It's very simple, there are no gay Christians. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6:9-11) If there are gay Christians then there also must be sexually immoral Christians, idolatrous Christians, adulterous Christians, Christians who are thieves, greedy Christians, drunkard Christians, Christians who are revilers, swindling Christians.

They are disagreeing with God

@@martinploughboy988 Only as you have interpreted God.

@@coffeefrog As God has clearly stated in His word. It's very simple, God calls homosexuality an abomination & says that those who practice such things cannot enter His kingdom.

It hasn't finished yet!

@@ritawing1064 Couldn’t take it no more had to go wretch in my God talk bucket.

But they had nothing of Christ in it.

To say you are gay is to compromise, indeed it is to abandon what the Bible says.

You'd do better to read the Bible.

@@martinploughboy988 We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. - Paul the Apostle Frankly, David's testimony of the condescension of God's Son spoke to my spirit and I know his testimony is true..

Problem is people push selfish desires above God. Those who try shoohorne homsexuality as norm act from selfish desires. What we can talk about their spiritual life, if they cant even sacrfice so little: sexual life. In our time and era with so many enterteiment and porn even though it sin aswell, I doubt it even problem for people be celibate 30% american males are virigns who never kissed woman. And they arent even that religious. All these talks about acceptance and other crap smell like gnostic heresy through and through. Original Christian doctrines even from heterosexuals demand celibacy. Whole Christian religion based around celibacy, selfrestrained as way to reach sainthood That why so many monks and nuns at early time christians. Theese people beleive that through selfretraint and celibacy they can become saints. What people beleive now? That you need be happy? Like really? Since when been happy was even Christian doctrine to begin with Three main Christian ideas: 1. Slavation 2. Divinisation 3. Cocreation with God Protestant only focu on Slavation telling you just need Love God and that would be enough. Salvation basicaly admiting Jesus is God and worship him. But that not enough Forgeting Divinisation and Cocreation with God. Divinsatioin is person try become saint and do as hard a she can to be as perfect as he can. It hard path based on sacrfice for path to perfection. Because since man is Image of God. Be saint is perfect form of worship of God, since we try be perfect image of creator. Co Creation with God is imitating God through crativity and improving things which lead finding more way to worship God. If you gay than you should believe only way to sianthood is through celibacy. It have zero problem for milion straight male to be celibate even without religiosu cause. Cause like I said in our time sex become so outdated most people dont have even time for it cause so many diferent new forms of enterteiment. It not even thayt big sacrfice it used to be. But if you religious man refuse have gay sex is not something that hard to do. So all this talks complete bulshit. Rejecting your desires for Greater Divine Will is small price. But if people start talking that Chsriatinity is about been happy it mean they lost faith and just keep going with Christianity as cultural way not cause they actually beleive And if you dont believe there is no need be christian than and try change christinaity to fit your new selfish worldview. Because it clearly selfishness if small group of people trieng change doctrine which follow bilions of people it nothing more than selfisnhess where they put personal happines above whole popualtion. I am not even talking about sacrifce as worshipoing to God. So these poeple dotn care nor for God nor for other people but only themself

Nonsense. Why do people not see that comparing heterosexual misdemeanors with homosexuality is ridiculous? Every major psychiatric and psychological body has stated that homosexuality is NOT a pathology.

@@DIBBY40 what every major psychiatric and psychological body has stated is not the standard for truth. God's word is not nonsense. And it's what the speakers were claiming to hold to, was Christianity, and thus God's word. Specifically Romans 14 was mentioned. And that is the context of my reply. Homosexual relations are defined by Romans 1 as unnatural. That's God's word. And that's the standard for truth. Not what psychiatrists and psychologists say. And not all of the profession agree with those bodies btw But none of that is to say that I said homosexual behavior is a pathology. I didn't say it was a psychological disorder. I said the behavior is a sin. As defined by the holy scripture, God's word. God's word also defines heterosexual sins and ways that men and women sin sexually that are not homosexual. So I said both the homosexual act is sin, and the heterosexual sexual sins are sin. And so the clinch pin is if we are going to identify those sins as ok by God. If we do, we are wrong. If we use scripture to do so, then we are doubly wrong.

@@DIBBY40 Homosexuality is a behaviour, one that God has condemned. Psychiatry & psychology don't enter into it.

