Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals"

[Haven]

Christian fundamentalists often claim to "love" lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (who they invariably label "homosexuals"), while at the same time actively opposing gay rights, including marriage equality, hate crimes laws, and even decriminalization of same-sex relationships. This seems ridiculous to me, as love implies support, but these individuals certainly don't support LGB people.

Debate question: Is it possible to love gay, lesbian, and bisexual people while opposing gay rights?[/i

[99percentatheism]

Incidentally, Romans 3:10 tells us that NONE are righteous ...no, not one. According to the previous (above) text, does this mean that we're ALL goners regardless as to how we might qualify for the rest of the list?

Why stop there sir? Your answer was provided Romans 3:

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

So, according to this text - of which you are in agreement - homosexual Christians are all justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, just as with any other professed Christian ...right? So, what's your problem?

I am not the judge of people's souls. Only Jesus is. I can though, judge behavior and false teachings. Marriage in Christian truth is man and woman/husband and wife. Immutably so in fact according to Jesus. Unless you can't accept his teaching on the matter.

Avoid sexual immorality

Maybe I will ...but not because I'm instructed to do so by an ancient parchment. That said, are you preaching this message to the overwhelming number of heterosexuals who engage in 'sexual immorality' on a daily basis? Do you know what the most popular sites on the Internet are? The 'gay' sex sites? Try again!

But, of course ...no Christian would participate in these kinds of sites ...

Of course. I do preach that two wrongs do not and cannot make a right. Not even dozens and dozens of wrongs. Not even a congenital orientation for sinning can make it right.

Nonsense! Your fixation is SOLELY on homosexuality!

One should never take their eyes off of the adversaries of The Church. I am called by Jesus to love my brothers and sisters in Christ. By this you will no who is in The Church and who isn't.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.�

- Gospel of John 13

I have the freedom to do anything, but not everything is helpful. I have the freedom to do anything, but I won’t be controlled by anything. Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, and yet God will do away with both. The body isn't for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. God has raised the Lord and will raise us through his power. Don’t you know that your bodies are parts of Christ? So then, should I take parts of Christ and make them a part of someone who is sleeping around? No way! Don’t you know that anyone who is joined to someone who is sleeping around is one body with that person? The scripture says, The two will become one flesh. The one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him. Avoid sexual immorality! Every sin that a person can do is committed outside the body, except those who engage in sexual immorality commit sin against their own bodies.

- This was written by Paul to Christians in Corinth. Greek Christians in Corinth and of course others. 1 Corinthians 6

Good for Paul.

Yeah, he is an amazing guy.

If we need to take advice from anyone then I guess we should take advice from a man who advised that those who lust after a woman should rather marry that woman ...always a good foundation for a successful marriage!

I think he said to just get married. Rather than to be all pent up all the time. How many people can marry Katy Perry? If you know what I mean.

And, from a man who chose to remain single and, we may assume, celibate, but was nevertheless an expert on sex!

Wow, what a way to suffer. It reminds me of something I once read and posted here:

“Lord,� Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man (Saul/Paul) and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.�

But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.�

- Acts 9

Can you imagine? Being in Rome and not being able to "indulge" every whim? IN ROME?

Guess the Lord wasn't joking.

This Paul:

. . . The Lord replied, “Go! This man is the agent I have chosen to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites.

- Acts 9

Oh, THAT Paul. Okay.

That Paul.

[KCKID]

No, I think that in a society that is permitted to enforce Torah law, the death penalty could be imposed on men found guilty of practicing buggery, subject to due process.

Edit for relevance of later post.

Let me get this straight (no pun intended). Under "ideal" conditions -- you would want people killed for engaging in consensual sex acts because some ignorant goat herders 3,000 years ago thought some magical sky god said that he hated the gays?

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely insane -- no better than the Taliban. Your post is a perfect example of why religious extremism is a cancer to the human race.

No, you are not getting it straight. You are stating the view in the most pejorative of terms to make it appear to be worse than buggery, which your refer to simply as a "sex act". Are you saying that anything two humans choose to do together should be permitted as long as a sexual organ is involved?

