| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Joey Faust" |
| Date: |
26 Nov 2004 08:18:50 PM |
| Object: |
The Myth about "born gay" |
If people are born "gay," with no ability to refrain from acting upon
sexual desires for the same sex, this would mean that the Bible is not
inspired by God! Under the Old Testament, homosexuals were punished by
God in the same manner, in the same class, as people who had sex with
animals:
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the
nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof
upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls
that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Yet, we know that the Bible IS inspired by God. If God calls a
particular action a sin, and punishes people for that action, it
therefore follows that such people are culpable. And any argument which
tries to justify homosexuality by saying that "it is in the genes,"
would also justify bestiality, pedophilia, and many other abominations!
As society continues to degenerate (many call it "progress"!), the same
argument will increasingly be made for bestiality and pedophilia: "They
can't help themselves. They were born this way." This argument is
already bein used. We can begin to see the sun setting on the horizon:
"American Psychiatric Association Now Wants To Normalize Pedophilia San
Francis - Confirming LifeSite's previous warning about serious on-going
efforts to legitimize adult-child sex, the American Psychiatric
Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants
discussed the removal of pedophilia from the psychiatric manual of
mental disorders. Cybercast news Service reports today that
Psychiatrists at the May 19 conference in San Francisco proposed
removing several long-recognized categories of mental illness -
including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism
and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM). 'Normalizing' pedophilia would have enormous
implications, especially since civil laws closely follow the scientific
community on social-moral matters, said Linda Ames Nicolosi, NARTH
publications director. 'If pedophilia is deemed normal by psychiatrists,
then how can it remain illegal?' Nicolosi asked. 'It will be a tough
fight to prove in the courts that it should still be against the law.'
Another logical question is how this development would also affect the
battle against currently growing volumes of child porn?" (June 10, 2003,
LifeSiteNews.com)
When is enough, ENOUGH? When will more Christians awake and say it is
past time to take a stand. The "I was born this way" argument is morally
and rationally flawed! It would justify ANY crime, sin or action.
In fact, if we will use such arguments (blaming everything on DNA), then
it follows that all the people that consider bestiality, pedophilia, and
sodomy (i.e. homosexuality) DISGUSTING should not be ridiculed or
scorned! There is much more evidence that people are NATURALLY BORN with
consciences that HATE the above three sins, than there is evidence that
many are born "gay"! Notice the following words from the Holy Bible:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the NATURAL use into that which is AGAINST
NATURE:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not
convenient;
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, WITHOUT NATURAL AFFECTION,
implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things
are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them
that do them.
According to God, homosexuality is UNNATURAL. Therefore, it is NORMAL
for people to be DISGUSTED at such sins in their consciences.
In conclusion, those who say that homosexuals are "born this way," and
that therefore they should be allowed to flaunt their lifestyle in the
face of children (without protest), will usually be quick to deny the
same right to those who practice bestiality and pedophilia. Furthermore,
they will deny the same liberty to those who are born with a natural
desire to PROTEST such abominations.
The truth of the matter is that moral culpability is not based on genes
or physical chemistry. Morality often involves RESISTING desires
(lusts). The man who "desires" sex with another man's wife is called by
God to RESIST such desires, and refrain from everything which makes
provision for acting upon them (Proverbs 7:6-8, 19). People who desire
to physically strike people who disagree with them, are called to resist
such desires. Any desire, passion, lust, or feeling which is against
God's moral law (written in man's conscience, and in Scripture) should
be resisted. Any desire for such sins as adultery, bestiality,
pedophilia, or sodomy should be resisted (regardless of why it is
present). "I felt like it," is not a legitimate, moral defense in God's
court of law for any sin. But if it will continue to be used, then we
must simply reply with the same rationalization. If some people are born
to have sexual relations with the same sex, simply because they
"desire" it, then others are also born to find such actions disgusting!
Such disgust in not only in our natural consciences, it is in the
"spiritual genes" of our new birth (John 3:7):
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Obedient Christians are moved by a great, compelling affection to warn
homosexuals about God's judgment, and protect the young minds of
children from their sodomite propaganda:
Colossians 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the
earth.
Ephesians 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
Proverbs 28:4 They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as
keep the law contend with them.
Visit my website
www.kingdombaptist.org
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 11:41:06 PM |
|
|
Mark <rogerpearse.caneatmy.smegma> writes:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:17:01 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
I've better
things to do that get in a pissing contest with some possibly fake
"pastor" who is ranting about how many angles fit on the head of a
pin.
One for each degree in a circle, why do you ask? <smirk> <j/k>
<ducking for cover>
Sorry about the typo, where I transposed two letters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark rogerpearse.caneatmy.smegma" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
29 Nov 2004 06:21:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:41:06 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Mark <rogerpearse.caneatmy.smegma> writes:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:17:01 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
I've better
things to do that get in a pissing contest with some possibly fake
"pastor" who is ranting about how many angles fit on the head of a
pin.
One for each degree in a circle, why do you ask? <smirk> <j/k>
<ducking for cover>
Sorry about the typo, where I transposed two letters.
No worries.
It's just hard to keep track of who doesn't mind jokes about the
typos, and who needs to have their typos rammed down their throat sans
condiments.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 04:25:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:17:01 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:09:11 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> writes:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:44:33 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk (Ninure Saunders) writes:
<long list of examples snipped>
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was
raped but no one heard her scream.
This one is a good example of how the fundies are out to lunch.
It doesn't say that to begin with.
I'll let Ninure answer that one. Literally, it says
If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the
city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out
to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death
with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help
though she was in the city, and the man because he violated
his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the
midst of you.
so Ninure's two line summary seems reasonable. The two of you
can argue about it all you wish.
Re: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (quoted above)...
It doesn't say anything about the woman lying, which is
what Ninure claimed it said.
If she didn't scream, and accused him of rape to get out of a death
sentence, then the quote clearly shows that she would not be believed.
She would also not be believed if she came up with some other excuse
such as a "wardrobe malfunction," but that does not make what Ninure
said false. Ninure simply described the most common case.
Where does it say any of that? You're making things up
and then pretending they're in the passages.
It says that she didn't cry out, meaning that she wasn't opposed to
it. It says, "meets her in the city". It doesn't say, "takes her
captive and forces her". You should have kept reading and read vs
25-26...
You don't "cry for help" in this situation if you are not being forced
to do something, and what some other part of the chapter says is not
relevant.
But in any case, you should bring it up with Ninure. I've better
things to do that get in a pissing contest with some possibly fake
"pastor" who is ranting about how many angles fit on the head of a
pin.
You did not address the passages I posted, which follow
the two you did and clearly show the difference. You
are being dishonest.
Deuteronomy 22:25-26
25) But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field,
and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man
only that lay with her shall die:
26) But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is
in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man
riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so
is this matter:
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 11:44:17 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:17:01 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
I'll let Ninure answer that one. Literally, it says
If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the
city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out
to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death
with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help
though she was in the city, and the man because he violated
his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the
midst of you.
so Ninure's two line summary seems reasonable. The two of you
can argue about it all you wish.