@@martinploughboy988 Has ignorance now become a Christian virtue?

@@DIBBY40 The ignorance is in the pseudo science.

Perhaps there is a very recent and new distaste of sexuality, but historically that isn't the case. The history has often seen it as on par with human rationality, one of the most beautiful gifts we have been given. Without going in to too much detail, sex as the pro-creative act is recognized as the act that is most like God's act, because it is fundamentally directed toward the good of others, namely your spouse and the child conceived. A fundamentally charitable act. For that reason, misuse of the procreative act is seen as especially degrading to yourself. It's like promising to give some money to help others, then choosing to spend it on yourself. It's not human sexuality that is distasted, but the misuse of it, like the misuse of charity. But also, they recognize that sexual pleasure is the most intense natural pleasure we can experience, and so the urge to misuse it is so strong and so easy to fall in to. They recognized that serious sins tend to lead in to other sins, as well as a serious failure to be even able to recognize sin at all. Sex, being so intense, is the one that can morally blind us, as well as those we might victimize with it, in other areas very easily, and so we have to be careful to guard our sexuality. I'm sure you would agree that sexual abuse isn't just like other forms of abuse. The impact on the victim, as well as the perpetrator is quite unique. If you think about, they have a point, even if you don't grant everything they might say. I'd say our modern society is evidence of what a sexually unguarded culture results in. We live in the most materially prosperous time in all of human history so far, and yet our moral confusion and degradation is so pervasive.

@@billyg898 Thankyou for your thoughtful and considered comment.

It's a lot more complex than that. For a start, many of the sexual practices that Jews, and then Muslims and Christians, opposed even liberal secular people would opposed now. So in the Roman Empire rape was completely legal. A Roman citizen could rape his slaves or a non Roman citizen. So when early Christians seem uncomfortable about Roman sexual practices this is the sort of thing they are uncomfortable with. The idea of male female equality and women proudly being able to express themselves sexually was not a thing at all in the ancient world pre Christianity. The pagan Romans were highly conservative about sex. Yes, a Roman could rape who he wanted. But respectable women had to be chaste. A lot of Christian norms about the superiority of men over women and conservative views of sex actually come from the Romans pre Christianity. In fact, Christianity was arguably quite pro women because it told men raping was wrong and against God. The pagan Romans had no issue with rape as long as the right people were being raped. Arguably Christianity and then Islam by extension was influenced by Greek philosophy, such as Stoicism, that prized self discipline and had a generally negative view of sex in general because it represented the animal spirit triumphing over your rational mind. Unfortunately, many Christians today are just traditionalists i.e. they think gay sex is a sin because that's the way it's been traditionally thought of. However, Christianity is a religion of constant reform from day one. And if you understand modern medical science then you know homosexuality is not just about being lustful, it's an innate part of someone. So gay sex in a loving, caring relationship I would argue can be perfectly Christian. But unfortunately some people follow scripture in a very literal way rather than taking the broad principles and taking into account God given scientific knowledge and enquiry.

@@khar12d8 Thankyou for your informed and articulate comment, much appreciated.

This life is temporary, but what we do in this life echoes in eternity.

Says everything about Spring Harvest.

No. You can be gay and still live the law of chastity. Case in point, David

Well, it's not a godly answer, but a reading of Nissinen's "Homoeroticism in the Bibical Age" and Francesca Stavrokoupoulu's " God: an Anatomy" (for examples) leads one to the conclusion that this condemnation began in the need to reproduce numbers for the tribe, where women's place was, symbolically and literally, "under" the fertile, rained-down sperm. Thus confusing the all-important societal roles of penetrator and penetratee to no reproductive end was held by many (not all) ancient societies to be anarchistic and socially damaging. From there to bringing in the stamp of a god's command in order to enforce the ban was an easy step.

Some people think it's icky. Rather than just say that, they say some cosmic overlord disapproves of it instead.

