Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[melikio]

Well, I cannot speak for the "pro-gay" crowd per se, but I can indeed tell you that I have personally and FREQUENTLY witnessed "Christians" abusing homosexuals in word and deed.

And vice versa, as evidencef by the recent demonstration in San Francisco where peaceful Christians were denigrated and defamed by the pro-gay crowd.

One thing I've distinctly noticed: When Christians do not accept pro-gay theology, active homosexual priests, etc., they are usually immediately called names like homophobes, bigots, etc. That should stop. It does nothing constructive for the pro-gay cause. People have a right to their Biblical beliefs just like you do.

I'm not expecting that; each "Christian" is free by God's grace (imho) to hear what it is God is saying to them. They are NOT however free or authorized to BEAR DOWN as they often do upon homosexual people. There is no "biblical" mandate or urging to cause yourself to be THAT toxic to anyone (with perhaps the exception of using deadly force, to enforce the control of violent criminal behavior).

I didn't cry and feel worthless for YEARS, because MOST Christians extended the type of love that Jesus did. I can count on practically ONE hand, where a Christian was more loving in their view of homosexuals, than they were emotionally radical. Why would a homosexual person GO TO a "Christian" for help? WHY??!!!

Are you seeking a place that worships Christ or are you also seeking a church that will embrace open / active gayness? If the latter's the case, don't expect any success anytime soon.

How much PRESSURE on a homosexual is justified, before you dust your feet, and tell them to move on ("We cannot have you here with us.")?

From my experience, many gays don't just want to go to church, they want and demand that the church embrace their active homosexuality. No righteous church on earth should do that. They should accept gays and love them, but not embrace the sin.

WE KNOW THAT, ER. And there are MANY homosexual people who can no more FIX their sinful nature on command, than heterosexual people EVER care to do. Nothing personally against you, but you talk so much like most who have little idea what it is truly like to grow up being homosexual in this society (or others where the conflicts are basically thrust into one's face).

My God!! Haven't you sincerely noticed HOW ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE people are at accepting the (homosexual) "sinner"? I know I was at least a "bit" more sensitive to this when I was in church than you (likely one who considers himself to be straight), but for Pete's sake... haven't you ever sat and listened to people talk about homosexuals (often as if they aren't people AT ALL). It's NO SMALL THING to a person who has struggled with that ALL of their lives, then to hear the absolute HATRED that MOST "Christians" are in denial about or BLIND to when it comes to "loving" homosexuals (sinners). So often, even those who have SEXUAL SINS of their own, go after the sin of homosexuals, like there is no tomorrow (maybe in their minds, there isn't). This ALL HAPPENS, and people have the absolute pious nerve, to look DOWN so sharply and exclusively upon what homosexuals do? People need to get real, and become reasonable about this; not ALL homosexual people are radical proponents of homosexuality, not by ANY means. But I can abslutely assure you, that they WILL pursue the kinds of protection under the LAW, which preserves their rights as other people (sinners) have certainly enjoyed (yet without the kind of "repentance" so often demanded of homosexuals).

Leave homosexual people alone, at that certain point, where YOUR authority and personal autonomy are powerless to change anything. Do what you think is best, but don't expect others to follow down behind you, just because you THINK you are "right". Homosexuals have a "right", to oppose those who think it's right to FORCE their views upon them. Some Christians can't accept that basic thing, and to find the proper position of reasonable compromise (in the social sense); God didn't put individual Christians out here, to rule over the other sinners.

If this is your way of saying Christians should let sin reign in their midst, that normally will not happen - not for adultery, not for fornication, and not for gay sex. If people will leave their fornications and / or pro gay sex agenda at the door of the church and not try to force it on the congregation, I seriously doubt any congregation will give them any problems.

Easyrider, if this is your way of saying that Christians should have a SPECIAL focus upon homosexuals, as opposed to sexual sin in general, then that is a form of hypocritical favoritism, which has brought us all to these important arguments.

