Christians, gays and bullying

I never quote Leviticus, it is just as clearly stated in the New Testament, and again, we are under the new. Paul was told that we dont have to worry about the food regulations anymore. But you both missed my most important point. Homosexuality is a sin, GOD CAME TO SAVE SINNERS. and I feel no shame for standing up for my Faith, my God has been good to me.

Wait so you are saying "Leviticus wasn't wrong, his book just isn't right anymore" ?

What I'm saying is this, homosexuality is still a sin in the Church age and there is no way anyone can dispute that because it is in the New testament which is directed specifically at the Church.. a lot of the old laws have "been fulfilled" meaning that I get to eat what I want, and dont have to sacrifice things. Though I still cant have sex before marriage, be given to drunkenness or lie because these things are still applicable to the Church age.

Nice try

Homosexuals can not reproduce! Homosexuality is an expression of an emotionally hurting person. Non one is gay or the wrong gender. There is male and female. Thats it. Why should society have to accept someone's psychosis?

Homosexuality is not a choice. Read and look at the image: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

I have good friends who have left their homosexual lifestyle and are pleased to be walking in various degrees of freedom from this behaviour. Not all are married or 100% free from the emotional entanglements of there past behavior, while some are happily married to someone from the opposite sex. This is the biggest lie going, orientation is not a choice, but your behavior is! We become what we do! The games up!

The only reason there are emotional 'entanglements' are because of how frowned-upon homosexuality is. If people accepted it, they could be their natural selves without bullying and such from others. I also have good friends who are homosexual - one couple has been together for 20+ years and are as happy as a couple can get.

Freedom is being who you are - not trying to force yourself to be someone you're not. Forcing yourself to be heterosexual when you're not is the opposite of freedom.

Lol! Which animals? I yet to see a bull doing it with a bull and not a cow. Please ugrade my biological database

What about sleeping with your sister or mom? Anything wrong?

Please don´t ever correct your kids let them be who they are! Lol!

Right... actually homosexuals are not natural humans, they are fabricated cyborgs! I once visited their factory assembly line... yikes!

Dogs do it all the time you silly little boy!

..and molesting children is perfectly natural for pedophiles. What is your point? Homosexual acts are ab-normal and anyone maintaining otherwise are the true bigots in this debate, not the ones reminding us of this fundamental fact.

So you have a codicil of natural law by your hand? Homosexual behaviour is widespread in nature and is most certainly a natural part of human behaviour. How can it then be against some imagined "natural law"?

So what does it mean when a dog humps my leg?

Funnily enough i'm gay and I have three children, i wonder how that happened? Divine intervention? I think not...

Thanks for that entertaining comment. You made my day.

I come from Europe. Huge problems there, too, but hey, coming here is really like moving 50 years back in time. Romantic. But please, enjoy it there and stop trying to spread the backwardness around. Thank you from the outside-of-USA world.

"America was founded by people who believe in God"
Deists, maybe. You ought to read about the founders and more importantly, the philosophies that influenced them.

I don't need to read the bible because I can think for myself. Try it sometime.
If it helps, I look just like George Clooney.

Religious people like to relate religion to science and nature because nature is supreme and universal. They want to justify and advocate religions influence in human life by saying it reflects nature's "goals".
This is the religious people's wishful thinking, religion is a human superstition that's part of the cultural and psychological fields. Religion is NOT nature's spokesperson!
And I've discussed with many homophobics here and no one has a deep understanding of nature, society, the homosexuals or anything. The majority are building their opinions based on religious beliefs, prejudice and their own (misinformed) knowledge of gays and facts.

What are you even going on about? I'm not saying anything about terrorism. I'm just pointing out the similar mentality of followers of the different Abrahamic faiths.

I'll be content when the USA is substantially less Christian.

I hope I am not seen as a person who insults either the Old or New Testament. I am a Hindu, not because I disbelieve Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam. If there were only Muslims on Earth, people would still be violent, and not because of Islam. The same is true for all the other religions. We try to be understanding towards Muslims, because of their religion. It would not take an effort, to use very terrifying weapons, against any nation, following any religion. If, for instance, Christians killed one another, they would not consider the religion of the person they were killing.

