THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LI'BLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE

[KCKID]

Why are SO many Christians hung up on homosexuality? While the average Christian would be hard pressed to locate such a text in their Bibles if asked, they would undoubtedly say “Because it’s a sin according to the Bible.� I personally find such a response difficult to accept and rather strongly suspect that one’s ‘religious belief’ on this issue is NOT the driving force behind their aversion/condemnation of homosexuality. I mean, if Christians REALLY desire to condemn ‘sin’ as they perceive it they could give homosexuals a break and instead have a field day targeting the many other human behaviors going on within society that God appears to hate. But …they don’t . . .well certainly not with the same zeal they do toward homosexuality.

So, what is going on here? Does the Bible really condemn sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender? Or, does the Bible not address the matter of homosexuality at all …or, at least, not as we today recognize homosexuality? Would the Bible authors have even been aware of one’s innate sexuality as well as the complexities surrounding sexuality in general? Or, in simple terms, would they, as with many males of today, have regarded some males as 'effeminate' (or ‘sissies’) based on both ignorance and their own perceived cultural image of the ‘alpha male’? Or, if these authors were considered to be writing by divine authority, might we then say that God is the instigator of such ignorance and has allowed this ignorance to persist from generation to generation?

My main question in this thread is: of the ‘thimble-full’ of scriptures that are commonly used by Christians to condemn homosexuality (sexual attraction/desire directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex), how many of these texts might be considered to be far too ambiguous (open to several possible meanings or interpretations) to have caused such a furor within Christendom in general and specifically resulted in the division of a number of present-day Christian denominations? Can these few scriptures be analyzed so accurately that they can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to condemn homosexuality as we refer to the term today? I say no …they cannot. I’ve given my reasons in the past and will do so again if challenged.

Please discuss the below scriptures, as best you can, exegetically, i.e.
observation: what do the passages say?
interpretation: what do the passages mean?
correlation: how do the passages relate to the topic of homosexuality as we define it today?
application: how should these passages affect your/my life?

Note: I've purposely used the NIV for the following texts.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire . . .etc. (NIV)

Should there be other related Bible texts to the topic feel free to present them based on the above criteria for analysis. I purposely omitted the Sodom and Gomorrah saga since it's been done to death and quite clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. However, likewise feel free to present that strange tale for discussion should you find it to be relevant.

[99percentatheism]

Care to try to challenge any of my theological positions now? Point by point, position by position?

Your theological position is irrelevant when you are being asked about this statement.

activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity,

Please supply the support you have to defend this claim.

I supplied it.

Soulforce is a gay pride activist organization.

[Heretic Gal]

Care to try to challenge any of my theological positions now? Point by point, position by position?

Your theological position is irrelevant when you are being asked about this statement.

activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity,

Please supply the support you have to defend this claim.

I supplied it.

Soulforce is a gay pride activist organization.

I've just visited Soulforce's website, and can't seem to find any place where they say they want to "force" anything. In fact, they specifically say in their mission statement:

Soulforce is a national non-profit that works nonviolently to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQ people. While we are not ourselves a faith-based organization, we lead from the understanding that oppressive religious beliefs, civil rights abuses and anti-feminist attitudes that oppress LGBTQ people are interrelated. We envision a world in which social justice movements are inclusive and collaborative as we help make it possible for all people, regardless of chosen or inherent identities, to have access, opportunity and security.

Not seeing anything there about "force" - in fact, later on the same page they again espouse nonviolence and evoke Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

"Pressure" I could see, but where's the "force" part?

[KCKID]

I'm reminded of the following. Some Christians, lessening in number these days I would think, quite clearly but unwittingly illustrate the intended theme behind the ancient Chicken Little folk tale.

Narrator: Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little: "Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!"

Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny: "Where are you going, Chicken Little?"

Chicken Little: "Oh, help! The sky is falling!"

Henny Penny: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Henny Penny: "This is terrible, just terrible! We'd better hurry up."

Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.

Ducky Lucky: "Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?"

Chicken Little & Henny Penny: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We're going to tell the king!"

Ducky Lucky: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head."

Ducky Lucky: "Oh dear, oh dear! We'd better run!"

Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.

Goosey Loosey: "Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "We're running for our lives!"

Henny Penny: "The sky is falling!"