Like I said, homosexual people aren't all radically pro-gay or anti-family; and they do have the right to oppose abusive and oppressinve behavior leveled AT or DUMPED ON them (spiritually, morally or socially).

On that we agree.

That's cool. I'm not looking for agreement, but it is nice sometimes.

-Mel-

[kiwimac]

I didn't cry and feel worthless for YEARS, because MOST Christians extended the type of love that Jesus did. I can count on practically ONE hand, where a Christian was more loving in their view of homosexuals, than they were emotionally radical. Why would a homosexual person GO TO a "Christian" for help? WHY??!!!

Are you seeking a place that worships Christ or are you also seeking a church that will embrace open / active gayness? If the latter's the case, don't expect any success anytime soon.

From my experience, many gays don't just want to go to church, they want and demand that the church embrace their active homosexuality. No righteous church on earth should do that. They should accept gays and love them, but not embrace the sin.

Leave homosexual people alone, at that certain point, where YOUR authority and personal autonomy are powerless to change anything. Do what you think is best, but don't expect others to follow down behind you, just because you THINK you are "right". Homosexuals have a "right", to oppose those who think it's right to FORCE their views upon them. Some Christians can't accept that basic thing, and to find the proper position of reasonable compromise (in the social sense); God didn't put individual Christians out here, to rule over the other sinners.

If this is your way of saying Christians should let sin reign in their midst, that normally will not happen - not for adultery, not for fornication, and not for gay sex. If people will leave their fornications and / or pro gay sex agenda at the door of the church and not try to force it on the congregation, I seriously doubt any congregation will give them any problems.

Like I said, homosexual people aren't all radically pro-gay or anti-family; and they do have the right to oppose abusive and oppressinve behavior leveled AT or DUMPED ON them (spiritually, morally or socially).

On that we agree.

Heiferdust!, Gay people are called to the worship of God just as heterosexual people are. The Bible does not address homosexuality as it is understood today. It DOES address pederasty and Temple prostitution.

It is time for Christians to stop insisting that Homosexuals must change their very being in order to be acceptable to God. It is wrong, it is sub-christian and it is appalling theology which does violence to folk whom society already oppresses.

[melikio]

Heiferdust!, Gay people are called to the worship of God just as heterosexual people are. The Bible does not address homosexuality as it is understood today. It DOES address pederasty and Temple prostitution.

It is time for Christians to stop insisting that Homosexuals must change their very being in order to be acceptable to God. It is wrong, it is sub-christian and it is appalling theology which does violence to folk whom society already oppresses.

Indeed. And some of these most adamant anti-gay fundamentalist Christians, will never understand. The best that can be hoped for is that by God's intervention, such people never (or rarely ever) manage to seize absolute control over any given society.

For a very long time, I said NOTHING about the scapegoating of homosexuals I witnessed so often; eventually, I learned that real (godly) love, mitigates the legalistic mindset which so many Christians believe is "right" to burden homosexuals with.

-Mel-

[1John2_26]

Of the passages used most often to attack homosexuality none is used more vociferously than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but is the story really about homosexuality at all?

Not for the male victim of other males raping him. They are the homosexuals. The victim is just a victim.

We all know the verses from Genesis, "...Chapter 19:vs 1-6 "...1And the two angels came into Sodom at evening. And Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. And Lot saw, and he rose up to meet them and bowed his face to the earth. 2And he said, Behold, now, my lords, please turn into your servant's house and lodge, and wash your feet; and rise early and go to your way. And they said, No, for we will lodge in the street. 3And he much urged them, and they turned into him and came into his house. And he made a feast for them. And he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate. 4Before they had laid down, even the men of the city, the men of Sodom, circled the house; from the young to the aged, all the people from its limits. 5And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them. .. .."

It all sounds pretty bad for those who support homosexuals, I mean here is God destroying cities because of threatened Gang-rape of the Angels Yahweh has sent EXCEPT

1: The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has been decided long before the Angels get there (Genesis 18:17 onwards) so that the people's actions are not the deciding reason for its destruction.

