Will gays EVER be accepted by mainstream Christianity?

[KCKID]

The Mainstream Christian Church (i.e. the 'Christian Church' in general) appears to have an unshakable belief that gay people cannot possibly be Christians. Therefore gay people will always be regarded as 'lepers' because the mainstream Church believes that homosexuality is against the will of God and the actual practicing of such is a 'grave sin'. This is in spite of the fact that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality referred to as a grave sin. This more comes from the minds of people who have received a life time of brainwashing into believing this. Where homosexual activity IS mentioned in scripture it almost always - in fact, PROBABLY always - refers to the practice of idolatry and not as WE today refer to homosexuality. There are those Christians who are so appalled at the notion that gay people might desire to integrate with 'actual Christians' within their Church community that they suggest gays start their own denomination ...minus the 'Christian' prefix, of course, which would be sacrilege. Such folks want nothing to do with homosexual people and their minds appear to be set on this.

Below is a recent item from The Guardian that tells of the plight of gay Christians in Uganda. In our particular neck of the woods (probably the majority of those of us who participate on the forum) gays have no fear of state imposed death or life imprisonment as do those in places such as Uganda. Gays do, however, have a stigma placed on them by most Christians that results in rejection by the mainstream Church and, indeed, by God himself. And, of course, the rejection of God is tantamount to death or, worse still, eternal torment. The latter makes the penalty imposed on gays in Uganda pale by comparison.

Will mainstream Christianity ever be accepting of people whose only 'sin' is that they happen to be gay ...i.e. an involuntary sexual attraction between two people of the same gender? If not, why not? Please, give your HONEST reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... ry-kampala

Sunday is a special day in Uganda, the conservative east African country that is threatening to put gay people behind bars for life. On Sunday you can see families flocking to churches all over the country for prayer, wearing their best clothes.

The sermons are predictable. Church leaders will pray for divine intervention against the corrupt leaders, poverty and the potholed roads, and then finally call doom upon the country's homosexuals who are sinning against the Christian God and ruining African culture.

But not at a tiny church tucked away in one of Kampala's suburbs. Here, gay people meet in devoted challenge to mainstream denominations that have declared them outcasts. With dread-locked hair and in jeans and bathroom slippers, members of this congregation would stand out in the prim and proper evangelical church I sometimes go to. I feel overdressed in my white dress.

"Here we are all about freedom," Pepe Onziema, a gay rights activist tells me. "It is a universal church. We welcome people whether gay or straight."

The gates may be open but the road to the church that calls itself a friendship and reconciliation centre is not paved with sleek cars or thronged with believers. The worshippers trickle in. They take their seats, but not before surveying the crowd furtively, trying to identify everyone. Their life depends on this vigilance.

In Uganda, police raid homes and arrest those they suspect to be gay. Homosexuality is an offence under the penal code. The president, Yoweri Museveni, refuses to pass a bill that seeks to strengthen the punishments for homosexuality to include life imprisonment, but isnt under pressure to do so. Conservative Christian churches, under the auspices of the Uganda Joint Christian Council, refuse to accept homosexuals in spite of more gay-friendly approaches from parent churches abroad. The anti-gay furnace is fanned by American evangelical churches that have made it their mission to free Africa of homosexuality, saying it is alien to African culture.

The gay Ugandan church seeks to spread an alternative gospel of love and acceptance for all. On this particular Sunday, it is the memorial of David Kato, a gay rights activist who was murdered in 2011. So the numbers are bigger than usual. When the church was started by Bishop Christopher Senyonjo (who has since been thrown out of the Anglican Church for ministering to gay people), the gay community in Uganda attended devotedly. But with arrests and growing anti-gay sentiments, threats to their lives and arrests, fewer and fewer people come to the church.

"Our numbers have reduced ever since we started in 2008," Denis, the chaplain and a primary school teacher, tells me. "It is worse now that the bill has been passed." If Denis's employees knew of his orientation or his calling, he would certainly lose his job. "This is the only place we can feel at home. Here we can worship God without feeling guilty or fearing persecution."

Joining a gay congregation in Uganda is risky but Onziema says it is necessary in a society that greatly values community. For on Sundays, when many Ugandans spend time with their families, most gay people have nowhere to go. "Coming here lets us know that we are not alone and gives us the strength to continue the struggle," Onziema says.

You can see both hope and fear in the eyes of the congregation as they read Bible verses proclaiming God's protection over them and sing "What a friend we have in Jesus".

Here, there are no thunderous shouts of praise, speaking in tongues or Bible-thumping that is characteristic of the evangelism that is so trendy in the country. In the quiet worship of Uganda's gay community, there is a still hope and the kind of courage you can only muster after you have seen it all and there is nothing left to fear. Sunday is also the day gay people in Uganda cast off their masks to chat about the latest fashion, cars and celebrities.

"You thought we were going to pray that God stops the anti-homosexuality bill," Mugisha, the head of Sexual Minorities Uganda, asks me with laughter and mischief in his voice. "It will not pass. We do not need to pray for that."

Mugisha is for a moment free from his job, his life, fighting for the basic human rights of gay people. "I come here for the community. It is better than staying home alone," he says. As the service ends, members of the congregation are asked to say something in memory of David Kato, whose spirit of resilience they will need as they walk out of the church into their daily routine.

"We know he did not die in vain," Mugisha says. "One day we shall be accepted."

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 285 by KCKID]

99percent, you did NOT respond to post 276 but instead included a couple of articles of your own that have nothing to do with the contents of post 276. Would you please discuss post 276 point by point?

Yeah . . .

This is why I posted it ...to be discussed, not to have unrelated articles thrown in as red herrings.

Unrelated? Red Herrings? A red herring is for throwing the dogs off the scent so they cannot stay on path. Both articles I presented are perfectly on track. In fact, the very same kind of track that you use. You present gay theology from other sources that you read and present. I believe you presented gaychristianity101 or some other gay theological perspective. I did the same thing. I never accused you of a red herring. In fact, I welcomed your presentations.

I doubt that I've ever evaded response to any of your questions, 99percent. In fact, I'm usually quite pedantic in my attempts to address your posts. And, more often than not, I'll use my own words to begin with even if I follow up my response/s with other sourced material. Post 276 specifically addresses the Leviticus text and it's that particular text that Ive asked for input from forum members, not just from you.

Use your own words? Your positions are straight out of gaychristian101 or soulforce. And of course dear old Spong mining. I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I recognize the lines. That's not meant to insult you, just to point out reality. Your positions are as "liberal Christianity" or gay sloganeering as it gets. Right down the line.

Matthew Vines has nothing to do with my post. And, we haven't as yet started on "arsenokoitai" but we will get there if we keep at it . . .

So what? Vines uses the EXACT SAME theology you do. And with the exact same non support.

But, the testimony of Vines or anyone else is not what we are immediately discussing. I've asked for agreement or dispute over the contents of post 276.

Both of the articles I presented would be directly addressing your attempts to homosexualize the Church with supposed support.

I don't want to play your game of 'avoiding the question', 99percent. Post 276 contains a text (plus 2 videos) pertaining to Leviticus that is specifically presented for you - or whoever - to agree with or to otherwise dispute. "I" personally agree with it and believe it to be as accurate an interpretation as one can derive from such an ambiguous passage ...hence my reason for posting it. My claim is that Leviticus has nothing to do with homosexuality as we today define the term. And, I would suggest that you know that and have known that for a long time! Be that as it may, my question is: Do you agree with the contents of post 276? If you don't agree with it, then please explain what you DO believe Leviticus to mean and why you feel justified for using 18:22 and 20:13 to condemn gay people.

I can't answer your demands without risking being banned.

What? You can't agree or disagree (along with appropriate reasons for disagreeing, of course) to the contents of post 276 without the risk of being banned ...? Sorry, but I just don't understand.

I can't say what needs to be said without the watchful eyes of the 99percentathiest monitoring powers and principalities judging my words through gay pride meme. What we are dealing with has ancient life to it. Enough said.

The proscribed punishment for the two homosexuals cannot be addressed without seeing how evil and wickedness and "detestable practices" and "abominations" were to be rid of from Israel. I am a Christian for one thing . . . but it stands to reason that the decision to rid Israel of certain kinds of people and peoples was an effective way of getting rid of bad influences to and in Israel.

I'm really not tuned in to this mindset of yours, 99percent. The contents of post 276 suggest that the 'clobber texts' of Leviticus have nothing to do with homosexuality as we define the term today but to idolatry practices and shrine temple prostitution.

How is the gay agenda any different? Did you see the Grammy's?

And, this sounds most feasible given the culture of the day and the OT God's insistence that He's a jealous God and that HE ALONE demands worship. Why can't you address this post as it reads without the risk of being banned?

The proscription for ridding evil from Israel is not something that I want to expound upon in today's moral-relativity world. Besides I am a Christian and it is clear that we are to allow evil to exist but not let it stain us if at all possible. And if and when it does, there is an effective stain remover to be applied. The history of the Apostles and first century "Christians" was just such an example. And I have absolutely no doubt that The Church stands today on the good examples of Christian life lived by Christians in the past.

I'll check with the Mods to see how far I can go with this line of reality and I'll get back to you.

Why not just respond to the contents of post 276? I'm sorry, but I'm just not following.

I am very supportive of Israel. I maybe Jewish by birth, but I am neither a Levite, nor an Israelite. But I have to agree that the God of Moses (Abraham, Issac and Jacob too) had good reasons for ridding evil from Israel. But I notice that even very famous Israelites still sinned though.

Thank you.

You know I don't like that personal touch stuff directed towards me.