Re: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (quoted above)...
It doesn't say anything about the woman lying, which is
what Ninure claimed it said.
If she didn't scream, and accused him of rape to get out of a death
sentence, then the quote clearly shows that she would not be believed.
She would also not be believed if she came up with some other excuse
such as a "wardrobe malfunction," but that does not make what Ninure
said false. Ninure simply described the most common case.
Where does it say any of that? You're making things up
and then pretending they're in the passages.
They are implied in the passages, for the reasons I gave. To understand
this, it would help to know that A -> B is equivalent to ~B -> ~A.
If this goes over your head, there is no point in continuing the
conversation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
01 Dec 2004 02:49:46 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3r7mdxlae.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
They are implied in the passages, for the reasons I gave. To understand
this, it would help to know that A -> B is equivalent to ~B -> ~A.
If this goes over your head, there is no point in continuing the
conversation.
I'm not sure I agree with that! say A is a car and B is a vehicle. Okay, A
is equivalent to B. And not car is equivalent to not vehicle. But wait,
not car could be say a bicycle. If we plug in bicycle for not A then it is
not equivalent to not B or not vehicle because bicycle is a vehicle. "If
this goes over your head, there is no point in continuing the conversation."
I had to use that last sentence back on you just to show you how really
jerky (and arrogant) it sounds.
Love
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
29 Nov 2004 08:13:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:44:17 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:17:01 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
I'll let Ninure answer that one. Literally, it says
If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the
city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out
to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death
with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help
though she was in the city, and the man because he violated
his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the
midst of you.
so Ninure's two line summary seems reasonable. The two of you
can argue about it all you wish.
Re: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (quoted above)...
It doesn't say anything about the woman lying, which is
what Ninure claimed it said.
If she didn't scream, and accused him of rape to get out of a death
sentence, then the quote clearly shows that she would not be believed.
She would also not be believed if she came up with some other excuse
such as a "wardrobe malfunction," but that does not make what Ninure
said false. Ninure simply described the most common case.
Where does it say any of that? You're making things up
and then pretending they're in the passages.
They are implied in the passages,
No, they aren't and once again, you fail to acknowledge
the difference between the passages you quoted and the
ones I did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
29 Nov 2004 08:40:09 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:44:17 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> writes:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:17:01 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
pontificated:
so Ninure's two line summary seems reasonable. The two of you
can argue about it all you wish.
They are implied in the passages,
No, they aren't and once again, you fail to acknowledge the
difference between the passages you quoted and the ones I did.
We went over it several times. Ninure's statement is a reasonable one
as a "one-liner" summary. Just because you quoted some irrelevant
passages doesn't change that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
27 Nov 2004 08:22:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:39:19 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest,
(Ninure Saunders) pontificated:
THE SCRIPTURES ON SAME GENDER SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
Contrary to what many people have been taught there is nothing in the
Bible which condemns people with a homosexual orientation having
homosexual relationships. In fact, did you know the word "homosexual", as
we understand it today, does not occur in the Bible at all in the original
languages it was written in!
Let's take a look at the passages which have often been use to oppress the
homosexual people:
You mean which often have been used to rightly shows
homosexual acts to be sin. Yes, let's look at those...
Homosexuality - Is It Forbidden?
This is a subject which has divided the church as of
late and one that we definitely need to deal with.
Why? That's simple. If it is ok with God, then we
need to stop speaking against it and welcome
homosexuals and homosexual couples into our churches
and even begin to have gatherings and dances, etc.,
that include homosexual unions and promote homosexuals
meeting each other for possibly romantic futures
together. On the other side of the coin, if it is not
ok with God, then the churches need to stop catering to
it and twisting the word of God to suit their liberal
purposes, teaching that God doesn't speak against it,
or that we need to update our thinking, because the
Bible is outdated (Hebrews 13:8; 1 Peter 1:25).
Whatever the case is, we need to get with it and stick
to the program that God set forth for us to follow.
We should begin our look into this matter, by looking
at what Scripture has to say and the arguments put
forth by both sides, regarding what they believe
Scripture says. This would seem to be the most
sensible approach.
I find that the argument usually comes down to a debate
about three things:
1) An argument about what a particular word means in
the original language.
2) Whether or not the Law still applies.
3) Whether or not Jesus, or any of the Apostles, spoke
against homosexuality.
To begin, we should start at the beginning. And where
does it all begin? In Genesis. By looking at how God
set things up in the beginning, we can get an accurate
picture of what God intended, as far as romantic
relationships are concerned.
Genesis 1:26-28
26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27) So God created man in his own image, in the image
of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
thing that moveth upon the earth.
The above is an overview of the creation of man.
Genesis 2 gives us more detail about the sixth day of
the Creation and we'll go into that in a moment.
However, even if we just look at the above passages,
they give us an ides of what God intended for us.
Note that in verse 27, God created us "male and
female", not "male and male", nor "female and female".
Note that in verse 28, God tells them to "be fruitful
and multiply". How does that happen, if they are both
the same sex? Now I know that the pro-homosexual will
say that there are plenty of people to do that now, but
that isn't the point, now is it. The point is how God
set it up and how He intended it to be. And while the
pro-homosexual will argue that we can't possibly know
the mind of God, nor what God intended, I would state
that we certainly can as far as this is concerned, by
reading the Bible, since they are the words that God
wanted us to have. If He wanted us to have words about
how we should have a homosexual relationship if we
wanted to, then He would have left us words to that
effect.
The next thing that the pro-homosexual will ask, is
what if your husband or wife is sterile? Does that
mean that you shouldn't marry them, or that they are
violating God's will? This only shows the depths that
the advocates of homosexuality will stoop to. The fact
is, that if they want to use the argument that it isn't
necessary for everyone to procreate now, because of the
number of people on Earth, then THIS is where they
should use it. To support couples who find out that
one or both of them is sterile. Not to support
homosexual couples, who are violating God's word to
begin with. And what kind of "Christian" takes the
stance that the opposite of what God proclaimed as
good, is what should be done? These are simply
ridiculous arguments.
Let us now skip to Genesis 2, which as I said in an
earlier chapter, is an expansion on the sixth day of
creation and tells us what happened on that day, in
more detail.
Genesis 2:5-8
5) And every plant of the field before it was in the
earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for
the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there was not a man to till the ground.
6) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered
the whole face of the ground.
7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul.
8) And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed.
So here we see that man has been created and that God
made the Garden of Eden and put man there.
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man
should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
- Genesis 2:18
God says in verse 18, that it is not good for man to be
alone. Now notice the wording. God says that He will
make "an help meet" for Adam. That phrase, "an help
meet", means simply, "a suitable helper". Looking at
the original Hebrew confirms this. God was going to
make a "suitable" helper for Adam. That's the key
word, "suitable". What type of mate would be
"suitable" for Adam? While the advocates of homosexual
relationships try to cloud this in mystery, stating
that we cannot know what God intended, in reality, all
we have to do is read the texts for ourselves and we'll
see plain as day, what God intended and intends, for
man, as far as romantic relationships are concerned.