You MUST be kidding?

As Edmund Fordhunt pointed out, much that has been said and done in the name of Christianity is not in accordance with "Christian values" or teaching. The inquisitions, crusades, witch hunts, holocaust just to name a few atrocities.

It would be unfair to blame all Christians or Christianity for the actions of a few who claim to be acting in accordance with or inspired by it, just as it is incredibly unfair to try to blame Islam for extremists who misuse it in the same way.

We could delve further into how much an atrocity and how much an act of self defense terrorism sometimes is, but that of course is not the subject of the day and, hey, this one seems to be controversial enough already ;D

Good comment, except for the "uneducated" bit. Muslims uniformly everywhere react negatively to Quran burning. Find and report one incident of ostentatious Holy book burning by an educated muslim. We know how it feels, and that is why we would not do it. He who values his sense of the "Holy" would respect it in others. He who values fame (no matte how) would do whatever it takes...

No, you are not saying anything about terrorism - just empathize with "poor and uneducated Moslems" who react violently to anything they perceive an insult to their faith.
.
And I ask if you'd show equal understanding if those Christians whose faith was purposefully insulted by the gay activist, reacted in "Moslem-style".
.
You should, if you're sincere in your original statement. Were you?

I'm sure all Muslims react negatively to the burning of the Quran, but I suspect that uneducated and financially insecure Muslims are more likely to respond in violent and radical ways.

Understanding is a manifestation of intelligence and imagination, not sympathy. I have no sympathy for the religious sensibilities of Christians or Muslims. But Christians should, because they are part of the same breed.

The only difference between Muslims and Christians is that Christians on average are better educated, less religious, and more driven by secular values.

That would be an apt analogy... if Dan Savage were part of a foreign army that had recently conquered the United States.

The "only" difference? Well, that's a hell of a difference! Difference between civilized people and barbarians.

Had you been on the receiving end of the colonial experience, your feelings would have been different.
When Barbarians from the West (Portugal, Spain, England, & France) invaded the rest of the world (Americas, South Asia, Africa, & China) armed with their superior ships, weapons, unscrupulous & devious methods, & limitless greed, they did it all in the name of Christianity & nationalism. Being from Pakistan, I can tell what they did in South Asia.
In space of a few decades the muslims in particular had been deprived of political power, economic & social opportunities, and (most importantly) their educational institutions had been pushed to the brink. Small wonder then that muslims have become what they are now, and people like you can (seemingly) equate them with barbarians.
Muslims just care more about their religion, irrespective of level of education. Our experience is just different, we have fewer issues with the conflicts of science & religion. Our core is intact and that is our strength. If Christians have lost it, then it is their problem, not ours. I empathize with believing christians and I sympathize with them when they are at the receiving end. And yet I do feel that they are partly responsible for the prevailing situation.

You conveniently forget that Spain and Portugal were conquered by Moslems (mainly by Berbers, as a matter of fact, whose very name is derived from the word 'barbarian'), so their was not colonial conquest but Reconquista. Same goes for the Crusades: those were taking back of the Holy Land taken earlier by Mohammedans in their colonial quest.
.
Do not also forget about continuous, century after century, Mohammedan assault on Europe, which ended at the gates of Vienna in 1693, and liberation of Christian countries in the Balkans in 19th century, after 500 years of slavery.
.
How about more than million European captives sold on North African slave markets? You know, everybody is yakking about African slaves in America... but think about the fact that after abolition they were free to leave for home, but chose to stay with their former masters, creating a huge minority of African-Americans. As to the European slaves in Middle East and North Africa, they all - the whole million - vanished with no trace. How do you like one hundred per cent death rate, huh?
.
So don't you sermonize me on colonial experience.

Yeah, you're right that Christian religion is the problem of Christians, and Islam of all stripes is the problem of Mohammedans.
.
How about Mohammedans resolve their religious problems in their own countries, leaving alone New York highrises? Or building after that mosques in the place where they've murdered three thousand plus people?
.
To add insult to injury, this "cultural (LOL!) center" is named Cordoba... quite a revanchist name, when you think that it had taken centuries of Reconquista to get Cordoba back from Moslem invaders.

