Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[-Peacemaker-]

I seem to remember someone mentioning that all uses of the word "homosexual" in the NT were added later. Do we really need the author to paint us a picture about what they mean?


Romans 1:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


edit: here it is in post 1014

We are not justifying anything! We are forcing you to look at what your bible - which is supposed to be HOLY to you - ACTUALLY SAYS.

Homosexuality is not focused on in the Bible because it wasn't an issue - Sacred sex WAS focused on because they had a problem with it - the idols were being beought into the Temples, and the Sacred Prostitutes were offering sex there. Such sex is IDOLATRY.

All reference to "homosexuality" was added later as cultural bias - NOT BIBLICAL LAW!

 

[no-body]

I seem to remember someone mentioning that all uses of the word "homosexual" in the NT were added later. Do we really need the author to paint us a picture about what they mean?


Romans 1:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.


edit: here it is in post 1014

All that proves is that Paul was a homophobe and we already knew Paul was a homophobe and misogynist. We don't know what Jesus or God thought about it.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

All that proves is that Paul was a homophobe and we already knew Paul was a homophobe and misogynist. We don't know what Jesus or God thought about it.

Apart from the prescribed punishment, does it really read that much differently from Leviticus?

Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

[no-body]

Apart from the prescribed punishment, does it really read that much differently from Leviticus?

Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

So do you keep kosher and stone people who wear poly blend clothes?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

So do you keep kosher and stone people who wear poly blend clothes?

I'll take that as a "no" to my question. Listen, people can try to undermine the Bible and call its statutes unreasonable. What people can't do is come up with a reasonable Scriptural argument that the God of the Bible approves of sex in contexts other than heterosexual marriage. If you interpret the Bible with integrity, you just can't make a reasonable argument to the contrary.

 

[fantome profane]

I seem to remember someone mentioning that all uses of the word "homosexual" in the NT were added later. Do we really need the author to paint us a picture about what they mean?


Romans 1:

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Does anything in the above describe a loving committed same-sex couple in a long term monogamous relationship?

I see no evidence that any writers of the Bible understood homosexuality. Nor do I see any evidence that you do.

 

[no-body]

I'll take that as a "no" to my question. Listen, people can try to undermine the Bible and call its statutes unreasonable. What people can't do is come up with a reasonable Scriptural argument that the God of the Bible approves of sex in contexts other than heterosexual marriage. It just isn't there.

That's fine, just realize why people abandon Christianity in droves and want nothing to do with your backwards fundamentalist cult.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Does anything in the above describe a loving committed same-sex couple in a long term monogamous relationship?

I see no evidence that any writers of the Bible understood homosexuality. Nor do I see any evidence that you do.

This simply constitutes one of an infinite number of possible loopholes or special circumstances that advocates of this position may try to argue exist due to the claim that the writers weren't enlightened in their "primitive" way of thinking. Again, it's a non issue for those interested in interpreting the Bible with integrity.

 

[no-body]

This simply constitutes one of an infinite number of possible loopholes or special circumstances that advocates of this position may try to argue exist due to the claim that the writers weren't enlightened in their "primitive" way of thinking. Again, it's a non issue for those interested in interpreting the Bible with integrity.

Or maybe if the bible where the literal word of God it would be absolutely plain to anybody from any background and there would be no need for translations much less interpretations.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Or maybe if the bible where the literal word of God it would be absolutely plain to anybody from any background and there would be no need for translations much less interpretations.

These verses along with all the NT references seem pretty clear to me. I see no qualifying remark that says "...unless the two men are committed to each other in a monogamous relationship" added to the end of these commands.



Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Apart from the prescribed punishment,...

Why ignore the punishments proscribed by God?

 

[no-body]

These verses along with all the NT references seem pretty clear to me. I see no qualifying remark that says "...unless the two men are committed to each other in a monogamous relationship" added to the end of these commands.



Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Oh OK so it's all 100% plain so do you keep kosher, stone people who use poly blend clothes and do you keep long hair and a beard and stone other men who don't?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Why ignore the punishments proscribed by God?

I recognize that even the OT ackowledged its own inferiority. I believe Jesus is the fullfillment of the promise of a new covenant and with that comes a new and improved standard of behavior. Among that new standard that Jesus instituted are thing such as "turning the other cheek" as opposed to taking revenge on someone as well as leaving the job of punishing sins to God instead of stoning people ourselves. Jesus however did not attempt to supercede the 10 commandments which would include the behavior in question (under idolotry). As far as the kosher stuff, the apostles came together in Acts and agreed that God was not calling the gentiles to become totally Jewish. For the sake of us gentiles I hope they were right hehehe..

31“The time is coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband tod them,e”
declares the Lord.

 

[fantome profane]

This simply constitutes one of an infinite number of possible loopholes or special circumstances that advocates of this position may try to argue exist due to the claim that the writers weren't enlightened in their "primitive" way of thinking. Again, it's a non issue for those interested in interpreting the Bible with integrity.

It is a non-issue for people who insist in using ancient writings to support their own personal bigotries.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So which OT laws are valid, and which are to be dismissed?
Just food prohibitilns and stonings?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Here's Jesus declaring that all foods are clean

Mark 7:

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’f”</SPAN>
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?”</SPAN> he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.”</SPAN> (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
20He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,</SPAN> 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.</SPAN> 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

 

[Ingledsva]

Origin of SODOMY

Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11
First Known Use: 13th century
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Merriam-Webster online dictionary[/FONT]

LOL! You have your answer in what you posted - FIRST KNOW USE: 13TH CENTURY (1201 to 1300)!!!!! Thousands of years later!

Later idiots turned it into sex - the "tradition" rather then FACT - that I talked about earlier.

You have been shown the texts that tell us what Sodom's sins were - HOMOSEXUALITY isn't listed!

You have been shown that YHVH uses it in 18 - Obviously he isn't wanting sex with the people of Sodom -

How are you logically left with the sin of Sodom being homosexuality????

 

[Ingledsva]

Important to note;
First Known Use: 13 Century.

So, are we talking Anlo-French, or what the Bible says the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were?

Yep, thousands of years - and wrong theology - later.

 

[NIX]

yes...

15Nothing outside a man can make him &#8216;unclean&#8217; by going into him. ...evils come from inside and make a man &#8216;unclean.&#8217;&#8221;

How fitting.

 

[Ingledsva]

Right thats why Lot said I have two daughters who have not known a man, take my daughters instead and do to them as you wish

As a PURE offering - a sacrifice - in place of the angels.

“asah” (H6213) which also means sacrifice, is used in 19:8 where he tries to give his daughters - (and do) to them as you see fit.
In other words -...and sacrifice them if you see fit.
And I might add - why would he offer his virgin DAUGHTERS to a supposed HOMOSEXUAL male crowd that wants sex with the men????
Think about that.