❤❤😂

So true 🙌

Agreed 🎉

Ys

Exactly

Her name is our madam khontele from rengma... She is woman of God.

Good to know that 👍​@@andrea1598

Waww ❤️

👍

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

Yes

True👍

I don't have any objection on this but what has Rio to do with this....????just my opinion we don't always have to blame our leader even in our family problem 😂

Yes, 👍

All these Women are wiser than Rio 😂 But do you know what the problem is ? How are these intellectual Woman and men Following Rio ???

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

Third needs to learn something from first

Yes our madam khontele from rengma.... She is woman of God.

My sis😊

Scientifically, we only have XY and XX chromosomes that define the gender...the intersex individuals are the aberration, an anomaly, abnormal and it's rare...homosexuality will be refuted scientifically and Biblically... although we Christians don't react violently like how radical muslims defenestrate and stone the homosexuals and apostates...at the end we are all sinners and we all need Christ... Gospel is the only solution!

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

Matthew 19: 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom .

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

Absolutely!?

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

In nagaland 😂😂😂as if nagaland holds the universe bro😂

​@@user-vm1lm8oo2fHe didn't say Nagaland holds the universe. Don't you have eyes to read!

True , the first one takes your kidney away .

Yes you are true... She is our madam khontele from rengma... She is woman of God

Disagreed. She said "BY NATURE" it's not NATURE! God did not design it. You can say "NATURE" if God meant it during His act of creation.

📢📢📢📢Everyone is welcome here for constructive debate, including the mothers interviewed in the news. 📢📢📢📢It's important to recognize that LGBT individuals are also children of God, born from their own mothers' wombs just like anyone else. God's love extends to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Being LGBT is not a sin, as long as the relationships are consensual, just like any heterosexual couple. Judging, threatening, or bullying LGBT individuals is sinful, as both the Bible and the Supreme Court uphold principles of equality and justice. 📢📢📢📢📢 Furthermore, according to the Indian Penal Code (IPC): - Corruption (IPC Section 7-12) is a punishable offense that applies to all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation. - Spreading hatred (IPC Section 153A) based on sexual orientation or any other characteristic is prohibited by law. - Gossiping evil of others and spreading false rumors (IPC Section 499) can lead to legal consequences. - Lying and providing false information (IPC Section 191-200) are punishable offenses. - Stealing (IPC Section 378-462) and substance abuse (various sections including IPC Section 328) are crimes regardless of one's sexual orientation. - Promiscuity or engaging in sexual activity outside of consensual relationships is not specifically addressed in the IPC, but laws against rape and sexual assault apply to all individuals. 📢📢📢📢📢📢📢 from Supreme Court stands... Opposing LGBTQ+ rights may lead to legal consequences depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances. In India, there are laws that protect the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Additionally, there are laws that penalize hate speech and incitement to violence against marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), several sections may be applicable in cases involving discrimination or violence against LGBTQ+ individuals: 1. Section 377: This section previously criminalized consensual homosexual acts, but it was partially struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2018 in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case. However, this section can still be invoked in cases of non-consensual sexual acts or acts involving minors. 2. Section 153A: This section penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. 3. Section 505(2): This section penalizes statements conducive to public mischief or inciting hatred between different communities or groups. 4. Section 354A: This section deals with sexual harassment and provides penalties for making unwelcome sexual advances or sexually colored remarks, which may be applicable in cases of harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. 6. Section 509: This section penalizes words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. While originally intended to protect women, it can also be invoked to protect individuals from derogatory remarks or actions based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, also provide protection against discrimination and violence based on caste or tribe, which may intersect with discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals who belong to marginalized communities. If someone is found guilty under these sections or other relevant provisions of the law for actions related to discrimination or violence against LGBTQ+ individuals, they may face penalties including fines, community service, or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense and the discretion of the court.📣📣📣📣My opinion may differ from others, but here it is... 1. First and foremost, it's essential to recognize that LGBT individuals are born into this world just like anyone else, from their own parents, and not from your parents💡. Their attraction towards the same sex is not imposed upon them by others but arises naturally from within themselves. 2. Secondly, engaging in prostitution, whether by a male, female, or LGBT person, may be considered a sin from various perspectives, but under Indian law, individuals might resort to it for survival, which warrants a separate debate. 3. Thirdly, just as males and females have the autonomy to undergo surgery to enhance their appearance, LGBT individuals also have the right to undergo gender-affirming surgeries at their own risk, whether transitioning from male to female or female to male. This underscores the reality that human beings encompass more than just two genders; there exists a diverse spectrum that includes male, female, and LGBT individuals. While religious texts may not explicitly address the existence of a third gender, it's undeniable that individuals with diverse gender identities exist. 4. Furthermore, the ability to reproduce is not exclusive to heterosexual couples, as evidenced by the existence of third-gender individuals who may also conceive children. It is their prerogative to live their lives authentically, whether in straight, bisexual, or other relationships. LGBT individuals are part of society just like anyone else, contributing to various professions such as science, healthcare, the arts, and sports. They should not be judged or condemned as sinners solely based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. 💡Instead, they should be evaluated based on their actions, just like anyone else. 5. Before casting judgment on others, it's imperative to reflect on our own imperfections and consider how we measure up in the eyes of a higher power. How many of us can claim to be without fault or sinless in the eyes of God?💡 It is not our place to judge or condemn others based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, we should strive to emulate compassion, empathy, and understanding towards all individuals, regardless of their background or identity. As we navigate our own journey of faith and self-discovery, let us remember the universal values of love, acceptance, and respect for all members of the human family. 💡The judgment of one's gender identity ultimately rests with God, as we do not have the authority to dictate or define another person's gender. 💡Otherwise, God will judge you after your death and you may receive a harsher punishment if you harass or discriminate against someone for not conforming to your gender preferences.⌛