1. If Spain was conquered by Muslims, then you should remember that they were invited by Spanish nobles (led by Count Julian) against there violent & rapacious king Roderick. It is quite OK to think of Spanish conquest as a secular event that was undertaken by people who happened to be Muslims. It makes better sense that way. In any case Spain under Muslims was a bright spot in an otherwise Dark Europe. Leading European thinkers were educated or at least educated by someone who had studied in Spanish universities. People like Averros & Ibn-Arabi were Spanish and their contributions shall shine forever.

2. Crusades are a dark piece of history that does not make for pleasant reading. Its best for you to avoid its mention since it was a shameful undertaking by barbaric Europeans. Many inhuman excesses were committed by the invaders (Eating children, indiscriminate killing of Muslims & Jews, attacks on fellow Christians, etc...).

3. Assaults on Europe happened, yes. Meanwhile Europe itself was busy assaulting Muslims and others. So what was the difference between the two? I would assert that wars by Ottomans were for expansion of their empire, which BTW was more open and treated its various subjects much better than how Europeans confronted their new-found subjects. Suleiman the Magnificent had offered Martin Luther asylum... just for example. Jews expelled from Europe found refuge among Muslims in Ottoman Empire & North Africa.

4. I have never come across this figure of a million European slaves. I do know that prisoners were taken on both sides. While muslims recognized that slaves had rights as humans, Europeans treated like cattle (Salvery in Americas). Your assertion that a million died without a trace seems to mean that they were mercilessly murdered. Were you there? How do you know that the Europeans did not take slaves themselves in the tit-for-tat battles? Certainly Spanish inquisition was contemporaneous, with its persecution of Muslims & Jews and its mass conversions and mass deportations. Those were the dark ages for Europeans, yes, but then let us see what compelled Napoleon to massacre prisoners of war during Syrian campaign and sack Jaffa (for example?). How about the colonial experience shoved down the throats of the weak?

5. Being from part of the world that suffered as a European colony, I reserve the right to sermonize people like you on colonial experience. It is my birth-right, not yours. Thank you.

I don't speak about wars between Mohammedan and Christian countries. I'm speaking about Mohammedan raids to Europe, as far as Scandinavia and Ukraine, but more regularly to Italy and France, and about Berber pirates purposely going on slavering expeditions. Read, for instance, Giles Milton. White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and North Africa's One Million European Slaves.
.
Human rights of European slaves in the hands of Mohammedans? Your joke is really cruel... and the rest of your post doesn't deserve any answer, it's just distortion of history and sanctimonious drivel. End of discussion with you.

"If Spain was conquered by Muslims, then you should remember that they were invited by Spanish nobles (led by Count Julian) against there violent & rapacious king Roderick. "

I think this is historically inaccurate. The Visigoths were just not prepared for an assault and lost it. I seriously doubt any noble (even the most treacherous ones) would want a ruler from another religion other than Crhistianity, especially because we're talking about the early Middle Ages here, perhaps a different ruler, or even a war to weaken the king so they could replace him.

But I think it's historically inaccurate to claim that Iberia 'wanted' somehow to be invaded. If it were so, the Principality of Asturias, and the Reconquista wouldn't make sense.

Sorry to eavesdrop. Obviously the culture of Muslim Iberia is certainly subject of admiration. But one cannot change history.

In history many things have happened. Many strange & impossible things. Inviting neighbors to intervene in a country's internal squabbles was quite common. What was less common was that the invited neighbor decided to stay and occupy. It happened in Iberia that way. What history tells us that Count Julian's daughter was kept at King Roderick's palace / castle and there she suffered an indignity. This not being an isolated incident put Count Julian in league with others who resented Roderick's behavior. Sometime later Roderick asked Count Julian to provide some hunting Falcons, to which query Count Julian replied that he would provide Falcons the like of which had not been seen in Iberia. He had already contacted Musa bin Naseer, the Umayyad governor of North Africa, who equipped a small force under a young general by the name of Tariq bin Zayad. These troops landed at Gibraltar (the word derives from Jebel-al-Tariq - Tariq's Rock). There Tariq ordered the burning of the ships so that his troops would not think of retreat(legend?). This force combined with Count Julian's & other Nobles' men defeated Roderick's army in pitched battle.

