Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[East of Eden]

What are you talking about? It has 10 NT references against homosexual activity.

Oh..yhou mean wanted me to follow a link, because what yhou had put there did not have anything to do with homosexuality.. it had to do with peter eating.


I didn't follow the link, since what you wrote before hand had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ok. I looked at that.. and the vast amount of those references say nothing about homosexuality what so ever. For example, the first one deals with marriage and divorce, and says nothing about homosexuality.

Titus says nothing about homosexuality.. and neither does Jude.

Nor do most of the letters from Paul say anything about it. It might use the phrase 'uncleaniess'.. but that says nothing about homosexuality.. You have to be one obsessed person, and read a lot INTO it, rather than reading what it says to assume it does.

That leaves us with Romans....



Now, the one that does.. well.. if you read it in CONTEXT.. the 'inflamed with unnatural lust' and all that sort of stuff was a punishment from God, not a prohibition from God.

Nonsense, they all are clearly prohibitions against homosexual behavior, consistent with the Old Testament.

Out of all of them, only the ones from roman's comes even close.

I would LOVE to see you try to justify those passages in your own words, not cut/paste from a web site that makes claims that , when you look at the passages in question, show no such thing.

Of course, when you read with 'Everything is about Homosexualtiy' glasses, you see what you want to see.

One then must start wondering why the obsession.

I have yet to see you actually SUPPORT your claim. rather than just repeating it.

How about taking it one passage at a time, and SHOW ME that it is indeed about homosexuality. Start with matthew, and show that it's about homosexuality, not divorce.

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

[Goat]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

[East of Eden]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

[Autodidact]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

So you concede his point? Or did you have an argument to refute it?

[East of Eden]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

So you concede his point? Or did you have an argument to refute it?

The verses have been posted. If you have an alternate argument where blue means red, let's hear it.

[Goat]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

So you concede his point? Or did you have an argument to refute it?

The verses have been posted. If you have an alternate argument where blue means red, let's hear it.

And, you just pointed to a web site and said 'Go read this'. I pointed out where , well, most of those verses have nthing to do with homosexuality, depsite your webs site's claim. Your total response was 'Yes they do'.

Prove it. Go, and show IN CONTEXT those passages HERE (not argument via link) that show those passages are about homosexuality.

I also pointed out the ONE passage that was about homosexuality , that was a condition that was a punishment, not a prohibition. You failed to respond to that.

Can you show your own arguments, and not rely on 'oh, go read this' on another site? Show your arguments HERE. Back up your claims.

[East of Eden]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

So you concede his point? Or did you have an argument to refute it?

The verses have been posted. If you have an alternate argument where blue means red, let's hear it.

And, you just pointed to a web site and said 'Go read this'. I pointed out where , well, most of those verses have nthing to do with homosexuality, depsite your webs site's claim. Your total response was 'Yes they do'.

Prove it. Go, and show IN CONTEXT those passages HERE (not argument via link) that show those passages are about homosexuality.

I also pointed out the ONE passage that was about homosexuality , that was a condition that was a punishment, not a prohibition. You failed to respond to that.

Can you show your own arguments, and not rely on 'oh, go read this' on another site? Show your arguments HERE. Back up your claims.

You are the one alleging that 2,000 years of Church history has been wrongly misinterpreted, it is your obligation to show otherwise. You're about asking me to prove when the Bible says white, it really means white.

[Goat]

You are the one alleging that 2,000 years of Church history has been wrongly misinterpreted, it is your obligation to show otherwise. You're about asking me to prove when the Bible says white, it really means white.

In other words, you can't even show that it is 2000 years of church history interpreting that way. I would love to see you provide evidence that those passages were interpreted that way , oh.. let's give you a break and say pre Martin Luther.

I suggest you actually back up your claim, rather than avoid the claim, and appeal to an authority that you don't even show had that point of view back in the day.

Please support your claim, or withdraw it.

[East of Eden]

You are the one alleging that 2,000 years of Church history has been wrongly misinterpreted, it is your obligation to show otherwise. You're about asking me to prove when the Bible says white, it really means white.

In other words, you can't even show that it is 2000 years of church history interpreting that way. I would love to see you provide evidence that those passages were interpreted that way , oh.. let's give you a break and say pre Martin Luther.

I suggest you actually back up your claim, rather than avoid the claim, and appeal to an authority that you don't even show had that point of view back in the day.

Please support your claim, or withdraw it.

OK, let's start with this one:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.


Here are a few pre-Luther views of the church on homosexuality from Wikipedia:

Many surviving writings of the Church Fathers about homosexual behavior describe it as sinful.[5] In his fourth homily on Romans,[6] St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said:
“ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. �
The 16th Canon of the Council of Ancyra (314)[7] prescribed a penance of at least twenty years' duration for those "who have done the irrational" (alogeuesthai). There is some question whether this reference is to homosexual activity or bestiality [8] (or both). The earliest Latin versions, however, translate the word in both senses.[9] In any event, sodomy and bestiality are often condemned side-by-side in Christian writings of this era, usually with reference to these Latin translations.[10]
In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride.[11] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[12] The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."[13]

[Goat]

You are the one alleging that 2,000 years of Church history has been wrongly misinterpreted, it is your obligation to show otherwise. You're about asking me to prove when the Bible says white, it really means white.

In other words, you can't even show that it is 2000 years of church history interpreting that way. I would love to see you provide evidence that those passages were interpreted that way , oh.. let's give you a break and say pre Martin Luther.

I suggest you actually back up your claim, rather than avoid the claim, and appeal to an authority that you don't even show had that point of view back in the day.

Please support your claim, or withdraw it.

OK, let's start with this one:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.


Here are a few pre-Luther views of the church on homosexuality from Wikipedia:

Many surviving writings of the Church Fathers about homosexual behavior describe it as sinful.[5] In his fourth homily on Romans,[6] St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said:
“ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. �
The 16th Canon of the Council of Ancyra (314)[7] prescribed a penance of at least twenty years' duration for those "who have done the irrational" (alogeuesthai). There is some question whether this reference is to homosexual activity or bestiality [8] (or both). The earliest Latin versions, however, translate the word in both senses.[9] In any event, sodomy and bestiality are often condemned side-by-side in Christian writings of this era, usually with reference to these Latin translations.[10]
In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride.[11] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[12] The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."[13]

Well, you showed there was a vague reference that is disrupted, then you talking about emperors of the roman empire, not the church. .. The emperor is not the pope, in case you didn't notice.

Notice.. the one reference is disputed, and the others had nothing to do with the church.

And, can you show a translation of that passage, as was pointed out by Mccoullugh , where that term 'homosexual' was done as 'same sex person' rather than masterbation?