Let's read together and see:
Genesis 2:21-24
21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh.
God decided that the suitable mate for man, was woman.
God also ordained marriage here, as one which occurs
between a man and a woman. When a man and a woman are
joined, it is a "suitable" marriage covenant. Logic
would dictate at this point, that if it doesn't involve
a man and a woman, then it is, "unsuitable".
Note that in verse 24, God tells us that a man shall
leave his father and mother and cleave "to his WIFE".
The Bible states clearly, that a man shall marry a
woman, period. There is no exception noted here. It
also talks about the sexual relationship, by stating
that they will "be one flesh". While it also has
spiritual and emotional implications, it is a physical
term in the original Hebrew.
The fact is, that right from the beginning, we can see
what God intended for us, as far as romantic
relationships and marriage are concerned.
1) A romantic relationship that is "suitable", is that
which occurs between a man and a woman.
2) Sex is to occur only within the bounds of marriage.
Remember, the commandment was that a man and a woman
shall become one flesh, AFTER she becomes his wife
(v24).
3) Marriage is the union of man and wife, not man and
husband, nor woman and wife.
While the pro-homosexual advocate will tell you that a
"monogamous homosexual relationship" is not condemned
by God, we can see that from the very beginning, God
instituted romantic relationships to be between men and
women.
Now, having these Scriptures under our belt, let us
proceed and look at some other Scriptures, which are
hotly debated between those who state that homosexual
acts are condemned by God and those who claim that a
"loving, monogamous relationship" is all that God
requires. And let us proceed, by looking at the most
commonly quoted passages that are used to argue against
homosexuality and the pro-homosexual responses to it.
The first, deals with the sin of Sodom. By looking at
Scripture, we can see that Sodom was a city that was
destroyed by God.
Genesis 19:1-25
1) And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot
sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up
to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward
the ground;
2) And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray
you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night,
and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go
on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in
the street all night.
3) And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in
unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them
a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did
eat.
4) But before they lay down, the men of the city, even
the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old
and young, all the people from every quarter:
5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where
are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring
them out unto us, that we may know them.
6) And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the
door after him,
7) And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you,
and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto
these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof.
9) And they said, Stand back. And they said again,
This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs
be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with
them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot,
and came near to break the door.
10) But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot
into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11) And they smote the men that were at the door of the
house with blindness, both small and great: so that
they wearied themselves to find the door.
12) And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any
besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters,
and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of
this place:
13) For we will destroy this place, because the cry of
them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and
the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
14) And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law,
which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out
of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city.
But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
15) And when the morning arose, then the angels
hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two
daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the
iniquity of the city.
16) And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his
hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand
of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him:
and they brought him forth, and set him without the
city.
17) And it came to pass, when they had brought them
forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look
not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain;
escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.
18) And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:
19) Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy
sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou
hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot
escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I
die:
20) Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it
is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not
a little one?) and my soul shall live.
21) And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee
concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow
this city, for the which thou hast spoken.
22) Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any
thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of
the city was called Zoar.
23) The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered
into Zoar.
24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25) And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain,
and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which
grew upon the ground.
The question is, why did God destroy this city? The
pro-homosexual advocate will argue that it had nothing
to do with sexual sins and they'll argue this, using a
few different scenarios.
Scenario 1: That the men only wanted to "get to know"
the men (not in the Biblical sense) and that the sin
was one of inhospitality. You see, it is true that not
being hospitable to guests, was considered a big sin by
the people. However, what is important to note, is
that it was considered a huge sin BY THE PEOPLE. While
God would have us to be hospitable, nowhere does the
Bible imply that God goes around destroying cities
because they we were rude to some guests. That's
ridiculous. What the pro-homosexuals do, who argue
this point, is to take how the people felt about how
serious the sin of inhospitality was and implant that
on God. Yes God tells us to be kind to strangers, I
agree. But nowhere does God equate being inhospitable
with a sin worthy of death. This approach tries to
make God like these men, instead of judging these men
by what God has made known to His people.
The fact is, that the people didn't surround Lot's
house, just because they wanted to give a "high five"
to his guests and got upset when they couldn't, causing
God to destroy their city. Yet, that is what the
pro-homosexuals would have you believe. This is the
sequence of events, as promoted by pro-homosexuals, who
want to try to convince you that the reason God
destroyed the city, was for being inhospitable:
1) The messengers came to Lot's house.
2) The men of the city found out about it and came to
Lot's house.
3) They got upset, because Lot would not let them get
to know the men (greet them).
4) They attempted to teach Lot a lesson.
5) God destroyed the city.
Now while the pro-homosexual will tell you that the men
of the city were being inhospitable, if you believe the
list of events above, it would have been Lot who was
inhospitable, by not letting the men welcome the
strangers, as pro-homosexuals would have you believe
they were trying to do. So why did God destroy the
city and save Lot? That wouldn't make sense. In fact,
if what they claim is true, then God should have
destroyed Lot and saved the men of the city. After
all, if what they claim is true, shouldn't they have
tried to teach Lot a lesson, if he was being
inhospitable and disobeying God's commandment? So that
blows apart Scenario #1.
Also note that in verse 5, the men of the city ask Lot
to bring the men out, so that they may get to know
them. But in verse 7, Lot asks the men not to do
wickedly to his guests. Tell me, why would Lot say
that about some men who just stopped by to say hi to
his guests? What is "wicked" about just getting to
know a couple of strangers who came into your city,
especially considering that the pro-homosexual is
arguing that the men of the city were simply trying to
be friendly to strangers, as God commanded? As I said,
Scenario #1 just doesn't make sense.
Scenario 2: That it was the lust of the men that caused
God to destroy the city and it had nothing to do with
an attempted homosexual rape.
If that's true, then why, in verse 5, did the men of
the city ask Lot to bring the MEN out, so that they may
"know them", bearing in mind, that we already
understand that they weren't using the word in the
sense of getting to know someone as a friend?
5) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where
are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring
them out unto us, that we may know them.
Now let's look at Lot's response.
6) And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the
door after him,
7) And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Lot begs them not to "do wickedly" to them. He knew
what they had in mind, since they just told him.
8) Behold now, I have two daughters which have not
known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you,
and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto
these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the
shadow of my roof.
Notice that Lot then offers the men his virgin
daughters. Yes folks, there is obviously sex involved
here, no matter what the pro-homosexual advocate tries
to argue.
9) And they said, Stand back. And they said again,
This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs
be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with
them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot,
and came near to break the door.