The above is the account in history books. You can dispute this version. But the fact remains that Count Julian did exist and he did encourage the invasion of Iberia for personal reasons. For the ease of it, use wiki if you have to.

I find your tone to be encouraging & friendly. Sorry if you find my posts a bit aggressive. But the all-pervasive anti-muslim tone on TE comments by various people is quite upsetting.

In history many things have happened. Many strange & impossible things. Inviting neighbors to intervene in a country's internal squabbles was quite common. What was less common was that the invited neighbor decided to stay and occupy. It happened in Iberia that way. What history tells us that Count Julian's daughter was kept at King Roderick's palace / castle and there she suffered an indignity. This not being an isolated incident put Count Julian in league with others who resented Roderick's behavior. Sometime later Roderick asked Count Julian to provide some hunting Falcons, to which query Count Julian replied that he would provide Falcons the like of which had not been seen in Iberia. He had already contacted Musa bin Naseer, the Umayyad governor of North Africa, who equipped a small force under a young general by the name of Tariq bin Zayad. These troops landed at Gibraltar (the word derives from Jebel-al-Tariq - Tariq's Rock). There Tariq ordered the burning of the ships so that his troops would not think of retreat(legend?). This force combined with Count Julian's & other Nobles' men defeated Roderick's army in pitched battle.

The above is the account in history books. You can dispute this version. But the fact remains that Count Julian did exist and he did encourage the invasion of Iberia for personal reasons. For the ease of it, use wiki if you have to.

I find your tone to be encouraging & friendly. Sorry if you find my posts a bit aggressive. But the all-pervasive anti-muslim tone on TE comments by various people is quite upsetting.

LordMac isn't very good at logic. Yes, all of reason's champions are dead or dying. But the same is true of superstition's advocates. The enlightenment has already neutered religion. The Church does not have the power to rule any more. The Church is no longer a center of learning, all intellectual efforts are carried out elsewhere now. Almost none of the most intelligent people on the planet believe in god. It is a past time for the intellectually uncurious and the poorly educated.
Just give the Enlightenment more time.

How very Christian of you, expressing delight at Mr. Hitchens death.

If you guys are so holy and great why do you keep making homosexual babies? God must be really screwed up to allow that to happen? What side is he on anyway? Can one of you marvel children have a chat with the man and please ask him to stop making homosexuals, that's enough! Oh wait... you pray for that every night but after 5,000 years he still doesn't listen.

First of all, "scholarly debate" is not the great mark. There is "scholarly debate" on everything including whether Jesus even existed. Ever seen Bultmann's commentary on John? More than half is bibliography--but he doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God. Classic blind leading the blind. You HAVE to remember that God has ordained that the simple Gospel be used to save men, so that the power of God is glorified, not the wisdom of man. 1 Cor 1-2. Second, that you and Mr Savage both assume that the Bible is not the Word of God. With that attitude (which I once had), you are "free" to make it up as you go. But FYI Paul did not have just dreams. The Scripture specifically says that Jesus appeared to him and that the gospel he taught he did not learn from anyone. And you (as with Mr Savage) seem to neglect the positive statements of the Scripture. For example that Peter and Paul met and had the right hand of fellowship as Peter learned that what Paul preached was the same good news of forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus. I once was just like Mr Savage, and like you. But it was the power of God, nothing else, that transformed me from a guy who mocked to a guy who loved and cherished my Savior and his Word. Scholars didn't help me...in fact I was so mentally stripped down by the New Age movement that I was close to losing it totally. He sought me when I was not looking for Him. I love Jesus. And I love Mr Savage--God is helping me, though I sometimes struggle with anger at such mockery. I'm just a sinner like all others, being transformed by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Now, to be forthright, here are the Scriptures you ask for...I'll have to post them separately, I'm sure they wont fit...

KJV Genesis 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; ….4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. …24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (and cf.: KJV Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.)