Depends on what you mean by homosexuality. Some people mean the state of being attracted to the same sex. In that case, there is nothing wrong morally there. We would say such a person has a disordered attraction, but it's not wrong to have such attractions. The aim would be to help someone in such a situation if we can. What is right or wrong is about actions, freely chosen actions. If you mean the act of using your sexual faculties with someone of the same sex, that is wrong morally. Someone can have a deeply ingrained and overwhelming desire to steal, like a kleptomaniac, but having that desire isn't wrong. Acting on that desire is what is wrong. The actions are wrong because the natural end of sex is procreation (and unity), and the use of your sexual faculty in non-procreative acts is to actively thwart the natural end of sex. This is also why using contraceptives is wrong, why masturbation is wrong. They all use what is naturally procreative in deliberately non-procreative ways. A common objection is, "well, what about people who can no longer have children, or when a woman is outside her ovulation period? Can they not have sex then?" While this is a common objection, it misunderstands things. The procreative end doesn't have to complete, but you mustn't be actively thwarting it. An analogy is like lying. Communication has the natural end of conveying truth, but if you actively thwart that end, by intentionally conveying falsehoods in order to deceive, it is wrong. Another example is eating. The digestive faculty exists for the natural end of gaining nutrition. It wouldn't matter how much someone loves consuming lethal amounts of oven cleaner, you may not think it is wrong, but I assume you would rightly agree that such a person has some kind of disorder. Or, if there is someone who throws up their perfectly healthy and nutritious food to avoid the digestive process, we recognize has an eating disorder. Now, you might say "Well, eating disorders cause physical health problems", and sure that is the case with eating disorders, but not all disorders are associated with physical health problems. We don't respect consent because failing to do so causes physical health problems. We do it because we rightly recognize that people have dignity, and it is wrong to treat a person as if he/she is not a person. Someone who doesn't grasp the concept of consent has a disorder as well, it would be wrong to violate consent, even if there is no physical health problems associated with it. Dis-order presupposes there is a proper order but it hasn't been realized. But, that's a somewhat long explanation.

@@billyg898 Interesting take - I don't believe that the intrinsic natural end of sex is procreation. Because I don't believe in a creator god that designed sex for a purpose, I don't believe it can be misused for a different purpose (note that I obviously believe sexual abuse etc. is wrong, but the wrongness comes from the harm it causes people, not the idea that sex is only for one specific thing). Evolution has imbued us with sexual urges, with which we do what we will: we procreate if that's what we want, we express love for each other if that's what we want, we hurt each other if that's what we want. Just the same as with any other behaviour trait that evolution has given us: the natural end of anger may be physical violence, for example, but we often make a choice to thwart *that* end, and a good thing too! It's also well worth bearing in mind that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon, both in our species and in others in the animal kingdom. It's not artificial - it's natural, and it has a natural end. It's just that the natural end of homosexual sex is not procreation. The problem, it seems to me, is that you're defining the natural end of *all* sex as procreation, but that's simply not the case: that's only the natural end of heterosexual sex. I understand that you're defining it that way because homosexuality is the anomaly, which you call a disorder, but there's no reason to treat it as a disorder (even if we used "disorder" as a descriptive term for it, there's nothing objectively disordered about it - we define disorders according to the harm they cause, and the harm of homosexuality hasn't been demonstrated here).

@@billyg898 The real conundrum is why some humans reject sexual behaviour with an entire gender, rather than querying to whom they are attracted. Our near cousins the bonobos give and receive pleasure from each other regardless of gender categories: it is simply a matter of having evolved in a non-competitive situation.

Transgenderism is simply just what this confusion about sex eventually leads too though. It's the inevitable outcome. If sex has no purpose related to life-giving love, then sex just becomes another activity. Thus, you get people using it completely separate from life-giving love, which is what contraception, then porn, then homosexual acts comes from. If you accept all of that, then you shouldn't have any problem with incest either, because sex has nothing to do with procreation or being life-giving, right? But, from there, what fundamentally distinguishes the sexes (that one impregnates the other, and one is impregnated) is gone too because sex is seen to have nothing to do with being life-giving. Thus, being a woman or man is completely disconnected from sex and the roles it generates. Thus, a woman can't be related to having a uterus or producing eggs, which is for conceiving and carrying a fetus, and a man can't be related to having a penis and producing sperm, which is for impregnating. So, either we return to sex as being for life-giving love, or we go the other way and conclude that being a man or woman isn't related to sex at all. Of course, I'd say go back to life-giving love, sitting in the middle-ground seems like an unstable position.