Notice here, that the virgin daughters were not what
the men wanted and tried to barge their way into the
house, to rape the MEN. Yes folks, it was THE MEN that
they wanted. They wanted to have homosexual sex with
the men, by force. To them it was strange flesh, or as
the kids today say, "a strange piece" and it was
important that it was men. Otherwise, they would have
been after Lot's virgin daughters for "a strange
piece", long before that night, since they had never
had sex with them, considering the fact that they were
virgins.
And why did the men of the city say to Lot, in v9, "now
will we deal worse with thee, than with them", if they
only intended to show hospitality to the strangers in
Lot's house? That wouldn't make any sense.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them
in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." -
Jude 7
So that blows apart Scenario #2. Yes, lust was
involved, but it was homosexual lust specifically. And
please don't fall for the argument about the people
being bisexual. That is probably true, but it is
specifically homosexual acts that are under discussion
here and there is no getting around that. When a man
forced a woman to have sex, he was commanded to marry
her. God didn't say He would destroy the city because
of it. He commanded the man to marry the woman, so
that she would not have to bear her shame of being
humbled (since people do tend to look down upon rape
victims). This would apply to whichever man took her
virginity.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28) If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is
not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her,
and they be found;
29) Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the
damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she
shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may
not put her away all his days.
Scenario 3: That it wasn't for fornication that God
destroyed Sodom, but for the reasons Ezekiel quotes.
So let's look at what Ezekiel says about Sodom:
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49) Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom:
pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her
and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the
hand of the poor and needy.
50) And they were haughty, and committed abomination
before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].
The pro-homosexual would have us believe that this is
all Scripture has to say about Sodom and what their sin
was. They like to ignore the word, "abominations" in
the passage they quote from Ezekiel. They don't seem
to be able to read the text with common sense. Yes, it
lists pride, etc., as sins committed by Sodom. They
fail however, to note the phrase... "AND committed
ABOMINATIONS before me...". It doesn't equate the
abominations with the pride. It says, "AND (meaning,
"in addition to", or, "and also") committed
abominations".
Did you ever notice how the pro-homosexuals try to
twist the word "abomination" in Scripture, to suit
their own purpose, when they know that the passage is
talking about sex and falsely claim that it is only in
relation to using male prostitutes in the worship of
false gods? Yet when they quote Ezekiel, they ignore
the word "abomination" altogether and pretend it isn't
even there, thereby destroying their own argument about
what Ezekiel says about Sodom, since we can plainly see
that it is there and states that abomination was
committed in addition to the other sins listed there.
The fact is, that Ezekiel isn't the only one to talk
about what the sins of Sodom were and it is Jude who
explains what these "abominations" were, at least in
part, in the New Testament.
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them,
having in like manner with these given themselves over
to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set
forth as an example, suffering the punishment of
eternal fire." - Jude 7
Therefore, as we can see, Scenario #3 is destroyed by
God's word also.
The next passage is found in Leviticus.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
Now a normal reading of this, would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin. But is that
what it really says? The homosexual, or homosexual
advocate, would argue that the word is being used apart
from its actual meaning. That the word "abomination"
has to do with idolatry and that the subject here, is
really about people who would engage in sex with male
temple prostitutes. So according to the homosexual
argument, unless this is what someone is doing, they
are not violating the Old Testament Law. Yet is that
the case? What Hebrew word, is the word "abomination"
actually translated from and what does it actually
mean?
The word in the original language is, "tow `ebah", and
while it can mean something related to idolatry and may
have been most commonly used in that sense, it is not
limited to that definition, no matter how many times
the homosexual advocate tries to imply that it is. In
actuality, it means, "a disgusting thing (abomination)"
and can be used in a ritual sense (including unclean
food, idols, mixed marriages, etc.), or in an ethical,
or moral sense. That is the fact of the matter, so to
make an argument based on one word, at least in this
case, doesn't make any sense. What the homosexual
advocate also doesn't take into account, is that if
used the way that they would like you to use the word,
it applies no sinful behavior to the male temple
prostitute, who is playing the role of the woman. The
word, if applied as they would apply it, only speaks to
the sin of the person playing the role of the man in
the homosexual sex act. So then, is the male temple
prostitute is safe? That is ridiculous! God does, of
course, deal with the man playing the role of the
woman, in another passage (Leviticus 20:13, which we'll
get to later). So they are not even taking all of
Scripture into account, in their argument.
As for the passages themselves, the sensible thing to
do, is to look at the surrounding verses and see if
they shed any light on the context that the word is
being used in. Context is of extreme importance and it
is a dangerous practice to take one passage out of the
Bible and try to build a doctrine on it, unless the
surrounding passages only bolster the point made by the
one passage. So let's take a look at the surrounding
passages and see what they say.
Leviticus 18:1-26
1) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2) Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto
them, I am the LORD your God.
3) After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye
dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the
land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do:
neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Now here we notice that God says not to do like the
Canaanites. And while I agree that they worshipped
idols and also agree that Romans 1 tells us that this
is where homosexual acts started (homosexuals don't
agree with that), God does not mention that here, but
rather, only says not to practice the things they
practice. I.e., He doesn't limit it to the temple of a
false god.
4) Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances,
to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
5) Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my
judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I
am the LORD.
6) None of you shall approach to any that is near of
kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7) The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy
mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou
shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8) The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not
uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9) The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy
father, or daughter of thy mother, [whether she be]
born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou
shalt not uncover.
10) The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy
daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt
not uncover: for their's is thine own nakedness.
11) The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter,
begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt
not uncover her nakedness.
12) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near
kinswoman.
14) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife:
she is thine aunt.
15) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not
uncover her nakedness.
16) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17) Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and
her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's
daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her
nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is
wickedness.
18) Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to
vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in
her life time.
19) Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to
uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for
her uncleanness.
20) Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy
neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
Now look at these verses above, which deal with sex
with family members. According to the homosexual
argument, since God included these acts in His usage of
the word, "abominations", they must all be temple
prostitutes. And since the argument of the homosexual
states that God speaks against temple prostitution, but
not against "loving, committed homosexual
relationships", that must mean that if you and your
sister are in a "loving, committed incestuous
relationship" and she is not a temple prostitute, that
it is okay to have sex with her. In fact, you don't
even need a legal marriage, according to the homosexual
argument. You can also commit adultery with your
neighbors wife, as long as she is not a temple
prostitute. Of course, we know that doing this with
your sister is not "loving her" and only a fool would
argue that a mother loves her son or daughter properly,
by having sex with them. Yet, even though God says
that "man shall not lie with man" and condemns it in
the same chapter, the homosexual argues that they are
"loving each other". How ridiculous. Why is one,
"abomination" okay and the others aren't? The
homosexual will argue, "But those other things are
condemned in other passages elsewhere in the Bible".
Well, homosexual acts are condemned right here in the
Bible, as well as in other places in the Bible and they
ignore those passages, so why should we pay attention
when they make that claim? They are hypocrites.
21) And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through
the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name
of thy God: I am the LORD.
Now here we have God specifically condemning the
practice of burning our children, in worship of Molech.
