Jaguars associate strength ach Kev Maxen out as gay a first for US-based pro leagu | AP News

Contents:

• “7 BIBLE QUOT SUPPORTG GAY RELATNSHIPS”
• KEV MAXEN BE FIRST MALE ACH A US MEN’S PROFSNAL SPORTS LEAGUE TO PUBLICLY E OUT AS GAY
• JAGS' MAXEN IS FIRST MALE AMERIN PRO SPORTS ACH TO E OUT AS GAY
• JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS ACH OUT AS GAY
• JAGUARS ASSOCIATE STRENGTH ACH KEV MAXEN OUT AS GAY A FIRST FOR US-BASED PRO LEAGU
• BIBLIL PASSAG TO SUPPORT A BISEXUAL OR GAY BROTHER
• WHY HAVE SO MANY CHRISTIANS AND CHURCH BEE PRO-GAY?
• JAGUARS ASSOCIATE STRENGTH COACH KEV MAXEN COM OUT AS GAY A FIRST FOR US-BASED PRO LEAGU

“7 BIBLE QUOT SUPPORTG GAY RELATNSHIPS”

I hate to wre another blog post on any homosexual issu, but breaks my heart when I see thoands of people watchg and sharg ntent that furthers the misnceptn that God is alright wh homosexual relatnships. Per Outsports, Maxen is the “first publicly out male ach a major Amerin men’s pro sports league, ” wh WNBA ach Curt Miller, who publicly me out to the media as gay 2015, also a publicly out male ach an Amerin profsnal sports league.

KEV MAXEN BE FIRST MALE ACH A US MEN’S PROFSNAL SPORTS LEAGUE TO PUBLICLY E OUT AS GAY

-- Jaguars assistant strength and ndng ach Kev Maxen has bee the first male ach major Amerin men's profsnal sports to publicly e out as gay, tellg he ma the cisn bee he didn't want to hi who he is any longer and to possibly spire others siar 's a cisn and move that drew praise and support om owner Shad Khan, who was a vol and emphatic supporter of a cy ordance that expand protectns on the grounds of sexual orientatn, genr inty and genr exprsn. Our Christian hearts, ns the (ually impassned) argument, pel to grant full moral and legal equaly to gay and lbian people; our Christian fah, the (ually impassned) rebuttal, pels to cleave, above all, to the word of God.

JAGS' MAXEN IS FIRST MALE AMERIN PRO SPORTS ACH TO E OUT AS GAY

All tak is readg those passag of the Bible where homosexualy is mentned wh the same re we would any other passage of the n tst God; we n tst that God is we n tst that we n -- and that we certaly should -- take God, this matter, as all thgs, at his there is no clearly stated directive the Bible to margalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians ntug to do so is morally fensible, and mt nnot be nied is that Christians have ed a great al of pa and sufferg to gay persons, by:Banng their participatn the church, th privg them of the forts and spirual us of the church;Banng their participatn the sacrament of marriage, th privg them of the forts and spirual us of marriage;Damagg the bonds between gays and their straight fay members, th weakeng the forts and spirual us of fay life for both gays and their fai; andUsg their posn wh society as spokpersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relatns are disdaed by God, th knowgly ntributg to the cel persecutn of a mory populatn. They say that the Bible f all homosexual acts as sful, stcts them to exclu om full participatn the church all non-repentant sners (cludg gay people), and morally lls upon them to publicly (or at least rolutely) nounce homosexual acts.

Whout an explic directive om God to exclu and nmn homosexuals, the Christian muny's treatment of gay persons is clear vlatn of what J and the New Ttament wrers potedly intified as the most important mandment om God: to love one's neighbor as one's gay muny has cried out for jtice to Christians, who have a biblilly mandated obligatn to be jt. Heterosexual Christians are beg unbiblil by g the clobber passag as jtifitn for applyg absolute standards of moraly to homosexual "ss" that they themselv are not tempted to m, while at the same time acceptg for themselv a standard of relative moraly for those ss listed the clobber passag that they do routely m.

) The fact that homosexualy is so rarely mentned the Bible should be an ditn to of the gree of importance ascribed by the thors of the the Bible is nearly silent on homosexualy, a great al of s ntent is voted to how a Christian should behave. If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to terme the sfulns of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligatn to look to the Bible to terme the sfulns of their behavr toward gay persons, pecially light of the gay muny's ll to them for jtice? And so Christians accept as evable that any given Christian will, for stance, on ocsn drk too much, lt or tell a we've seen, the clobber passag Pl also nmns, along wh homosexualy, those three specific ss.

JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS ACH OUT AS GAY

Christians draw no moral distctn between the homosexual gang rape the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the i to which Pl refers his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Pl addrs 1 Corthians, and nsensual homosexual sex between lovg and mted homosexual partners.

Heterosexual Christians are beg unfair and hypocril by g the clobber passag as jtifitn for applyg absolute standards of moraly (and an absolute penalty) to homosexual "ss" that they themselv are never tempted to m, while at the same time acceptg for themselv a standard of relative moraly (and applyg no real penalty) for those ss listed the clobber passag that they do routely there is no monstrable harm arisg om sex wh a mted homosexual relatnship, and there is signifint monstrable harm arisg om discrimatn and nmnatn agast gay persons, what possible biblil basis n there be for not regnizg the vast moral differential between sex acts done wh the ntext of a lovg mted relatnship, and sex acts of any other sort? We would be foolish to fail to unrstand that not everythg the Bible is a mandment, and that Christians nnot take any small sectn of the Bible out of s own ntext, and still hope to ga a clear unrstandg of s the four Old Ttament passag to nmn all homosexual acts is not keepg wh any directive om God, nor wh the practic of ntemporary Bible's first four mentns of homosexualy occur the Old ntug to be spirually spired and fluenced by the Old Ttament, Christians were specifilly stcted by Pl not to follow the law of the Old Ttament, such passag as:The former regulatn is set asi bee was weak and els (for the law ma nothg perfect), and a better hope is troduced, by which we draw near to God.

Therefore, the e of the four Old Ttament passag to nmn all homosexual acts is keepg wh neher any directive om God, nor wh the practic of ntemporary the clobber passag Pl nmns the ercive, excsive and predatory same-sex sexual activy practiced by the Romans -- and would have nmned the same acts had they been heterosexual nature. It's also why the Bible is no longer ed to jtify the cel stutn of slavery, or to ny women the right to as those thoughts and unrstandgs of the New Ttament changed and grew, so today is beg creasgly clear to Christians that the three New Ttament clobber passag (each of which was wrten by Pl letters to or about nascent distant church), when unrstood their historil ntext, do not nstute a directive om God agast LGBT people are the three mentns of homosexualy the New Ttament:Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not her the kgdom of God?

JAGUARS ASSOCIATE STRENGTH ACH KEV MAXEN OUT AS GAY A FIRST FOR US-BASED PRO LEAGU

--1 Corthians 6:9-10We also know that the law is ma not for the righteo but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sful, the unholy and irrelig, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murrers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicg homosexualy, for slave trars and liars and perjurers -- and for whatever else is ntrary to the sound doctre. --Romans 1:26-27In the tim durg which the New Ttament was wrten, the Roman nquerors of the regn equently and openly engaged homosexual acts between olr men and boys, and between men and their male slav.

As a moral man, Pl was revolted by the acts -- as, certaly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual Bible's clobber passag were wrten about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not addrs the subject of homosexual acts between a mted gay uple, bee the ncept of a person beg a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was is also cril to our readg of the New Ttament's three clobber passag to unrstand that while of urse Pl knew about sex acts that took place between persons of the same genr, he had no ncept whatsoever of homosexual persons. Pl had no ncept of an entire populatn of people who, as a fundamental, unalterable ndn of their existence, were sexually attracted to persons of the same genr, and not sexually attracted to persons of the oppose is the openg of the OCD's article on homosexualy:"No Greek or Lat word rrponds to the morn term 'homosexualy, ' and ancient Mederranean society did not practice treat homosexualy as a socially operatg tegory of personal or public life. Sexual relatns between persons of the same sex certaly did occur (they are wily attted ancient sourc), but they were not systematilly distguished or nceptualized as such, much ls were they thought to reprent a sgle, homogeneo phenomenon ntradistctn to sexual relatns between persons of different sex....