Permitted by whom? You? God? SURELY, what two adults choose to do in private is the business of none other than themselves ...

So we are clear, the parameters are two humans, choice and in private? Anything should then be, no must be, permitted?

Just so we ARE clear we ARE talking about intimacy between two adults ...be they gay or straight. So, yes ...they are permitted to behave in private as they see fit. It has nothing to do with anyone but the parties involved. We're not talking here about two adults conspiring to fly a plane into a building and potentially destroying the lives of many ...we're talking about intimacy between two adults. There is no intent to harm anyone. Religiosity has no place in the bedroom.

[bluethread]

Just so we ARE clear we ARE talking about intimacy between two adults ...be they gay or straight. So, yes ...they are permitted to behave in private as they see fit. It has nothing to do with anyone but the parties involved. We're not talking here about two adults conspiring to fly a plane into a building and potentially destroying the lives of many ...we're talking about intimacy between two adults. There is no intent to harm anyone. Religiosity has no place in the bedroom.

Yes, between two people. However, is one permitted to harm one's partner as long as it is consensual? I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity". I am simply enquiring regarding about what you believe every society must allow.

[KCKID]

Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.

The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.

Yet again we’re led to assume that Paul – whose epistles were included in the NT Canon of the Bible as determined by its human collators – was ‘divinely inspired’. Much of Christendom believes this without a shred of evidence to prove that Paul spoke for a divine being other than the word of Paul. So, whatever Paul writes about in scripture we are to assume that it’s pretty well tantamount to having been carved into stone by the authoritative finger of God …no questions asked. Perhaps Paul was divinely inpired by God. But we don't know that he was.

You have the right to expunge from the New Testament anything that you desire. But it looks that if you keep all the stuff in there, your point is not valid:

In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!�

“Yes, Lord,� he answered.

The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.�

“Lord,� Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.�

But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.�

Are you saying that the above actually PROVES something to be correct? The Bible itself is all the evidence required to prove that the story contained within it is true? Ellen G. White (SDA Prophet) had many 'divinely inspired visions'. Most Adventists believe this. But I'd lay odds that YOU don't believe that Ms. White had such visions that led to the belief that the SDA Church is 'the Remnant Church' as spoken of in the Bible! It would appear that Joseph Smith (LDS) also had visions that the majority of Christians would undoubtedly dispute or outright reject. Why would they not believe these people? Well, because it's not in the Bible, that's why!

Even if Paul WAS chosen by the Lord to proclaim His name to the Gentiles you haven't proven that Paul says anything in his letters about homosexuality. And THAT is what we are discussing here ...NOT Paul's credentials!

The Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen G. White was also divinely inspired. She is referred to by SDAs as the Spirit of Prophesy as referenced in scripture. The Mormons, of course, have Joseph Smith as their divinely inspired prophet. And, they are convinced that he was a prophet, no ifs, ands or buts. Additionally, many churches within the LDS movement believe in a succession of living prophets (accepted by Latter Day Saints as "prophets, seers, and revelators") since the time of Joseph Smith. Churches in this movement also sustain their Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators. Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider any single person in their modern-day organization to be a prophet. However, their literature has referred to their organization collectively as God's "prophet" on earth. Many non-Christian religions also have their share of inspired individuals who claim to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.

Just talked to my son today about Ms. Baker.

Who is Ms. Baker? And what was it that you talked to your son about?

But you left out that the homosexuals have Mel White for their religious inventions. Now, everyone to their corners. KCKID, I am very much willing to wait until the Angels that Jesus assigns, separate the Sheep from the Goats.

It's only in recent times that I'd even heard of Mel White. He means little to me. I'm here to discuss scripture with you. As for your cockiness with regard to Jesus separating the sheep from the goats, you can have your moment of piety. I'm really not that impressed or interested.

While Paul is in good company ONLY HE (and other luminaries featured in the same book) is recognized by mainstream Christianity as being ‘authentic’.

Gee ya think.

