Homosexuality and the Bible

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
You are babbling David.
Are you MAD bro?

The other night I was in David's Bar, 807 SW Adams St., Peoria Ill. I'll bet I was within 10 miles of our resident "Crime Against Humanity" David Moore.

Does anyone know the names of the gay bars David hangs out in?

Reverend Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
The other night I was in David's Bar, 807 SW Adams St., Peoria Ill. I'll bet I was within 10 miles of our resident "Crime Against Humanity" David Moore.
Does anyone know the names of the gay bars David hangs out in?

try all of them , your bound to find him in one of them .!

Lew David Moore Pekin Ill wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you reject the Bible with its many contradictions of all homosexual behavior,

Believing in the Bible is something you should be ashamed of David. Christianity is an abomination, a crime against humanity and if there was a God it would wipe it from the face of the earth.

Since there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as God's Word.

Do you have any idea how stupid you make yourself look when you pretend we should take the Bible [which for you is 6 contradictory verses] seriously?

THE OLD BORNGAY wrote:

<quoted text>
try all of them , your bound to find him in one of them .!

David does have a wide selection of gay bars etc. to selected to spend time in very close to Pekin Ill. I think there are over a dozen. And of course should he drive to Chicago...

Lew wrote:

<quoted text>You cannot give a rational answer. Just admit it.

And you can't stop trying to hurt people. You really are a bad evil person David. Your presence here keeps us from having any rational discussion because you troll everything posted repeating your stupid Bible quotes.

Why do you force yourself into where you are not welcome?

I assure you you are not welcome here, all you do is ruin the fun others try to have.

And too many of us are too weak to just ignore you. Someone always waltz's in and replies to your nonsense and it makes you appear you are debating something. You aren't. The Bible is not qualified to tell us about homosexuality or anything for that matter.

Reverend Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
Believing in the Bible is something you should be ashamed of David. Christianity is an abomination, a crime against humanity and if there was a God it would wipe it from the face of the earth.
Since there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as God's Word.
Do you have any idea how stupid you make yourself look when you pretend we should take the Bible [which for you is 6 contradictory verses] seriously?

You know he is just going to slap your post with one of his cookie cutter copy & paste scraptures!

Reverend Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
Believing in the Bible is something you should be ashamed of David. Christianity is an abomination, a crime against humanity and if there was a God it would wipe it from the face of the earth.
Since there is no such thing as God, there is no such thing as God's Word.
Do you have any idea how stupid you make yourself look when you pretend we should take the Bible [which for you is 6 contradictory verses] seriously?

If you aren't interested in the topic here, get thee hence.

You of course can show nothing contradictory about the Bible's statements on homosexuality. They are entirely condemning and prohibiting of all homosexual behavior, repeatedly in both Testaments.

Lew wrote:

<quoted text>If you aren't interested in the topic here, get thee hence.
You of course can show nothing contradictory about the Bible's statements on homosexuality. They are entirely condemning and prohibiting of all homosexual behavior, repeatedly in both Testaments.

why? you have no interest in it...

get thee hence.. YER A NUT!

Reverend Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
I see that Miss Thing has moved back to Pekin Ill. Damn, take a month off and just look at all the surprises our resident looney tune presents us with.

Indeed.

THE OLD BORNGAY wrote:

<quoted text>
why? you have no interest in it...
get thee hence.. YER A NUT!

You seem to not know what the topic here is:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)- "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

Lew wrote:

<quoted text>If you aren't interested in the topic here, get thee hence.
You of course can show nothing contradictory about the Bible's statements on homosexuality. They are entirely condemning and prohibiting of all homosexual behavior, repeatedly in both Testaments.

Well Gee, Miss thing, if you say it it must be true since you bothered to take the time to write it all out like you did.

You are living proof that human beings do not see their own faults and the faults they report in others are their own, we see a reflection in others what is the truth about ourselves.

Clearly you do not want to discuss homosexuality and the Bible. Quoting 6 verses repeatedly just to upset the unsuspecting is not a discussion. You are a hoax and a fraud as is your Bible and stupid religion.