📢📢📢📢 *Disclaimer: This is not intended to criticize anyone including LGBT. But It's solely for personal contemplation, and I welcome any corrections. Please review the provided links, websites, biblical references, and KZfaq links for a comprehensive understanding.* 📢📢Hello Stop calling it a sin. That is a lie. Jesus nor the Bible ever condemned homosexuality. We've misinterpreted the context of biblical passages in the past. Passages of the Bible were used to condone slavery, elevating men over women, and anti-semitism. The history of Christianity and large elements of the Hebrew Scriptures evince beliefs in a God who seem to bless a great many things we would deem today as sinful. Incest, polygamy, genocide, slavery, just to name a few. And divorce, which was considered to be a sin back then, seems to be acceptable today. Extensive research has shown us we have yet got it wrong again. The context of homosexuality in the Bible has to do with lust, not love. For instance, in the passage where it states, "a man should not lie with another man", we go back and look at the translation. The precise Hebrew words in Leviticus 20:13 actually states that the text prohibits a "sexual" relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish".In ancient Greek culture, in that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males - in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups. These specific words - “men” and “males” - were used precisely in descriptions of the Greek custom back then because, at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “males” under Greek law. So since man>male is a specific term referring to Greek pederasty, then its use in Leviticus 20:13 would make that verse a prohibition of that practice, and not of homosexuality in general. That would also mean that there is no such condemnation anywhere else in the Torah (Leviticus 18:22 also uses the word zachar, rather than ish). Similarly, if the verse was meant to refer to adult homosexual behavior, the style of usage in both Leviticus 20 and the earlier Leviticus 18 would require that ish>ish be used, not ish>zachar. The fact that “isha” (woman) is used in both Leviticus verses adds to this. “An ish should not lie with a zachar as he would with an isha” makes less contextual sense than “an ish should not lie with an ish as he would with an isha". Since in its Greek meaning that “man>male” signifies a pederastic relationship, and it is this that the Leviticus verses outlaw. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the original text would be, a man shall not sleep with a boy as he does with a woman. When it was translated from Hebrew into English, they wrongly changed God"s word to man and man, since they had no pederasty custom. jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/ We also have the romantic relationship between Jonathan and David. One relevant Bible passage on this issue is 1 Samuel 18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (KJV)[20] Another relevant passage is 2 Samuel 1:26, where David says: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (KJV)[21] (Why a woman? Because women are the only love we have that involves sex). The story of Ruth and Naomi in the Book of Ruth is also occasionally interpreted by contemporary scholars as the story of a lesbian couple. Here is a brilliant BISHOP and biblical scholar, who spent a long time researching homosexual passages in the Bible. He has been on many TV programs, including many on ultra-conservative Bill O'Reilly's show. He gives many sound reasons why we got it wrong in the interpretation. He also found slavery, the elevation of men over women, and antisemitism to be misinterpreted. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rq58iMSX05vXZ4E.html And not only this Bishop, a Biblical scholar, but the Pope has come out in support of the LGBT community as well. Telling Christians they need to ask the LGBT community for forgiveness and apologize. He also said that they need to be integrated into society. I have taken the time to pray and research on homosexuality, and abortion, to make sure I get it right. I am not trusting my eternal soul to someone else's interpretations. That is the lazy way to be a Christian. These decisions will impact other people's lives tremendously. They should not be taken lightly. But unfortunately, if there is no close relationships with an LGBT person, people find it hard to find love in their hearts to make sure they get it right. The Holy Spirit has spoken to me about this and has brought to me this research and helped me understand it. I have prayed many times to make sure that if I got it wrong to please tell me, but I have always gotten reassurance in return. Basically the Holy Spirit says that when you look Through The Eyes Of Love you can't get it wrong. So here's where he has led me on other scripture as well. Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated “homosexual” does not mean “homosexual” and the word translated “effeminate” does not mean "effeminate!” The English word “homosexual” is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, “the same”) and a Latin term (sexualis, “sex”). The term “homosexual” is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word “homosexual.” No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used “homosexual” in any Bible translation. The word translated as “homosexual” or “sexual pervert” or some other similar term is Greek ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning “male” and “bed.” This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul’s time. We do not know what it means. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites. When early Greek-speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gsCikq9zu9Wlg3k.html Also, “Soft” does not mean “effeminate.” The word translated “effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek μαλακός malakos and means “soft” or “vulnerable.” The word is translated as “soft” in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as “illness” in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual orientation. Malakia (μαλακία) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those who are “soft,” “pliable,” “unreliable,” or “without courage or stability.” The translation of malakos as “effeminate” is incorrect, ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient usage compared to the meaning of “effeminate” today. The Bible was first written in the ancient languages of Hebrew and Greek and … not translated into English until 1611. It had been translated into Latin, French, and German prior to being translated into English. None of these translations ever mentioned homosexuality as an interpretation of these Greek words.