KJV Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

KJV Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

KJV Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

KJV Judges 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

KJV 1 Kings 14:22 And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. 23 For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. 24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

KJV 1 Kings 15:11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. 12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13 And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron. 14 But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.

KJV 1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

KJV 2 Kings 22:1 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. 2 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the lef. . . .23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

KJV Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness…24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
KJV 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
NIV 1 Corinthians 6:9 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
NAU 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
RSV 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
NLT 1 Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals
KJV 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
KJV 1 Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
NIV 1 Timothy 1:10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-- and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
NAU 1 Timothy 1:10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
RSV 1 Timothy 1:10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
NKJ 1 Timothy 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
NLT 1 Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

I didn't think any of the Apostles left any writings. I was under the impression that the 4 gospels were written by other people who happened to be called Mathew Mark, Luke and John and not four of the the 12 apostles. This possibly down to the fact that they were written some 60 to 100 years after the events. I was also under the impression that there are no contemporaneous writings on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. So I have always been a bit doubtful of the Bible's contents. I have always felt that until I hear directly from (a) God, I can't rely on others to tell me what if he/it is thinking as I am only too aware of the fallibility of the Human race

"Seek and ye shall find". I was once where you are now. I'll tell you, HE is there! If you are serious about finding Truth, God will reveal himself to you and you will KNOW! "For everyone that seeketh, findeth." And Mr. Savage, for all his harsh words, could come to know the One whose ways he mocks. God is SO good!

As to your 1st, the point is that there is not agreement. To state AS FACT your own opinion, when you know that the other is in disagreement, is in & of itself offensive & abusive, yet that is something we frequently see from "Christians".

There is a difference between saying "WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS A SIN!" and saying, "My personal belief as a Christian is that homosexuality is a sin. If you like, I would gladly explain why I think so."

At any rate, the Bible contradicts itself so often, & is frequently about as clear as the Oracle of Delphi, that you can find points "justifying" just about anything, & as many points against...

The first is the approach we usually see and the one that gets my dander up and gets me attacking "Christian" thought. Then, & that is the point of the article, the Bible thumpers get offended at the approach, even though it is exactly the approach they themselves have been guilty of.

As to your second, several interesting things right off. You claim that the new testament as well condemns homosexuality, but can come up with quotes only from the Old Testament, which you say has, through Christ's love, been made obsolete!

Let's take them one by one anyway...

B.T.W. These all would have been written in Hebrew, not Koine Greek :D..

1) Sodom and Gomorrah; The events at S&G are describes in Genesis 19, but the story actually starts in Genesis 18, when God visits Abraham. (b.t.w. Abraham can see him. n0 burning bush to save Abraham and he doesn't die. So, CAN man see God or will "he surely die"?)

Before leaving God tells Abraham that he has heard that S&G is a sinful place & he is off to see if this is true. If so WHAM!

It is NOT the events with the angels that condemned S&G. God had already decided their fate, if what he had heard was true, before the angels arrived there!

That aside, even Christians disagree on the nature of the sin and the Bible does not specifically tell us. Some say it is because the men wanted to rape the angels. Others because they dared to rape anyone, regardless of gender (unlikely sincve the Old Testament condones rape elsewhere) others because they were bound to be hospitable to strangers, which clearly they were not.

If we want to use this passage to take lessons from, the only one who escapes unpunished is Lot and some members of his family.

Lot, of course, tried to defuse the situation by offering to let the strangers RAPE HIS DAUGHTER! No punishment for Lot! Are we to take it then that God feels it is o.k. to offer our daughters up to be raped by ruffians?!

2) your next 2, from Leviticus, are interesting.
2.1)Leviticus deals with instructions on how observant JEWS should lead thier life. It is intended for JEWS, not gentiles and condemns the behavior only for Jews (18:3)
2.2) 18 deals with all sorts of sexual "do nots" but is very specific in all other cases. Do not have SEXUAL RELATIONS with your mother, d.n.h. SEXUAL RELATIONS with your sister, d.n.h. S.R. with your daughter or daughters daughter. On and on SEXUAL RELATIONS very specific. Then we get to this passage and, all of a sudden, we become very euphemistic. No "sexual relations" its "as with a woman" (my New International. No KJV handy) Why the ambiguity?

One offered explanation is translation "error", and here we get into what I mentioned earlier. Only someone who can read ancient Hebrew can express an opinion on the original meaning, but I have seen one author at least who suggests that the original text is to "not sleep with a man IN A WOMAN'S BED, THAT IS RITUALLY UNCLEAN."

In any case, this instruction, whatever it meant, was meant for observant Jews, as with your next passage, where this is clearly stated. It is meant for the children of Israel and does not bring with it any condemnation for any other!

Judges 19 deals with a story so similar to S&G that one might well wonder if this isn't the same story mixed up in the retelling. In this case, however, no punishment for the city or the men by God.

They accept the offer of the virgin daughter & the travelers concubine & it is the raped concubine who is punished, being cut up into 12 pieces which he sends out among the Israelites to raise an army to destroy the city in which it happened, but it is not clear for which "sin". Was it because the men broke hospitality? Was it because they WANTED to rape the man? Was it because they did rape the daughter and the concubine?

One thing is clear, the man who killed the concubine escaped punishment! Great lesson!

All the references to Kings are probably likely errors. The New International refers, for all 3 passages to "male shrine prostitutes". That makes a lot more sense because "sodomite" originally meant someone from Sodom. Only much later did the word come to have the modern meaning.

In any case, all 3 passages all refer to Jewish Kings and God's laws FOR THE JEWS would have applied for them, but not for others.

If Rom 1:26-27 is not a clear condemnation, please offer me an explanation of the meaning of the verse.
Also, Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? ...this is concerning your attitude towards Paul's "Dreams"

Ahhh, finally some new testament passages.

Running very short of time and have to get SOME work done, but i will return to these this evening.

As to "seek and you shall find", I used to be, in my younger days, a born again Christian. It is out of my reading of the Bible then and confusion over the contradictions in it that I started reading more and ended up a confirmed atheist.

So, maybe you are right. If you seek you WILL find the truth!

I think I already did that, at least as far as the KJV text:

"vile affections" "the natural use" these phrases could mean anything, depending on the readers preexisting understanding of what is "vile" or "unnatural" For example, is homosexuality unnatural, if we know that there have always been a % of homosexual people?

Blue eyes & blonde or red hair are all far more "unnatural" then than homosexuality!

The New International version is clearer, but it then comes down to, at least, choosing any of the plethora of texts, with different meanings, that pleases you most, the infallibility of Biblical text and Paul in particular aside.

Not realiable as a guide to what "God" may have said and certainly a matter for personal opinion.

As to the Holy Ghost, I believe it as likely that the Holy Ghost revealed something to Paul as that he did to me in my dreams. In any case, inspired or not, it does still leave the question, do we trust Peter, who was chosen by Jesus, or Paul, who was chosen by the "Holy Ghost", & how is it that Jesus and the Holy Ghost have their wires crossed?

"Paul, of course, never studied with Jesus, probably never even met him," - Read the account of Saul/Paul on his road trip to Damascus. Paul was indeed directly inspired by Christ.

Also, in Matt ch 5:17 Christ refers to the teachers of the Old Testament. He was the fullfullment of the laws, not the abolishnist of them.

You really need to get your facts straight.

Paul persecuted early Christians and his conversion did no occur until well after Jesus was crucified.

A vision is hardly having met the man., leastways is as reliable as dreams for irrefutable evidence.

B.T.W., have I ever told you of the torrid affairs with Cheryl Tiegs, Deborah Harry and other sex symbols of my youth. Only in my dreams, of course, and I didn't need conversion, but it WAS a revelation!

I have seen this debated both ways.

Some suggest that the majority of the apostles would even, being poor, likely have been illiterate, that whatever was attributed to them must have been written by others. Others say that Jews of the time, even poor fisherman, would likely have had some learning and could write.

I am not old enough to remember who could and couldn't, so all I can do is try and understand the arguments, but we'll never know.

Apparently, there is some evidence that Peter was literate & apparently there is a Gospel According to Peter, which likely could have been written by him.

