YouVersion

Today more than ever we have to recognize that Jesus is the sole authority (maybe that should be soul authority) on maintaining sexual purity.

Especially in today's world where morals are extremely subjective.
Why would Paul have to deal with this in the Bible ??
It was common in those days for men to take multiple wives, of course temple worship was common among the gentiles. Homosexuality was common as was using slaves for sexual gratification.

Of course the Jewish people had lived under a very strict moral law and so it was probably easier for them the maintain Jesus' high standards; however, on the other hand, you take these Gentile pagan converts who had grown up in a sexually immoral, anything goes culture and tell them to stop, that’s quite a different thing.
Aren’t we facing the same thing today? We’re living in a society where sex and sexual imagery is rampant. You can’t turn anywhere without being faced by it. Perhaps for a handful of Christian people who grew up in strict Christian homes, the problem is not so difficult, but that is the exception to the rule. Most of us grew up and have lived around people and ideas and images that have desensitized us to the sexually explicitness of our society.

Schools have taken a more aggressive role in shaping attitudes, and certainly television does. Sometimes our authority is our own lust. We set our moral standards according to what we want to do and how comfortable we are with those things. The problem with all these standards or authorities is that they change. There has to be some authority that transcends all the issues to set the moral standard for our lives, and Jesus Christ is the only authority that can do that.

· Who decides if sex outside of marriage is right or wrong?
· Who decides what a real marriage is?
· Who can say whether homosexuality is wrong?
· Who can rightly decide on issues like abortion?
· What about adultery? Is it wrong? Who says, and in what cases?
· What about incest? What about pedophilia? What about all the fetishes that are running rampant today?
· Who says pornography is bad?
· Who says you can only have one wife or one sex partner?
· Is it wrong for me to lust after a woman? What harm have I done?
· Is rape always wrong? What if the girl was leading the guy on?

You may say those things are wrong, and the next guy says they are right, so who is right? You see, there has to be an authority that transcends you and me, one that transcends time and culture, one that transcends economic status and race barriers, because if there’s not, then anything can and will go.

I don’t care if you’re single or married, if you’re young or old, what your circumstances are, the Bible sets the standard for sexuality for all people in all times and it doesn’t budge.

If you are a believer in Christ you need to take control of your body. It's not really an option. You cannot act with lust like the unbelievers do. This means any form of sexual immorality for a believer in Christ is wrong. From affairs, to fornication, to homosexuality. If you reject this, you are not rejecting a human being but God, thats what 1 Thess 4:8 says.

The Bible has to be our standard. I know in today's liberal, secular society there are many who would advocate that someone cannot help being Gay, he/she is born that way. That's like saying I was born a serial killer or I was born with a pre-disposition to having affairs. It's not really my fault, I was born that way, it's how God made me.
This is not inline with true sound Biblical teaching.

The American Psychological Association (2009) just released a new statement saying that they are unable to prove the existence of a Gay gene. With all their research it seems that people are not born gay.


A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

"Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to 'prove' that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed," Byrd wrote. "The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality."

Byrd said the APA's documents both new and old "have strong activist overtones," but the newer document "is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care."