Yep. The Bible has become the man-made idol of many Christians. They actually believe it to BE God.

All the others are considered bogus or fakes. So, when Paul decides to make up a word that NO ONE but he knows the meaning of and includes it in a list of ‘sins’ that will keep people out of the Kingdom of Heaven, those that have an aversion to homosexuality

Wait right there. "homo sexuality" is a made up word to define the sex between two people of the same gender. Arsenokoitai is immutably about what YOU call, in today's world, "gay behavior" between men. Not even Mel White can escape that reality. And if Paul would have meant pederasty, he already had a word well-established foe that.

That Paul did NOT have a word previously used for what he's referring to and instead had to 'make a word up' would reasonably indicate that something 'new' was going on within the early Christian Church. While it wasn't something that had not existed previously, i.e. as per the Levitical texts apparently referenced, it WAS new to the early Church. Think about that, 99percent, until you eventually put two and two together and come up with 4.

That said, it would appear that "arseno" means 'male' and "koitai" means 'bed/s'. Put them together and you come up with "male-bed/s". That's it. What one decides to make of those two words appears to be up for grabs. As before, and I repeat ...NO ONE knows what Paul was referencing when he used the term "arsenokoitai". Fact! So, please, let's remain honest. Okay?

. . . and are concerned by its increasing acceptance within society decide in desperation to give the term a definition of their own. That word is, of course, ‘arsenokoitai’. But ...THE FACTS are that NO ONE knows what that word means! Once again, THE FACTS are that NO ONE knows what that word means!

Greek is easy to understand. It is a language that can be defined. Arsen = man, koitai, sexual behavior.

Greek is so easy to understand, it's a language that can be defined. And yet, you still got it wrong. Once again, "arseno" = 'male' ..."koitai" = 'bed's'. Okay?

So, anyone who equates the word ‘arsenokoitai’ with homosexuality is doing so based on the pure speculation of others who SO DESPERATELY WANT that word to mean ‘homosexuality’.

That is simply not the case. Paul knew what he was "inventing" and why.

Here's why:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous[ will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. 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.

- Paul to the Greek Christians in Corinth.

Red alert! Red alert! Corruption of the original text warning!

And remember, Paul's word is God's word! They are all but bending backwards and doing double flips to make that happen. One can read lengthy essays on the Internet by theologians attempting to convince others that 'arsenokoitai' equates to 'homosexuality'.

It absolutely does. If, by "homosexuality" you mean male people having sex together.

(*sigh*) For the third time ..."arseno" means 'male' and "koitai" means 'bed's'. You can do whatever you want with that word but it does not READ as you so desperately want it to read!

Perhaps it does mean ‘homosexuality’. But we don’t know that.

Arsen - men, koitai-sex. You can refuse to accept that but it doesn't change Christian reality.

I'm not going to spell it out a 4th time . . .

Be that as it may, let us assume that Paul has created a neologism (new word) and that he’s equating this word to what was condemned in Leviticus 18:22. We then would need to determine what Leviticus 18:22 is talking about. We might THEN get some insight as to what ‘arsenokoitai’ really means!

Paul makes it clear that it is about good ol' sexual behavior between guys.

Who was it that said, "If you tell a lie enough times, most people will believe it." ...? Paul made NOTHING clear with his newly composed term "arsenokoitai"!

I’d like to present below (as before in a previous thread) a short video (8:27) that explains in user-friendly language what Leviticus 18:22 is really talking about. The contents of this video have been pretty well authenticated by a Jewish scholar on this very forum as well as by another local Jewish person that I met recently. Just click on the link, enjoy and, hopefully, be enlightened!

The youtube activist . . . "is doing so based on the pure speculation of others who SO DESPERATELY WANT that word to mean . . . "

what the gay agenda wants it to mean.

Absolute nonsense! The contents of the video are either factual or they are not, regardless of who is presenting them. If you believe them NOT to be factual then explain why you believe this in academic terms.

[KCKID]

Just so we ARE clear we ARE talking about intimacy between two adults ...be they gay or straight. So, yes ...they are permitted to behave in private as they see fit. It has nothing to do with anyone but the parties involved. We're not talking here about two adults conspiring to fly a plane into a building and potentially destroying the lives of many ...we're talking about intimacy between two adults. There is no intent to harm anyone. Religiosity has no place in the bedroom.

Yes, between two people. However, is one permitted to harm one's partner as long as it is consensual?

I don't follow. I didn't say that it's okay (permitted) to harm anyone as long as it's consensual. Harm may come from a consensual act but that doesn't really concern me. I'm no one's keeper.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity".

Well, I'm referring to the 'sanctimoniously religious', those with an excessive dedication to their religion who appear to give themselves the task of playing 'moral cop' at every opportunity. They have a tendency to interfere in one's private sex life. And, they often use The Holy Scripture as their 'badge of authority' to enter one's bedroom.

I am simply enquiring regarding about what you believe every society must allow.

I don't know that it's up to society to allow or not allow what two consenting adults choose to do in private as long as they harm no one else. If such intimacy is occurring under one's roof and one disapproves, then fine, speak up ...but not otherwise.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 62 by KCKID]

KCKID:

Just so we ARE clear we ARE talking about intimacy between two adults ...be they gay or straight.

Actually, the Christian concerns about homosexuals and homosexuality "in The Church" is also about the access to children by "gay activists." One cannot deny that adults and their behaviors influence and entice youth to follow their example. That is a prime reason of why militant atheists like Richard Dawkins decry religion, because of how adults that practice religion influence children to follow suit. Dawkins' position is that the culture you grow uo in influences what you will believe and believe in.

So, yes ...they are permitted to behave in private as they see fit. It has nothing to do with anyone but the parties involved.

Permitted by who? "Keeping the marriage bed undefiled," is a clear indication of the morality to be kept by Christians even in private. A Deacon, Elder or Leader in a Church being the husband of only one wife, clearly denotes what happens in private affects one's Christian life in public.

We're not talking here about two adults conspiring to fly a plane into a building and potentially destroying the lives of many ...we're talking about intimacy between two adults.

The FBI, NSA and Homeland Security "breaks up" terrorist organizations quite often while they are engaging in behaviors between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

There is no intent to harm anyone. Religiosity has no place in the bedroom.

Not according to the precepts in and of the New Testament. If you need the scripture references, just ask.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 64 by KCKID]

This can go 'round and 'round until our keyboards no longer have paint on the letters. You can present your pro gay positions all day long and the end results will be that you have invented a new and distinctly gay pride religion. Or, LGBT pride (and all the other letters and symbols being attached) if you wish. And that is your right. We will see (or rather the future generation) will see if these gay religions pan out as something that resembles The Church as it is described in the New Testament. Which of course they cannot if they are based on the New Testament writings. For prime example, marriage and the "marriage bed" does not consist of same gender mating's and pairings anywhere in the New Testament. So gay theology is left with building a religion not based on the witness and testimony of the New Testament writings.

So once again, your positions are inventing a new religion based somewhat on the New Testament and spinning off from there to a new invention. And once again, that is your right to do. The positions that are standing firmly with the faith delivered only once to the saints (The Church) are incompatible with the new invented religions represented by the 20th and 21st century gay pride movement . . . that seems utterly driven to attempt a forced entrance into the Church for the obvious reasons. But that also carries a warning for The Church:

“Very truly I tell you (Pharisees), anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.� Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

- Gospel of John, 10

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 64 by KCKID]

This can go 'round and 'round until our keyboards no longer have paint on the letters. You can present your pro gay positions all day long and the end results will be that you have invented a new and distinctly gay pride religion. Or, LGBT pride (and all the other letters and symbols being attached) if you wish. And that is your right. We will see (or rather the future generation) will see if these gay religions pan out as something that resembles The Church as it is described in the New Testament. Which of course they cannot if they are based on the New Testament writings. For prime example, marriage and the "marriage bed" does not consist of same gender mating's and pairings anywhere in the New Testament. So gay theology is left with building a religion not based on the witness and testimony of the New Testament writings.

So once again, your positions are inventing a new religion based somewhat on the New Testament and spinning off from there to a new invention. And once again, that is your right to do. The positions that are standing firmly with the faith delivered only once to the saints (The Church) are incompatible with the new invented religions represented by the 20th and 21st century gay pride movement . . . that seems utterly driven to attempt a forced entrance into the Church for the obvious reasons. But that also carries a warning for The Church:

“Very truly I tell you (Pharisees), anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.� Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.

- Gospel of John, 10

My position here is not pro-gay but pro-Bible truth, 99percent. I haven't yet encouraged people - either gay or straight, here on this forum or in real life - to throw caution to the wind and go morally crazy. But, if they do so then that's their business and not mine. What I've said - and have therefore disagreed with you from day one - is that "I believe" that NO scripture deals with homosexuality as we refer to it today. If I didn't believe this I wouldn't be so passionate about it.

I believe ALL the Bible texts pertaining to homosexuality relate to temple cult prostitution or/and pagan worship practices. Why do I believe this? Through research and study and more than a smidgin' of common sense and reasoning ability. NO scripture deals with intimacy between gay couples practiced in private because such would not and could not be an issue within the early Christian Church. The things spoken of were undoubtedly PUBLIC DISPLAYS of religious debauchery visible to all in that particular environment. Paul either witnessed these things personally or otherwise received letters of concern and frustration from the Church Fathers informing Paul what was going on. These scriptures (how many are there anyway, five, six in the entire Bible ...?) dealt with public displays of ritualistic sexuality performed by pagan idolaters which, by virtue of these worship practices to false deities, spit in the face of a jealous God who ALONE was/is to be worshiped! Read about the worship practices of Baal, Cybele, Mithra, etc. Remember the Golden Calf of Moses and the depraved sexual dancing of people who should have known better ...?

I would guess that many Christians already know this to be true but obstinacy and the rather narcissistic need by some for a 'foe to vanquish' has them digging in their heels even harder. That might be understandable and even excusable - a typical human trait - if not for the fact that fellow human beings continue to be vilified by this arrogance and stupidity.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 64 by KCKID]

This can go 'round and 'round until our keyboards no longer have paint on the letters. You can present your pro gay positions all day long and the end results will be that you have invented a new and distinctly gay pride religion.

Can you provide one shred of evidence that your belief system is true? After all, it doesn't matter if fundamentalist Christianity condemns homosexuality, breathing, or creamed corn, if it isn't true it's completely irrelevant.

I don't care what your version of Christianity says about gays (or women; your religion is infamously sexist) unless it can be demonstrated to be true.

The Bible, by the way, never condemns homosexuality as it is expressed today; only temple prostitution and "arsenokoitai," a word coined by Paul (a neologism! Shocking!) to mean who knows what (in context, it seems to refer to temple prostitution, pedophilia, or both).

[bluethread]

Yes, between two people. However, is one permitted to harm one's partner as long as it is consensual?

I don't follow. I didn't say that it's okay (permitted) to harm anyone as long as it's consensual. Harm may come from a consensual act but that doesn't really concern me. I'm no one's keeper.

So, are sadism, erotic strangulation or even intentional death none of your concern, as long as they are consensual?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Religiosity".

Well, I'm referring to the 'sanctimoniously religious', those with an excessive dedication to their religion who appear to give themselves the task of playing 'moral cop' at every opportunity. They have a tendency to interfere in one's private sex life. And, they often use The Holy Scripture as their 'badge of authority' to enter one's bedroom.

Is there some other "badge of authority" that society may use to enter one's bedroom? Is a designate bedroom absolute sanctuary, or are you using that term as an idiom for privacy?

I am simply enquiring regarding about what you believe every society must allow.

I don't know that it's up to society to allow or not allow what two consenting adults choose to do in private as long as they harm no one else. If such intimacy is occurring under one's roof and one disapproves, then fine, speak up ...but not otherwise.

Do you not know whether it's up to society or did you mean it is not up to society?