I'm simply responding to YOUR posts, 99percent. What else am I to do? If you don't want me to do this then don't involve yourself in this topic. The contents of post 276, as intended, are open to anyone who wants to address them. I would very much prefer that other than just you and I become involved in this issue but you and I are pretty much "it". I realize that the topic of homosexuality has become somewhat old hat but its still a very serious issue within the Christian Church and, consequently, with Christian people.

The Gay Agenda has been amazingly effective amazingly fast. One could even say that it had a supernatural power to its expediency.

What Im trying to do here is to analyze in their proper context those scriptures commonly used to demean (yes, demean!) homosexual people who are the way they are through no doing of their own.

It is not my fault that homosexuality throughout the ages follows a course.

I dont know why others are reluctant to become involved in such a serious issue* but thats the way it seems to be.

many have an intense fear of being branded a bigot, hateful, homophobe, heterosexist etc., etc., etc.. To deal with this subject, you gotta have tough Christian skin and to realize why the Bible details what will happen to a believer when they enter this kind of fray. I just realize that the same spirit of this debate existed at the beginning of The Church and will run its course only upon the return of our Lord. It is scary being in this struggle, but it is also necessary. Paul wasn't executed for being affirming of the world and its ways. No, far from it. Literally.

To be sure, I often realize that my time could be better spent elsewhere and just as frequently wonder, what the heck am I doing here?

I have wondered why you haven't gone off and built that gay denomination you have all of that theology to support its founding?

My answer to it would be seen as a rules violation here. And the ever-watching eyes on 99percentatheism force me into a very wary mode. So what's called for is just ending your post.

Again, Im just not getting this. Why would any reasoned response to post 276 risk your being banned?

Of course it would.

* The overwhelming message of present-day mainstream Christianity is that homosexual people are disordered, will be condemned to eternal hell-fire if unrepentant, are evil and wicked and detestable and abominable, are unwelcome in most Christian Churches and will therefore be basically shunned by most Christians, are to suffer undeserved stigma, are denied equal dignity, are deemed 'unworthy', are humiliated, etc. etc. based purely on ...THE BIBLE!

What? You would rather we base it on some gay website? A gay club? The Gay Pride Parade? What about truth and honesty? That isn't important anymore? That's hate speech now?

Are we not now: Hostis humani generis according to the Supreme Court of the United States?

The bolded section are the terms you used above, 99percent, or do you believe that I'm just picking on you for no reason?

I stand convicted of being honest about scripture. I'm cool with that. Not a bad place to be on judgment day.

All of these notions come from a handful of scriptures that Im attempting to debunk (or not) based solely on their (as accurate as is possible) interpretation!

A handful of scriptures? I have dismantled any and all of your gay pride promotion in Christian garb with hardly ever using the so-called clobber passages. I have made an impact across the country with my use of scripture to prove beyond doubt that there is no such thing as same gender marriage in the New Testament and no such thing as support or celebration of gay pride or homosexuality anywhere in scripture. Your demands are based on things not said. Things not existing. Silence as affirmation. Think about that? What box of abominations does that line of reasoning open up? That's not the slippery slope "theory" that is the bottom of the slide reached and realized. You compare divorce, adultery and remarriage "in the Church" with but are seemingly blind to what you are proving about licentiousness and the encouraging of sin and sinning in our permissive, lascivious and "anything goes" society!

If Sodom and Gomorrah were just a metaphor, they would scream even louder as an example about the world which is being created in 21st century reality!

How come there are so few takers?

Who wants to be abused, insulted, denigrated, harassed, hounded, belittled and attacked from every side by gay activist charges: (BIGOT, HOMOPHIBE, HATEFUL, CLOSED-MINDED, UNLOVING, SUPPORTER OF SUICIDE, BULLY . . . etc., etc., ) for being a Christian contending for the faith delivered only once to the saints . . . unless doing so as a mission?

Peter and Paul did not go on to a retirement apartment complex in Florida when they were old men. They were martyred under Nero, a man that married two men. And of course wasn't alone in that . . .:

Contrary to the popular view"both among proponents and opponents"gay marriage is not a new issue. It cannot be couched (by proponents) as a seamless advance on the civil rights movement, nor should it be understood (by opponents) as something thats evil merely because it appears to them to be morally unprecedented.

Gay marriage was"surprise!"alive and well in Rome, celebrated even and especially by select emperors, a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman homosexuality. Gay marriage was, along with homosexuality, something the first Christians faced as part of the pagan moral darkness of their time.

What Christians are fighting against today, then, is not yet another sexual innovation peculiar to our enlightened age, but the return to pre-Christian, pagan sexual morality.

So, what was happening in ancient Rome? Homosexuality was just as widespread among the Romans as it was among the Greeks (a sign of which is that it was condoned even by the stolid Stoics). The Romans had adopted the pederasty of the Greeks (aimed, generally, at boys between the ages of 12 to 18). There was nothing shameful about such sexual relations among Romans, if the boy was not freeborn. Slaves, both male and female, were considered property, and that included sexual property.

But the Romans also extended homosexuality to adult men, even adult free men. And it is likely that this crossing of the line from child to adult, unfree to free"not homosexuality as such"was what affronted the more austere of the Roman moralists.

And so we hear from Tacitus (56-117 AD), the great Roman historian, of the shameful sexual exploits of a string of Roman emperors from Tiberius to Nero. Nero was the first imperial persecutor of the Christians. His tutor and then advisor was the great Stoic moralist Seneca himself. Unfortunately, Senecas lessons must have bounced right off the future emperor. When he took the imperial seat, complete with its aura of self-proclaimed divinity, no trace of Stoic austerity remained.

In Nero, Tacitus tells the reader, tyrannical passion, the hubris of proclaimed divinity, the corruption of power, and every filthy depraved act, licit or illicit seemed to reach an imperial peak. He not only had a passion for free-born boys but also for quite literally marrying other men and even a boy, sometimes playing the part of the woman in the union and sometimes the man.

As Tacitus relates one incident (Grants translation): Nero was already corrupted by every lust, natural and unnatural. But he now refuted any surmises that no further degradation was possible for him. Forhe went through a formal wedding ceremony with one of the perverted gang called Pythagoras. The emperor, in the presence of witnesses, put on the bridal veil. Dowry, marriage bed, wedding torches, all were there. Indeed everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night.

Such was only one instance. We also have from historian Seutonius, a contemporary of Tacitus, a report of Neros marriage to Doryphorus (who was himself married to another man, Sporus).

Martial, the first-century A.D. Roman poet, reports incidences of male-male marriage as kinds of perversions, but not uncommon perversions, speaking in one epigram (I.24) of a man who played the bride yesterday. In another (12.42) he says mockingly, Bearded Callistratus gave himself in marriage toAfer, in the manner in which a virgin usually gives herself in marriage to a male. The torches shone in front, the bridal veils covered his face, and wedding toasts were not absent, either. A dowry was also named. Does that not seem enough yet for you, Rome? Are you waiting for him to give birth?

In Juvenals Second Satire (117), we hear of one Gracchus, arraying himself in the flounces and train and veil of a bride, now a new-made bride reclining on the bosom of her husband. Such seems to have been the usual way of male-male nuptials among the Romans, one of the men actually dressing up as a woman and playing the part of a woman.

The notoriously debauched emperor Elagabalus (ruled 218-222) married and then divorced five women. But he considered his male chariot driver to be his husband, and he also married one Zoticus, an athlete. Elagabalus loved to dress up as a queen, quite literally.

Our reports of homosexual marriage from Rome give us, I hope, a clearer understanding of what is at stake. As is the case today, it appears that the incidence of male-male marriage followed upon the widespread acceptance of homosexuality; that is, the practice of homosexuality led to the notion that, somehow, homosexual unions should share in the same status as heterosexual unions.

We must also add that heterosexuality among the Romans was also in a sad state. Both concubinage and prostitution were completely acceptable; pornography and sexually explicit entertainment and speech were entirely normalized; the provision of sex by both male and female slaves was considered a duty by masters. Paeans to the glory of marriage were made, not because the Romans had some proto-Christian notion of the sanctity of marriage, but because Rome needed more citizen-soldiers just when the Romans were depopulating themselves by doing anything to avoid having children.

The heterosexual moral disrepair in Rome therefore formed the social basis for the Roman slide into homosexual marriage rites. We hear of them from critics bent on satirizing such unions. The problem for the Romans wasnt homosexuality as such, but that a Roman man would debase himself and play the part of a woman in matrimony.

Christians had a problem with the whole Roman sexual scene. We are, of course, not surprised to find that the first Christians accepted and carried forward the strict rejection of homosexuality inherent in Judaism, but this was part of its more encompassing rejection of any sexuality outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Christians are not to be lauded for affirming that marriage must be defined as a union of a man and a woman, because that is the natural default of any people intent on not disappearing in a single generation. What was peculiar to Christianity (again, not just following Judaism, but intensifying it) was the restriction of sexuality only to monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

The Christians found themselves in a pagan culture where there were few restrictions on sexuality at all,

other than the imagination

"a culture that, to note the obvious but exceedingly important, looks suspiciously like ours.

- http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item ... e_sun.aspx

[KCKID]

Your positions are straight out of gaychristian101 or soulforce. And of course dear old Spong mining. I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I recognize the lines. That's not meant to insult you, just to point out reality. Your positions are as "liberal Christianity" or gay sloganeering as it gets. Right down the line.

99percent, I just grabbed the above from your latest post and, for now anyway, have ignored the rest since it doesn't address my more recent dialog with you.