So it wasn't inhospitality. It was more on the lines of "hautiness." Sexual hedonists aren't likely to care about consequences or the people suffering them. How many gays would still be spreading AIDS like wildfire if they were not reigned in?

2: Verse 4 makes it quite clear that it was "ALL THE PEOPLE" which includes women and children.

Pedophiles are almost always talking about being victims of child molestation. Breeding in kind so to speak.

3: As we allow Scripture to interpret scripture we needs must look at what the rest of the Bible has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah. Let us leave aside the disturbingly similar incident in Judges 19 and look at what Ezekiel has to say about Yahweh's reasons for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah

Ezekiel 16:49 "...Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy..."

And? And? The "sisters" were intensly sexually perverted. You left out that part of Ezekiel's little sodomy story. Getting garphic like Ezekiel 23. In lust of sexual gratification is hardly the place to find the willing care-giver.

So according to Ezekiel the sin of the cities was economic rather than sexual,

One of the sisters searched for lovers with male members the size of a donkey. You are not exatly telling the whole story.

Jesus himself strengthens this interpretation of the matter by referring to Sodom and Gomorrah SOLEY in terms of inhospitality

Matthew 10:13-15
Mark 6:11
Luke 10:10-12

Sexual deviants are hardly the world's most giving people.

4: Finally, let us consider what the Rabbis have to say on this matter.

Quote:
The Mishnah (Avot 5:12) classifies one whose attitude to wealth is "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" as being a mediocre person. Such a person is prepared to respect the property of another and operate within the framework of the law. However, he is not prepared to assist others, nor does he recognize a social obligation in view of the wealth in his possession.

And this changes biblical marriage and biblical sexuality how? There are no texts of the Bible promoting, celebrating or supporting homosexuality be taught to anyone.

"Some say," continues the Mishnah, "this is the mark of the people of Sodom." The people of Sodom have been the archetype of an evil community deserving of destruction ever since biblical times, primarily because of their selfish economic behavior.

"Selfish behavior?" Sounds very much like San Franciscans to me.

The Malbim (Rabbi Meir Lebush, Hungary, nineteenth century) comments that their sin lay in their refusal to share their wealth with the surrounding nations. It should be noted that while the Aggadah [classical rabbinic legends] is replete with stories of their inhospitality to strangers, the men of Sodom welcomed Lot, Abrahams nephew. Lot was a wealthy man, and it was only poor strangers who were not welcome in Sodom.

One does not see within the Gay Community an outpouring of serving the poor. What we do see is a culture reveling in "high society."

The Sodomite view of absolute private property rejects any obligations to assist others, which is contrary to the Jewish concept of limited private-property rights. . . . . However, what made it necessary to destroy Sodom was not the individual selfishness of its citizens, but the fact that this had become an integral part of its communal culture.

Like, not caring what anyone else says and just ramrodding your agenda anyway?

While a society can exist with cruel and selfish individuals, the moral decay that sets in when cruelty and callousness become hallmarks of that society marks it for Divine retribution.

A community that literally defines itself by sexual acts is rife with cruelty and callousness.

Rashi, commenting on a verse in Amos--"They who sell the poor for a pair of shoes"--highlights this communal aspect. He notes the difference between a sandal, which is open, and a shoe, which is closed and possesses in Hebrew the same grammatical root as the word for "lock." This is what the rich did. They closed in the poor farmers field and then forced him to sella perfectly legal but immoral use of societal legislation. So Judea had to be destroyed.

In Sodom they gave charity generously.

Where is the evidence to back up that assertion?

However, all the money was secretly marked so that the storekeepers refused to accept it. When the poor died of hunger, each Sodomite reclaimed his moneylegal but abhorrent.

This "written" history of detailed Sodom is located where? In any event, this sounds like the socialism so proclaimed on the lips of the liberals that also promote the gay agenda. Taking money from the honest hard working person and giving it to the elite class, while claiming it is doing some good somewhere. Our inner-cities are very much like inhospitable Sodom.