Ducky Lucky: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Goosey Loosey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Goosey Loosey: "Goodness! Then I'd better run with you."

Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..

Turkey Lurkey: "Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "Help! Help!"

Henny Penny: "We're running for our lives!"

Ducky Lucky: "The sky is falling!"

Goosey Loosey: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Turkey Lurkey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Turkey Lurkey: "Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I'd better run with you."

Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy: "Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?"

Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) "Help! Help!" It's not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we're running to tell the king!"

Foxy Loxy: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Foxy Loxy: "I see. Well then, follow me, and I'll show you the way to the king."

Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and ...they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.

The phrase, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! features prominently in the above story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. It also illustrates the gullibility of those who believe the hysteria and join in the run.

The moral? Don't be a Chicken Little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not really falling. Gay people are not about to take over the world and destroy life as we know it!

[Danmark]

I'm reminded of the following. Some Christians, lessening in number these days I would think, quite clearly but unwittingly illustrate the intended theme behind the ancient Chicken Little folk tale.....
The moral? Don't be a Chicken Little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not really falling. Gay people are not about to take over the world and destroy life as we know it![/color]

I don't get it either. Let's suppose those who think same gender marriage is a sin are right, and the Christians who do not think it a sin are wrong:

Now let us suppose a gay, married couple who otherwise do their best to follow the commandments and have been monogamous and faithful and loving in their long term relationship attend a Christian church, and are not demonstrably affectionate in church [just like other married couples in the church act]. How is that church or its membership being harmed?

Unlike other 'sins,' no one is being harmed. This couple sings in the choir, attend regularly, pay their tithes and offerings, work on church projects and in every way participate in the church life the way other couples do. How is anyone hurt?

Except for the idea that 'it' is wrong, how is anyone in the church suffering because this couple attends church services?. With theft, murder, adultery, bearing false witness and even covetousness, there is a victim who is injured by the sin. That is not the case with a same sex marriage. No one is being victimized.

What exactly is the harm that same sex marriage causes anyone, even a conservative church? It seems to me the greater sin is to sit in judgment of this couple instead of looking inward to see how those judging others are failing to live up to the commandments.

[dianaiad]

I'm reminded of the following. Some Christians, lessening in number these days I would think, quite clearly but unwittingly illustrate the intended theme behind the ancient Chicken Little folk tale.....
The moral? Don't be a Chicken Little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not really falling. Gay people are not about to take over the world and destroy life as we know it![/color]

I don't get it either. Let's suppose those who think same gender marriage is a sin are right, and the Christians who do not think it a sin are wrong:

Now let us suppose a gay, married couple who otherwise do their best to follow the commandments and have been monogamous and faithful and loving in their long term relationship attend a Christian church, and are not demonstrably affectionate in church [just like other married couples in the church act]. How is that church or its membership being harmed?

Unlike other 'sins,' no one is being harmed. This couple sings in the choir, attend regularly, pay their tithes and offerings, work on church projects and in every way participate in the church life the way other couples do. How is anyone hurt?

Except for the idea that 'it' is wrong, how is anyone in the church suffering because this couple attends church services?. With theft, murder, adultery, bearing false witness and even covetousness, there is a victim who is injured by the sin. That is not the case with a same sex marriage. No one is being victimized.

What exactly is the harm that same sex marriage causes anyone, even a conservative church? It seems to me the greater sin is to sit in judgment of this couple instead of looking inward to see how those judging others are failing to live up to the commandments.

First, it doesn't hurt anybody but them...unless of course one of the requirements for attending a specific church service or event is that one must be married 'in the eyes of God' and according to the doctrine of that church, and the gay couple, figuring that the basic theology is wrong, decides to sue for discrimination and wins.

Or unless the gay couple, being able to marry in the eyes of the law, figures that the eyes of secular law trumps religious doctrine, and sues to force those who go by the doctrine in this matter...and wins.

Both of which, btw, have happened.

Forget secular law here; secular law is supposed to stay out of religion. in fact, the first amendment to the constitution doesn't say anything about religion not being allowed to participate in the state affairs...just that the state can't mess with religion, or promote one over the other.

So, your couple is a member of a specific Christian church, and does everything you claim...and the church, probably aware of their living arrangements, doesn't seem to have a problem with it. No harm is going on that I see, and there are plenty of Christian churches that do precisely that.