@@billyg898 if you have sex just to produce a child, then when the child is produced that is the woman is impregnated, then sexual activity must cease anything else has to do with sexual pleasure, there are many married heterosexuals who have sexual relations out of sexual pleasure, so even if you use natural contraception that is having sex with a woman where the potential of pregnancy is very low, then you do this out of sexual pleasure, does one simply accepts this because one is using a natural contraceptive, so with what you are saying, we must remove sexual pleasure completely because the only purpose of sexual relations is to produce a child, once this occurs sex has to cease because one does not seek to have sexual relations by the power of pleasure.

@@TempleofChristMinistries Thanks for the response. This is a common objection, but it is a misunderstanding. People can do things for all sorts of reasons, but there is a reason why we are the kinds of beings capable of doing certain things. It's not that you have to do it for the reason we are capable of doing it, but you can't do it while actively thwarting that reason. For example, someone can eat(digest is more correct but we can stick with eating) for all sorts of reasons. It could be to quell the feeling of hunger, it could be for a social occasion, it could be just a craving, or whatever the reason might be. BUT, we know what eating is for, and it is for nutrition. Just because you have met your nutritional goal through eating doesn't mean you have to stop eating. But, if you eat in a way that thwarts the nutritive aspect, we rightly recognize such people as having eating disorders. Whether you eat way to much, or throw-up your food to avoid the digestive process, or desire to ingest something hazardous or something, it goes against the nutritive end. Another example is communication, which is to convey the truth. You can talk (or write or do sign-language or whatever) for all sorts of reasons. It could be to tell a story, give instructions, express your opinion or explain your reasoning on KZfaq :P, etc. BUT, we know that going against the conveying of truth by lying is disordered. People with a desire to lie have a disorder. If you believe something to be true that isn't, and you communicate it, you are simply mistaken. That isn't lying. It's not disordered because you are using the communicative faculties toward it's proper end, but some external factor has caused it not be achieved. Similarly, you can have sex for all sorts of reasons, such as pleasure, procreation, intimacy, to unite with your spouse, etc. Just because you have sex at a time in the ovulation cycle when a woman may not be able to conceive, it's not actively thwarting the procreative end. You are still using your procreative faculties in their proper way, but some external factor may cause the end to not be achieved. That's the difference. You don't have to be thinking "make a baby, make a baby, procreate, procreate" while having sex. It not about having to guarantee the end is achieved, but simply not to actively thwart the end being achieved. This is why masturbation, contraception, the pull-out method, etc are all problematic but natural family planning isn't. PS: I'd also say that uniting the spouses is a natural end as well. Both it and procreation must not be thwarted.

@@billyg898 what you believe is if we produce what we are designed for then we do what is right, if we go against this design then it is a disorder, you say speaking the truth is order and to lie is disorder yet, in the time of the occupation that is the Nazis if you lie to them to save life this is disorder yet if you tell the truth which will bring forth murder this is order, that is to protect the Jews, so out of disorder comes order and out of order come disorder, should I write a fictitious book and therefore it is a lie now it is disordered, in the beginning man will leave his father and mother and find a wife they shall become one flash and be fruitful and multiply and this is the order of things, yet now you tell me Christ is a disordered man because he did none of these things, yet I know those who masturbate who are more righteous than those who do not, I know those who use contraception who are more righteous than those who do not, and I know homosexuals who are more righteous than heterosexuals, two people in the Old Testament lied and God considered this as faithful and righteous because it's saved life. Intentionally using natural conception is simply having sex at a certain time of the woman's cycle where pregnancy is less likely is the pursuit of sexual pleasure. Righteousness is judged Beyond the simple order of things.

God says that such a thing is an abomination. Are you saying God is backward?

This is the first time I ever watched this channel. There won't be a second time.

@@bobtaylor170 Thats wise.

All God talk is slippery, because theology is ontology *ON BLACK ICE*

Do you speak ancient Greek? Have you read it in Greek? Otherwise I have no idea how you can call scripture simply black and white.

@@khar12d8 As a matter of fact I have read it in the original Koine Greek (not classical), I studied it for two years as a requirement for my bachelors degree. But Romans 1:26,27 is a clear and decisive rejection of homosexual activity as is 1 Corinthians 6:9. One doesn’t need an understanding of Greek to understand it, only an open mind and heart as a consequence of God’s saving grace.

Except there is no real love between them.

"...tempted in every way..." really? In the context of this video, you might like to reconsider that.

