This is on of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. People seriously want to vote for this guy? It is really sad hearing such ignorance coming out of an educated man.
Raymond -"Really? Military and homosexual expert?"
I am only going on what you said about men in the military. Which may or may not be true. What is definitely true is that for many, gay is not a choice it was inherited.
Inherited from whom? Is there a gene responsible for this behavior?
Dominant or recessive?
There are all kinds of biological conditions that are inherited good and bad. Homosexuality being just one of them. These traits are passed down through generations. Which is why we need a Saviour.
If there were a gene God wouldn't destroy someone that they had no choice. but sin is a choice.
No we will not be lost for genetic traits we inherit but God does provide His power to overcome these traits and He will hold us responsible for not accessing this power He provides.
The problem is that people struggling with homosexual traits are particularly targeted and despised while more horrendous traits of bullying, abuse, hatred goes on unchallenged by the church. AO being a typical showcase of how hatred, bullying etc is not challenged but even condoned in church structures.
"Leviticus 18:22 alone is one of many texts in the bible. read your bible please. it says its an abomination. if you can't see that your blind to it. We must come out of our sins."
First i refuse your "many" part. There is exactly 6 verses dealing with anything close to that. 3 OT 3 NT verses and thats it. So hardly "many" especially when comparing to other things. Try to find obesity in the bible and than tell again of many.
Second you claim was that "being gay" is wrong according to the bible were thats said. You come back with a verse which describes a sexual act. Sad and predictable but still wrong.
Third following your logic "being heterosexual" is wrong according to the bible because there are verses stating that heterosexual acts are an abomination.
If you can not distinguish between an action and an orientation than please do not call out others. Your self righteousness is evident and an abomination to God according to the bible. Oh and by the way self righteousness attitude is described as wrong 6 times as often in the NT alone compared to homosexual acts. Kind of hilarious considering your claims of "many"....
The eunuchs of the Bible were castrated males or those incapable of reproduction due to a birth defect. A eunuch could be someone who performed work typical of eunuchs, although he remained perfectly capable of having sex i.e., “eunuch” in some cases was simply a title. The purpose of castration was to induce impotence and remove sexuality. It was a common practice in biblical times for rulers to castrate some of there servants and/or advisers in order to subdue and pacify them. It was common to castrate men who tended the royal harem.
Don't see what that has to do with being gay.
The word eunuch in biblical times and in ancient rome does not have the same meaning as we understand it today. Eunuch had a much broader meaning back than compared to today and did not mean "castrated males" or "incapable of reproduction" always.
In ancient Rome law codex as example the term "eunuch" is used to describe a third gender and gives them rights to adopt and marry in case they are "natural eunuchs". In literature throughout Romes time period everyone who was unwilling to marry was as well referred to as eunuch and so on.
Today your description is correct back in biblical times eunuch meant much more than your description.
Interesting, I may add that in the ancient world especially Greece men had sexual relations with young boys and animals. My question is, so?
Exactly the point Raymond.
It is a wrong and silly attempt to use todays definition and meaning of a word or category as the ultimate answer to ancients words and meaning.
To take your example of the greek men who had sex with young boys:
After todays definition we would not "label" these men as homosexuals. They were nearly in all cases married to a women had children with the women and used their servants for same-sex relations. If we state that someone who is married is not a homosexual (like we so often do today) these greek men you talk about would be "heterosexual" men today.
So the point is that one can not use todays definition in all cases onto ancient texts.
BTW I think it is very easy to understand that self centered acts that are not with in the marriage of a man or a women for marriage or procreation are not a part of Gods original design.