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]

The Bible, when read in its exegetical, cultural, environmental and religious/superstitious context, appears to make no reference to homosexuality as we today define the term. There is no 'conspiracy' or 'agenda' attached to this statement ...it appears to be a fact! The actual word "homosexual", or even a Hebrew or Greek equivalent term, ever appeared in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Furthermore, when the term "homosexual" DID appear in later 'revised' editions of the Bible it was used, not by its actual definition as "one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender", but as a derogatory term! Whenever the term "homosexual" appeared (even though in only a half dozen or so places in the entire Bible) it was equated to "sin"by the authors. This alone should set alarm bells ringing. But, for the most part ...it doesn't appear to.

For a time I grew up in a society that mostly, I would say, believed that black people were bad people. They were not like the majority of us (white) folks and so we were generally afraid or suspicious or mistrusting of them. Murderers and thieves were predominantly black as portrayed by the popular media. Moreover, this was pretty much confirmed by their over-representation within the prison system. Yes, "black" pretty much equated to "criminal". We didn't know why we felt this way ...we were merely conditioned by our culture and no actual reasons were necessary. We were sheep and we followed 'everyone else' without question.

We have a similar situation with regard to Christianity and its unreasonable fear of - and therefore its condemnation of - homosexuals. It's been a part of a conditioning process by Christendom - either by default or by design - over the last few decades and much of Christianity has fallen for it. Most have no exegetical knowledge of scripture. Most, if asked, would not know where the so-called homosexual 'clobber texts' are found. They just know that "they're in the Bible somewhere." Most of us, though we might not like to admit this, have minds that soak up and believe whatever 'the wise ones' tell us. It's part of being human, I guess.

Anyway, what about those notorious 'clobber texts' of the Bible that some Christians use - and many others follow - to condemn homosexuality? Do they really condemn homosexuality? Well, a superficial reading of them might well suggest that they do. The MOST notorious of such scriptures come from the Old Testament. They are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. There is NO QUESTION that these two texts condemn homosexuality ...right?

Well, in the following post I'd like to present a couple of items that might shed some new light (for some) with regard to those scriptures. If it's possible, I would ask that those interested would read (and view) these items with an open mind. And, afterwards, I ask for educated input and also reasons given for such input. "This is just gay propaganda!" is not acceptable input on a forum where discussions are encouraged and expected . . .

Well, your opinions and your rights to those opinions are not called into question. And this issue is between those people that hold to scripture and fidelity to those scriptures as important and those that do not and hold that any fad or pop culture movement can change Christian truth. Your theology, as is all gay pride activism and pro homosexuality theology, in or out of the Church, is called into question though, by those Christians that contend for the faith . . . , as did the disciples that wrote the New Testament.

There is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in scripture. There is no "openly" affirming or supportive pronouncements for engaging in homosexuality ( a 20th century word, but a ancient behavior) anywhere in scripture.

CP OPINIONS

HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM/NEWS/REVIE ... AN-120953/

Tuesday, Jun 10, 2014

Review of Matthew Vines' God and the Gay Christian

By Scott Hinsche
June 5, 2014|10:24 am

INTRODUCTION

I chose to read God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines because I am a pastor who holds a biblical view of homosexual behavior as sin, but I live in Los Angeles with friends and church attenders that are homosexual. Additionally, homosexuality is the most important current issue facing and splitting the church. Matthew Vines' book is an attempted formulation of a "third way," namely that homosexuals can enter into committed, monogamous relationships and not conflict with his reading of the Bible. Unfortunately, despite his title, which addresses "gay Christians," all of his argumentation only speaks to monogamous homosexuals in committed relationships. I wanted this book to be a credible analysis of the Bible's statements about homosexuality and same-sex behavior. However, the author destroyed his own credibility in the first chapter, never to be regained.

SUMMARY

Matthew Vines began his book with his unrealistically optimistic cards on the table. His goal is to show that "Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships" (Loc. 134)1. He then reveals his bias by personalizing the homosexual experience, suggesting that his experience was the typical homosexual experience (Chapter 1). He then implied that his lawyer father changed his mind about homosexuality (362), so we should as well. We should because, according to Vines, we are bearing bad fruit (Matthew 7:15-20) in our exclusion of homosexuals (281-371). Underlying his entire argument, the author unauthoritatively assumes that sexual desires or orientation cannot be changed (337).

The author addressed six passages that he argues are the main barriers to homosexuals being embraced as Christians: Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10. His goal is to give a fresh view of old words, "to clarifyunderstanding of Scripture" (424). In Vines' view, sexual orientation cannot be changed (489), but meaning of Scripture can.