You refer to 'my positions' and continue your attempt to debunk them as though you're on a winner. Youre not, sad to say. MY position is quite clear and it's one that you appear to be avoiding like the plague. I - and others - don't believe that there is ANY scripture in the entire Bible that, if exegetically scrutinized, would lead anyone on a campaign against gay people. None! There are, however, scriptures that might have those such as yourself, i.e. "Christians," as you continually remind us, "who contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," running a campaign against those that divorce and remarry. I realize that your typical response to this question is a flimsy "two wrongs don't make a right" but you appear to totally ignore this cop-out answer when it comes to homosexuality. Shouldn't you be campaigning against both equally, regardless of your cliched. "two wrongs don't make a right" . . .? So, how come you're not?

But anyway, back to MY particular position on this topic. In post 276, the 'clobber texts' of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 have, for the very first time as far as Im aware, been given the exegetical treatment. Usually its more a case of emotionally charged people screaming such catch-phrases as Fags Must Die: See Leviticus 20:13! or the like without any further explanation as to WHY fags should die or WHY God would find 'fags' so offensive. The contents of post 276 explain quite adequately WHY those commands were given, presumably by God, in the first place. AND, they have nothing to do with homosexuality as we define the term nowadays.

Do you, 99percent, agree with the contents of post 276? If not, then please explain why you dont agree along with an exegetical rundown of your own as to the 'real' meaning of these texts. Again, those texts are:

Leviticus 18:22:- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Leviticus 20:13:- If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We can read the words. But what, specifically, is the meaning behind these words? What was it that was going on publicly among the people for the commands to have been made in the first place? An excellent and perfectly adequate answer is found in post 276.

Note: It seems to me that, while an exegetical analysis of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 might be a worthwhile endeavor if only to put a stop to Christians who use those texts to judge and condemn others ...no exegetical analysis of these texts is really necessary since they don't apply to any of us in the year 2014 anyway. They are not, scripturally speaking, an issue that would affect one's salvation.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

Your positions are straight out of gaychristian101 or soulforce. And of course dear old Spong mining. I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I recognize the lines. That's not meant to insult you, just to point out reality. Your positions are as "liberal Christianity" or gay sloganeering as it gets. Right down the line.

99percent, I just grabbed the above from your latest post and, for now anyway, have ignored the rest since it doesn't address my more recent dialog with you.

I'm used to most of my posts being simply ignored. I realize how damaging they are to the gay agenda. If I was a gay activist/proponent/advocate I'd avoid them too.

You refer to 'my positions' and continue your attempt to debunk them as though you're on a winner. Youre not, sad to say.

Christ and His disciples won the battle for me. I have no need to claim a victory that was won over a thousand years ago.

MY position is quite clear and it's one that you appear to be avoiding like the plague.

Well, I have answered your positions for a very, very long time now. Very detailed responses all in a row. The failed test is not one I took.

I - and others - don't believe that there is ANY scripture in the entire Bible that, if exegetically scrutinized, would lead anyone on a campaign against gay people.

I have proven how well I handle liberal and gay theology as well. I realize that you are yours want to define religion in your own ways. I chose the way the Discples and Apostles and Christ Jesus handled it better than your neo-theology. But it bears noting, that I have always maintained you and yours have the right to your new religion and new theology.

None! There are, however, scriptures that might have those such as yourself, i.e. "Christians," as you continually remind us, "who contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," running a campaign against those that divorce and remarry.

I realize that your typical response to this question is a flimsy "two wrongs don't make a right" but you appear to totally ignore this cop-out answer when it comes to homosexuality. Shouldn't you be campaigning against both equally, regardless of your cliched. "two wrongs don't make a right" . . .? So, how come you're not?

I know the power of propaganda and the effectiveness of the tactics of the gay agenda.

Yet your several wrongs making a right has no foundation in truth or reality. You seem to demand that gay sex be celebrated because some Christians commit adultery and get remarried. Odd moral perspective KCKID. And certainly doesn't have any footing in scripture.

But anyway, back to MY particular position on this topic. In post 276, the 'clobber texts' of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 have, for the very first time as far as Im aware, been given the exegetical treatment.

For the very first time? This old-hat gay theology. Spong has been around for a long time.

Usually its more a case of emotionally charged people screaming such catch-phrases as Fags Must Die: See Leviticus 20:13! or the like without any further explanation as to WHY fags should die or WHY God would find 'fags' so offensive.

Ridding evil from Israel is quite well described.

The contents of post 276 explain quite adequately WHY those commands were given, presumably by God, in the first place. AND, they have nothing to do with homosexuality as we define the term nowadays.

Again, those texts are:

Leviticus 18:22:- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Leviticus 20:13:- If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If it said: "Two (or more) men (and/or boys) shalt not shareth a tent together. This causeth rumors amongst thy people Israel to slandereth thy name throughout the nations."

But it doesn't. It literally spells out the sex act by comparing "lying with a man as with a woman" and the men engaging in the sexual act as engaging in detestable behavior.

Do you, 99percent, agree with the contents of post 276? If not, then please explain why you dont agree along with an exegetical rundown of your own as to the 'real' meaning of these texts.

I completely agree with the scriptures and why they were given to the Israelites. I am not haughty enough to tell God to buzz off. Moses got in trouble for just striking a rock instead of simply following directives. Insubordination of God is not something I seek as a civil right.

We can read the words. But what, specifically, is the meaning behind these words?

"Hey guys, after we shoot hoops and take a shower and cool off, why don't we "lie with each other as we would with a woman?"

C'mon KCKID, that is going to be met with by a very negative reaction.

What was it that was going on publicly among the people for the commands to have been made in the first place? An excellent and perfectly adequate answer is found in post 276.

Via Eisegesis: an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

Note: It seems to me that, while an exegetical analysis of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 might be a worthwhile endeavor if only to put a stop to Christians who use those texts to judge and condemn others ...no exegetical analysis of these texts is really necessary since they don't apply to any of us in the year 2014 anyway. They are not, scripturally speaking, an issue that would affect one's salvation.

Marriage in Christian truth is man and woman/husband and wife. Adding many, many, many, many more "clobber passages" directed at the gay agenda to the list.

Id certum est quod certum reddi potest. Est factum est veritas numquam perit

Preaching a different Gospel is denying salvation to the duped follower of said false Gospel. And as it has been pointed out: Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

Et tu . . . extra ecclesiam nulla salus facta

[KCKID]

KCKID

Your positions are straight out of gaychristian101 or soulforce. And of course dear old Spong mining. I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I recognize the lines. That's not meant to insult you, just to point out reality. Your positions are as "liberal Christianity" or gay sloganeering as it gets. Right down the line.

99percent, I just grabbed the above from your latest post and, for now anyway, have ignored the rest since it doesn't address my more recent dialog with you.

I'm used to most of my posts being simply ignored. I realize how damaging they are to the gay agenda. If I was a gay activist/proponent/advocate I'd avoid them too.

Well, in my case I always try to respond to the relevant points of your posts. You do, however, tend to ramble on with non-relevant stuff and the posts then tend to become unnecessarily lengthy.

You refer to 'my positions' and continue your attempt to debunk them as though you're on a winner. Youre not, sad to say.

Christ and His disciples won the battle for me. I have no need to claim a victory that was won over a thousand years ago.

Shouldn't that be 'over two thousand years ago'? And, are you saying that Christ and the disciples vetoed gay people from associating with them as per the title of this thread? Where, in scripture, do you get this idea?

MY position is quite clear and it's one that you appear to be avoiding like the plague.

Well, I have answered your positions for a very, very long time now. Very detailed responses all in a row. The failed test is not one I took.

You answer with red herrings and subterfuge. You avoid discussing the actual scriptures that reference same-sex activities. I've many times given my position - and the position of many others - that the scriptures mainstream Christians aim at homosexuals with which to victimize them relate purely to idolatry and temple prostitution. This didn't just spring into my mind, 99percent. I've studied these scriptures and, if they aligned with mainstream Christianity's views on the subject, I would agree with them. I would still believe in people being allowed to be themselves and living their lives accordingly without any persecution from Christians but I would, as I say, agree that 'the Bible' speaks against homosexuality. I don't find this, however.

I - and others - don't believe that there is ANY scripture in the entire Bible that, if exegetically scrutinized, would lead anyone on a campaign against gay people.

I have proven how well I handle liberal and gay theology as well. I realize that you are yours want to define religion in your own ways. I chose the way the Discples and Apostles and Christ Jesus handled it better than your neo-theology.

Jesus and His disciples never addressed this topic ...EVER! So, that one has been knocked on the head right way! Nor did the apostles say anything about same-sex activity other than in reference to idolatry and temple prostitution. Why don't you read up on the practices of idolatry that were going on in Paul's day, 99percent? It won't take you long to equate these things to what Paul and one or two of his buddies were talking about in scripture.

My thoughts are that even if the Bible did not reference same-sex sex at all you would still campaign against gay people, 99percent. I don't believe that your 'aversion' to gay people has anything to do with the Bible. It's a personal campaign. As said, those are my thoughts. What say, 99percent?

But it bears noting, that I have always maintained you and yours have the right to your new religion and new theology.

Yes, first a red herring and then a touch of patronizing thrown in to indicate that you really are a fair minded person.

Interpretation: You gays and gay supporters start your own denomination and stay the h-ll away from mine!

None! There are, however, scriptures that might have those such as yourself, i.e. "Christians," as you continually remind us, "who contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," running a campaign against those that divorce and remarry.

I realize that your typical response to this question is a flimsy "two wrongs don't make a right" but you appear to totally ignore this cop-out answer when it comes to homosexuality. Shouldn't you be campaigning against both equally, regardless of your cliched. "two wrongs don't make a right" . . .? So, how come you're not?