Now, does that mean we can burn our children, as long
as we don't do it to worship Molech? You see how the
homosexual making the arguments that they do about v22,
defies all logic.
22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind:
it is abomination.
And here it is. The homosexual says, "Look, God used
that word specifically in this verse, so He is talking
about temple prostitution". Once again, the homosexual
forgets that the word has two meanings, not just one
and both equal out to being disgusting anyway, so
what's their point? The fact is, that by reading
verses 26-30, we see that God called ALL of these
practices, "abominations" and they are OBVIOUSLY NOT
limited to "temple prostitution".
23) Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile
thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before
a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Here we go. Humans and beasts having sex. Is that
okay for those people who do it today and don't do it
at a temple? Is the beast a, "temple prostitute"? It
must be, since the homosexual limits their argument
about the word "abomination" to this.
24) Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things:
for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast
out before you:
25) And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the
iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth
out her inhabitants.
26) Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my
judgments, and shall not commit any of these
abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any
stranger that sojourneth among you:
27) (For all these abominations have the men of the
land done, which were before you, and the land is
defiled;)
28) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile
it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29) For whosoever shall commit any of these
abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be
cut off from among their people.
30) Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye
commit not any one of these abominable customs, which
were committed before you, and that ye defile not
yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
And there it is. The very same Hebrew word translated
to "abomination" in v22, is used here, in v27 & 29 and
notice, it says that *_ALL_* of those customs are
included, even though it is OBVIOUS to anyone with half
a brain, that they aren't all related to "temple
prostitution". Romans 1 goes well with this chapter
and we'll look at Romans 1 later in this chapter. Idol
worship is where these things started. These things
are not limited to temple prostitution though, as I
have shown logically and reasonably.
To reiterate a bit, what the homosexual advocate will
immediately point out, are the verses that immediately
surround verse 22, because verse 21 talks about the
worship of Molech, in which babies were sacrificed to
him. However, this assumes that all of the surrounding
verses are talking about the worship of false gods and
that is not true. Is it ok to sleep with your
neighbor's wife (v20), as long as you're not
worshipping a false god, while doing it? Of course not
and no homosexual, or homosexual advocate, who claims
to be a Christian, would argue that it is. So why do
they argue this one point, saying that man lying with
man is ok? A good question, don't you think? Yes,
while the homosexuals and homosexual advocates readily
admit that not all of Leviticus 18:1-26 deals with the
worship of false gods, they still proclaim that the
word "abomination" deals with idol worship in verse 22
and not with a "loving homosexual couple". Yet, they
miss the fact that in verse 26, God calls ALL of the
things listed, an "abomination" and yes, it is
translated from the SAME Hebrew word. He says not to
commit ANY of these "ABOMINATIONS". So their argument
that verse 22 is only dealing with idol worship,
because of the Hebrew word that "abomination" is
translated from, falls apart, using the very same
verses that they use to argue their point with.
Otherwise, as I said, it would be ok to do all of them,
as long as you are not worshipping false gods while
doing them. It would be ok to have sex with animals,
according to their logic, as long as it was because you
care about the animal.
The next passage used, is Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they
shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them." - Leviticus 20:13
Again, a normal reading of this would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin. But is that
what it really says? Once again, the homosexual, or
homosexual advocate, would argue that the word is being
used apart from its actual meaning. They would argue
that the word "abomination" has to do with idolatry and
that what it's talking about here, is people who would
engage in sex with male temple prostitutes. Yet, this
time the Scripture deals with BOTH parties and not just
the man playing the dominant role of male. It says
that both of them have committed an "abomination". So
it can't just be dealing with strolling over to the
temple to have sex a male prostitute, as the
pro-homosexuals contend and their own argument defeats
them. Again, let's look at the whole context of the
passage and see what else is said:
Leviticus 20:1-23
1) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2) Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel,
Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the
strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of
his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death:
the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
3) And I will set my face against that man, and will
cut him off from among his people; because he hath
given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary,
and to profane my holy name.
4) And if the people of the land do any ways hide their
eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto
Molech, and kill him not:
5) Then I will set my face against that man, and
against his family, and will cut him off, and all that
go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech,
from among their people.
6) And the soul that turneth after such as have
familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring
after them, I will even set my face against that soul,
and will cut him off from among his people.
7) Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I
am the LORD your God.
8) And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the
LORD which sanctify you.
9) For every one that curseth his father or his mother
shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father
or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10) And the man that committeth adultery with another
man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress
shall surely be put to death.
11) And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath
uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12) And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of
them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought
confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they
shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
them.
14) And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is
wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and
they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15) And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be
put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16) And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie
down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast:
they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be
upon them.
17) And if a man shall take his sister, his father's
daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her
nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked
thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their
people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he
shall bear his iniquity.
18) And if a man shall lie with a woman having her
sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath
discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the
fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut
off from among their people.
19) And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he
uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their
iniquity.
20) And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he
hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear
their sin; they shall die childless.
21) And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is
an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's
nakedness; they shall be childless.
22) Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my
judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring
you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
23) And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation,
which I cast out before you: for they committed all
these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Now the immediate argument that the homosexual, or
homosexual advocate would make, is that the word,
"abomination" is only used in v13, which deals with two
men having sex. But wait, Leviticus 18:26 called all
of the things listed in Leviticus 18:1-26,
"abominations". So to argue that they aren't
considered such here, is to argue using Scripture
against Scripture and that certainly isn't a valid
approach for ANY Christian to take.
The point being made here, is that this word, "tow
`ebah", which is translated into the English word,
"abomination", is not and cannot be limited to acts
committed while worshipping Molech, the god mentioned
in a few of the verses. Therefore, no homosexual, nor
homosexual advocate, can successfully make the argument
that it is.
The fact is, that the entire chapter shows that the
root of all of these acts is the sin of turning away
from God and turning to other gods, whomever, or
whatever they may be. Remember, the chapters deal with
how the other nations acted and God was telling His
people not to do what they did.
You see, I would grant that there are some descriptions
of homosexual acts in the Bible, in relation to the
worship of false gods. However, what that shows, is
that the root of homosexuality is found in the worship
of false gods. That these homosexual acts are the
result of the worship of false gods. The poisonous
plant that grows up from the seed of such worship.
Let us be clear. There is nothing in the passages that
have been quoted above, that would indicate that
homosexual acts are sinful ONLY in the context of the
worship of Molech. In fact, using the logic of the
pro-homosexual argument, which is one of words, one
could commit homosexual acts while worshipping false
gods other than Molech and it would not be sin, since
the only false god mentioned, is Molech. So when the
pro-homosexual person argues about wording, they defeat
themselves and no rebuttal is necessary, except to
point this out to them.
Now the question moves on, to whether or not the Laws
that God set out, still apply. This is always a big
point of contention. Let me tell you how I see it.
There are three types of laws that God set for man.