Let's try this one though; same situation; a couple attend church, sing in the choir, sit quietly in the meetings and are not publicly displaying their affection. Shoot, let's say that they are even husband/wife and married according to the beliefs of the church they are attending. Indeed, the only problem is that the church teaches that gambling is a bad idea; evil, even...and nobody in the church is supposed to do it. Ever.

And this couple owns a casino.

Who is harmed by this? Nobody in the church goes to their casino, after all, and nobody is expected to gamble just because that's how they earn their living. It's all good, right?

Except that it's against the teachings of the church they belong to, and because it does go very much against those teachings, this couple will not pass the background check for any church job. Perhaps they can sing in the choir, but not lead it. Perhaps they can attend church, but are not allowed to take communion (Catholics do this all the time for far lesser transgressions) Now, if they were like the LBGT rights group of today, they would get all incensed about this discrimination against gamblers and sue to make the church change its policies about allowing casino owners to hold jobs in the church.

Basically, any organization, especially any religion (or organization about religion...have you seen the requirements for someone applying for a scholarship from American Atheists?) has the right to decide what the membership rules are. They can be as reasonable or unreasonable as they want. The rules are the rules; if you don't want to abide by them, find an organization that has rules you feel more comfortable with.

It's like this forum: we have rules of behavior here; one of them is a rule against one-line comments. What harm does it do for someone to make one-line comments? Other forums have no problem with 'em....but here we consider them a waste of bandwidth and time. We tell people who write them to put a little more time and effort into their posts; no one-liners. Our forum, our rules, and if someone doesn't like our rules, our rules do not change. That 'someone' is invited to either abide by them, or find a forum more to their liking. CARM has different rules; rules that are, in my opinion, truly unfair, bigoted and targeted at those who are not strict fundamentalist Christians. Their forum, their rules; since I do not like their rules, I don't go there.

One could ask...what harm would it do for a professional dance team to attend a church that forbids dancing? No harm...except that the dance team is not abiding by the rules. Should that dance team sue, or otherwise force or pressure, the church into changing the rules for them?

Churches are voluntary. You can either belong, or not belong; go, or not go, believe, or not believe, as you wish. That's the whole point of 'freedom of religion." If you don't agree with the rules, find a group with rules you can abide by.

Seems simple enough to me.

[Joab]

I'm reminded of the following. Some Christians, lessening in number these days I would think, quite clearly but unwittingly illustrate the intended theme behind the ancient Chicken Little folk tale.....
The moral? Don't be a Chicken Little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not really falling. Gay people are not about to take over the world and destroy life as we know it![/color]

I don't get it either. Let's suppose those who think same gender marriage is a sin are right, and the Christians who do not think it a sin are wrong:

Now let us suppose a gay, married couple who otherwise do their best to follow the commandments and have been monogamous and faithful and loving in their long term relationship attend a Christian church, and are not demonstrably affectionate in church [just like other married couples in the church act]. How is that church or its membership being harmed?

Unlike other 'sins,' no one is being harmed. This couple sings in the choir, attend regularly, pay their tithes and offerings, work on church projects and in every way participate in the church life the way other couples do. How is anyone hurt?

Except for the idea that 'it' is wrong, how is anyone in the church suffering because this couple attends church services?. With theft, murder, adultery, bearing false witness and even covetousness, there is a victim who is injured by the sin. That is not the case with a same sex marriage. No one is being victimized.

What exactly is the harm that same sex marriage causes anyone, even a conservative church? It seems to me the greater sin is to sit in judgment of this couple instead of looking inward to see how those judging others are failing to live up to the commandments.

First, it doesn't hurt anybody but them...unless of course one of the requirements for attending a specific church service or event is that one must be married 'in the eyes of God' and according to the doctrine of that church, and the gay couple, figuring that the basic theology is wrong, decides to sue for discrimination and wins.

Surely that lawsuit could be rejected with the testimony of the god who claims not to recognise the marriage?

That seems very simple, but especially for an omnipotent god.