I know the power of propaganda and the effectiveness of the tactics of the gay agenda.

I'm not interested in your 'gay agenda' ruse. This has nothing to do with me or the position that I take on the forum re this topic.

Yet your several wrongs making a right has no foundation in truth or reality. You seem to demand that gay sex be celebrated because some Christians commit adultery and get remarried. Odd moral perspective KCKID. And certainly doesn't have any footing in scripture.

Again, I have no interest in 'celebrating' either homosexuality or heterosexuality. It's none of my concern who is sexually attracted to whom. It's none of my concern who marries whom. It's none of my concern who has sex with whom. What DOES concern me, however, are the many Christians who ignore, or rather are ignorantly oblivious to, the scriptures that 'condemn' certain behavior (adultery as per divorce/remarriage) while supporting the use of other scriptures with which to target gay people. I CAN plainly see from the scriptures that 'God' (?) most assuredly condemns divorce. Here is just one such text: Malachi 2:16, I hate divorce, says the Lord God. It couldn't be much plainer, could it?

But anyway, back to MY particular position on this topic. In post 276, the 'clobber texts' of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 have, for the very first time as far as Im aware, been given the exegetical treatment.

For the very first time? This old-hat gay theology. Spong has been around for a long time.

Accurate exegesis of biblical texts don't come from old-hat gay theology or from John Shelby Spong. They come from serious study and astute analysis of said scriptures by the individual.

Usually its more a case of emotionally charged people screaming such catch-phrases as Fags Must Die: See Leviticus 20:13! or the like without any further explanation as to WHY fags should die or WHY God would find 'fags' so offensive.

Ridding evil from Israel is quite well described.

I consider myself to be a person of fair intelligence, 99percent. I also consider myself a lay-scholar of theology and therefore fairly well-versed on the subject of biblical literature. I also have some academic background on the humanities and social science. Equating 'homosexuality' with 'evil' and in so doing giving support to 'ridding this alleged evil from society' through destructive means says a great deal about the one making such a statement. That one can do this while maintaining the claim that they are 'followers of Jesus' rather boggles the mind.

That's it for now

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 291 by KCKID]

KCKID

Your positions are straight out of gaychristian101 or soulforce. And of course dear old Spong mining. I've been at this a lot longer than you have. I recognize the lines. That's not meant to insult you, just to point out reality. Your positions are as "liberal Christianity" or gay sloganeering as it gets. Right down the line.

99percent, I just grabbed the above from your latest post and, for now anyway, have ignored the rest since it doesn't address my more recent dialog with you.

I'm used to most of my posts being simply ignored. I realize how damaging they are to the gay agenda. If I was a gay activist/proponent/advocate I'd avoid them too.

Well, in my case I always try to respond to the relevant points of your posts. You do, however, tend to ramble on with non-relevant stuff and the posts then tend to become unnecessarily lengthy.

Ramble on with Biblical support? Literally entering the quoted text in my posts to totally support my positions? That kind of rambling is called evidence and support in the schools I went to. I notice all you have ever done is to claim that that was back then and this is now. That politically driven neologism and propaganda can replace the faith delivered only once to the saints. And you'll notice please, that I have supported your right to invent a new religion? Right? LGBT's and Q's and +'sand KCKID can do and invent anything they want to to call their religious viewpoints.

You refer to 'my positions' and continue your attempt to debunk them as though you're on a winner. Youre not, sad to say.

Christ and His disciples won the battle for me. I have no need to claim a victory that was won over a thousand years ago.

Shouldn't that be 'over two thousand years ago'?

I purposely used that time frame to see if you would validate the immutability of Christian reality. 2000-years ago marriage in Christian life was man and woman/husband and wife. And there is no position written in the New Testament (which is not 2000-years old) that an angry LGBT agenda can change that.

And, are you saying that Christ and the disciples vetoed gay people from associating with them as per the title of this thread?

Where, in scripture, do you get this idea?

Any sinner is welcomed to repent of their sins. Not one of us has any kind of excuse for altering the reality of Christian truth. Not even by the APA or Barack Obama or the 21st century US Supreme Court or by "political correctness" or by flying a rainbow flag over some Churches.

MY position is quite clear and it's one that you appear to be avoiding like the plague.

Well, I have answered your positions for a very, very long time now. Very detailed responses all in a row. The failed test is not one I took.

You answer with red herrings and subterfuge.

I have so well defended against your groundless accusation here that I am well prepared for judgment day on this particular charge. There is not one word of affirmation towards gay behavior anywhere in the New Testament. Your charges against me will not even be heard at the throne of Christ.

You avoid discussing the actual scriptures that reference same-sex activities.

Did Jesus ever say we couldn't drown kittens and puppies? NO, He didn't. Did Jesus ever say we couldn't watch porn movies in Church? NO, he didn't. Your proof via the negative is seriously flawed logic.

I've many times given my position - and the position of many others - that the scriptures mainstream Christians aim at homosexuals with which to victimize them relate purely to idolatry and temple prostitution.

You have presented LIBERAL theology from very typical liberal sources. Spong for example, sets a course away from the immutability of Gospels and the testimony of the New Testament witness. I am glad I will not be anywhere near him on judgment day. And Mel White??? He is what you preach against all the time here. He is an adulterer and "re-married" (though NOT in Christian sense according TO the Gospels and NT) and he claims to be a Christian Reverend??? If you are consistent with your preaching please stay your course for this guy.

This didn't just spring into my mind, 99percent. I've studied these scriptures and, if they aligned with mainstream Christianity's views on the subject, I would agree with them.

I don't think you have. How many Christian Research Institute articles on the subject have you studied? How many "conservative" theologians have you studied? I HAVE THOUGH studied BOTH the liberal-unitarian-universalism-secularism-politicalism side to the theological positions about many subjects, including gay sexuality IN the Church.

I would still believe in people being allowed to be themselves and living their lives accordingly without any persecution from Christians . . .

And so does Jesus in the Gospels and so does Peter in his letters and so does Paul and so does Jude and so does John. And so does the guy writing under the username 99percenyatheism and so does the consistent voice of Bible AFFIRMING "conservative" theology.

. . . but I would, as I say, agree that 'the Bible' speaks against homosexuality.

I don't find this, however.

I don't understand the reason you use for the construction of those two sentences. One is absolutely correct. The Bible absolutely does speak against homosexuality and homosexuals for that matter, as it does other sinners and sinful behaviors.

That you don't find this?

You have the right to that position.

I - and others - don't believe that there is ANY scripture in the entire Bible that, if exegetically scrutinized, would lead anyone on a campaign against gay people.

I have proven how well I handle liberal and gay theology as well. I realize that you are yours want to define religion in your own ways. I chose the way the Discples and Apostles and Christ Jesus handled it better than your neo-theology.

Jesus and His disciples never addressed this topic ...EVER!

Your assertion does not make it through the testing. YOU demand that adultery and divorce are wrong. WHY? Because of what and how a "MARRIAGE" is defined.

There is no affirming same gender marriage from the words of anyone in the New Testament. You cannot escape that. No amount of badgering, mocking, belittling, insulting, denigrating or hating of Christians and Christianity can alter the reality that in Christian truth, sexual behavior should be engaged in IN a marriage . . . and MARRIAGE is between a man and woman/husband and wife.

So, that one has been knocked on the head right way! Nor did the apostles say anything about same-sex activity other than in reference to idolatry and temple prostitution. Why don't you read up on the practices of idolatry that were going on in Paul's day, 99percent? It won't take you long to equate these things to what Paul and one or two of his buddies were talking about in scripture.

Nero and Sporus were not worshipping some pagan idols when they got Roman-married. Nor were the many Romans that engaged in homosexuality worshipping at temples while having gay sex. IF you want history as the guide, then your positions get weaker and weaker until they have no power to stand at all. I have been studying this subject of the LGBT march towards The Church for a VERY long time.

My thoughts are that even if the Bible did not reference same-sex sex at all you would still campaign against gay people, 99percent.

That is just NOT consistent with what I have written to you and in these posts in general over and over again. YOUR THOUGHTS can lead you anywhere you want to create from them. I have never challenged that. And on many occasions acknowledged that. But when YOUR THOUGHTS push their way into The Church as what we Christians have to now fall in line with, then YOU and YOUR THOUGHTS must be contended with.

I don't believe that your 'aversion' to gay people has anything to do with the Bible. It's a personal campaign. As said, those are my thoughts. What say, 99percent?

Your thoughts are your own private property. Your theology isn't. Once you stand and demand in the public square, you get to be challenged. And as anyone can testify to, I have no problem being challenged BUT it's precisely because I do not let my emotions and my thoughts override actuality. This debate should be over in a few posts. LGBT's have the right to invent any new religion they want to. And I have supported this consistently as a free citizen of a free republic. But I am not free to destroy the Gospel, nor am I free to join a new religion that is founded on a different Gospel.

But it bears noting, that I have always maintained you and yours have the right to your new religion and new theology.

Yes, first a red herring and then a touch of patronizing thrown in to indicate that you really are a fair minded person.

Interpretation: You gays and gay supporters start your own denomination and stay the h-ll away from mine!

I am very fair minded. And the red herring in its true definition is employed NOT by me. Marriage IS man and woman/husband and wife in every and any aspect of Christian truth and EVEN YOU prove that by your consistent and incessant and correct stance on adultery, divorce and REmarriage.