Quote:
Were told in Parshat Vayera that Sodom is a wicked and miserable place, and we know the inhabitants of Sodom were "very wicked sinners against the Lord." But were left wondering what they could have done that that was so wicked that now God wants to destroy them.

Teaching children to be willing sex partners may be a good place to start. Jesus even threatened people that hurt children, or even want to.

For most Jewish thinkers, the evil of the men of Sodom had nothing to do with sex. Instead, the mainstream of Jewish tradition has understood the terrible evil of Sodom to be its residents lack of concern and even hatred for those in need.

How many gay men have stopped having anal sex? How many HIV infected people cruising for yet another sexual partner bothers to mention the disease that could kill them both?

How many children dream of a father and a mother only to have that human desire smashed by the selfishness of same-sex couples?

As the Talmud imagines things, the residents of the city were comparatively wealthy, as the valley of Sodom was the most fertile land in Israel. Knowing that those in need seek help from those who have resources, the Sodomites passed laws prohibiting any citizen from welcoming visitors, lest one poor person tell another that charity was to be found in Sodom and the city be flooded with poor people.

King Bera of Sodom, told Abraham (Abram at that time) to keep all of the wealth of the city but, yet, give King Bera back all of the persons taken from the city.

Genesisi 14:

21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself."

Kind of throws a wrench into that theory of wealth seeking and greedy Sodomites. But certainly people seekers.

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.' 24 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with meto Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share."

Abram was a homophobe?



Source: http://tinyurl.com/magoe

Simply put none of the sources support the contention that Sodom and Gomorrah were about homosexuality at all.

Simply put where the Bible celebrates, promotes, supports, condones, or allows homosexuality to be practiced and enbraced by the folowers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? And you can extrapolate that to the New Testament as well.

For 1John:

I am a Priest in the Anglican Church International and I am a Christian Theologian.

I would have bet my house on that being the case.

John Spong's chickens coming home to roost.

May God protect the innocents so abused by heresy.

[1John2_26]

Easyrider,

You might have a point if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had written Jude. But they did not. And so it matters not what they thought but what JUDE thought. And if the words "Sarkos Heteras" in Jude do mean "illicit" or "unnatural vice" then you have a problem because 'Sarkos' simply refers to the body and 'Heteras' is the greek root from which we get Heterosexual.

Kiwimac

Paul may have seen this day coming. He certainly "koined" a word for it: arsenokoitai.

There's also a lot of conspiracy-mongering claiming that understanding "effeminate" in terms of homosexuality is misleading and that the word means "soft" or "vulnerable" and probably refers to those who are unreliable or lacking in courage.

That's certainly not supported by other uses of the same word (malakos): Witherington's Corinthians commentary [166] notes uses of it referring to a "young male prostitute". Lexicons like BAGD, as Wold notes in Out of Order [189], clearly say that the word is used of "men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" and cites "numerous examples from Greek literature" of the word used this way. Critics argue in reply that the word has no specific referent for the homosexual act, just having feminine characteristics, but of course the "passive" partner in such a relationship DOES act out that very sort of characteristic.

In addition, Wold notes [192] that at Paul's time, the common preference for a "passive" homosexual partner WAS one that was effeminate (whereas prior to the 5th century BC, the preference was for a masculine partner). Finally, other Greek terms for the passive partner, clearly used in homosexual contexts, are words that have no "inherent" homosexual meaning but are borrowed words used to describe the passive homosexual. Critics have a substantial burden to carry before they can simply dismiss this word.

The reference to "abusers of self with mankind" uses a word also found in 1 Tim. 1:10 (arsenokoitai). Critics try to make some issue of this being an "obscure" or "uncertain" word for Paul's use of it seems to be the first ever use of it.

The idea that it means male-female sex is a desperate move; the two parts of the word mean "male" and "sexual intercourse," and Paul hardly needed to invent a word male-female sex.