[dianaiad]

I'm reminded of the following. Some Christians, lessening in number these days I would think, quite clearly but unwittingly illustrate the intended theme behind the ancient Chicken Little folk tale.....
The moral? Don't be a Chicken Little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not really falling. Gay people are not about to take over the world and destroy life as we know it![/color]

I don't get it either. Let's suppose those who think same gender marriage is a sin are right, and the Christians who do not think it a sin are wrong:

Now let us suppose a gay, married couple who otherwise do their best to follow the commandments and have been monogamous and faithful and loving in their long term relationship attend a Christian church, and are not demonstrably affectionate in church [just like other married couples in the church act]. How is that church or its membership being harmed?

Unlike other 'sins,' no one is being harmed. This couple sings in the choir, attend regularly, pay their tithes and offerings, work on church projects and in every way participate in the church life the way other couples do. How is anyone hurt?

Except for the idea that 'it' is wrong, how is anyone in the church suffering because this couple attends church services?. With theft, murder, adultery, bearing false witness and even covetousness, there is a victim who is injured by the sin. That is not the case with a same sex marriage. No one is being victimized.

What exactly is the harm that same sex marriage causes anyone, even a conservative church? It seems to me the greater sin is to sit in judgment of this couple instead of looking inward to see how those judging others are failing to live up to the commandments.

First, it doesn't hurt anybody but them...unless of course one of the requirements for attending a specific church service or event is that one must be married 'in the eyes of God' and according to the doctrine of that church, and the gay couple, figuring that the basic theology is wrong, decides to sue for discrimination and wins.

Surely that lawsuit could be rejected with the testimony of the god who claims not to recognise the marriage?

That seems very simple, but especially for an omnipotent god.

So...your position is that 'might makes right?" That whatever the government says is good, and that the law of the land (the government) has the right to dictate to churches what they can, and cannot, believe, say, think and do?

If so, I would like to refer you to the first amendment of the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please note the bolded text. I does NOT say "you can believe what you want as long as we approve of it." It does NOT say "you can believe what you want behind closed doors." It does NOT say "you can believe what you want inside the church, but you have to act according to our beliefs outside it." It does NOT say "If we can pass a law against your beliefs, and if your God doesn't keep us from forcing our will on you, that proves that your God doesn't exist, and that we are correct in making you behave the way we want you to behave."


You know, 'might makes right."

There is a reason that the first amendment was written; it's because our founding fathers thought it was important to ensure freedom of belief and thought; not just for the Puritans or the Catholics or the Quakers, but for those who disagreed with any religion...and because freedom of religion was (and still is) uncertain. People WILL violate it...people will attempt to force compliance to their beliefs upon those who disagree with them, and that goes for atheists as well as for theists. Indeed, atheists seem to have the upper hand at the moment. The lawsuits all seem to be coming down on the side of "your religious beliefs don't matter, do what we say."

The problem is, if you want to keep being able to express your opinion about religion and a belief in deity, then you really need to support the rights of those who disagree with you to do so freely and openly, and, as the first amendment states , do not 'prohibit the free exercise [of religion]"

If you want to be free to exercise your non-belief, then you need to allow others the freedom to exercise their beliefs.

[99percentatheism]

Care to try to challenge any of my theological positions now? Point by point, position by position?

Your theological position is irrelevant when you are being asked about this statement.

activists now that want to force pride of same gender sex acts into and onto Christianity,

Please supply the support you have to defend this claim.

I supplied it.

Soulforce is a gay pride activist organization.

I've just visited Soulforce's website, and can't seem to find any place where they say they want to "force" anything. In fact, they specifically say in their mission statement:

Soulforce is a national non-profit that works nonviolently to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQ people. While we are not ourselves a faith-based organization, we lead from the understanding that oppressive religious beliefs, civil rights abuses and anti-feminist attitudes that oppress LGBTQ people are interrelated. We envision a world in which social justice movements are inclusive and collaborative as we help make it possible for all people, regardless of chosen or inherent identities, to have access, opportunity and security.

Not seeing anything there about "force" - in fact, later on the same page they again espouse nonviolence and evoke Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

"Pressure" I could see, but where's the "force" part?

I stand by the characterization: demand. It is clear from their targeting of Christian organizations, Churches and schools that it is a demand. No different than any other movement that "demands change" by protesting for it.

They could easily sink into the Denoms that "affirm" and celebrate gay pride and gay behavior, but they have targeted decent Bible-based Christian places for their targeted actions.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

I'm reminded of the following. Some Christians, lessening in number these days I would think, quite clearly but unwittingly illustrate the intended theme behind the ancient Chicken Little folk tale.....
The moral? Don't be a Chicken Little. Don't be afraid. The sky is not really falling. Gay people are not about to take over the world and destroy life as we know it![/color]

I don't get it either.

But we do get it. And have since the Apostles started preaching.

Let's suppose those who think same gender marriage is a sin are right, and the Christians who do not think it a sin are wrong:

Now let us suppose a gay, married couple who otherwise do their best to follow the commandments and have been monogamous and faithful and loving in their long term relationship attend a Christian church, and are not demonstrably affectionate in church [just like other married couples in the church act]. How is that church or its membership being harmed?

Unlike other 'sins,' no one is being harmed. This couple sings in the choir, attend regularly, pay their tithes and offerings, work on church projects and in every way participate in the church life the way other couples do. How is anyone hurt? Except for the idea that 'it' is wrong, how is anyone in the church suffering because this couple attends church services?.

The entire congregation is harmed. Allowing brazen sin to be celebrated in The Church is pure harm. It's no different than the adulterers and divorced that seem to think they haven't done anything wrong and can assume a place of influence within the congregation. You see what that has caused, now, with divorce . . . Christians "are no different than non Christians." The "bad example" spreads harm.

With theft, murder, adultery, bearing false witness and even covetousness, there is a victim who is injured by the sin.

Not true. One could justify theft if they just say that they are a kleptomaniac. A mental condition that is an orientation. And according to what you steal, it could be a sexual orientation. OR, they give what they steal to the poor. Bearing false witness? Only if the person lied about knows it or suffers some kind of consequence. In today's world, bearing false witness can get you elected president. ADULTERY??? That makes a Hollywood celebrity a super star role model for youth culture. Covetousness? That's now called "making it." So you are left with murder, yeah, definitely someone suffers for that. But sometimes not the murderer.

That is not the case with a same sex marriage. No one is being victimized.

The Christians called homophobes, bigots, hate crimes perpetrators, judgmental, very definitely are being victimized. They are no different than the Apostles and hold to marriage exactly as Jesus defined it and HAVE suffered from lawsuits.

What exactly is the harm that same sex marriage causes anyone, even a conservative church?

It promotes and celebrates homosexuality. Literally, homosexual sex acts. There is no doubt about that. Any "Christian" knows that marriage is where holiness is maintained for sex. "Keep the marriage bed undefiled."

It seems to me the greater sin is to sit in judgment of this couple instead of looking inward to see how those judging others are failing to live up to the commandments.

There is no commandment to honor thy father and thy father. Or thy mother and thy mother. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in any Christian or Hebrew concept anywhere shown to exist in the entire Bible. And anyone offering up David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi has the very scriptures they rely on to testify against them. Bearing false witness could very easily be a greater sin than keeping ones desires for redefining what is and what isn't sin and sinning to themselves.

The judgmentalism of charging honest bible believing Christians with "hate, bigotry, and propagandized neologisms like "homophobia," and the even newer and more weird propagandized labeling of heterosexism . . . and the demands that Christians stop believing that homosexuality is a sin, is based squarely on judgmentalism. And a secular judgmentalism at that.

[99percentatheism]

Haven,

OK, 99, I finally have time to get to your "green challenge" (which I will be recoloring as I do with all posts). Let's begin:

The "clobber passages" in the Bible stretch from Genesis to Jude.

Where in Jude is homosexuality mentioned? In all 25 verses of the book, the only place where sexuality is mentioned at all is verse 7, which mentions only "sexual immorality" and "perversion." It never talks about homosexuality or lesbians and gays.

How would Jude refer to "homosexuality or lesbians and gays"? Very clearly as sexual immorality and perversion. In fact his letter looks as if was written yesterday:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude

You can't play the game by new invented rules. And Jude joins the Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual sins position as well:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The entire book of Jude, by the way, is in a setting of high superstition, talking repeatedly about angels, demons, and other mythological beings that can't be demonstrated to exist. It's obvious the pseudonymous author of Jude was not in touch with reality, so it's reasonable to take everything s/he said with a grain of salt.

You are free to believe anything you want to about religion. But we Christians cannot separate the Church from Jesus the cornerstone of it. Jesus believed that angels and demons existed. Jude looks to be incredibly in touch with reality from his era to May 23rd 2014. His letter is goose-bump accurate to today's world.

There simply is no such thing as same gender marriage, or same gender sexuality anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, approved, celebrated or even mentioned or referenced!!!!!

The Bible never mentions same-gender marriage.

End of homophobia, hate, bigotry and other newly invented insults and charges of wrongdoing towards Christians that do not want to redefine Christian truth. Marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. To Jude too.

However, it also fails to mention interracial marriages (in fact, it commands against such things),

Moses married and Black woman didn't he? Zipporah?

but very few Christians today would consider this a condemnation of such relationships.

That's because we are Christians. Neither Greek, nor Jew, yada, yada. . .

But marriage is immutably man and woman/husband and wife. "Male and female created He (God) them.

The Bible also favorably mentions polygynous marriages, concubinage, rape, and outright sexual slavery, but very few Christians today approve of such practices.

That's because we are Christians.

The fact is that the Bible was written by primitive men in accordance with their cultural context, and so their ideas on sexuality were rooted in their own cultures. This has little relevance today; we should be guided by justice, reason, and kindness, not the cultural beliefs of tribesmen in the ancient near east.

It is not reasonable to invent a culture of anything goes. It is not Christian. You can believe the Bible is whatever you want it to be. We Christians believe that divine power influenced it. Not a pop culture that can be voted on by, well, the popular culture. Preaching about the avoidance of sin, and that repentance and , forgiveness, they are not hate crimes to Christians.

Moreover, the Bible does favorably mention a same-sex relationship. The romantic and probably sexual relationship between King David (who was apparently bisexual, given his numerous relationships with women) and Jonathan is celebrated in 1 Samuel 18-20.

That is not sound theologically. You could say the same thing about the reverence David showed to Saul. That david wouldn't kill Saul be cause he was sexually attracted to an older man. But David was submitting to the Lord's anointed one. Jonathan submitted to the will of God towards David's being the anointed one and not he. To homosexualize the intense love between to these two men is simply unwarranted. One need only listen to soldiers talk about how the love of their buddies is far more intense than that of their wife. My father served in multiple combat situations in Korea and Vietnam and was incredibly attached to his friends. At some of their funerals you would have thought his wife had died. So, to to insert gay pride into David and Jonathan's relationship is just not supported by the storyline.

"LGBT" and "Q" activists are free to invent their own religion OR patronize any religious organization that they find willing to celebrate homosexuality. Like I have written, the overwhelming history of gay pride has come to the forefront through completely secular political power. And any Christian Church that wants to have the rainbow flag planted as far away from their Church property as that can possibly happen is not doing anything wrong.

If, as you say, you feel there is "nothing wrong with it," then why are you obsessed with this subject? No gay person I know cares about what fundamentalist Christians believe about homosexuality.

One should be obsessed about contending for the faith. And you must not be watching "the culture wars" going on obsessively in the fundamentalist LGBT community versus Bible-affirming Christians going on as we write. If "no gay person" cared about "fundamentalist Christians" then "fundamentalist Christians" would not be used as a pejorative by so many fundamentalist LGBT''s. I know, and have opposed, several gay activists that have much against the Church. And I will do so as long as this environment exists. I would be very happy if no gay person cared about fundamentalist Christians and stayed in their gay community.

Where we have a problem is when those beliefs are used to belittle, condemn, harass, and even incite violence against members of the LGBTQ+ community, especially those outside of Christianity.

So? Call a cop.

I don't like it when Christians are belittled condemned, harassed, and have violence meted out against them.

The passage of Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" is a perfect example of fundamentalist Christian power impacting the secular world and stripping people of their civil rights.

Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin. . I don't live in Uganda.

Short version: believe what you want, just don't pass laws based on your views.

Like preaching that marriage is immutably man and woman/husband and wife (as Jesus reaffirmed it so) is a hate crime? Short version: believe what you want, just don't pass laws based on your views.

Not one gay pride activist, liberal theologian or "affirming religious body" has yet to produce any supportive scriptures to base the homosexualization of Christianity as just the next step in the gay agenda.

1. Several Christian pro-LGBTQ+

I love it. The + symbol. Another sign of the gay agenda.

. . . activists have provided Biblical justifications for queer equality, including referencing the aforementioned David and Jonathan and appealing to the "love is the law" and "no male or female . . . in Christ" verses from the New Testament.

Queering Christianity. Yes, I have studied it. No biblical support of it, but what the heck huh? I doubt very highly that the pronouncement that there is no male or female in Christ is a declaration in support of LGBTQ and + activism. I believe it is about equality. Hey, maybe we should be putting a little blue and yellow sticker on our cars about that.

2. I and others have asked you repeatedly to define what you mean by "gay agenda."

The Q and the + symbol are good examples of it. The gay agenda, from Stonewall to "Queer theory" to "marriage equality? A well planned agenda at that. A step by step conditioning of the public mind. I'm impressed actually.

As a gay person, my only agenda is to get through graduate school, find a teaching job, get married and start a family, and dedicate my life to loving others and advancing the cause of equality.

I didn't need to know you are a "gay person" but, I realize the gay agenda does.

There is no nefarious plot among LGBTQ+ people to take over the world (but the same can't be said of fundamentalist Christians).

Please prove that via the Gospels. The Apostles were fundamentalists literally, and they knew well how much dust from their feet would signify a lost world that they would not have anything to do with. A good example of what Christians should do today as well. But look how much like the world some Churches and denominations look like. How simple Christian truth is so ignored:

Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

- James 1

As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

- 1 Peter 4

They that are in the world.

Why is the radical Christianist agenda so obsessed with stopping homosexuality? Why are you guys so obsessed with the Christianization of the secular world?

To save lives. You can't get STD's or raise children in unnatural homes if you live a Christian life.

21st century as well as the first:

"It is a wonderful thing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It gives us great confidence," beamed Jin Hongxin, a 40-year-old visitor who was admiring the golden cross above Liushi's altar in the lead up to Holy Week.
"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... years.html

From the same British newspaper article:

It is said to be China's biggest church and on Easter Sunday thousands of worshippers will flock to this Asian mega-temple to pledge their allegiance – not to the Communist Party, but to the Cross.
The 5,000-capacity Liushi church, which boasts more than twice as many seats as Westminster Abbey and a 206ft crucifix that can be seen for miles around, opened last year with one theologian declaring it a "miracle that such a small town was able to build such a grand church".
The £8 million building is also one of the most visible symbols of Communist China's breakneck conversion as it evolves into one of the largest Christian congregations on earth.

The only justification that has been offered is the two wrongs ploy. That The Church has accepted adulterers, the divorced and the remarried into congregations. Yet, not one adulterer, divorcee or remarried person in any Church anywhere has a movement and well funded organizations that demand to have their sins affirmed and ignored.

I have never used such a justification for LGBTQ+ equality.

You must not want to force gay pride into and onto The Church. That's fine with me.

However, this "two wrongs" argument is about illustrating the hypocrisy of Christian extremists. They shout from the proverbial rooftops about how God hates f*gs and homosexuality is the embodiment of all that is evil, yet they do nothing about (and often explicitly condone) other things the Bible condemns, like divorce and remarriage. It's blatant hypocrisy.

So, what is it that is the basis for gay theology and gay pride being plied in the Church? Hypocrisy or two wrongs? Not exactly sound moral footing. Let alone scriptural based.

To paraphrase your lord, take the plank out of your own eye before getting the speck out of your brother's eye.

I have. many times. I I will again if and when it happens. We Christians know we are sinners and never use a congenital excuse for our sinful orientation. We just repent. Because, we are NOT hypocrites.

By the way, people getting remarried after divorce can and often do marry within churches.

And?

There's no organization or advocating for such people because divorce/remarriage is widely accepted in the church and in society, despite Jesus saying that he hates divorce (he never, by the way, mentioned gayness).

So what is it that you are referencing? Hypocrisy or wrongdoing? Not exactly sound footing to insert yet another wrong. But certainly a place where we see how consequences OF sin have more consequences of sin.

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

That is a bald-faced LIE. Not a single LGBTQ+ activist has ever said anything like "we'll treat you worse than them" (who is the "them" in this case? That part of S&G was about rape, remember?).

I know that that is not a bald-faced lie because you obviously have not read the reporting of the interaction of the men of Sodom that wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels and what they said to Lot. It was something they said to Lot when he asked them not to homosexually rape the angels. They threaten him with a worse treatment. Boycotting Lot's business and causing him to lose everything and be homeless??? Well, we see what happened there didn't we?

How incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical . . .

Plank. Speck. Eye.

I can see clearly now the rain is gone!! I can see all obstacles in my way.

I can see also why Jesus was amazed at the faith he encountered in outsiders.

. . . that it was "minority rights" that were all important and all encompassing to validate the concerns of gay pride adherents and proponents, and yet now is the pronouncement from the very same gay pride proponents that there is a minority percentage of Christians that will not submit to gay authority over them and that this ends the debate for good.

1. The only thing with which LGBTQ+ activists are concerned is equal rights.

A husband is the spouse of a wife. A wife is the spouse of a husband. Same gender spouses are not the equal of the correct configuration. But, you can live in your world as you see fit. But your concerns about redefining what is equality is something I never have to agree with or to.

When radical Christianists want to use the power of the legislature to institutionally oppress gays and lesbians by instituting their unconstitutional Sharia laws,

Little history lesson: Sharia Law is Islamic. Same gender marriage has never been legal in SECULAR AMERICA. Christians are just exercising their democratic, civil and constitutional rights to oppose the redefinition of marriage through keeping secular laws the way they were invented.

. . . of course LGBTQ+ people and allies will push back.

L G B T "Q" and +??? What, or rather, who, is the +?

That's unsettling. Please explain?

When Christian extremists want to condemn gays from the pulpit, no one cares (except, of course, for the LGBTQ+ youth raised in such churches, who feel a tremendous amount of guilt and shame and often turn to suicide because of this).

Why should anyone feel shame and guilt from being taught not to engage in sin?

The bottom line is that hatred--especially institutionalized hate--in any sphere of society has negative consequences.

Yes. I am watching institutionalized hate be directed at Bible-believing Christians now. I think we are now called "Christian extremeists." That would include Jesus, the Apostles and ever other Christian that believes what they say is important to truth. But hey, Jesus warned us this would happen.

As an LGBTQ+ activist, I oppose such hate. If that offends you, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to live with it.

I do. And you will have to live with people that will never affirm homosexuality.

When ANY scripture can be produced that clearly, unambiguously and directly affirms, celebrates and encourages same gender sexuality, within or without a "marriage" then the issue will be settled for The Church universal. The consistency of scripture supports the Christians that are not in concert with the "LGBT Community." No matter how small that number is or becomes.

1 Samuel 18-20 & 2 Samuel 1.

I hope you stick to your word.

I do. I recognize the Lord's anointed and serve him with ALL OF MY HEART. With a love that surpasses that of the love of women.

If anyone that calls themselves a Christian, has scriptures that support a doing away with the preaching to repent of sins, or that thoughts in ones own mind can redefine sin and sinning in and for the sinner. . . produce them.

Christians have been redefining sin and sinning since there have been Christians.

Just like Jesus and the Apostles did. But now we are called "Christian extremists" and "homophobes." They were called martyrs. Same accusations but in a different language.

There is no Christian that still follows every one of the 613 commandments in the Old Testament, even though Jesus said "not one jot or tittle" will be changed.

The only Christians that ever followed every Mitzveh were Jewish Christians. But the gentile Christians never had to. And who invented the number 613 for every commandment?

There isn't a single Christian who condemns eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, despite the fact that the Bible calls both "abominations" (to'evah), the same word mentioned in Leviticus' "man laying with a man" passage.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Food were dealt with in the New Testament. But homosexuality was stiill verboten. Peter nor any other Apostle or Disciple ever had a vision about gay sex being OK'd.

The fact is, sin (like almost everything else in our society) is a social construct, and its meaning varies over space and time.

Sorry, but "society" is not The Church. It exists as the world and its ways.

There is no static definition of sin, and even the Bible acknowledges it (it contains a constant conversation on what is and isn't acceptable to God). It, like all standards of morality, is a constantly evolving construct.

Prove that.

To restate the words attributed to Jesus one more time: "take the plank out of your own eye."

I see every word written here perfectly clear. My own as well. And the next time I sin, I will repent. I will not redefine it. Nor will I call the request for repenting a hate crime.