The author argues that human understanding of homosexuality is radically different than it was in biblical times (521-530). Today, homosexuality is about orientation; then, it was about excess (530, 640). "Ancient Greek and Roman literature, in particular, generally assumes that men could be attracted to both females and males" (548). Pederasty, sex between a man and a boy, was "a rite of passage for many Greek males" (581). Also, male prostitution was popular in Rome (592). According to Vines' view of history, it was not until the late 1800s that "the modern understanding of homosexuality as a sexual orientation began to develop among an elite group of German psychiatrists" (667). Similarly, the Christian requirement of homosexual celibacy is also allegedly new (685). Vines questions this requirement for homosexual believers on the grounds that celibacy is a biblical calling (769), not a command (705). As a command, it is harmful to homosexual relationship capacity and self-image (803).

One-third of the way into the book, Vines finally starts interpreting what he describes as the main scriptural passages. Genesis 19 has supposedly been misinterpreted as a prohibition of homosexuality (932-974). Instead, "the sin of Sodom had far more to do with a lack of hospitality and a bent toward violence" (980). Yet Vines acknowledges that this does not change the fact that the biblical writers did not hold a positive view of same-sex relations (1083).

Vines then posited that the abomination language in Leviticus was temporary, no longer applicable according to Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (1204). The new covenant somehow made the old laws "obsolete" (1213-1218). Today, most Christians do not follow other Old Testament laws about divorce for perceived indecency and forced marriage of raped virgins (1273), so the implication here is that we should also forget about the homosexual prohibition.

Vines then argues that "Romans 1:26-27 is the most significant biblical passage in this debate" (1452). He conveniently distinguishes it as only applying to excessive lustful situations involving bisexuals, not committed homosexual relationships (1490-1585). Therefore, it is inapplicable because, according to Vines (again, no authority given), "gay people cannot choose to follow opposite-sex attractions" (1552). He then reaches even further, noting that "the context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it can't reasonably be called the same issue" (1598).

Vines finally steps around 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and its statement that male prostitutes and sodomites (among others) will not inherit the kingdom of God by re-translating the relevant words. He translated the first word, malakoi, as "soft" or "effeminate," not "male prostitute" (1766-1832). This, too, in the author's view, applied only to sexual excess (1812-1827). He then translated the second word, arsenokoitai, as "abusers of themselves with mankind," not "sodomites," again conveniently linking it to his argument about sexual excess (1832-1885). He referred to the argument that this verse prohibits both the active and passive same sex roles as "speculation", again conveniently arguing that modern "exclusive sexual orientation" was not in view (1890-1896). Vines then attempts to redefine the word "gay" to mean: "exclusive, permanent same-sex orientation" (1921), which is not what it says in the dictionary.2

The author used his new definition of "gay" to reach further and argue that gay marriage is equal and holy because it is monogamous and thereby covenantal (1981-2030). Procreation is not essential because Jesus came to show that faith comes through belief, not family (2030-2090). Thus, Vines implicitly argues that Genesis 1:28 ("be fruitful and multiply") is no longer necessary. While he is at it, Vines concluded that the image of God is no longer "male and female" as stated in Genesis 1:27 because it is about dominion, not procreation (2233-2252).
Vines ends his book by setting aside all argument and pushing his agenda, now stretched to include bisexuals and transgender people (Chapter 10). Now, regardless of monogamy or commitment, LGBT are all sinless Christians in the eyes of Vines (2408). Love and affirmation of all sexual orientations and gender identities is "a requirement of Christian faithfulness" (2602) in spite of the Bible's both Old and New Testament treatment of same-sex behavior.

ANALYSIS

The book's biggest weakness is the author's misstatements of Scripture. It is one thing to creatively interpret the Word; it is an entirely different matter when someone misstates the Word itself. Vines "declared that 'Christ is the end of the law,' and he even branded the law a 'curse' (see Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:13, NRSV)" (1220). The author misstated the Word to argue that the "old law" is no longer in effect (Id.). However, the word "end" in Romans 10:4, telos, means: end result, fulfillment or goal.3 It absolutely does not mean that the law is no longer in effect. Further, the law was not branded a curse in Galatians 3:13; the punishment or penalty of the law was called a curse. Christ saved us from the penalty, not the law itself. Vines' bastardization of the Bible is downright dangerous and useless for theological reflection.

Vines' first major rhetorical mistake was pinning his entire argument to the assumption that homosexuals cannot re-orient desires. On the contrary, one recent study concluded that "the majority of men and women who have experienced same-sex attraction to some degree either prefer opposite-sex attraction or have the potential to move in that direction; it's unknown whether or not the small minority with a more fixed preference for SSA could also move in that direction under differing circumstances."4 It is not a fact that homosexuals cannot change attraction or orientation. "Most researchers around the world agree that there is no consensus about the causes of any given person's sexual orientation."5 The author built his book on a shaky premise. "And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand" (Mat 7:26).