Some apply today and some don't. I know that sounds
like it sets me up as the judge, who gets to pick and
choose what applies and what doesn't, but please, bear
with me for a bit and you'll see where I'm going with
this. I'll list the categories, as I see them and
provide some examples.
1) Moral and ethical laws, which are still in effect.
Laws against murder, rape, incest, stealing, adultery,
etc..
2) Ritual laws, that are not in effect, since Christ's
death and resurrection.
Clothing, food preparation (don't eat this or that),
etc..
3) Shadows of something that was to come, which are
done away with, in Christ.
Animal sacrifices, sacrifices involving incense, the
veil of the Temple, etc..
So while people may argue with me, saying that I am
picking only what I like, or whatever suits me from the
Bible, as you can see, numbers 2 & 3 would not apply
today. I don't think any explanation of why is
necessary, as I believe the explanations are self
evident by the examples I gave and there is plenty of
Scripture to back me up.
I will go further, by saying that Christians are not
under the Law, but under grace and that includes the
entire Law, as far as condemnation is concerned. That
is liberty. However, that does not mean that we should
take the attitude that whatever we want to do, we can.
That would be license and that is not what Scripture
teaches. And what born again believer would take that
approach to a Christian life? Obviously, they
wouldn't. While they may make mistakes, they do not
believe in license. The Laws that are still in effect,
are a moral guide for believers to live by and this is
what a born again Christian seeks to do.
Knowing this, I think the argument that the
pro-homosexual advocate would use, about the Law no
longer being in effect, falls apart as well. That is
simply an attempt to dismiss Scripture, in their quest
to justify the homosexual lifestyle. And if none of
the Laws are still in effect, why do they argue about
the words found within them? Once again, they defeat
their own arguments and make hypocrites of themselves,
since they will make that "laws no longer valid"
argument, only when backed into a Scriptural corner.
Their failure to make a valid argument is apparent.
Moving on from this point, let us recognize that there
are also passages that are used by the pro-homosexual
camp, as examples of homosexual love in the Bible.
Ruth cleaved to Naomi (Ruth 1:14).
David and Jonathan married (1 Sam 18).
Jonathan loves David (2 Sam 1:26).
Now before I get into these, let's assume for a moment
that the pro-homosexuals are right and that all of
these passages speak of homosexual relationships. If
they do, then as Christians, we must ask ourselves one
question. Does the fact that the Bible lists
something, mean that God approves of it? Of course
not! The Bible lists rape, murder, theft, etc. and
that does not mean that God approves of those acts. So
don't fall for the argument that the pro-homosexuals
use, about the Bible describing homosexual
relationships. Of course, the above people are not
examples of homosexual relationships, as we shall see.
It is simply more word twisting by the pro-homosexual
camp, as they once again try to pervert God's word, to
suit their abominable lifestyle.
Let's take a look at Ruth first. The pro-homosexual
camp claims that Ruth 1:14 is evidence that Ruth and
Naomi were lesbian lovers. Let's take a look at the
verse:
"And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and
Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto
her." - Ruth 1:14
They focus on the word, "clave" and try to claim that
it means that there was a sexual, lesbian relationship
there. They attempt to prove this, by stating that the
original Hebrew word used there, is the same as the one
used in Genesis, when discussing Adam and Eve.
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one
flesh." - Genesis 2:24
The reality is, that the word can be used in marriage,
or in friendship and there is nothing there that proves
that they were lovers. In fact, looking at the context
of the statement, we can see that it was about Ruth
wanting to stay with Naomi and be part of what was left
of the family, after the husbands died.
Ruth 1:1-16
1) Now it came to pass in the days when the judges
ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a
certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the
country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.
2) And the name of the man [was] Elimelech, and the
name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons
Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And
they came into the country of Moab, and continued
there.
3) And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was
left, and her two sons.
4) And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the
name of the one [was] Orpah, and the name of the other
Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years.
5) And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and
the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.
Note: Both Ruth and Naomi were married and Naomi was
Ruth's mother-in-law and all of the husbands died.
6) Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she
might return from the country of Moab: for she had
heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had
visited his people in giving them bread.
7) Wherefore she went forth out of the place where
she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and
they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.
8) And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go,
return each to her mother's house: the LORD deal kindly
with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.
9) The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each [of
you] in the house of her husband. Then she kissed
them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.
Notice that Naomi is telling them to go back to the
house of their families, since their husbands are dead.
Does this sound like someone who wants to live in a
lesbian relationship, including a sexual one, with
Ruth?
10) And they said unto her, Surely we will return
with thee unto thy people.
11) And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why
will ye go with me? [are] there yet [any more] sons in
my womb, that they may be your husbands?
Note Naomi's response. It wasn't about whether or not
they should come with her, to be her lesbian lovers.
Rather, it was to tell them that she will not have any
more children, that could be their husbands. This was
about straight relationships between men and women, not
women and women. It was custom for the brother to take
the wife of his dead brother, so as to continue his
brothers' house/name. If there was no brother, then
the nearest kin.
12) Turn again, my daughters, go [your way]; for I am
too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have
hope, [if] I should have an husband also to night, and
should also bear sons;
13) Would ye tarry for them till they were grown?
would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my
daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that
the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.
Nowhere in here does it say anything about a lesbian
love affair. This is a dicscussion about the fact that
Naomi cannot provide husbands for them.
14) And they lifted up their voice, and wept again:
and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto
her.
And here's the verse the pro-homosexual camp tries to
use, to claim that they were in a lesbian love affair
with each other. All the word means in this context,
is "to cling to". Have you women never clung to your
mother-in-law? All seriousness aside, I know that's
probably not a question most will say yes to, but
pretend, okay? Anyway, does that mean that you are
having a lesbian love affair with her?
15) And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone
back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou
after thy sister in law.
Once again, Naomi tells Ruth to leave and go back to
her family.
16) And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, [or]
to return from following after thee: for whither thou
goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge:
thy people [shall be] my people, and thy God my God:
Ruth responds by telling Naomi that she will not leave
and will serve Naomi's God. When you read further in
the book of Ruth, you will find that Naomi instructs
Ruth in what to do, to get a husband from the family of
Ruth's dead husband and Ruth is later married. Does
that sound like something a lesbian would do to her
lover? Of course not! Yet the pro-homosexual camp
wants you to believe that it is so. They ignore the
rest of the text and the plain meaning of the text they
do throw at you.
So what about David and Jonathan? The pro-homosexual
camp wants you to believe that not only were they
homosexual lovers, but that they also got married and
that King Saul set it up. But does it really say that?
Let's see what the pro-homosexual camp says about it
first and then we'll examine the text more closely.
The pro-homosexual camp tries to claim that 1 Samuel 18
says that David and Jonathan got married. They use v21
to make this claim, stating that it says that David
became Saul's son-in-law for the second time, when he
married Saul's second daughter (Michal), since Saul
gave his first daughter (Merab) to Adriel. Therefore,
it must have been Jonathan that David married first.