Being ignorant is no excuse. Let's delve into the interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel 16:49 reveals the multifaceted sins of Sodom, which included arrogance, gluttony, apathy towards the poor and needy. It's essential to recognize that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to various sins, not solely sexual lust, whether heterosexual or homosexual. This scripture doesn't condemn loving, monogamous relationships, but rather highlights the broader moral failings of the cities. Some individuals with homophobic biases attempt to distort scripture to justify their prejudices, falsely claiming that the destruction was solely because of homosexual lust. However, this interpretation contradicts the nuanced understanding of the text and manipulates God's word to fit personal biases. Moreover, the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah raises skepticism. The notion that a father, especially a devout one, would offer his daughters to an angry mob is incredulous. Additionally, offering females to supposedly homosexual men is inconsistent with the narrative. It's illogical to believe that the entire male population of Sodom was homosexual; rather, the intention was to inflict harm and humiliation upon the strangers. Furthermore, the account of Lot's daughters engaging in incestuous acts with him challenges credulity. Yet, inexplicably, Lot and his daughters were considered sinless by God. The term "sodomite" in the Bible refers to devotees, both male and female, engaged in licentious idolatry, not specifically homosexuals. It's crucial to approach biblical interpretation with nuance and critical thinking, rather than using it to justify discrimination or prejudice. [Reformation Project](www.google.com/amp/s/reformationproject.org/case/sodom-and-gomorrah/amp/) provides further insights into this topic. [This video](kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jdabf7GaucuwlnU.html) offers additional perspectives on the interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Biblical term 'sodomite' (Strong's Concordancehashtag#H6945 as found in Deuteronomy 23:17, 1Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2Kings 23:7, etc.), in the Hebrew, means a (male or female) devotee (prostitute) to licentious idolatry. www.google.com/amp/s/reformationproject.org/case/sodom-and-gomorrah/amp/ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jdabf7GaucuwlnU.html ......

📢📢📢📢📢Before engaging in debate, please review all the statements and accompanying references provided, which are explained through biblical references. If disagreement persists, it's respected as a personal choice. However, for future reference, if there's a complete opposition, one can seek recourse through the Supreme Court. This may result in the issuance of an official letter citing relevant laws from the Indian Constitution, as mentioned previously.📣📣📣📣📣

Tf😂

Let’s gooooooo🔥

😂

She's my mom's sister 😂

She is my mother

@@_00071 keke, is this you? 😂

She's my mother in law 😂

Stupid people

😂❤

This is dimapur Tv🤣🤣🤣

Yes😢

​@@dreamsdocometrue.3730Not funny. It's a State Channel, just the office is based on Dimapur. This kind of attitude is dividing Our states

Hey you just be there in heaven lol

You are right.

Do not judge has no excuses to judge others. Also everyone is evil , no one is good. Read some Bible. Regarding LGTBQ Here's what Jesus said Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.