Furthermore, the word is clearly derived from the LXX translations of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, which used the words arsenos koitin and arsenos ou koimethese.

Paul is merely creating a compound word from two clear words used of homosexual relations in Leviticus. It also ought to be noted that with these two words Paul would cover the "passive" and "active" role in the male homosexual relationship [Wold, 191] recognized by classical Greek writers.

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html

[Cathar1950]

Not for the male victim of other males raping him. They are the homosexuals. The victim is just a victim.

Again John you are trying to equate the two. They were rapist not homosexuals. They most likely were heterosexuals in all cases. The raped and that is not the same thing as homosexuality. Homosexual people today are not victims they are attracted to the same sex. In Sodom it was dominance, violence and humiliation as much as we might look at rape of a woman and it is not the same as affection and sexuality. You dont seem to be able to separate the two because it promotes your distain and fear mongering. Get a grip.

So it wasn't inhospitality. It was more on the lines of "hautiness." Sexual hedonists aren't likely to care about consequences or the people suffering them. How many gays would still be spreading AIDS like wildfire if they were not reigned in?

You just cant help yourself can you?
You are doing the same dam thing again. Even if they are sexual hedonist and haughty people does not make them homosexual. You are purposely confusing a violent act with affection they are not the same. Grow up! No one reined in the gays. They took responsibility, now it is a heterosexual disease as it is in Africa and other places. You are using AIDS as a fear mongering red herring Or something like that, I am to tired to look it up or think about it.

Pedophiles are almost always talking about being victims of child molestation. Breeding in kind so to speak.

We are talking about homosexuality not pedophiles. You just cant help yourself.

And? And? The "sisters" were intensly sexually perverted. You left out that part of Ezekiel's little sodomy story.

I think one of them was Davids ancestor as in the Moabites. The bible makes them out to be cleaver and desperate. Where does it say they were "intensely sexually perverted"? You sound like you are turned on.

One of the sisters searched for lovers with male members the size of a donkey. You are not exatly telling the whole story.

It seems to her size does count so what? What does that have to do with anything?
What exactly is the whole story? Talk about going off on a tangent.

Sexual deviants are hardly the world's most giving people.

Wouldnt that depend? Were they to demanding for you? Or were you to demanding?

A community that literally defines itself by sexual acts is rife with cruelty and callousness.

Isnt that what you are doing with heterosexuality and Christianity? That might explain the cruel callous Christians that show up at solders funerals.

Teaching children to be willing sex partners may be a good place to start. Jesus even threatened people that hurt children, or even want to.

You just cant help yourself. Again it is not the same as homosexuality. If you cant understand something just say so.

[1John2_26]

Quote:
I think the vast majority of Christians wouldn't even be discussing it if the pro-gay crowd wasn't so obsessed with spreading their unbiblical theology in the church and all across America.

Well, I cannot speak for the "pro-gay" crowd per se, but I can indeed tell you that I have personally and FREQUENTLY witnessed "Christians" abusing homosexuals in word and deed. I didn't cry and feel worthless for YEARS, because MOST Christians extended the type of love that Jesus did. I can count on practically ONE hand, where a Christian was more loving in their view of homosexuals, than they were emotionally radical. Why would a homosexual person GO TO a "Christian" for help? WHY??!!!

Homosexuals are NOT some kind of different human being. A person does or doesn't do same-sex sex acts. Just implying that the Christian Church has to deal with homosexuals, as if they were some jungle tribe is ridiculous.

I got tired of it; people posing as agents of "love", being more hateful than any of those I'd known of, who wern't "Christians" at all.

I have been to many different Christian Churches and known many Christians and none of them EVER did anything to a person that proclaimed the were "a" homosexual. Christian's Gay-Bashing?" That myth needs burying.

Applying martyrdom to people that want to promote same-gender sex acts is reprehensible.

All certain Christians are doing with their TOXIC faith/religion, is pushing people away (hopefully not from what is truly good about religion).

