celebrating immoral behavior is now "discrimination"?
I think it's sufficiently lear from context, though, to anyone with normal reading comprehension (!!!)
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.