Christianity is an abomination and a crime against humanity. You David, are an abomination, a retarded on at that. You always bring this discussion down to name calling and nothing ever moves on. Which is why I left for a month or so, only to return and find that you still run the show here because people are unable to ignore you.

How proud you must be for how much pain and suffering you cause in this group and the world. It is a sad day that anyone replies to you. And I say that about when I reply to you. talk about wasting my time!

No discussion of devious activity with respect to biblical figures would be complete without an extensive analysis of Paul. If, in fact, Paul wrote the Epistles, then no individual, other than Jesus, has had greater influence on the development of Christianity. Yet, his tendency to operate on expediency was unexcelled. He often made false statements, misquoted, and proved himself unworthy of trust. The following examples are only a fracttion of those available.

In 1 Cor. 2:8 Paul said: "Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." What princes crucified Jesus? He was killed by a mob and some soldiers.

In Col. 1:23 Paul said: "...from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." Come now, Paul. At no time has every living person heard the gospel. Indeed, millions of people have come and gone without having had any contact whatever with the Bible.

One of the great misquotes of Paul is found in Acts 20:35 where he says: "...ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus make such a statement. Paul's oratory apparently got away from him.

Paul, like Jesus, often ignored his own advice. For example, in Rom. 12:14 he said: "Bless them which persecute you: bless and curse not." Yet, in Acts 23:3 he denounced someone by saying: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall."

In 1 Thess. 2:3 Paul says: "For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you." Yet, in 2 Cor. 12:16 he said: "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery.

In 1 Cor. 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient." The allegedly moral Paul views himself as being a law unto himself. A different kind of problem is found in 1 Cor. 15:5, where Paul says: "And that he (Jesus) was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve." If true, this would mean there were 13 apostles, unless Peter was not an apostle.

In 1 Cor. 10:8 Paul referred to a plague described in the Book of Numbers. He Stated: "...and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." Yet, Num. 25:9 clearly says the number was 24,000. "And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand (Numbers 25:9)."

More will be said later about Paul's shortcomings.

In The Bible Has the Answer, apologist Henry Morris of the Creation Research Society in San Diego, California, attempted to justify the role assigned to women by the Bible. Never one to mince words, he confronted the issue head-on, by stating at the outset: "Some go so far as accusing the Bible of perpetuating female bondage through its archaic teachings. This unfortunate charge is ironic, for the Bible alone offers the only true freedom for women or men. While pagan cultures contemporary with Old Testament Israel treated women as the lowest form of chattel property, the Bible exalts women who found fulfillment in many ways. For instance, Hannah's life centered on her family (1 Sam. 1-2); Miriam excelled as a prophetess (Ex. 15:20); Deborah achieved greatness as a judge, military leader and poet (Judges 5); Esther successfully led her people through intriguing political conspiracies (Esther 4-7); and Naomi and Ruth sold real estate (Ruth4:3-9). Women aided in the defence of Thebez, an unnamed woman turned the tide of that battle against the wicked aggressor, Abimelech (Judges 9:50-55)." (The Bible has the Answer, Henry Morris, p. 239-240). The weakness of Morris's position lies in the fact that the individuals selected not only have minor roles in the overall biblical scheme of things, but have been inaccurately portrayed. The biblical descriptions associated with each of those cited don't exalt women as much as they describe their actions. Hannah was a maid. She wasn't exalted but merely wanted to become pregnant. Miriam didn't prophesy anything; she merely played a timbrel and sang (RSV). Deborah was a judge, but nowhere does it say she was out of the ordinary. She wasn't a military leader either; she merely gave some advice to one. Esther's role resembled that of a soap-opera heroine rather than a leader of her people. Naomi not only sold real estate, but sold Ruth as well!(This was an exceptionally poor example for Morris to chose). And the unnamed woman merely killed the attacking general; she didn't turn the tide of battle, like Samson with a jawbone. The groping-for-straws aspect of Morris's examples only highlights the rather pathetic portrayal of women by the Bible. Two of the most famous biblical women, Eve and Mary, are assigned less than commanding roles. Eve is given the distinction of having brought sin into the world, hardly a worthy role-model, while Mary was little more than a conduit for Jesus' entry. As this month's Commentary showed, there is no basis whatever for Morris's contention that "the Bible alone offers the only true freedom for women." Indeed, the evidence clearly proves the contrary. Can he produce one biblical verse that exalts or elevates womanhood per se, that is, without making the elevation dependent upon the performance of an act of subservience? Morris continues: "Furthermore, there are no distinctions of sex regarding salvation by faith in Christ or one's position before God (Ibid. p. 240)".

