Christian "Love" for "Homosexuals"

[Haven]

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

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

[Joab]

I am a Christian. Do the math.

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that you are a follower of Jesus?

Did Jesus say that if you were a follower of Jesus you would be able to heal the sick? Did he say that with even a modicum of belief you could move a mountain?

As a follower of Jesus have you ever done those things?

Are you sure that you really are a follower of Jesus if you can't do those things?

[KCKID]

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

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

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

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

Avoid sexual immorality

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

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

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

Nonsense! Your fixation is SOLELY on homosexuality!

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

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

Good for Paul.

Yeah, he is an amazing guy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Acts 9

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

Guess the Lord wasn't joking.

This Paul:

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

- Acts 9

Oh, THAT Paul. Okay.

That Paul.

[dianaiad]

I am a Christian. Do the math.

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that you are a follower of Jesus?

Did Jesus say that if you were a follower of Jesus you would be able to heal the sick? Did he say that with even a modicum of belief you could move a mountain?

As a follower of Jesus have you ever done those things?

Are you sure that you really are a follower of Jesus if you can't do those things?

While it is one thing to demand proof of a claim, it's not fair of you to demand unreasonable proof.

After all, those who call themselves 'Christians' get to define what that word means; you don't. So far as I can see, the only things that all Christians have in common is a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ as they believe them to be, and a wish to be identified as Christian.

Now some figure that a 'real' Christian should be able to handle snakes and drink poison without harm.

Some figure that a 'real' Christian should have had a 'born again' experience, and have been 'saved' in the 'once saved, always saved' sense of the word.

Some figure that a 'real' Christian has to belong to their specific Christian belief system, no others need apply.

Some do believe that faith healing is important.

All other Christians may disagree with these positions.

But NONE of them insist that one must literally move mountains and heal people in order to be a 'real' Christian, and you, sir, not being a Christian, don't get to insist that they do in order to be one, anymore than you get to insist that I prove that there's a sedimentary rock in my yard by moving the volcano that spawned it into your living room.

And yes, I did use the word 'sedimentary' deliberately and in full knowledge of how such a rock is formed. Think about it.

Finally, it might be a good idea to stop with the red herrings; they stink and they mess up the room.

[Joab]

I am a Christian. Do the math.

Can you prove that?

Can you prove that you are a follower of Jesus?

Did Jesus say that if you were a follower of Jesus you would be able to heal the sick? Did he say that with even a modicum of belief you could move a mountain?

As a follower of Jesus have you ever done those things?

Are you sure that you really are a follower of Jesus if you can't do those things?

While it is one thing to demand proof of a claim, it's not fair of you to demand unreasonable proof.

After all, those who call themselves 'Christians' get to define what that word means; you don't. So far as I can see, the only things that all Christians have in common is a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ as they believe them to be, and a wish to be identified as Christian.

Now some figure that a 'real' Christian should be able to handle snakes and drink poison without harm.

Some figure that a 'real' Christian should have had a 'born again' experience, and have been 'saved' in the 'once saved, always saved' sense of the word.

Some figure that a 'real' Christian has to belong to their specific Christian belief system, no others need apply.

Some do believe that faith healing is important.

All other Christians may disagree with these positions.

But NONE of them insist that one must literally move mountains and heal people in order to be a 'real' Christian, and you, sir, not being a Christian, don't get to insist that they do in order to be one, anymore than you get to insist that I prove that there's a sedimentary rock in my yard by moving the volcano that spawned it into your living room.

And yes, I did use the word 'sedimentary' deliberately and in full knowledge of how such a rock is formed. Think about it.

Finally, it might be a good idea to stop with the red herrings; they stink and they mess up the room.

Apparently I need to apologise.

Allegedly I didn't do the math.

What is a christian again?

Just so I know for future reference.

[KCKID]

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

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

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

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

While Paul is in good company ONLY HE (and other luminaries featured in the same book) is recognized by mainstream Christianity as being ‘authentic’. All the others are considered bogus or fakes. So, when Paul decides to make up a word that NO ONE but he knows the meaning of and includes it in a list of ‘sins’ that will keep people out of the Kingdom of Heaven, those that have an aversion to homosexuality and are concerned by its increasing acceptance within society decide in desperation to give the term a definition of their own. That word is, of course, ‘arsenokoitai’. But ...THE FACTS are that NO ONE knows what that word means! Once again, THE FACTS are that NO ONE knows what that word means!

So, anyone who equates the word ‘arsenokoitai’ with homosexuality is doing so based on the pure speculation of others who SO DESPERATELY WANT that word to mean ‘homosexuality’. And remember, Paul's word is God's word! They are all but bending backwards and doing double flips to make that happen. One can read lengthy essays on the Internet by theologians attempting to convince others that 'arsenokoitai' equates to 'homosexuality'. Perhaps it does mean ‘homosexuality’. But we don’t know that. Be that as it may, let us assume that Paul has created a neologism (new word) and that he’s equating this word to what was condemned in Leviticus 18:22. We then would need to determine what Leviticus 18:22 is talking about. We might THEN get some insight as to what ‘arsenokoitai’ really means!

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

[bluethread]

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

Edit for relevance of later post.

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

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

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

[KCKID]

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

Edit for relevance of later post.

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

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

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

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

[bluethread]

Sorry, I meant to edit not repost.

[bluethread]

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

Edit for relevance of later post.

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

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

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

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

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

[99percentatheism]

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes, Lord,� he answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gee ya think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's why:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous[ will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

- Paul to the Greek Christians in Corinth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what the gay agenda wants it to mean.