They also make claims about the first few verses of 1
Samuel 18, which go as follows:
1 Samuel 18:1-4
1) And it came to pass, when he had made an end of
speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit
with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his
own soul.
They claim that this passage means that Jonathan loved
David as more than a friend, or brother. Have you never
felt that one of your friends was closer than your
brother, or sister to you? Is not a Godly love, when
we love another as we love ourselves?
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one
another." - John 13:34
2) And Saul took him that day, and would let him go
no more home to his father's house.
They claim that this means that Saul approved of a
homosexual marriage and joined them that day.
3) Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because
he loved him as his own soul.
This is the covenant that they claim is a marriage
covenant.
4) And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that
[was] upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments,
even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
They claim that this was a wedding gift, from Jonathan,
to David.
The pro-homosexual camp also claims that the words in
v21, "in one of" were added to the text. Granted, they
do not appear in the original, which is why the
translators of the KJV used italics. To show which
words were not in the original. The reason these words
were added, was to show the fuller meaning of the words
that were there. In Hebrew and Greek, sometimes a
single word implied more than just one word and would
actually be translated as a phrase in our language.
Look at Genesis 1:10. The word, "land" was added by
the translators. Does that mean it wasn't intended as
the correct meaning? Were the seas, which were water,
considered "dry"? Of course not. And we should
remember that we discussed the trustworthiness of the
various translations in an earlier chapter and it was
demonstrated why other versions are not trustworthy.
So anyway, they claim that when these words were taken
out, the verse states that David became Saul's
son-in-law for the second time. Even if that were
true, why would it refer to David and Jonathan? Why
could it not refer to Saul's first daughter, who even
though she was given to another, was still rightfully
David's to marry? And why could it not simply refer to
Saul's remembering his statement about David marrying
his first daughter? Either way, there is no proof of
any homosexual marriage there and there is no reason to
think that the king would violate the law and marry two
homosexuals. There was no such thing as a homosexual
marriage under the law of Israel, so it is a moot
argument anyway. Even if it did list it as a
homosexual marriage (which it doesn't), that doesn't
mean that God approved of it. As I said earlier, the
Bible lists many things that people did, that God
didn't approve of, such as David's adultery, etc..
Now let's look at the text with some common sense and
simple logic.
1 Samuel 18:16-21
16) But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he
went out and came in before them.
17) And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter
Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou
valiant for me, and fight the LORD'S battles. For Saul
said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand
of the Philistines be upon him.
Saul offers David his eldest daughter to marry This is
daughter number 1. In reality, if one reads the whole
chapter, one will see that Saul wants David dead. He
wants the Philistines to kill David in war, just as
David sent out Uriah to the front line (later), so he
could have his wife, Bathsheba.
18) And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my
life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be
son in law to the king?
David of course, was cautious, considering that Saul
had already tried to kill him earlier.
19) But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's
daughter should have been given to David, that she was
given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife.
Saul gives his eldest daughter, daughter number 1,
instead, to Adriel to marry.
20) And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they
told Saul, and the thing pleased him.
Michal, Saul's other daughter, daughter number 2, loved
David. Saul was told about it and it pleased him. Not
because it would make either of them happy, but because
he figured she would be a snare to David, as we see in
the next verse.
21) And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be
a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines
may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou
shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the
twain.
Notice, the verse starts out by saying, "I will give
him HER...". It says nothing about Jonathan. This
verse is discussing a marriage between a man and a
woman. The next sentence in the above verse shows that
Saul is saying that David will be his son in law, by
one of the two (twain equals "two") daughters, since he
is now offering his second daughter, daughter number 2,
Michal, to David to marry.
The above passages have nothing to do with a homosexual
marriage, as there was no such thing under God's Law.
But wait, the pro-homosexual will say you missed the
other passage regarding the love of David and Jonathan!
Look what he says in 2 Samuel 1:26.
"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very
pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was
wonderful, passing the love of women." - 2 Samuel 1:26
"Now that proves it!", they'll claim. But does it?
What does David actually say? Let's take a look.
"I am distressed for thee, MY BROTHER Jonathan;".
David considers Jonathan his "brother". That means
that the pro-homosexual camp will have to also believe
that David was into incestual relationships, with his
brother. Is that the type of man that God says He
blesses, as He blessed David?
"thy love was wonderful to me, passing the love of a
woman".
This, they claim, shows that David loved Jonathan like
a lover. But what does it actually say? It says that
the love that Jonathan showed David, was GREATER than
what a woman shows a man. He is not equating
Jonathan's love to a romantic love from a woman. He is
saying that the love Jonathan showed him, is GREATER
than the romantic love of a woman!
So how did David love Jonathan? Let's take a look at
what David did, after both Saul and Jonathan were dead,
in 2 Samuel 2.
2 Samuel 2:17,26
17) David sang a song in memory of Saul and Jonathan,
26) Jonathan, I miss you most! I loved you like a
brother. You were truly loyal to me, more faithful than
a wife to her husband.
And there it is. David said that he loved Jonathan,
"LIKE A BROTHER". He said NOTHING about loving
Jonathan as his homosexual marriage partner. This
verse alone, should prove that there was no homosexual
marriage, nor any homosexual relationship between
Jonathan and David.
Now let the homosexuals and their advocates find one
single passage that is pro-homosexual. They talk about
whether or not Jesus spoke against it, or whether God
said anything against it. The fact is, God did, but
they prefer to twist the passages around. If God had
not said anything against it, we would not be seeing
their posts, which try to change the clear meaning of
the Scriptures. I would challenge them to find even
one passage in which God is pro-homosexual. It can't
be done. We see God ordaining marriage between man and
woman. Where does He ordain it between members of the
same sex? He doesn't, so when they demand to see
passages condemning it (even though they have already),
they conveniently forget that there are no passages
ordaining it and God would not leave something as
important as an ordained marriage out of the
Scriptures. This is proven by the fact that He did
discuss it.
Copyright 2000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 09:25:29 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:n23hq0hmn37405he5u45lr3t971trm6ni4@4ax.com:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:39:19 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest,
(Ninure Saunders) pontificated:
Genesis 2:21-24
21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh.
God makes Adam and Eve, and then ceases creation.
Adam and Eve create Cain and Able. Unless there was
some unspeakable incest going on, who created the
rest of humanity?
God decided that the suitable mate for man, was woman.
God also ordained marriage here, as one which occurs
between a man and a woman.
When did Adam and Eve get married?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
Now a normal reading of this, would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin.
Just like the OTHER "sins" in Leviticus,
like eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath
and women wearing men's clothes. But try telling
that to your Biblethumpers as the gather at Red
Lobster after church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 10:44:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:25:29 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:n23hq0hmn37405he5u45lr3t971trm6ni4@4ax.com:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:39:19 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest,
(Ninure Saunders) pontificated:
Genesis 2:21-24
21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh.
God makes Adam and Eve, and then ceases creation.