Like I wrote above, truth will only be with me at the foot of the throne of Christ. I cannot justify any sin I committed and i will not be "judged" by what sins others embraced by and/or for whatever political reasons they did do. I can and DO though, walk the path paved by Jesus and walked by my brothers and sisters in Christ that have delivered the faith via that road. I cannot veer from it nor will I.

None! There are, however, scriptures that might have those such as yourself, i.e. "Christians," as you continually remind us, "who contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," running a campaign against those that divorce and remarry.

I realize that your typical response to this question is a flimsy "two wrongs don't make a right" but you appear to totally ignore this cop-out answer when it comes to homosexuality. Shouldn't you be campaigning against both equally, regardless of your cliched. "two wrongs don't make a right" . . .? So, how come you're not?

I know the power of propaganda and the effectiveness of the tactics of the gay agenda.

I'm not interested in your 'gay agenda' ruse. This has nothing to do with me or the position that I take on the forum re this topic.

The gay agenda is what it is. I have no place on that path. Nor can I encourage anyone to walk it. As Jesus pointed out.

Yet your several wrongs making a right has no foundation in truth or reality. You seem to demand that gay sex be celebrated because some Christians commit adultery and get remarried. Odd moral perspective KCKID. And certainly doesn't have any footing in scripture.

Again, I have no interest in 'celebrating' either homosexuality or heterosexuality. It's none of my concern who is sexually attracted to whom. It's none of my concern who marries whom. It's none of my concern who has sex with whom. What DOES concern me, however, are the many Christians who ignore, or rather are ignorantly oblivious to, the scriptures that 'condemn' certain behavior (adultery as per divorce/remarriage) while supporting the use of other scriptures with which to target gay people. I CAN plainly see from the scriptures that 'God' (?) most assuredly condemns divorce. Here is just one such text: Malachi 2:16, I hate divorce, says the Lord God. It couldn't be much plainer, could it?

Bzzzzzzzz. Keep reading Mr Malachi please . . .

2 And now this commandment is for you, O priests. 2 If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name, says the Lord of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings; and indeed, I have cursed them already, because you are not taking it to heart. 3 Behold, I am going to rebuke your [a]offspring, and I will spread refuse on your faces, the [c]refuse of your feasts; and you will be taken away [d]with it. 4 Then you will know that I have sent this commandment to you, [e]that My covenant may [f]continue with Levi, says the Lord of hosts. 5 My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him as an object of [g]reverence; so he [h]revered Me and stood in awe of My name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. 7 For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and [j]men should seek [k]instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble [l]by the instruction; you have [m]corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts. 9 So I also have made you despised and abased [n]before all the people, just as you are not keeping My ways but are showing partiality in the [o]instruction.

Sin in the Family

10 Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord [p]which He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, may the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob everyone who awakes and answers, or who presents [q]an offering to the Lord of hosts.

13 This is [r]another thing you do: you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the [s]offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 Yet you say, For what reason? Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 [t]But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly [v]offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 For [w]I hate [x]divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel, and [y]him who covers his garment with [z]wrong, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.

17 You have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet you say, How have we wearied Him? In that you say, Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delights in them, or, Where is the God of justice?

Malachi 3
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Purifier

3 Behold, I am going to send My [a]messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; [c]and the [d]messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming, says the Lord of hosts. 2 But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiners fire and like [e]fullers soap. 3 He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord [f]offerings in righteousness. 4 Then the [g]offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years.

5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the [h]orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not [j]fear Me, says the Lord of hosts. 6 For [k]I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, [l]are not consumed.

7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts. But you say, How shall we return?

You Have Robbed God

8 Will a man [m]rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, How have we robbed You? In tithes and [n]offerings. 9 You are cursed with a curse, for you are [o]robbing Me, the whole nation of you! 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be [p]food in My house, and test Me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until [q]it overflows. 11 Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not [r]destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes, says the Lord of hosts. 12 All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land, says the Lord of hosts.

13 Your words have been [s]arrogant against Me, says the Lord. Yet you say, What have we spoken against You? 14 You have said, It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept His charge, and that we have walked in mourning before the Lord of hosts? 15 So now we call the arrogant blessed; not only are the doers of wickedness built up but they also test God and escape.

The Book of Remembrance

16 Then those who [t]feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who esteem His name. 17 They will be Mine, says the Lord of hosts, on the day that I [v]prepare My [w]own possession, and I will [x]spare them as a man [y]spares his own son who serves him. 18 So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him.

Judgment and Covenant Renewal

4 [a]Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire, says the Lord Almighty. Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act, says the Lord Almighty.

4 Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

5 See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.

4 [a]For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3 You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day [c]which I am preparing, says the Lord of hosts.

4 Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.

5 Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. 6 He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.

More clobber passages to add to the long, long, long, long, list.

But anyway, back to MY particular position on this topic. In post 276, the 'clobber texts' of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 have, for the very first time as far as Im aware, been given the exegetical treatment.

It condemns what we now call gay sex. End of issue. As does Paul in his invention of the word he uses for men in bed together: arsenokoitai

And of course the entire witness of the canon of scripture that marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

For the very first time? This old-hat gay theology. Spong has been around for a long time.

Accurate exegesis of biblical texts don't come from old-hat gay theology or from John Shelby Spong. They come from serious study and astute analysis of said scriptures by the individual.

It comes from a different Gospel.

Old hat theology always has.

Usually its more a case of emotionally charged people screaming such catch-phrases as Fags Must Die: See Leviticus 20:13! or the like without any further explanation as to WHY fags should die or WHY God would find 'fags' so offensive.

Ridding evil from Israel is quite well described.

I consider myself to be a person of fair intelligence, 99percent. I also consider myself a lay-scholar of theology and therefore fairly well-versed on the subject of biblical literature. I also have some academic background on the humanities and social science. Equating 'homosexuality' with 'evil' and in so doing giving support to 'ridding this alleged evil from society' through destructive means says a great deal about the one making such a statement. That one can do this while maintaining the claim that they are 'followers of Jesus' rather boggles the mind.

That's it for now

My honest and ethical treatment of your demand for the condemnation of same gender sexual behavior in Leviticus will stand the test of time, and, of eternity.

That's it forever.

Well, or at least until the end of the age.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 292 by 99percentatheism]

Well, this is yet another lengthy post of yours, 99percent, that went out of its way to avoid the question asked of you. I'm asking for an exegetical rundown of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, an example of which was given by me in post 276. All you offered was the below:

It (the Leviticus text/s) condemns what we now call gay sex. End of issue.

Is that the best you can do ...give your biased opinion and call it "end of issue"? I'm assuming that visitors to this site are reading these posts. Regardless of their particular take on this topic I would assume that they can see, as I can, where someone can't back up what they preach.

As does Paul in his invention of the word he uses for men in bed together: arsenokoitai.

So, Paul (AKA "Jesus' equivalent" by many Christians) invents a word that NO ONE can translate accurately and so everyone with a same-gender attraction orientation has to refrain from being gay? This is absolute nonsense! Actually, I find it rather embarrassing that otherwise intelligent people can be SO influenced by ancient writings (often misinterpreted at that!) that they would wish to apply such to we of today . . .

* "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The word doesn't appear in other Greek writings except the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, aka "Old Testament"). The Hebrew word is likely translated "temple prostitution", specifically males. In other words, males who participated in pagan sex rituals. It wasn't necessarily, if ever, homosexual in nature. Therefore, the word is best translated as "male prostitute", and not homosexual. Although the word in the more recent English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste" or "phonaros", the Greek word for homosexual which is not found in the Bible.

Until the meaning of "arsenokoitai" becomes absolute (and it's doubtful that it ever will) Christians need to avoid it's usage as a condemnation of homosexuality!

[KCKID]

Idolatry and temple prostitution and its relationship to this particular topic of homosexuality has been raised a number of times. However, there may be some, even many, who haven't got a clue as to what such things entailed.

Below is an item from the International Journal For Pastors that delves into shrine prostitution and its connection to idolatry and, yes, also to entertainment. I chose this particular item because it appears not to have any connection to any 'gay affiliated' document. It's also 'non-graphic' sexually-speaking and rather leaves the explicit details to one's imagination.

The item is rather lengthy but it needs to be.

Entertainment as worship: Old Testament trends - Kai Arasola

Prostitution is part of the sad side of the Old Testament story. But what is sadder is that it has often been associated with the history of religion and with its places of worship. The Bible speaks of prostitution even in Israel, at times practiced in the surroundings of the Jerusalem temple. One has to wonder how prostitution could have been tolerated so close to a temple that, among other things, contained in its holiest sanctum the divinely inscribed code, "Do not commit adultery."

Of course, no one could claim that temple prostitution is a central theme in the Old Testament. However, prostitution, as we encounter it in the Bible, is a disturbing complexity. Close to one hundred biblical references speak about prostitutes or prostitution. In many instances the word is used metaphorically to refer to idol worship or the practice of false belief and worship. Some texts refer to prostitution without any link to religion. About a dozen biblical passages clearly refer to sexual prostitution connected to the temple what the New International Version translates as "shrine prostitution."

Shrine prostitution and Israel
All these references are in the earliest parts of Old Testament history in patriarchal narratives, in the law formulated in the Pentateuch, in the book of Job, and in texts dealing with the first temple era (the historical books and the pre-exilic prophets). Temple prostitution was common in many religions, and God warned Israel against it in the most unmistakable terms: "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same" (Exod. 34:15, 16).*

"No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both" (Deut. 23:17, 18).