So Jihadist suicide bombers are to be welcomed in the Christian Churches without having to change their behavior?

No Christian wants their children to be enveloped into or indoctrinated into a lifestyle that is an abomination.

Quote:
If you want to hear less about homosexuality and the Bible, I recommend you cease promoting and defending it as a godly lifestyle.

It's about NOT pushing your idea/s of what is right/wrong ONTO people.

NO Christian is allowed to dissent from the leadership of gay political and legal authority. I have psoted again and again organizations threatening Christians that oppose homosexualization.

Anyone may protest even the BEST things, if they are FORCED to embrace them.

Sexual orientation IS seen as of more worth in public schools than religion. Part of the agenda was to exorcise God out of schools and exercise children into accepting homosexuality. That is simply what IS happening. No dissent is allowed or can be implemented "now." I notice Melikio, you are trying to censure and isolate my voice.

Leave homosexual people alone, at that certain point, where YOUR authority and personal autonomy are powerless to change anything.

That has never happened in the recorded history of civilization and it never will. Decent parents will always rise up to finally protect their children from those that harm them.

Do what you think is best, but don't expect others to follow down behind you, just because you THINK you are "right". Homosexuals have a "right", to oppose those who think it's right to FORCE their views upon them.

And the Gay Agenda has cunningly and deviously put into place laws that support homosexualization of youth in public education and the workplace and any dissent of homosexual authority is labeled as hateful and criminal.

Some Christians can't accept that basic thing, and to find the proper position of reasonable compromise (in the social sense); God didn't put individual Christians out here, to rule over the other sinners.

Nor to offer up themselves or their children on the alter of sexual hedonism, nor to allow the sexually reprobate to take control of society.

Quote:
The fact is that nowhere in the Bible is either gay marriage or a gay relationship ever viewed in a favorable light.

Neither does the Bible actually PROMOTE the hideously-hateful social environment/s which so many Christians intend and/or attempt to IMPOSE upon most homosexual people the world over; it is not difficult, to see that's hardly anything like Jesus Christ.

That says that Christians must be victims. They must suffer like Christ Jesus.

Like I said, homosexual people aren't all radically pro-gay or anti-family; and they do have the right to oppose abusive and oppressinve behavior leveled AT or DUMPED ON them (spiritually, morally or socially).

Those that support "traditional" family and marriage and do not want it destroyed into a perversion of relativism are now the targets of a well-planned political and social agenda to shut them up and lock them up if necessary.

Like Swift said, and I guess he wasn't joking after all:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams & vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions & do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave & adore us.

"If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies. We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens.

"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
"All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

"All churches who condemn us will be closed.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled & debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

Real happenings are not always funny.

[1John2_26]

Heiferdust!, Gay people are called to the worship of God just as heterosexual people are.

What are or what is "Gay people?" Are they from a country or civilization or what? Are they an aboriginal people?

This whole notion of a "gay" or "lesbian" has to be dealt with. A Lesbian is a follower (I suppose) of "Sappho." A female pederast (That lived on an island called lesbos) "it seems" who, as an adult teacher, thought about or did actually have sexual relations with her young students.

Not exactly a great Biblical role model.

Sappho, was not only married to a man and had a child with "him," it also seems that Sappho - as the myth goes - killed herself over the love she could not consumate with a young good looking "guy." And she threw herself off a cliff.

"Gay?" Is anybody's guess how that came to be a hyphenated word attached to a man's atributes.

Every man who is a Steelers fan was gay the day of the last Super Bowl victory. Though I wouldn't want to go to steel town and tell them that so much in that way. Words have been corrupted it seems too.

Same-gender sex acts can and are "done" by all sorts of people and "peoples" from places already defining them.

So in your theology we "can" condemn pederasts? Or, at least try to change them in the conversion process?

And, what "theology" has the nature of God creating them "male and female" doesn't denote the sexual pairing being immutable?

The Bible does not address homosexuality as it is understood today.

That is simply an "opinion" you hold. With, no Biblical support I may add.

Paul could have been watching MTV or visiting London, New York, Boston or San Francisco today, and described reprobate actions just as accurately. And Christ Jesus (the one that was crucified and raised on the third day), defined "marriage" as only a man and a woman, AND that that was the "way it was" from the beginning.

It DOES address pederasty and Temple prostitution.

Oh yes. Thank you. It does include Hollywood.

It is time for Christians to stop insisting that Homosexuals must change their very being in order to be acceptable to God.

To even imply that "the being" of any person is same-gender sex act seeking "from the Bible" is as near blasphemy as it gets.

God is not the author of confusion. Remember? One needs only to look at their anatomy for sexual orientation to be proclaimed clearly.

It is wrong, it is sub-christian and it is appalling theology which does violence to folk whom society already oppresses.

First off, a Christian Priest should capitalize "Christian," when writing the word. Secondly, violence to anyone for any reason is already condemned in the Gospel. No need for a special classification of persons. Thirdly, desiring marriage be a man and a woman and that children be free of being taught to support and celebrate same-gendar sex acts is NOT oppresing "homosexuals," whatever, or whoever "they" are.

It is time for a theologian to present the scripture that celebrates, condones, supports, promotes, encourages, etc., etc., etc., et al, (John Doe's 1 through six-billion inclusive . . . ) the preaching and teaching that same-gender sex and same-gender marriage is approved or approvable from the Bible . . . or, in any civilaization in history, as well.

[Wyvern]

Homosexuals are NOT some kind of different human being. A person does or doesn't do same-sex sex acts. Just implying that the Christian Church has to deal with homosexuals, as if they were some jungle tribe is ridiculous.

One way or another christian churches ARE dealing with homosexuals. Many congregations have accepted them with open arms. Some resist their inclusion within the body of Christ. Still others congregations take no position either way and let it remain a private matter.

Applying martyrdom to people that want to promote same-gender sex acts is reprehensible.

Martyrdom isn't just for religions anymore. Anyone that is popular and dies for a cause can be turned into one. What the cause is doesn't matter.

So Jihadist suicide bombers are to be welcomed in the Christian Churches without having to change their behavior?

If you mean to become a member of a congregation of course they would, considering they are already a member of another religion. Homosexuals however are not so burdened.

Part of the agenda was to exorcise God out of schools and exercise children into accepting homosexuality.

It truly must be comforting to believe in these grand conspiracy theories.

And the Gay Agenda has cunningly and deviously put into place laws that support homosexualization of youth in public education and the workplace and any dissent of homosexual authority is labeled as hateful and criminal

I like how you color everything you type. What everyone else sees as antidiscrimination laws you see as support laws. I bet you really hated it when those same pesky laws supported women in schools and the workplace.

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible is either gay marriage or a gay relationship ever viewed in a favorable light.

Where is homosexual marriage even mentioned in the bible?

[Wyvern]

What are or what is "Gay people?" Are they from a country or civilization or what? Are they an aboriginal people?

John you've regressed, you've forgotten who the people you are arguing against are.

This whole notion of a "gay" or "lesbian" has to be dealt with. A Lesbian is a follower (I suppose) of "Sappho."

Homosexuality is not a religion. What? Are you resetting your arguments for a new person?

Not exactly a great Biblical role model.

Good thing she wasn't in the bible then.

Words have been corrupted it seems too.

Only someone that hates change would characterize it so. One of englishes great strengths is its flexibility, over time words change are invented or adopted and are recycled into new uses. English certainly isn't popular because of its ease of use.

Paul could have been watching MTV or visiting London, New York, Boston or San Francisco today, and described reprobate actions just as accurately.

Then again he would be even more surprised the second coming hasn't happened yet.

God is not the author of confusion. Remember? One needs only to look at their anatomy for sexual orientation to be proclaimed clearly.

I think you might be reading something into this passage that isn't there.