Grace and Peace to you. Being a murdering Christian and a gay Christian isn't necessarily a good comparison. Murdering Christians practice murder. Since a practicing homosexual can't be a Christian, a gay Christian is someone who is attracted to the same sex yet resists homosexual relationships. It's not a sin to be attracted to the same sex. It is sin to be in a homosexual relationship.

​@@lark8356 It is a sin to be attracted to same sex. It not JUST about stopping a sin...homosexuality...it's in the mind too. If it's still on your mind lustfully then it's just like a person watching or being attracted/lusting to another woman or man. Repentance means hating AND not wanting to do that sin anymore. Praying to God that you will not want that sin.

@@user-cu3xn4xj3i Grace and Peace to you. Thank you for praying for me. I'm praying for you. Being attracted to the same sex is not the same as lusting after the same sex aka having sexual thoughts about the same sex. As a married man, I'm attracted to women who are not my wife. I can be attracted to them without wanting to have sex with them. I pray you'll discern the difference between attraction and lust.

@@lark8356the one who lusts has committed adultery already, Jesus builds fences around the command for good reason, the one who hates has committed murder, do not fool yourself rely only on Christ. Listen to Him Phil 4 "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things" renew your mind. BTW Do not forget that Paul murdered/imprisoned those he would later consider brothers and sisters in Christ we all have some measure of thorn in the flesh. Do not consider the thorn greatly but thank God that it humbles us that grace may shine.

I get that celibacy is hard. But Jesus said "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Luke 9:23). We all have to deny sinful desires to follow Jesus. The Bible clearly says homosexuality is wrong. "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). In fact, Paul says some of the Corinthian Christians used to practice homosexuality but were redeemed from that lifestyle. As he continues in 1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." I know your son feels happy now, but I believe obeying Christ leads to greater joy. I care about your son's salvation. I hope he can resist temptation and commit to celibacy for the sake of following Jesus. It's not easy, but it's the only path to heaven. "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matthew 7:14). My prayers are with you both. God promises to give us strength to resist sin if we trust in Him. "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Why do you view it unnatural? What about people who don't desire intimacy? Are they unnatural? Relationships don't require intimacy, there is not one type of relationship. Weird how you call celibacy unnatural. In the bible it is a very natural path in life, and for those who wish to remain single, celibate is what they are called to be.

One thing evangelicals seem to do, particularly if they are gay, is place a huge amount of stress and anxiety upon themselves. Their minds go through torturous theological reasoning and thinking trying to win God's approval. Fear of being "wrong" is a constant companion. It happened to me in the 1980s. Thankfully I'm free of evangelical fear mongering now. God bless your son. Stay strong, and don't let the haters get you or him down xx❤️

​@@Nicole-kc1vxYou are free to be celibate if you wish.

@@DIBBY40 already am, I'm taking issue with the person who claimed it's unnatural.

A literal reading of passages regarding same sex relations is no more defensible than a literal reading of passages regarding slavery. One cannot be 'the word is the word', and the other 'but you're taking it out of context!'

The Bible is very clear about Sexual relationship though.

Thankfully it's nonsense.

Sounds like you didn't watch the video 😮

Isn’t the point of this channel to allow those conversations? If everyone agreed, this wouldn’t exist.

God's love requires that you obey God. Neither of these two are doing so.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

This is such a lazy way to get out of feeling bad for treating your neighbors awfully. It takes a concept like love, removes any compassion, and morphs it into an excuse for bigotry. And even if not active bigotry, it's the excuse to take the backseat when religious conservatives are actively stripping away rights of those you claim to "love". To me, love is fighting with any individual that I love to live in a way that is in accordance with all of who they are and makes them happy. I don't understand the concept of actively loving someone and yet actively working against their self interest, either via the church and or your vote. If you're not okay with an aspect of someone's character that is so fundamental, you don't love them, period. You should be ashamed for stripping love, at all levels of context, of any meaning the word could possibly have.

@@jmjw00 Think upon the very act of homosexuality; 2 men together. Do the parts fit? Is this as God intended? Does this act further creation? The anus is for defecation not sex. Why would I hate those that do this? Is my heterosexuality the sum of me?

​@@alexnorth3393Yes it is. It is disordered because it is contra-nature

Well being a brainless b*tch is certainly one of yours so I would start with that on your rather less than good self before you worry your tiny little mind about anyone else!

You can't "promote" homosexuality. It's part of a human's makeup. God given, one might say.