The books to be included in the Christian Bible, as well as which were canon and which not, for the first time, was apparently decided (if memory serves) in 325 A.D., but there is a Bible out of Rome in 289 (again, if memory...) with the same books.

It is my understanding that no one really knows when any of the gospels were written and who the actual writer was, the apostle or follower(s), but certainly they were in existence long before their inclusion or omission. It wasn't a case of there being a deadline and whoever made it was in, whoever was late, out.

The provenance of the entire Bible is open to question and a matter of personal faith, be it blind or through study. That, assuming, that we can even talk about there being "A" Bible, when there are so many translations and versions, often contradictory.

The more I studied, the less I believed. Others faith grows with time. IMHO, this is not an issue anyone can say "right" or "wrong" to, sop no one also can condemn anothers beliefs or actions within those beliefs.

Edmund, thanks for being intellectually honest in providing a number of differing translations for the NT passages you cite. This clearly shows the problem, however. Some versions of the same passage clearly condemn homosexuality, some could be construed to, others do not.

The verses from Romans, as far as clear condemnation, do not. There is a long list of who will be subject to the wrath of GOD, liars, murderers, idolaters but homosexuality, specifically, isn't among them. There are references to not putting woman to their natural use etc. (feminists would LOVE that!) but what that use is and what that condemns is completely open to interpretation, even before accuracy is considered.

1 Corinthians - as you yourself demonstrate, there are a plethora of differing translations which, depending on which version you choose, either does or doesn't specifically condemn homosexuality.

The confusion in this particular passage is easily understandable. Paul, apparently, invented a new word "Arsenokoitai". Most seem to suggest that the word does not ever appear to have been used before that time, so as the different versions show, it was the opinion of each translator, not the inspired word of GOD that we are reading.

That without even touching on how credible Paul might be.

Here again I have to rely on students of ancient (Koine) Greek. Unfortunately, not all who claim to be so can agree, so it's anyone's guess, but there is substantial doubt as to the meaning of malakoi, especially as it would have been used at the time, and even more as to Paul's intentions n apparently coining a new word.

This applies equally to the many differing versions of 1 Timothy. All are different, some specifically condemn homosexuality, others do not. How then can you say that the New Testament DOES condemn homosexuality, when there are so many contradictory texts?

Sorry, but I would stick by what I have said earlier. I have not seen any passage that clearly, definitively and unarguably condemns homosexuality. Also, is it not the case that there are NO passages in the NT except, possibly, for some written by one man, Paul, that even MIGHT condemn homosexuality?

Just as you have not changed my opinion, I likely hgave not gotten you to reconsider your position, but this should not be a problem! You view it as a sin, and no one suggests that you should try it. I do not consider it a sin, but find the idea repugnant, so I also will not do it, but before we tell anyone who is gay that he is committing a sin, shouldn't we get our proofs stronger than the rather unclear passages here?

I agree, the bible is clear, god hates gays. He also hates most of the tribes that lived around ancient Israel. That is why he advocated cutting fetuses from the wombs of the Israelis' enemies. But not to worry gays, the only non-forgivable sin is to deny the existence of god.

Or instead believe in a God (or Gods) that don't have such crazy hangups over homosexuality.

O.K. we have found something we can agree on :-)))

Much good, but also much evil, has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity, & other religions as well. Neither the good nor the evil can, then, as a blanket be used to praise or condemn.

Personal belief is just that and, where the holder of this belief doesn't use it to abuse another, I will fight, if necessary, to protect his right to hold these beliefs.

As you rightly point out, some, however, do not observe the above and use their personal beliefs to lambaste and abuse others. Then I will fight to protect the abused, even if it means picking apart and exposing their personal faith.

Whether, in so doing, they loose the right to call themselves "Christian". or Moslem, or Republican or..., is, again, more a matter of personal opinion.

Just as disparate actions have been perpetrated in the name of Christ, there are also many disparate interpretations of Biblical texts and their meaning.

Edmund,
Absolutely the latter. Many of my secular or even still-Christian friends (I'm in the midwest, not the godless hippie utopia east coast) are appalled by the behavior of so-called Christians who use their narrow interpretation of some very old, poorly translated religious texts to justify persecution of homosexuals. I was raised Presbyterian, and if I learned anything from 18+ years of going to church, it was to never pass judgement and always help the less fortunate. I cannot wrap my head around the way homophobes and other bigots think. It is simply incomprehensible to me.

Io, thanks for the reply. Please consider: "narrow interpretation of some very old, poorly translated religious texts". False. I can read Greek--the Bible is phenomenally WELL translated by top scholars. The Greek words used to describe homosexuality mean exactly that in the original. For example "arsenokoitas" in 1 Tim 1:10. For an example of the definition of the word, here is it's entry from the Friberg lexicon: "00768 an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy--homosexual, sodomite, pederast". The standard Grek lexicon, Bauer/Arndt/ Grigrich/Danker, has this definition: "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite" (2nd ed, p. 109). Moreover, the Nestle-Aland 4th ed. Greek New Testament shows no variation in the thousands of manuscripts for this verse. So the word is there in all of them. And so your statement is not accurate as to the reliability of the text, not as to the plain teaching of Scripture on homosexuality being a sin. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and don't like that doctrine--that's one thing. But it is quite another to misrepresent the teachings and consistency of the Bible.
The proper view of all sexual immorality, for the disciple of Christ Jesus, is that God forbids it, and sent his Son, Jesus, to pay the price of death so that even the worst sinners may receive forgiveness. And those who profess to be Christians and practice any form of sexual immorality--including but not limited to homosexuality, are to be put out of fellowship (1 Cor 5-6, etc). The perversion of Christianity called Catholicism warped this righteous discipline into a process involving the secular state, including torture, burning, and execution. But TRUE Christianity requires discipline strictly WITHIN the fellowship of believers, and does not involve the State. I hope you will be able to see past all the perversions of the truth to the Scriptures, and to the true God who gave them to teach us His ways.

I can't argue that many who are prominent advocates of Christianity disobey the Scriptures they profess to teach. In fact, I was saddened to read of yet another just recently--one who was not one of the flashy hucksters whose "ministry" is a shallow pretense for greed.

But I am interested in your comment "MODERN Christianity is an abomination". As a disciple of Jesus, I would have to agree in many respects. But what do you think of TRUE Christianity--the Bible itself, Jesus himself, God himself? And what do you think of those who TRULY follow Jesus, such as the Waldensians (who were mercilessly persecuted by the "Roman Catholic Church").

I can't argue that many who are prominent advocates of Christianity disobey the Scriptures they profess to teach. In fact, I was saddened to read of yet another just recently--one who was not one of the flashy hucksters whose "ministry" is a shallow pretense for greed.

But I am interested in your comment "MODERN Christianity is an abomination". As a disciple of Jesus, I would have to agree in many respects. But what do you think of TRUE Christianity--the Bible itself, Jesus himself, God himself? And what do you think of those who TRULY follow Jesus, such as the Waldensians (who were mercilessly persecuted by the "Roman Catholic Church").

Individual Christians do seem to pick and choose among OT laws and precepts.

Although they may not have used the word, "abomination," Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson derided Christionity. Ghandi said that he liked Christ, but not Christians.

I agree that there is a lot of abomination in the OT such as Abraham tupping his wife's slave, fathering her son and driving them both into the desert. Psalm 137 is particularly odious.

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

The New does seem better. I didn't much like Jesus' running swine off a cliff to their death (PETA wouldn't either) or killing a poor defenseless fig tree. But, as they say, "Nobody's perfect."

I liked the SCOTUS case that Fallwell lost to Larry Flynt over Hustler's story about Fallwell having sex with his mother in a outhouse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Could you please point out where in the article the newspaper suggested that Christians believe in those old testament prohibitions? My understanding was that they were listing old testament prohibitions that most Christians *don't* believe in (or at least don't believe apply to their lives). That's the entire point: many Christians who generally ignore those Old Testament rules still cite them against homosexuality.

I understand Christians relationship with the old testament very well. They ignore large parts of it. Exactly my point.