In spite of these divine warnings, Israel did not allow itself to go unscathed when it came to the despicable practice, and prostitution appeared in the so-called "high places" around the country. Shrine prostitution, often connected with the "Asherah" poles, is mentioned about 40 times in the Old Testament. 1

These poles were found in all parts of the country. "Judah did evil in the eyes of the Lord. They also set up for themselves high places, sacred stones and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every spreading tree. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites" (1 Kings 14:22-24).
By the time of King Asa, shrine prostitution went beyond the high places and, as already mentioned, was well established in the precincts of the Jerusalem temple itself. So the king fired and expelled the male prostitutes (1 Kings 15:11-13). The practice was so deeply rooted that Asa's son Jehoshaphat had to continue the work of expulsion (1 Kings 22:45, 46).

A few generations later the great reform of Josiah may finally have put an end to temple prostitution, both male and female (see Ezek. 8:14). At that time the Asherah poles were also destroyed and their housing near the temple was demolished (2 Kings 23:6, 7).

Hosea, from the Southern Kingdom, expresses horror at the prevalence of both temple and common prostitution: "I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes a people without understanding will come to ruin" (Hosea 4:14, NIV; cf. 4:10-13). Not that the prophet approves adultery and general prostitution, but he expresses God's horror at the prospect of mixing worship with prostitution.

According to Micah, the general situation in Jerusalem itself was not that different. "All her idols will be broken to pieces; all her temple gifts will be burned with fire; I will destroy all her images. Since she gathered her gifts from the wages of prostitutes, as the wages of prostitutes they will again be used" (Micah 1:7).

Why did this religiously sanctioned practice of lust prevail when both the heart of the law and the messages of the prophets denounced it? An answer seems to be contained in the well-documented fact that Israel simply followed the practices common among the religion and fertility cults of her neighbors. Their so-called hieros gamos or holy wedding rituals mutated what was sexual into the supposedly sacred sexual and fertility themes of fruitfulness that were, for instance, related to Baal, Seth, or Tammuz. The worship of Moloch also included sexual myths and practices (Isa. 57:1-13). 2

However, Israel's emulation of its neighbors' customs is not the under lying reason for the popularity in Israel of combining such sexual practices with its religious faith. The seminal reason is less obvious and overt: the practice of using the temple as a place of entertainment, albeit entertainment with "religious" overtones.

Two biblical examples illustrate how easy it was to turn religion into a pursuit of amusement:

At Mount Sinai, Israel eagerly swore that all that the Lord had said they would do (Exod. 19:8; 24:3, 7), but a few days later a bawdy party was thrown, with a golden bull at the center, and "nakedness" as part of what was in fact a religious celebration (Exod. 32:17-26).

Some years later pretty girls from Baal-worshiping Moab invited the Israelites to a semi-religious gathering where "the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab" and where they "called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods" (Num. 25:1-9, KJV).

These two almost random examples indicate that in those days some forms of pagan worship included sexual features that easily escalated into orgies. Such religion provided a way, for the Israelite, at least to legitimize illicit sexual practice, placing it under the guise of religious faith.

It is reasonable to conclude that religious centers, high places, and temples, were, in some Old Testament times, the best places of entertainment (in the "worldly" sense of the word). The journey from forms of entertainment with sexual overtones to orgies was not a long one to take.

The same point can be easily illustrated by a tour around the temple of Baalbek. This is the largest temple ruin in the Middle East and the best representation of what Canaanite religion really was, and what Israel was dealing with and influenced by. This is true, even though the present ruins stem from the Roman era.3
Baalbek was located in Lebanon's present southern Bekaa valley. Visitors would enter the temple through a massive staircase leading to the gate complex. As they approached the gate they would see booths where priests or priestesses advised the "worshipers" on what was being offered in the temple area. The first concern was the choice of sacrifices that was available for the arriving worshiper.

After the order had been placed for a goat, lamb, chicken, or bull, the visitors stepped through the gate into the main courtyard where the animal was brought up from huge stables below for their inspection. After appropriate rituals the animal was slaughtered on one of the two giant altars that still dominate today's ruins of the main courtyard.

As in the high places of Israel and at the temple of Jerusalem major portions of the meat were then given to the worshipers for their personal use (Lev. 7:16-18; Deut. 12:27; cf. 1 Sam. 2:13ff.). In Baalbek the visitors could have their meal prepared in the temple kitchens and have an enjoyable lunch or dinner with their friends and/or priestesses or priests in one of the niches of the great courtyard of the temple. A good meal was part of a good worship experience.

This kind of arrangement is not entirely absent in Old Testament descriptions. Saul is said to have enjoyed a sumptuous meal when meeting Samuel at one of the high places (1 Sam. 9:14-24). Also Ezekiel's vision of the temple included four kitchens for the preparation of sacrifices (Ezek. 46:21-24).

In Baalbek the visitors moved on to the second courtyard after the meal. Again impressive wide stairs led to the area of the main temple of Baal or Jupiter. This temple may have included holy or most holy places, as Phoenician temples usually did. The wide flat floor next to the stairs, and the colonnade, provided a good setting for theatrical displays, choirs, and other performances.

Modern imagery may not do full justice of the actual facts, but it makes the experience easier to understand. The visitors move from the "restaurant" to the "theater." After watching the show to their satisfaction, it was time to move on. Some may have continued to smaller specialized structures for fortune-telling, healing, or other purposes.

The next large temple building was particularly suited for a visit late in the day. It is the temple of Bacchus, the god of wine and pleasure. Vines, grapes, and opium buds were carved into the portico to express the intent of this establishment. Thus after the "restaurant" and the "theater," the "worshiper" entered what could be called a "nightclub," a place to drink wine or to smoke opium, and to watch dancing girls performing on a high and wide stage. It was all calculated to raise the passion levels of the visitors.

The stage was now set for the final part of the visit. On the way out the visitors would pass the temple of Venus with room for hundreds of temple prostitutes, who might have served as escorts and companions throughout the worshipers' visit to the temple.
The temples of Baalbek were bigger and more comprehensive than any other temple in the area. In some ways every Canaanite high place or shrine had parts of Baalbek in it. To complete the picture one needs to mention that this worship with entertainment was not free. Visitors had to pay for their pleasure (see Deut. 23:17, 18; Hosea 2:5, 8;Micah 1:7). If in no other way, this was done through their purchase of the "sacrifices" they chose as they entered. All this is only one aspect of what went on in the temples and the minds of the people.

Worship or entertainment?
The relatively small number of biblical passages that connect prostitution to the temple in Jerusalem do not warrant a conclusion that this was a permanent part of worship there. However, with Israel's neighbors these kinds of practices were relatively permanent. They practiced their "worship" before the conquest of the land by Israel and kept it up for centuries after the latest Old Testament reference to it.

Within Judah and Israel shrine prostitution may have been fixed more at the high places or the temples of the Northern Kingdom at Bethel, Dan, or Samaria. It may be that in Jerusalem there were only short spells of these kinds of practices.
One may still want to ask: But how could Israel let any of this come into the temple of the Yahweh? Maybe, as we've suggested, they were enticed by the ways of the ancient Canaanites. Maybe they wanted their religion to be relevant and meaningful. Perhaps they wanted, or felt they needed, to have their temple and its services compete with the beauty and allure of the Baal temples that surrounded them.

A more fundamental reason, however, was their estrangement from God and thus their lack of heartfelt commitment to Him. This led to meaninglessness and emptiness in their understanding of the true faith of Yahweh, and thus to neglect and apparently urgently needed compromises with all that surrounded them; and thus finally to the adoption of practices diametrically opposed to the essence of the true faith, despite the divine warnings presented in the law and by the prophets.

What of today? As part of the contemporary world, where the "religions" of increasingly promiscuous entertainment, Holly wood, nightclubs, or rave parties make converts much faster than the church of God, we cannot afford to compromise the essential aspects of our heartfelt devotion to our Lord. We cannot allow commercial entertainment to dictate the agenda of Christian worship. The church must not, indeed, by the nature of things, it cannot compete with the world on its turf.

This is not in fact an issue of cultural contextualization, as it may seem to be. It is not about rhythms or music or art forms or even particular forms of worship, per se. It is rather about blatantly crossing a line that God has drawn through Jesus Christ in the very nature of what is of His kingdom and what is of the kingdoms of this present age.

True worship has no room, that is, it cannot by its very nature make room for compromise with something as foreign to the essence of God's kingdom as is so much at the heart of contemporary entertainment. Christian worship cannot make these accommodations and maintain the life and nature given it by God.

Instead Christian worship must truly and actually uplift God and Him alone. It has to be done not only in spirit but in truth, and not only in truth, but in spirit (John 4:23). This does not, of course, mean that genuine Christian worship should not, or cannot, be animated and enjoyable and even "fun." Indeed, it can be in the best and purest sense of the word"in the sense of the abject joy that is found in loving commitment to Him who promised life, and that "to the full" (John 10:10).

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archiv ... rends.html

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 294 by KCKID]

KCKID
[Replying to post 292 by 99percentatheism]

Well, this is yet another lengthy post of yours, 99percent, that went out of its way to avoid the question asked of you. I'm asking for an exegetical rundown of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, an example of which was given by me in post 276. All you offered was the below:

Men having sex with each other as a detestable act? A Biblical pronouncement. What more needs to be expounded upon? There is not one example of "Israel" affirming a same gender sexual act for Israelites. Marriage is only man and woman husband and wife, even where one guy has multi wives. Trying to homosexualize the Old Testament is even more futile than the attempts made by gay activists for the New Testament. All of the demands that gay sex in the Old testament is denounced only in paganism may be even more damning for the gay pride movement. What does a Gay Pirde Parade look like? It most certainly is not a call to holiness and dedication to the God of Abraham. And there is little else that can be connected to Christian marriage in a Pride event.