Adam and Eve create Cain and Able. Unless there was
some unspeakable incest going on, who created the
rest of humanity?
There was no rule against it. It wouldn't be
considered "incest".
God decided that the suitable mate for man, was woman.
God also ordained marriage here, as one which occurs
between a man and a woman.
When did Adam and Eve get married?
When God placed them together. Also see Gen 2:24.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
Now a normal reading of this, would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin.
Just like the OTHER "sins" in Leviticus,
like eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath
and women wearing men's clothes. But try telling
that to your Biblethumpers as the gather at Red
Lobster after church.
You are comparing ritual with moral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 11:39:42 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fbtjq0puih4736pqjr0mkqu5tacev89oqg@4ax.com:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:25:29 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:n23hq0hmn37405he5u45lr3t971trm6ni4@4ax.com:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:39:19 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest,
(Ninure Saunders) pontificated:
Genesis 2:21-24
21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh.
God makes Adam and Eve, and then ceases creation.
Adam and Eve create Cain and Able. Unless there was
some unspeakable incest going on, who created the
rest of humanity?
There was no rule against it. It wouldn't be
considered "incest".
So you are the product of incest?
God decided that the suitable mate for man, was woman.
God also ordained marriage here, as one which occurs
between a man and a woman.
When did Adam and Eve get married?
When God placed them together. Also see Gen 2:24.
Doesn't answer the question. Who performed
the marriage ceremony, and what made it legal?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
Now a normal reading of this, would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin.
Just like the OTHER "sins" in Leviticus,
like eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath
and women wearing men's clothes. But try telling
that to your Biblethumpers as the gather at Red
Lobster after church.
You are comparing ritual with moral.
So not all of Leviticus is binding
on humanity, just the parts that don't
crimp YOUR lifestyle.
The term Cafeteria Christian seems
appropriate here..........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 12:18:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:39:42 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95AF76B8D381Dta2eenew@63.240.76.16>:
You are comparing ritual with moral.
So not all of Leviticus is binding
on humanity, just the parts that don't
crimp YOUR lifestyle.
The term Cafeteria Christian seems
appropriate here..........
Or the Chinese restaurant Christian: "I'll take one from column A and one
from column B." :-)
--
Lurlean Lie #7:
Bill Baker is all "for" queers and defends everything they do no matter how
horrible or disgusting it is - even felching
news:7908c278.0311101919.43c43c88@posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 04:22:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:39:42 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fbtjq0puih4736pqjr0mkqu5tacev89oqg@4ax.com:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:25:29 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:n23hq0hmn37405he5u45lr3t971trm6ni4@4ax.com:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:39:19 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest,
(Ninure Saunders) pontificated:
Genesis 2:21-24
21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh.
God makes Adam and Eve, and then ceases creation.
Adam and Eve create Cain and Able. Unless there was
some unspeakable incest going on, who created the
rest of humanity?
There was no rule against it. It wouldn't be
considered "incest".
So you are the product of incest?
No, since there was no such thing then. But by today's
definition, which came later, technically, we all are.
God decided that the suitable mate for man, was woman.
God also ordained marriage here, as one which occurs
between a man and a woman.
When did Adam and Eve get married?
When God placed them together. Also see Gen 2:24.
Doesn't answer the question. Who performed
the marriage ceremony, and what made it legal?
God put them together. And FYI, you should research
more. There was no marriage ceremony for the
Israelites/Jews. Rabbis did not marry people. And
God's word made it legal. You seem to forget, there
were no courts and when there were, it was God's laws
that people were judged by.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
Now a normal reading of this, would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin.
Just like the OTHER "sins" in Leviticus,
like eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath
and women wearing men's clothes. But try telling
that to your Biblethumpers as the gather at Red
Lobster after church.
You are comparing ritual with moral.
So not all of Leviticus is binding
on humanity, just the parts that don't
crimp YOUR lifestyle.
The term Cafeteria Christian seems
appropriate here..........
If all you're going to do is attack, based on your
ignorance, then we have nothing to discuss. The fact
is, you're not interested in discussion. You're
interested in finding out how many ways you can insult
Christians. That makes you despicable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 04:29:48 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bhjkq0hltui1vcmjahoik55e7o2gjbqmpg@4ax.com:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:39:42 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fbtjq0puih4736pqjr0mkqu5tacev89oqg@4ax.com:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:25:29 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
Pastor Dave <pastordave38@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in
news:n23hq0hmn37405he5u45lr3t971trm6ni4@4ax.com:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:39:19 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest,
(Ninure Saunders) pontificated:
Genesis 2:21-24
21) And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23) And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because
she was taken out of Man.
24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh.
God makes Adam and Eve, and then ceases creation.
Adam and Eve create Cain and Able. Unless there was
some unspeakable incest going on, who created the
rest of humanity?
There was no rule against it. It wouldn't be
considered "incest".
So you are the product of incest?
No, since there was no such thing then. But by today's
definition, which came later, technically, we all are.
So there is no univeral biblical laws, all that
matters is "today's definition". Doesn't that rather
blow your rant about homosexuality out of the water?
There was no laws against murder then either, so
Cain did no wrong in killing Abel, no?
God decided that the suitable mate for man, was woman.
God also ordained marriage here, as one which occurs
between a man and a woman.
When did Adam and Eve get married?
When God placed them together. Also see Gen 2:24.
Doesn't answer the question. Who performed
the marriage ceremony, and what made it legal?
God put them together.
Getting together does not equal marriage.
And FYI, you should research
more. There was no marriage ceremony for the
Israelites/Jews. Rabbis did not marry people. And
God's word made it legal. You seem to forget, there
were no courts and when there were, it was God's laws
that people were judged by.
So when did "God's laws" about incest and
murder happen?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22
Now a normal reading of this, would seem to indicate
that a man having sex with a man is a sin.
Just like the OTHER "sins" in Leviticus,
like eating shellfish and working on the Sabbath
and women wearing men's clothes. But try telling
that to your Biblethumpers as the gather at Red
Lobster after church.
You are comparing ritual with moral.
So not all of Leviticus is binding
on humanity, just the parts that don't
crimp YOUR lifestyle.
The term Cafeteria Christian seems
appropriate here..........
If all you're going to do is attack, based on your
ignorance, then we have nothing to discuss.
If you cannot defend your beliefs just
say so. You think some of the laws in Leviticus
are binding today and others not. Care to explain?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myth about "born gay" |
28 Nov 2004 08:55:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:29:48 GMT, while scaling the Mt.
Everest, Mitchell Holman <ta2eeneNoEmail@comcast.com>
pontificated:
So you are the product of incest?
No, since there was no such thing then. But by today's
definition, which came later, technically, we all are.
So there is no univeral biblical laws, all that
matters is "today's definition". Doesn't that rather
blow your rant about homosexuality out of the water?
I didn't say that. You implied it, when you brought up
the subject. But you were too ignorant about what the
Bible says and doesn't say, to know that.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | |
