Defending Gay Christianity

Adultery is not homosexuality so your analogy is a strawman.

Homosexuality is attraction to the same physical sex, whereas, heterosexuality is attraction to the opposite sex.

The sin is NOT the attraction but irresponsible sexual behaviors, whether it be between heterosexuals or homosexuals. Therefore, life long sexual commitments between two people physically attracted to each other, whether hetero- or homo-sexuals is acceptable, is preferrable for civilization to exist rather than humans acting like beasts in the field breeding like monkeys.

Really, you guys are so bound by your indoctrination that you no longer know what is real anymore. You guys need to stop reading your Bible and start thinking because the Bible does not seem to be helping you.
Play all the word games you like. You are working hard to justify something ungodly, but you cannot ever hope to refute what I said. Just because stoning is not the punishment for a sin in the NT as it was in the OT, that does not make it any less of a sin. It is still an offense and an abomination to God.

Spoken like a true atheist. "You guys need to stop reading your bible and start thinking".

Like a guy who is too proud to read the instructions on how to put something together, and he ends up with 3 extra screws, 9 extra washers, and someone looking at it and saying, "Uh. I don't think that's what it's supposed to look like."

Call it what you like, but what you have is not Christianity.
 
The Bible is clear on the issue. You just want us to ignore it and bend to the culture that says otherwise. And... scripture lumps adultery, fornication and practicing homosexual behavior in the same boat-- sin. No amount of sugar-coating by you changes that fact.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (NKJV)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Those practicing homosexual behavior are not being singled out are they? They are lumped together with others practicing sexual sin as well as non-sexual sins. So the question is whether you actually believe God's written word or believe the lie of the culture. Which is it?
Heterosexuals like you can be fornicators and adulterers, just as homosexuals can be. And in Paul’s time it was widely known that wealthy Roman elites kept herds of young slave boys for their own pleasure. In that context, —I repeat, in that cultural context (not in our cultural context) homosexuality, as it was practiced by the rulers of the empire, was a stain upon humanity for the pain and suffering it caused to the most vulnerable, ie., slaves.

We don’t keep slaves today so what applied in Paul’s day does NOT apply to two adult, homosexuals today committed for life to care for each other. The fact that you cannot understand this demonstrates that christians have stopped thinking. They use the Bible to promote their personal opinions and prejudices.
 
Play all the word games you like. You are working hard to justify something ungodly, but you cannot ever hope to refute what I said. Just because stoning is not the punishment for a sin in the NT as it was in the OT, that does not make it any less of a sin. It is still an offense and an abomination to God.

Spoken like a true atheist. "You guys need to stop reading your bible and start thinking".

Like a guy who is too proud to read the instructions on how to put something together, and he ends up with 3 extra screws, 9 extra washers, and someone looking at it and saying, "Uh. I don't think that's what it's supposed to look like."

Call it what you like, but what you have is not Christianity.
I am not interested in promoting your personal interpretation of the Bible supporting what you think christianity is. I am more interested in providing an alternate understanding of the scripture in line with reason and personal empathy to support those individuals who are attracted to the same sex, by no choice of their own.
 
Heterosexuals like you can be fornicators and adulterers, just as homosexuals can be. And in Paul’s time it was widely known that wealthy Roman elites kept herds of young slave boys for their own pleasure. In that context, —I repeat, in that cultural context (not in our cultural context) homosexuality, as it was practiced by the rulers of the empire, was a stain upon humanity for the pain and suffering it caused to the most vulnerable, ie., slaves.
Homosexuality itself is a stain on humanity. And a sin.

We don’t keep slaves today so what applied in Paul’s day does NOT apply to two adult, homosexuals today committed for life to care for each other. The fact that you cannot understand this demonstrates that christians have stopped thinking. They use the Bible to promote their personal opinions and prejudices.
The Bible explicitly states in several places that homosexuality is a sin. You don't use the Bible, you reject it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
Homosexuality itself is a stain on humanity. And a sin.


The Bible explicitly states in several places that homosexuality is a sin. You don't use the Bible, you reject it.
The fact remains that nowhere in the New Testament (1) is there a systematic treatise on the subject of human sexuality. All we have are a few verses indirectly touching on sexuality as a side to more lofty subjects dealing with Paul’s authority as an apostle, and how all humans are in need of salvation through virtuous living (ie., “fruits of the Spirit”), Yeshua being an example of how we are to live and what we are to believe. IOW, the few verses in the New Testament cannot be an absolute authority on the subject because it lacks the comprehensive analysis of the subject of human sexuality. Moreover, I have arguably dealt with each of the verses to refute any absolute conclusion on the subject.

Therefore, whenever facing complex subjects that are not thoroughly, comprehensively addressed in scripture, THEN we must defer to the Golden Rule. And based on the Golden Rule there is NO reason to prevent a same-sex couple committed to each other for life in marriage. This is what reason dictates. This is what the Spirit says, IMO.

1) I set aside the Hebrew Bible simply because Christians have ignored its rules and regulations since christianity began. Christians do not get to cherry pick from YHWHs smorgasboard of 632 laws to follow. Either follow them all or not at all.
 
Last edited:
The fact remains that nowhere in the New Testament (1) is there a systematic treatise on the subject of human sexuality. All we have are a few verses indirectly touching on sexuality as a side to more lofty subjects dealing with Paul’s authority as an apostle, and how all humans are in need of salvation through virtuous living (ie., “fruits of the Spirit”), Yeshua being an example of how we are to live and what we are to believe. IOW, the few verses in the New Testament cannot be an absolute authority on the subject because it lacks the comprehensive analysis of the subject of human sexuality.
God lacks understanding of human sexuality?

Moreover, I have arguably dealt with each of the verses to refute any absolute conclusion on the subject.
No, you haven't.

Therefore, whenever facing complex subjects that are not thoroughly, comprehensively addressed in scripture,
Homosexuality is thoroughly and comprehensively addressed in the Bible.

THEN we must defer to the Golden Rule. And based on the Golden Rule there is NO reason to prevent a same-sex couple committed to each other for life in marriage.
You're just dismissing what the Bible says about it.

This is what reason dictates. This is what the Spirit says, IMO.
Your 'O' does not align with scripture.

1) I set aside the Hebrew Bible simply because Christians have ignored its rules and regulations since christianity began.
God's position on homosexuality has not changed.

Christians do not get to cherry pick from YHWHs smorgasboard of 632 laws to follow. Either follow them all or not at all.
Homosexuality is still a sin in the Christian Scriptures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
Heterosexuals like you can be fornicators and adulterers, just as homosexuals can be.
They can be fornicators, yes. Adulterers only if one if married to a woman and has sex outside of that sanctioned marital union. Homosexual civil marriages are a joke and abnormal. Some segments of society may recognize them as "marriages". Others do not.
And in Paul’s time it was widely known that wealthy Roman elites kept herds of young slave boys for their own pleasure. In that context, —I repeat, in that cultural context (not in our cultural context) homosexuality, as it was practiced by the rulers of the empire, was a stain upon humanity for the pain and suffering it caused to the most vulnerable, ie., slaves.
Who cares about the Roman elites? What matters is what God said in the beginning and to the Israelites which far pre-dated what customs and debauchery in which the Roman "elite" engaged.
We don’t keep slaves today so what applied in Paul’s day does NOT apply to two adult, homosexuals today committed for life to care for each other. The fact that you cannot understand this demonstrates that christians have stopped thinking. They use the Bible to promote their personal opinions and prejudices.
Paul's word in the New Testament meld perfectly with what God spoke in the Old Testament. Practicing homosexuals are engaged in sin every time they "mate". There is no gray area. God's word is very clear on the matter. It is folk like you who can't seem to understand what God said about marriage and relationships between men and women and the sin that is an abomination to God when persons of the same sex try to wrongly appropriate that for themselves.

You are simply ignorant of the scriptures.

Once again, you can sleep with whomever you wish and have a pretend marriage with whomever will have you. That is your decision. Just don't try to say God condones it. He doesn't. Doesn't make any difference how many church pastors and leaders who bow to the culture say it is "ok". A biblical world-view doesn't allow it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik
They can be fornicators, yes. Adulterers only if one if married to a woman and has sex outside of that sanctioned marital union. Homosexual civil marriages are a joke and abnormal. Some segments of society may recognize them as "marriages". Others do not.

Who cares about the Roman elites?
Because cultural context is important when trying to understand the meaning of what someone writes at the time he wrote it. This should be Bible hermaneutics 101. Do they still teach that in seminary school?

What matters is what God said in the beginning and to the Israelites which far pre-dated what customs and debauchery in which the Roman "elite" engaged.
Don’t be a hypocrite. You do not follow the ritual laws commanded by YHWH to the Israelites, so don’t give me that song and dance about how what YHWH says matters. Try to sell your opinion off to a Jewish orthodox believer and he will laugh at you.

The fact is you cherry pick from the Bible the things that match your personal prejudice and bias, in this case, homophobia, and discard the rest, eg., Sabbath observance, food purity laws, Jewish feasts and festivals, animal sacrifice, circumcision, etc.

You can spare me the backstory that God changed his mind two thousand years ago about all of it except the stoning of homosexuals part. Do you even critically think about what you choose to believe? Apparently not.

Paul's word in the New Testament meld perfectly with what God spoke in the Old Testament.
Of course, that is why the Jews agree with Paul so much. (That is sarcasm in case you missed it.)

Practicing homosexuals are engaged in sin every time they "mate". There is no gray area. God's word is very clear on the matter. It is folk like you who can't seem to understand what God said about marriage and relationships between men and women and the sin that is an abomination to God when persons of the same sex try to wrongly appropriate that for themselves.

You are simply ignorant of the scriptures.

Once again, you can sleep with whomever you wish and have a pretend marriage with whomever will have you. That is your decision. Just don't try to say God condones it. He doesn't. Doesn't make any difference how many church pastors and leaders who bow to the culture say it is "ok". A biblical world-view doesn't allow it.
You are blinded by your personal prejudice. Seek help.
 
Because cultural context is important when trying to understand the meaning of what someone writes at the time he wrote it. This should be Bible hermaneutics 101. Do they still teach that in seminary school?
Hey sunshine.... the prohibitions God mentioned were well before Roman culture was around. Paul did write in Roman culture but maintained the Jewish understanding and prohibitions of sexually deviant behavior, of which practicing homosexuality was a part. God's word is consistent.
Don’t be a hypocrite. You do not follow the ritual laws commanded by YHWH to the Israelites, so don’t give me that song and dance about how what YHWH says matters. Try to sell your opinion off to a Jewish orthodox believer and he will laugh at you.
Of course we don't follow the ritual laws of the OT. There is a New Covenant of grace. The writer of Hebrews says the old has passed away. The Jews missed that part and are still awaiting for their Messiah.
The fact is you cherry pick from the Bible the things that match your personal prejudice and bias, in this case, homophobia, and discard the rest, eg., Sabbath observance, food purity laws, Jewish feasts and festivals, animal sacrifice, circumcision, etc.

You can spare me the backstory that God changed his mind two thousand years ago about all of it except the stoning of homosexuals part. Do you even critically think about what you choose to believe? Apparently not.
See above. You are ignorant of the Bible as it is evident.
Of course, that is why the Jews agree with Paul so much. (That is sarcasm in case you missed it.)


You are blinded by your personal prejudice. Seek help.
No prejudice there. Just adhering to God's word. OI don't treat my gay nephew, gay ex-employee (I am retired), my college's friend's gay son or a former worship leader who came out as gay any differently than anyone else. I just don't accept their lifestyle and I won't have it rammed down my throat saying I must accept aberrant sinful behavior as normal. They know my position and I know theirs. We still get along.
 
Nothing about homosexuality. It is about avoiding fornication by being married.
Marriage is for Children which is the natural consequence. Homosexuality does not andcannot prodice offspring.
Adopt a child maybe and provide care for them. I mean there can be good produced from gay marriage just like in heterosexual marriage. That is the moral code of Christians: do no harm!
No marital contract, gives homosexuals the natural ability to have Children. An adoption contract for both parties does that. The same goes for material possessions. Homes, cars also both parties on the contract.
Marriage makes for community property because of the responsibility shared in having Children by both a man and a woman. As well as the shared joy of having children. Homosexuals do not need a marriage contract for those things, they have their own paperwork.
 
Hey sunshine.... the prohibitions God mentioned were well before Roman culture was around. Paul did write in Roman culture but maintained the Jewish understanding and prohibitions of sexually deviant behavior, of which practicing homosexuality was a part. God's word is consistent.

Of course we don't follow the ritual laws of the OT. There is a New Covenant of grace. The writer of Hebrews says the old has passed away. The Jews missed that part and are still awaiting for their Messiah.

See above. You are ignorant of the Bible as it is evident.

No prejudice there. Just adhering to God's word. OI don't treat my gay nephew, gay ex-employee (I am retired), my college's friend's gay son or a former worship leader who came out as gay any differently than anyone else. I just don't accept their lifestyle and I won't have it rammed down my throat saying I must accept aberrant sinful behavior as normal. They know my position and I know theirs. We still get along.
Docphin5 reminds me of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, "Indeed, has God said...".
 
So we've had the "Metropolitan Community Church" (a "gay" church") for awhile now. And unfortunately, other "mainstream" denominations are becoming "PRIDE-friendly" (I'm not saying "unfortunately" because I dislike any individuals, but only because eternal doctrine cannot be changed by culture).

Back in the day, there was a teenager from a Christian family, "Matthew Vines", who came out as gay, and after "studying" the Bible concluded that Jesus was "A-OK" with it. He gave a lengthy testimony, to which James White responded to in podcasts lasting over 5 hours.

While Matthew is still doing gay apologetics, a newer TikTok personality who considers himself a "gay pastor", Brandan Robertson is becoming more popular, and is being interviewed by the likes of Trent Horn.

I recently listened to a Dividing Line of James White responding to one of Brandan's sermons (I think it was), and it was very revealing....

1) One of the big things is that they refer to the 6 clearest passages teaching against homosexual behaviour as "the clobber passages". This is a label designed to stigmatize and disarm the passages without having to actually deal with them. Apparently if you apply a derogatory label to some passages, those passages magically go away. We can only hope that JW's don't learn about the term, "clobber passages" to refer to the "Jesus is God" passages, or Mormons learn and apply the term to the "only one God" passages.

2) Since 3 of the 6 passages come from the hand of Paul, they need a way to demonize Paul. And they've developed a number of such ways. Brandan points out that Paul refers to the gospel as "my gospel", and claims that Paul's gospel is a different gospel than Jesus. And when you pit Jesus against Paul, then Jesus must win, and Paul loses out, right? So it must not matter what Paul wrote.

3) Brandan comments about how Paul's disagreements with Peter were frequent and vitriolic (or words to that effect). Funny, I only remember only one disagreement between them, and in that one case, Paul was in the right. But if Paul is frequently at odds with Peter, and Peter was in Jesus' inner circle, and knew him well, then Paul must be ultimately going against Jesus, and therefore Paul must be wrong.

4) Brandan also "points out" (although he is wrong) that Paul wrote against James. There is no evidence of this, of course, but he is likely referring to the common tactic of pitting Rom. 4 against James 2. But there is no conflict between them, when properly understood. White refers to a whole chapter he wrote on this issue in "The God Who Justifies" (which I highly recommend). But of course, James was with Peter and John in Jesus' inner circle, and must have known Jesus better than Paul did, and therefore Paul must be wrong, and we can ignore his writings. Brandan also claimed James grew up with Jesus, being his brother, indicating that he was confusing the son of Zebedee with Christ's brother.

Very shallow and weak arguments indeed.
I think rather than "clobber passages", "conclusive" passages is more accurate. Once you've read them, you have to reject the New Testament outright...and make your own religion. Call it pseudo-Christianity or something.
 
This is not what you think its saying. He is talking about fallen angels giving up their divine nature and becoming humans.
Oh...."Rom 1:27 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."

"Men"...but not really. Sidestepping what is written is your only path, though, isn't it?
 
I think rather than "clobber passages", "conclusive" passages is more accurate. Once you've read them, you have to reject the New Testament outright...and make your own religion. Call it pseudo-Christianity or something.

There is a major company out there who produced their own version of the bible that is gay friendly. They removes several "clobber" passages and altered several others. I'm not going to say who, or the name of the bible. I am not part of their marketing team so I am not going to advertise.

This convinced me that the people saying to get physical copies are right. one day, and I suspect it's already happening, online versions will be corrupted and people will be ignorantly thinking they are reading something good. I have 20+ different English translations on the bookshelf and 2 Greek (Byzantine and NA28/UBS5). They are from quite some time back. Now I am wondering if I had the interest in collecting them because I unknowingly needed to prepare for this time.
 
This is not what you think its saying. He is talking about fallen angels giving up their divine nature and becoming humans. It is based on the Genesis 6 myth about fallen angels, aka, the Watchers, having subsumed human nature. Their downfall led to the evils before the great flood. So he is making the point that spirits absent a divine nature have an unseemly lust.

You guys really need to expand your reading materials because you are all in an echo chamber repeating the same misinformation. The clementine homilies has the same exact description about the cause of evil but it is explicitly about fallen angels.


Nothing about homosexuality. It is about avoiding fornication by being married. IOW, satisfy your lusts within the guidelines of a monogamous relationship. It prevents STDS and unwanted pregnancies. Logically, the same advice could be given to homosexuals. Get married and avoid contracting an STD. Adopt a child maybe and provide care for them. I mean there can be good produced from gay marriage just like in heterosexual marriage. That is the moral code of Christians: do no harm!

Talk about eisegesis. Trying to link what Paul said to the Flood as you did should qualify you for the next olympic gymnastics team. 😄

And just so you know, the moral code of Christians is not "do no harm". That might be an outcome of Christianity, but it is not the moral code. You're thinking of the hippocratic oath.
 
Without apology, I feel compelled to reply to this post. It's the risk that posting invites, and I'm grateful that you took the time.

I'm Pete. Glad to meet you.
There is no teaching in the christian canon that comprehensively deals with the subject of human sexuality.
This is a categorically false claim, that does not only deny Paul's extremely clear teaching in Romans 1 on the penalty for ignoring God's Law, and refusing to accept God as God, but it rejects the link between Old Testament revelation and New Testament practice. Leviticus 18 lists in detail the practices that the Amorites were judged for and for which the land vomited them out. The NT just lumps these practices into one term: "fornication" (pornea, which links to English need not be clarified), because there are some practices where least spoken of is best. It is enough that the list exists, and can be read...Turn to Leviticus.
There is a paucity of brief passing references to it in the context of an entirely different, often figurative, spiritually oriented topic. What you have erroneously done is made brief passing references in scripture an absolute dogma.
This is nonsense...

Here's how clearly Paul states the sexual practices in question: "26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Sounds dogmatic to me...and here's the problem! That's not the sin. That's the symptom that reveals the sin. That's the consequence of sin. Here's the sin Paul speaks of, revealed in the previous verses: "21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise!f Amen." And, to make this principle clear, he continues after, "28Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents. 31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, merciless." Please notice that he is NOT being "figurative" or "spiritually oriented." He's relating choice and consequence...and notice sin does NOT begin OR end with homosexuality, which is only ONE symptom of a very deep root. Sodom has reappeared.

And Ezekiel makes it very clear: Sodom's sin was not depravity...or merely the basest form of depravity, e.g. homosexuality. "Here was the sin of your sister Sodom: They had pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness...and they did not care for the poor and the needy. They behaved abominably." Homosexuality is just the symptom of a society proud in its own lackluster wealth that overeats and has entertained itself to death at the expense of its poorer neighbors.

Every society that will not acknowledge God as God has done what you describe below in Rome. Your "very informal take" is bereft of basic understanding.

My very informal take on it is that homosexuality is like heterosexuality in that there are both bad and good uses of it. In Roman times, it was famously abused by rich aristocrats owning young slave boys for sexual services. Apparently, in their culture sex acts between old, rich men and young slave boys was more acceptable than sex with a young slave girl who might get pregnant creating confusion about the status of unwanted, mixed children.

Of course, we do not see this form of homosexuality today because there are laws against 1) slavery, and 2) underage sex with older partners. But it was common in Roman times because it is mentioned and criticized in various sources from that time.

Therefore, in that historical context homosexuality could be and was derided for its abuse of young, slave boys. In that context Paul’s passing references to homosexuality could be taken (there is another explanation that its reference in Romans 1 refers to angels lusting for the female nature or bodily nature of humans, iow, wanting to experience human lust—but it is complicated).

It is my opinion that the same exhortation Paul gives to heterosexuals could also be given to homosexuals, if we were to have Paul sitting in front of us today who could then elaborate on the topic, specifically the topic of human sexuality in a comprehensive manner. He would say that it is better for everyone to remain single, unmarried, abstinent but because he knows few can follow his exhortation and his example, he then recommends getting married to satisfy the itch or passion we all have for sex (1 cor. 7:7-9). In this case, it would apply to homosexuals as well, presuming the homosexual has an itch or physical passion for the same sex. Rather than burn for one another and either buy a bunch of slave boys to gratify your desire or meet at dingy, dark bars for the occasional hookup, then choose a suitable life partner and make them honest in marriage, which is the exact same advice he gave to heterosexuals.