BIBLIL PASSAG TO SUPPORT A BISEXUAL OR GAY BROTHER

Bee there was no ncept of gay marriage when the Bible was wrten, the Bible do not, and uld not, addrs the sfulns of homosexual acts done wh the ntext of gay Bible routely, clearly and strongly classifi all sex acts outsi of the bonds of marriage as sful. Christians therefore have no biblil basis for themselv nmng such fact, by nyg marriage equaly to gay people, Christians are pellg gay upl to s, bee their timacy mt happen outsi of marriage, and is therefore, by biblil fn, personally repelled by homosexual sex don't make homosexual sex a addn to the Bible, many Christians ce as addnal evince of the herent sfulns of homosexual acts their raw emotnal rponse to such acts. Taken altogether, the evince -- the social ntext which the Bible was wrten, the lack of the very ncept of gay people Pl's time, the abily of gay people to marry, the equy between how the clobber passag are applied between a majory and a mory populatn, the jtice of the punishment for a state of beg over which one has no choice beg excln om God's church on earth and human love generally -- shows that choosg to nmn and exclu gay people based on the Bible is the morally rrect choice.

God ma to be relatnship wh Him and wh each other: " is bad for man to be alone" (Genis 2:18) It would be nsistent wh God’s lovg nature to create people who were gay and then nmn them to a life of lonels. “ and “We also know that the law is ma not for the righteo but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sful, the unholy and irrelig, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murrers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicg homosexualy,... ” Matthew addrs the great number of Jewish laws and prophetic teachgs — cludg those that many nsir to nmn homosexualy — by makg clear that the overarchg mand of a fahful life is love: love of God, and love of neighbor.

There are others who believe, effect, that the Bible says NOTHING about homosexualy as an orientatn and that those passag that refer to homosexual behavr are not speakg about lovg, nsensual relatnships, but abive and idolatro behavr. And now, precisely bee you are so close, bee of your mon experienc through the universy and aterny, bee your iend tsts and feels safe wh you, bee he embrac the same valu you do, such as honty and tth, he nfis you that he is gay. Ju 7; 2 Pet 2:6-10]; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11), if "rightly" unrstood, are eher ambiguo, irrelevant to ntemporary homosexual practice, or refer to perasty or cultic prostutn.

WHY HAVE SO MANY CHRISTIANS AND CHURCH BEE PRO-GAY?

2 Pet 1:20-21), then “ is unthkable that God--who is no rpecter of persons--would be so rels as to offer no guidance His revealed Word to the thoands of homosexuals He knew would exist throughout time, if ed their relatnships were legimate His sight. They never ma the fe distctns ced by today's pro-homosexual advot bee there is no validy to recent distctns between the homosexual act and the ndn, the latter beg somethg about which homosexuals allegedly have no choice.

The suggtn here is that bee of one’s homosexual orientatn (believed to be ed by one’s gen or other blogil and environmental factors) one has no choice and, therefore, should not be held morally rponsible for actg out. In the ntext of today’s discsn of homosexualy, the word orientatn is ed to note a person’s sexual bent, proclivy, tenncy, clatn, attractn, ame of md, or sir believed to have been ed by geic, blogil, or environmental . Rightly unrstood, homosexual orientatn refers to one’s md-set, not an hered tra over which a person has no choice: In the Bible, the e for all vlatns agast the dive standard is ultimately traceable to the md-set of the dividual: is subordated to the will of God?

JAGUARS ASSOCIATE STRENGTH COACH KEV MAXEN COM OUT AS GAY A FIRST FOR US-BASED PRO LEAGU

But for such rape to have volved "all the men of the cy, both young and old" (Gen 19:4), homosexual activy mt have been monly practiced--one reason why Ju rerds that their "fornitn, and gog after strange flh are set forth [ Scripture] for an example [and warng unto ]" (Ju 7). They reason that the prohibn of sexual terurse wh a woman durg her menstal flow (Lev 18:19) shows that the prohibn agast homosexual terurse, which closely follows the text (18:22) was ceremonial nature.

Rponse to Argument #18: First, if the passag nmn homosexualy only bee of s associatn wh idolatry, then would logilly follow that other practic mentned the passag--ct, adultery, polygamy, btialy, and child sacrifice--are also nmned as sful only bee of their associatn wh idolatry.

Conversely, if ct, adultery, polygamy, btialy, etc., are morally objectnable regardls of their nnectn wh pagan practic, then homosexualy is also morally wrong, regardls of the ntext which is practiced. “In Romans 1:26-27 Pl do not nmn dividuals who are homosexuals by nature; rather, he refers to idolatro heterosexuals who have 'changed their nature' by mtg homosexual acts” Acrdg to this argument, the real s nmned by Pl is two-fold: (I) the changg of what is natural to a person to what is unnatural, and (ii) homosexualy mted by people who worship imag, not God.