to be continued...

Henry Morris...

Although the Bible doesn't appear to make a distinction between males and females with regard to who is "saved," it clearly makes a distinction with regard to one's gender before God. Morris attempts to downplay the force of Paul's admonitions by quoting 1 Cor. 11:3, which states: "Within the Christian home, the man is the head of the woman (Ibid. p. 240)." But 1 Cor. 11:3 says nothing about a home, Christian or otherwise. Male superiority is not restricted to home; males are superior as shown by: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3)." Morris continues with: "Yet, the husband violates the Bible's instruction if he treats his wife as an inferior (Ibid. p.240)" and states this is found in 1 Cor. 11:11-12. In truth, the latter merely states man is born from a woman; nowhere is the husband told not to treat his wife as inferior. Morris's apologetic continues with an eye opener: "The wife has no less important or exalted a position than the husband, but hers is not as head of the home. Subjection, in Scripture, does not carry the connotation of inferiority (Ibid. p. 240)." How could subjection not mean inferiority? To prove this point, Morris quotes Eph. 5:22-25, which proves precisely the opposite! Wives are to be subject to their husbands: "the husband is head of his wife (Eph. 5:23)" clearly putting her in an inferior position. Morris then moves his apologetic to another defense with: "As in the home, so in the local church, women have a definable role (Ibid. p. 240)." It certainly couldn't amount to much in light of 1 Cor. 14:34, which says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Morris attributes their demotion to Eve's duplicity. "The prohibition against women in church leadership seems to come as a judicial result from Eve's complicity in the first sin in Eden (Ibid. p. 241)." In other words, women are being denied leadership roles today because of what Eve did years ago. The innocent are being punished for what an ancestor did long ago. Again shifting the focus, Morris states: "Some have even called Paul an antiquated sexist, and have implied that his teachings on women's roles reflect his own sexual insecurity and misinformation. Obviously, those making such charges have a very low view of Scripture (Ibid. p. 241)." Regardless of what view critics may have of Scripture, where are they wrong in this analysis? Unless Morris has evidence to the contrary, he should not laugh off this view. It could be correct. Morris concludes his apologetic with a comment that merits little serious consideration: "The Bible does not prohibit women from enjoying equal opportunity legally, socially, or economically, nor does the Bible require Christian women to be submissive to all men (Ibid. p. 242)." To this, one can only say, Don't be absurd, of course it does. "...women should feel perfect liberty to take positions of authority over men in professional, business, or social contexts (Ibid.)." Before making this statement Morris should have read 1 Tim. 2:12, which says: " permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent (RSV)." Virtually every aspect of Morris's apologetic is in direct opposition to biblical teachings.

Lew Pekin Ill wrote:

<quoted text>You seem to not know what the topic here is:

pot/kettle

In 508 Answers to Bible Questions (p. 120-121) M.R. DeHaan addresses the problems created by Mark 16:15-18, which alleges believers can take up serpents, drink any deadly thing, and cure the sick by laying on of hands.
This, of course, is a rather difficult passage, but I believe that when we learn to rightly divide the Word of truth, we should have no difficulty at all. I believe that verses 15 and 16 are a general commission which the Lord Jesus Christ gave unto us for this entire dispensation (or era--Ed.). However, verses 17 and 18, which have to do with the signs of the apostleship, were for a particular period only.... After the canon of Scripture was completed and all the books of the New Testament had been written, God expects us to believe His promises rather than to look for signs and miracles, so we believe that today signs and miracles as recorded in the 16th chapter of Mark are past....
DeHaan claims the believer's ability to pick up serpents and drink any deadly thing pertained to the period of the apostles only, although there is nothing to justify this assumption. Where is the evidence? He says "we believe," but there is no scriptual support for his belief. Where does the Bible say that the powers granted in Mark 16:16-18 applied only to people at that time? DeHaan proceeds with, "Whenever it pleases the Lord to perform these miracles or to give these gifts, He is still able to do so (Ibid. p.121)." We aren't discussing the Lord's ability to take up serpents and drink poison; we are discussing the ability of believers to do so, and the difficulty of finding someone who has been given these gifts. DeHaan then states, "I do not believe that we ought to tempt God by taking up rattlesnakes or by drinking poison just in order to test the word of God. That is presumption; and is tempting the Almighty and God cannot be tempted....nothing pleases Him more than when His children are willing to trust His word and His promise without any other evidence whatsoever (Ibid. p. 121)." How is one tempting God by merely asking believers to drink any deadly thing? During a 4-hour appearance on WING Radio (Dayton, Ohio) on June 4 1984, the editor of BE was accused of tempting God by asking callers to prove Mark 16. Is the Bible so sacrosanct as to be above testing? That's hard to believe, since the Book, itself, says, "Prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21)" and proof is al that was sought. DeHaan concludes, "If Mark 16:15-18 is all for us, then it must always succeed, and such is not the case, as you will soon find out, if you drink poison and handle snakes (Ibid. 121-22)." The promise fails not because Mark is speaking only to those in the apostolic age, but because the verse is simply false.

On page 111 in 508 Answers to Biblical Questions DeHaan was asked if faith can literally move mountains, as taught in Matthew 17:20 ("If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible to you"). He responded with, "Yes, I believe with all my heart that if we had enough faith we would be able to move literal mountains if it was for the glory of God. Of course, we must remember that merely moving mountains for the sake of making a demonstration is not pleasing to the Lord, but if it is to His glory and for the help of others, I believe it would be possible." In order to escape from the dilemma presented, DeHaan utilized some common ploys. First, he discussed a verse which has a qualifier--the faith must be as a grain of mustard seed. If the wish fails, apologists can always say the faith did not measure up to the proviso. Why didn't he address Mark 9:23 ("If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth"), John 14:12 ("He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do"), and Matt. 21:21, which has no provisos, which says one only have faith, period. Second, surely any believer would have as much faith as a grain of mustard seed since the latter is so small. So why can't all believers move mountains? Third, where do any of these verses say it can't be done unless it is for the glory of God? This gratuitous qualifier is unsupported by anything in the text. Fourth, why does DeHaan assume people only want to make "a demonstration" by moving mountains? Perhaps some believers really do want some mountains moved. Are we to believe that it could be done by faith? Fifth, where does the Bible say a demonstration would not be pleasing to the Lord? Doesn't it say, "Prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21)"? And lastly, where do any of these verses say it must be done for God's glory and to aid others? The verses say you can move mountains if you believe. Limitations aren't even mentioned.

When asked if we can receive anything we want if we follow Matt. 18:19-20 RSV ("if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them") DeHaan said, "Jesus here is speaking about the ministry of believers, especially in the assembly. If we ask anything in the name of the Lord Jesus and agree with some other believer and trust the Lord, He gives us what we ask for upon condition; namely, that we ask according to His will (Ibid. p. 112)." Leaving aside the fact that the quotation says nothing about asking "in the name of Lord Jesus" or having to "trust in the Lord," the key question remains unanswered. Where is a condition attached? Where does the verse say anything about asking according to God's will?

Matt. 18:19-20 RSV ("if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them")

Why can't any two people in this forum gather together with Jesus and ask God to break both of David Moore's hands so that he can no longer type?

Or is Jesus lying to us again?

Traditional Position:
Paul views homosexuality as a symptom of fallen humanity, describing it as unnatural and unseemly.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:
Paul is not describing true homosexuals; rather, he is referring to heterosexuals who, as he says "exchanged natural relations." The real sin here is in changing what is natural to the individual. Boswell takes this argument up when he states:

The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatize persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on.[82]

Mollenkott agrees, saying, "What Paul seems to be emphasizing here is that persons who are heterosexual by nature have not only exchanged the true God for a false one but have also exchanged their ability to relate to the opposite sex by indulging in homosexual behavior that is not natural to them."[83]

In short, Paul in Romans 1 describes heterosexuals who have deliberately committed homosexual acts, thus violating their true nature. Homosexuality, if committed by true homosexuals, is not a sin.

Response:
Paul is not speaking nearly so subjectively in this passage. There is nothing in his wording to suggest he even recognized such a thing as a "true" homosexual versus a "false" one. He simply describes homosexual behavior as unnatural, no matter who it is committed by.

His wording, in fact, is unusually specific. When he refers to "men" and "women" in these verses, he chooses the Greek words that most emphasize biology: arsenes and theleias. Both words are rarely used in the New Testament. When they do appear, they appear in verses meant to emphasize the gender of the subject, as in a male child (arsenes). In this context, Paul is very pointedly saying the homosexual behavior committed by these people was unnatural to them as males and females (arsenes and theleias). He is not considering any such thing as sexual orientation. He is saying, in other words, that homosexuality is biologically unnatural-not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Additionally, the fact these men were "burning in lust" for each other makes it highly unlikely they were heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality. Their behavior was born of an intense inner desire. Suggesting, as Boswell and Mollenkott do, that they were heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior requires unreasonable mental gymnastics.

Besides which, if verses 26-27 condemn homosexual actions committed by people to whom they did not come naturally, but do not apply to people to whom those actions do come naturally, then does not consistency compel us to also allow the practices mentioned in verses 29-30-fornication, backbiting, deceit, etc.-so long as the people who commit them are people to whom they do come naturally?
http://www.ex odu sglobalalliance.org/respondingtoprogaytheolog...

Pro-Gay Argument #2:
This scripture describes people given over to idolatry, not gay Christians who worship the true God.

Perry states:
The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1: 24- 27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different than loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.[84]

Response:
Idolatry certainly plays a major role in Romans Chapter One. Paul begins his writing by describing humanity's rebellion and decision to worship creation rather than the Creator. The pro-gay theorist seizes on this concept to prove that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality does not apply to him-he does not worship idols, he is a Christian.

"But," Schmidt cautions, "Paul is not suggesting that a person worships an idol and decides therefore to engage in same-sex relations. Rather, he is suggesting that the general rebellion created the environment for the specific rebellion. A person need not bow before a golden calf to participate in the general human denial of God or to express that denial through specific behaviors."[85]

A common sense look at the entire chapter bears this out. Several sins other than homosexuality are mentioned in the same passage:

Fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers; backbiters, haters of God, disobedient to parents....(vv 29-30)

Will the interpretation applied to the verse 26-27 also apply to verses 29-30? Any sort of intellectual integrity demands it. If verses 26-27 apply to people who commit homosexual acts in connection with idolatry, and thus homosexuals acts are not sinful if not committed in connection with idolatry, then the same must apply to verses 29-30 as well.

Therefore, we must assume that fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness et al are also condemned by Paul only because they were committed by people involved in idolatry; they are permissible otherwise.

Which is, of course, ridiculous. Like homosexuality, these sins are not just born of idol worship; they are symptomatic of a fallen state. If we are to say homosexuality is legitimate, so long as it's not a result of idol worship, then we also have to say these other sins are legitimate as well, so long as they, too, are not practiced as a result of idolatry.
ibid

Paul and 'Arsenokoite' 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ['abusers of themselves with mankind']... will inherit the kingdom of God.