It (the Leviticus text/s) condemns what we now call gay sex. End of issue.

Is that the best you can do ...give your biased opinion and call it "end of issue"? I'm assuming that visitors to this site are reading these posts. Regardless of their particular take on this topic I would assume that they can see, as I can, where someone can't back up what they preach.

You have been asked endlessly to provide pro homosexuality statements from either the Old Testament or the New Testament. You have never provided that because it is an impossible task. End of issue.

As does Paul in his invention of the word he uses for men in bed together: arsenokoitai.

So, Paul (AKA "Jesus' equivalent" by many Christians) invents a word that NO ONE can translate accurately and so everyone with a same-gender attraction orientation has to refrain from being gay? This is absolute nonsense! Actually, I find it rather embarrassing that otherwise intelligent people can be SO influenced by ancient writings (often misinterpreted at that!) that they would wish to apply such to we of today . . .

* "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The word doesn't appear in other Greek writings except the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, aka "Old Testament"). The Hebrew word is likely translated "temple prostitution", specifically males.

Neither does "gay, lesbian, transsexual, bi-sexual," etc., etc., etc.. Those words were invented to convey activity as well as worldview.

Arsenokoitai is definitive and there is nothing the gay pride movement can do to eliminate it from history. No amount of propaganda will erase this reality.

" Arsenokoitai: Men in bed together?" In context and in history that word compilation is most certainly definitive of gay sex between men. "Gay sex" as in how we define the sex acts in today's world too. Paul could have just used malakoi or pederasts but he didn't. End of issue.

In other words, males who participated in pagan sex rituals. It wasn't necessarily, if ever, homosexual in nature. Therefore, the word is best translated as "male prostitute", and not homosexual.

Oh KCKID. YOU prove that temple shrine prostitution existed in Israel for thousands of years. Paul would have used that connotation. He didn't. he used a word that he invented to define what we call gay behavior now. No different than the invention of the words inversion or homosexuality. If I tell my wife I was "in bed" or, "went to bed" with the hotty neighbor lady, she would not think I was taking a nap with her.

Although the word in the more recent English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste" or "phonaros", the Greek word for homosexual which is not found in the Bible.

"pais" IS found in the Bible in the Gospel story about the Roman commander and his sick "pais." Paul was living IN a homosexual environment in Rome. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles. It would stand to reason that Paul would have clearly dictated behavior for Christians that desired gay sexual behavior. He didn't. In fact he went out of his way to condemn it.

Until the meaning of "arsenokoitai" becomes absolute (and it's doubtful that it ever will) Christians need to avoid it's usage as a condemnation of homosexuality!

Arsenokoitai is a settled issue for more than enough "scholars" to end the issue. Secondly, NO WHERE is there even a hint of gay pride being celebrated in The Church anywhere in the entire Bible. The Bogimil heresy is nothing new to The Church. Paul highlighted the inappropriateness of same gender sexual behavior at the beginning of The Church's formation, so we shouldn't be surprised of a history between "LGBT's" and Christians goes back probably since the beginning of time. And the question should never be ignored: Why ARE homosexuals and homosexuality so repugnant to so many people . . . and ESPECIALLY Christians, if the act is so benign and so "natural?" We have faced the behavior many times within our midst. And until the Lord returns, will continue to endure it. Now, while we need to facilitate a separation between homosexual activism and Christians that will not be bowed by its proponents in a far more sophisticated manner. The movement has had a very great time to evolve into a palatable product sold by very talented pitch-persons. But history, as an immutable teacher, shows us that the struggle goes on and on and on. And it remains to be seen how cunning the advertisements are to enticing a new generation into a lascivious licentiousness that is and always has been ever-present in human history: http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho4.htm, http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho5.htm

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 294 by KCKID]

From your referenced linked url:

What of today?

As part of the contemporary world,

where the "religions" of increasingly promiscuous entertainment, Hollywood, nightclubs, or rave parties make converts much faster than the church of God,

we cannot afford to compromise the essential aspects of our heart felt devotion to our Lord. We cannot allow commercial entertainment to dictate the agenda of Christian worship. The church must not, indeed, by the nature of things, it cannot compete with the world on its turf.

This is not in fact an issue of cultural contextualization, as it may seem to be. It is not about rhythms or music or art forms or even particular forms of worship, per se. It is rather about blatantly crossing a line that God has drawn through Jesus Christ in the very nature of what is of His kingdom and what is of the kingdoms of this present age.

True worship has no room, that is, it cannot by its very nature make room for compromise with some thing as foreign to the essence of God's kingdom as is so much at the heart of contemporary entertainment. Christian worship cannot make these accommodations and maintain the life and nature given it by God.

Instead Christian worship must truly and actually uplift God and Him alone. It has to be done not only in spirit but in truth, and not only in truth, but in spirit (John 4:23). This does not, of course, mean that genuine Christian worship should not, or cannot, be animated and enjoyable and even "fun." Indeed, it can be in the best and purest sense of the word"in the sense of the abject joy that is found in loving commitment to Him who promised life, and that "to the full" (John 10:10).

What "community" is synonymous with gay life and its declaration?

Hollywood, et al secular organizations all in a row . . .

Did you see the Grammy's THIS YEAR?

Now connect the dots of idolatry and sexual practice to a people and a community and to the pronouncement against it and the practitioners described in the Bible OT and NT.

I am quite fascinated by the connection of idolatry and sexual depravity and promiscuity. i.e. immorality that is inherent in this issue. What and who does the rainbow flag call to meeting? What congregation gathers under its banner?

In a thoroughly secularized culture that IS the Hollywood scene . . ., connecting "idolatry" and "paganism" to the lascivious licentiousness that IS Hollywood life and worldview, would be rather either futility or laughable. But a rose by any other name is still a rose isn't it?

Where is the "gay Christian" preaching for holiness and let's say, "purity" in one's gay life? Is there a "gay Christian" movement for waiting until one is "gay married" to lose one's eh-hem virginity, in the "gay Christian" witness? I'd like to see a "gay Christian" movement for "purity rings" before "gay marriage." I googled the issue and the first sites that come up all mock this:

Last month, I found myself among hundreds of awkward teenagers in a large auditorium in Cincinnati. If all were to go as planned, not a single soul in attendance would end up having sex before marriage. The Silver Ring Thing, an organization dedicated to duping kids into buying purity rings, is like the Cirque du Soleil of Christian teen abstinence programs. Since 1996, their mission has been to have as many kids as possible publicly pledge to abstain from premarital sex at one of their big virginity-promise events. . .

- http://www.vice.com/read/i-went-to-a-si ... nce-pledge

I'd like to see how a "gay Christian" purity pledge float would do at this weekend's gay pride parades. Instead of throwing out colored condoms and accompanying lube containers . . . how would the chanting crowds receive a Purity Promise ring?

"Gay Christianity" is supposed to be just Christianity right?

Here ya go:

Hebrews 13:4 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Hebrews 13:4 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Hebrews 13:4 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Let marriage be held in honor (esteemed worthy, precious, of great price, and especially dear) in all things. And thus let the marriage bed be undefiled (kept undishonored); for God will judge and punish the unchaste [all guilty of sexual vice] and adulterous.
Hebrews 13:4 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage must be honored in every respect, with no cheating on the relationship, because God will judge the sexually immoral person and the person who commits adultery.

Hebrews 13:4 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is honorable in every respect; and, in particular, sex within marriage is pure. But God will indeed punish fornicators and adulterers.

Hebrews 13:4 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Have respect for marriage. Always be faithful to your partner, because God will punish anyone who is immoral or unfaithful in marriage.

Hebrews 13:4 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 [Let] marriage [be held] every way in honour, and the bed [be] undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers will God judge.
Hebrews 13:4 (DRA) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Hebrews 13:4 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage should be honored by everyone. And every marriage should be kept pure between husband and wife. God will judge guilty those who commit sexual sins and adultery.

Hebrews 13:4 (ESV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Hebrews 13:4 (ESVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Hebrews 13:4 (EXB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage should be honored by everyone, and -husband and wife should keep their marriage [Lthe marriage bed should be kept] -pure [undefiled]. God will -judge as guilty [Ljudge] -those who take part in sexual sins [Lthe sexually immoral and adulterers].

Hebrews 13:4 (GNV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Hebrews 13:4 (GW) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is honorable in every way, so husbands and wives should be faithful to each other. God will judge those who commit sexual sins, especially those who commit adultery.

Hebrews 13:4 (GNT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is to be honored by all, and husbands and wives must be faithful to each other. God will judge those who are immoral and those who commit adultery.

Hebrews 13:4 (HCSB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage must be respected by all, and the marriage bed kept undefiled, because God will judge immoral people and adulterers.

Hebrews 13:4-5 (PHILLIPS) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4-5 Both honourable marriage and chastity should be respected by all of you. God himself will judge those who traffic in the bodies of others or defile the relationship of marriage. Keep your lives free from the lust for money: be content with what you have. God has said: I will never leave you nor forsake you.

Hebrews 13:4 (JUB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Let marriage be honourable in all and the bed undefiled; but the fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Hebrews 13:4 (KJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Hebrews 13:4 (AKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Hebrews 13:4 (LEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Marriage must be held in honor by all, and the marriage bed be undefiled, because God will judge sexually immoral people and adulterers.

Hebrews 13:4 (TLB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
4 Honor your marriage and its vows, and be pure; for God will surely punish all those who are immoral or commit adultery.

Hebrews 13:1-4 (MSG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
Jesus Doesnt Change

13 1-4 Stay on good terms with each other, held together by love. Be ready with a meal or a bed when its needed. Why, some have extended hospitality to angels without ever knowing it! Regard prisoners as if you were in prison with them. Look on victims of abuse as if what happened to them had happened to you. Honor marriage, and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband. God draws a firm line against casual and illicit sex.

- http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Hebrews%2013%3A4

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 294 by KCKID]

KCKID
[Replying to post 292 by 99percentatheism]

Well, this is yet another lengthy post of yours, 99percent, that went out of its way to avoid the question asked of you. I'm asking for an exegetical rundown of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, an example of which was given by me in post 276. All you offered was the below:

Men having sex with each other as a detestable act?

Detestable to whom? Obviously, there's the 'ewwww' factor for some but, other than that, why would this be seen as detestable in this particular scriptural context? Is the suggestion here that God is thinking, "Ewwww" ...?

Read on.

A Biblical pronouncement. What more needs to be expounded upon?

Why were the men having sex in the first place, 99percent? Answer: the context in which these Leviticus chapters are set out refers to pagan practices involving prostitution in service to Molech and by extension, Ashtoreth, Molech's fertility goddess consort, I Kings 11:5-7 & 33; II Kings 23:10. The context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is not homosexuality as we know it today. Homosexuality was not the issue for Moses or for God when Leviticus was written. Instead, the context of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is the spiritual prostitution that accompanied Molech worship. And it's THIS - practices associated with idolatry - that "God" finds abominable or detestable! There are several, at least several, other texts in scripture where 'idolatry itself' is referred to as 'an abomination'.

You know what, 99percent ...I believe that I'm telling you what you already know. And, rather than continue on as to what my thoughts are about someone who would knowingly use deception as a weapon of condemnation for others ...I'd best leave it at that before I say something that I shouldn't.

There is not one example of "Israel" affirming a same gender sexual act for Israelites. Marriage is only man and woman husband and wife, even where one guy has multi wives. Trying to homosexualize the Old Testament is even more futile than the attempts made by gay activists for the New Testament. All of the demands that gay sex in the Old testament is denounced only in paganism may be even more damning for the gay pride movement. What does a Gay Pirde Parade look like? It most certainly is not a call to holiness and dedication to the God of Abraham. And there is little else that can be connected to Christian marriage in a Pride event.

For those of us who are actually living in the present, i.e. the year 2014, I would suggest that the past (as above) be kept in the past and not be considered as a yardstick for present living.

It (the Leviticus text/s) condemns what we now call gay sex. End of issue.

I'm trusting that, by now, the readers of this thread will have figured out fact from fiction, truth from untruth, all by themselves. You've been given ample opportunity to offer an indepth explanation of the Leviticus texts (an example of which is found in post 276) but you've done everything BUT give an indepth explanation. YOUR 'explanation' is "the text reads as is, end of issue!"

Is that the best you can do ...give your biased opinion and call it "end of issue"? I'm assuming that visitors to this site are reading these posts. Regardless of their particular take on this topic I would assume that they can see, as I can, where someone can't back up what they preach.

You have been asked endlessly to provide pro homosexuality statements from either the Old Testament or the New Testament. You have never provided that because it is an impossible task. End of issue.

I've also answered 'endlessly' that there is no such scripture. I have also just as 'endlessly' said, "So what?"

That said, the immediate issue for me is that, in order to affirm your position that Leviticus is an across the board condemnation of homosexuality, you provide a counter argument for the exegetical example of the Leviticus texts given in post 276. So far you've failed to do this. Therefore, I can only conclude that (a) you're unable to do so, or (b) you're in agreement with the contents of post 276.

As does Paul in his invention of the word he uses for men in bed together: arsenokoitai.

So, Paul (AKA "Jesus' equivalent" by many Christians) invents a word that NO ONE can translate accurately. And so, based on this 'made-up' word, everyone with a same-gender attraction orientation is supposed to alter their genetics and become 'straight'? This is absolute nonsense! Actually, I find it rather embarrassing that otherwise intelligent people can be SO influenced by ancient writings (often misinterpreted at that!) that they would wish to apply such to we of today . . .

* "Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The word doesn't appear in other Greek writings except the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible, aka "Old Testament"). The Hebrew word is likely translated "temple prostitution", specifically males.

Neither does "gay, lesbian, transsexual, bi-sexual," etc., etc., etc.. Those words were invented to convey activity as well as worldview.

Okay.

Anyway, back to 'arsenokoitai'.

Arsenokoitai is definitive and there is nothing the gay pride movement can do to eliminate it from history. No amount of propaganda will erase this reality.

There IS no propaganda involved in debunking your 'arsenokoitai' = 'homosexuality' definition, 99percent! NO ONE knows what it means! NOR does anyone know what it's attempting to convey! It all comes down to guess work and seems to be dependent on what one wishes it to mean and to convey! Those such as yourself who equate this term with 'homosexuality' are desperately grasping at straws! And ...you know it!

" Arsenokoitai: Men in bed together?" In context and in history that word compilation is most certainly definitive of gay sex between men. "Gay sex" as in how we define the sex acts in today's world too. Paul could have just used malakoi or pederasts but he didn't.

I don't care what Paul (AKA known by some as "God") could have used! Paul has no influence in my life whatsoever! He's a character from a book who has for, God only knows, created such division within the Christian Church that it borders on the ridiculous!

End of issue.

Yes, so you said previously. Saying it twice must surely make it so . . .

In other words, males who participated in pagan sex rituals. It wasn't necessarily, if ever, homosexual in nature. Therefore, the word is best translated as "male prostitute", and not homosexual.

Oh KCKID. YOU prove that temple shrine prostitution existed in Israel for thousands of years. Paul would have used that connotation. He didn't. he used a word that he invented to define what we call gay behavior now. No different than the invention of the words inversion or homosexuality. If I tell my wife I was "in bed" or, "went to bed" with the hotty neighbor lady, she would not think I was taking a nap with her.

I can't really add too much more than what I've said previously. Except to say that ...whoever can take two words, i.e. 'man' and 'bed', form some vague concept from such a 'made up' word and condemn every gay person in the world is sort of taking it to the ultimate extreme, don't you think? I personally find it rather embarrassing to be discussing such a stupid subject with another adult.

Although the word in the more recent English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste" or "phonaros", the Greek word for homosexual which is not found in the Bible.

"pais" IS found in the Bible in the Gospel story about the Roman commander and his sick "pais." Paul was living IN a homosexual environment in Rome. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles. It would stand to reason that Paul would have clearly dictated behavior for Christians that desired gay sexual behavior. He didn't. In fact he went out of his way to condemn it.

Again, I don't care!

Until the meaning of "arsenokoitai" becomes absolute (and it's doubtful that it ever will) Christians need to avoid it's usage as a condemnation of homosexuality!

Arsenokoitai is a settled issue for more than enough "scholars" to end the issue.

"Scholars" are not infallible and they have their biases when it comes to decision making. Those opposed to homosexuality (which may have nothing to do with scripture) can and will make a vague word mean whatever they want it to mean. Such appears to be the case in this case.

Secondly, NO WHERE is there even a hint of gay pride being celebrated in The Church anywhere in the entire Bible. The Bogimil heresy is nothing new to The Church. Paul highlighted the inappropriateness of same gender sexual behavior at the beginning of The Church's formation, so we shouldn't be surprised of a history between "LGBT's" and Christians goes back probably since the beginning of time.

Typical homophobic slanted rhetoric and nonsense.

And the question should never be ignored: Why ARE homosexuals and homosexuality so repugnant to so many people . . . and ESPECIALLY Christians, if the act is so benign and so "natural?"

Whatever it is I think we can both agree that it's certainly much more to do with 'cultural conditioning' than anything the Bible may or may not have to say about it. Why are boys who don't fit in with 'the typical boy mold' referred to as 'sissies' by other boys? Such boys are regarded as 'effeminate' and to be referred to as 'girl-like' is offensive to a boy. Furthermore, it's MEANT to be offensive and hurtful by those who are doing the name-calling. Society is made up of all kinds of stupid (and hurtful) people, 99percent, in case you hadn't figured this out already. So, based on this, your question is rather moot. "It's because people are gullible and stupid" is pretty much the answer from me anyway.

* Actually, I never realized HOW stupid, or at least, small-minded, people are until I signed up to Facebook. I'm rather embarrassed to have to admit that social media appears to have brought out the worst in my 'friends', many of whom I don't even know. I never before realized how many of them appear to be, when on Facebook anyway, morons! I really don't need to know that someone's kid has got the hiccups! I find it especially disconcerting when such a piece of #!* receives dozens of 'likes' from equally moronic people!

Facebook and other social media outlets have enabled the banal and the unimaginative and the general 'mundane-ness' surrounding the lives of average people to be shared with the world. But anyway, that's 'people' for you and that's who I was originally referring to. Incidentally, since I didn't really find too much intelligent life on Facebook I canceled my account after only a few weeks.

We have faced the behavior many times within our midst. And until the Lord returns, will continue to endure it. Now, while we need to facilitate a separation between homosexual activism and Christians that will not be bowed by its proponents in a far more sophisticated manner. The movement has had a very great time to evolve into a palatable product sold by very talented pitch-persons. But history, as an immutable teacher, shows us that the struggle goes on and on and on. And it remains to be seen how cunning the advertisements are to enticing a new generation into a lascivious licentiousness that is and always has been ever-present in human history: http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho4.htm, http://rictornorton.co.uk/homopho5.htm

You really DO seem to enjoy the drama that you've either concocted yourself or taken on board from others, 99percent. I sure wish things were as exciting for me as they are for you where I happen to live.