It is my general opinion that by the church refusing to acknowledge homosexuals having the same itch or passion as heterosexuals then we have harmed homosexuals more than helped them. Consequently, we have condemned them to a life of casual sex, and hookups in dark, dingy bars, if they are unable to remain celibate because if the church had its way homosexuals would be denied a life long commitment in marriage. Fortunately, more rational people to include the current Pope are perceiving a better way.
Turning from God and denying His law brings the harm...you get what you asked for.

Jordan Peterson made a good point that the main reason christians are against marriage for gays is because they fear it will undermine the marriage between heterosexuals.
That's a point made from ignorance. Why do I fear? I married. I have eight kids...we were allowed to raise them, home school them...and they are successful without us now. The state had not yet taken to trying to kidnap our kids, because they had not yet taken to imposing state immorality as law, as they have in Germany. Two people rejecting the Biblical design, raising children who have at best the DNA of only one is not optimal. Christians favor the optimization of a child's life: If it is possible, that he be birthed through the parents who caused his conception, that he survive gestation in peace...and that he be raised in a loving home by this couple. Where this is possible, optimization still requires that a child be brought up by a male and a female who love and live in a stable home.

Being raised in a household that refuses to acknowledge God as God is not optimal...and the promise of being given over to a depraved mind is clearly an issue today.

It is not because the christians are ALL narrow minded (some are) as the media now characterizes them but because they fear for the family unit. But the reality is that the institution of marriage is attacked on more fronts than from gay rights. Pornography in media, hollywood movies promoting sexual freedom, extreme egalitarianism, politics, a culture promoting pleasure over responsibility, etc. etc. The family unit is unraveling in front of our eyes not because a fraction of the people have an itch for the same sex but because of the sin nature in all of us, deceiving us, leading us into sin. Unless we address the sin nature in a rational way and guide it, regulate it, integrate it for good according to wisdom, right reason, and truth, then the family and culture will continue to unravel, whether or not gays can marry or not, whether or not the church gives its blessing to gay marriage or not. The problems we face as a nation, as a culture, are much bigger than our opinions of a few passing references to homosexuality in the Paul’s letters.
If a Christian is not "narrow minded" he has left the narrow path and stepped onto the broad path that leads to destruction. We did not speak those words. We did not write the book...

...but we read it, and God is God.
 
Last edited:
There is a major company out there who produced their own version of the bible that is gay friendly. They removes several "clobber" passages and altered several others. I'm not going to say who, or the name of the bible. I am not part of their marketing team so I am not going to advertise.

This convinced me that the people saying to get physical copies are right. one day, and I suspect it's already happening, online versions will be corrupted and people will be ignorantly thinking they are reading something good. I have 20+ different English translations on the bookshelf and 2 Greek (Byzantine and NA28/UBS5). They are from quite some time back. Now I am wondering if I had the interest in collecting them because I unknowingly needed to prepare for this time.
The Bible has been edited by cults and for cults for years...It's why I learned Greek...because even the NIV became an assault on our credulity.
 
Heterosexuals like you can be fornicators and adulterers, just as homosexuals can be. And in Paul’s time it was widely known that wealthy Roman elites kept herds of young slave boys for their own pleasure. In that context, —I repeat, in that cultural context (not in our cultural context) homosexuality, as it was practiced by the rulers of the empire, was a stain upon humanity for the pain and suffering it caused to the most vulnerable, ie., slaves.

We don’t keep slaves today so what applied in Paul’s day does NOT apply to two adult, homosexuals today committed for life to care for each other. The fact that you cannot understand this demonstrates that christians have stopped thinking. They use the Bible to promote their personal opinions and prejudices.
It applies to "...men lying with men as with a woman." That's all you need to know. It's written so that your own argument is made specious.
 
Oh...."Rom 1:27 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."

"Men"...but not really. Sidestepping what is written is your only path, though, isn't it?

Just translated this from the Greek. It says absolutely nothing about angels, and there is absolutely no indication that it refers back to anything related to what was going on at the flood. To try to make it so is eisegesis of the highest order. The attempt to twist the passage so that it is not opposed to homosexuality, which it clearly is, is dishonest.

This is what I got from the Greek.

And likewise the males, abandoning the natural sexual relations with females, inflamed with strong sensual desire for others of themselves (other males), males with males committing indecency (the Greek using a euphemism for the genitals) and receiving the penalty of their error in themselves.

No angels. It is a clear address of homosexuality, and not a good one.
 
Back
Top