Vines' second credibility-crushing mistake was insisting that the notion of unchanging homosexual orientation is only a modern product, unimaginable during biblical times (see, e.g., 667, 777). This is simply not true. In ancient Roman culture, "the concepts 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' did not exist, but there does seem to be a high degree of correlation between the conduct of men identified as cinaedi and that of some men now labeled 'homosexuals,' though it must be appreciated that the modern term is clinical while the ancient one is emotional and even hostile, and that both have been imposed from outside."6 Homosexuality was seen as sometimes unchanging just as some like Vines contend it is now. Even modern Gay Star News concedes that there were ancient lesbians. "Few lesbian voices come to us from the ancient world but the lyric poet Sappho is a notable exception and her love poems for other women speak down to us through the ages. And of course, the island of her birth, Lesbos, gives us the word 'lesbian' that we still use today."7 Here again, Vines' untenable position causes an incredulous head-tilt from which the author never recovers.

Vines neglected verses about homosexuality. He only discussed six passages summarized above. He side-stepped important verses like: 1 Cor. 7:2 ("But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"); Mark 10:6-9 (God made male and female in the beginning to join together as one flesh; "Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate"); and Hebrews 13:4 ("Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers"). Also, he did not address debatable but challenging verses about sexual immorality (Acts 15:29; 1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Cor. 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; and Rev. 21:8). Even liberal Christians acknowledge that sexual immorality includes homosexual pederasty.8 Vines' limited coverage further limits his credibility.

Vines took too many unsupported positions. He frequently took positions without any authority (246, 335, 528, 705, 803, 1622, 2286, 2334, 2337, 2498). An unsubstantiated statement is merely opinion. Vines' repeated use of this tactic relegated his work to editorial.

The abomination language of Leviticus 18:22 is very clear and undercuts Vines' argument. "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev 18:22 NRSV). This does not necessarily involve force or commitment, points Vines distinguishes. The verse literally says a person is not to lie sexually with a man as one would with a woman. According to Leviticus, same-sex behavior is an abomination. Vines cannot change that.

The author made one argument well. He argued logically and biblically that procreation is not necessarily part of what it means for a human to be made in the image of God because animals received the same "be fruitful and multiply" instruction in Genesis 1:22 (2241). However, Vines must still contend with the fact that "male and female" were created in the image of a creative, reproductive God, not male and male who cannot reproduce and fulfill God's creative original instruction.

CONCLUSION

Matthew Vines' inclusive heart is commendable, but his erroneous arguments are not. He shares my desire to help homosexuals avoid Christian shame, but his book just gives them something of which to be legitimately ashamed. Few things hurt a cause more than inaccurate argument. Vines courageously began his book by vulnerably sharing his personal story, but by the end he was only proffering an unsubstantiated agenda. Given the importance of this issue, this book should be exposed for its inaccuracies and inconsistencies. This church and life-altering debate deserves honest intellectual discourse, not biased unprofessional opinion.
1Location (Loc.) numbers are referenced throughout instead of page numbers because the e-book did not have page numbers.

2Gay: "of, pertaining to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex" www.dictionary.com
3Friberg Lexicon
4Booth, Karen, http://karenbooth.goodnewsmag.org/do-ho ... comment-39
5Morton, Warren, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthro ... ientation/
6Hooper, Richard, http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2000/2000-02-23.html
7Potts, Andrew, http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trut ... rome261012
8Liberated Christians, http://www.libchrist.com/bible/immoral.html
Scott Hinsche (hinscheman) is an executive pastor, attorney and mediator in Los Angeles, California.

Please note, these are 21st century articles.

Is Arsenokoitai Really that Mysterious?
Article ID: JAI013 | By: C. Wayne Mayhall

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno ... an-books-3

This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume30, number06 (2007). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomiteswill inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor.6:9 NKJV).

Not long ago I was designing an ethics course for a small Christian college when I had the opportunity to interview Reverend Robyn Provis of All Gods Children Metropolitan Community Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. Reverend Provis adamantly remarked on several occasions in the interview that a sure-fire way to halt interfaith dialogue in its tracks-one of the most underhanded tactics evangelicals use to justify their position-is the use of what she called the clobbering verses of Scripture.

Dirty Old Men? Theologian Mel White3 agrees that the Greek word arsenokoitai, used for homosexual in 1Corinthians6:9, seems to refer to same-sex behavior. He argues that Greek scholars dont know exactly what it means, however, and that this simple detail is a big part of this tragic debate.4
He explains, Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to customers of the effeminate call boys. We might call them dirty old men. Others translate the word as sodomites, but never explain what that means.5
According to White, in 1958, a translator for the New Amplified Bible set historical precedent by translating this mysterious Greek word into English as the word homosexuals, even though no such word exists in either Greek or Hebrew. It was that translator, according to White, who placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.6
White blames this bad translation for the inability of many NT scholars today to make the proper, culturally relevant application of this passage in 1Corinthians. He adds, In the past, people used Pauls writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society. Now we have to ask ourselves, Is it happening again? Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect societys prejudice and condemn Gods gay children?7
So what is the proper contextual meaning of this mysterious Greek word? The convincing argument from history that Paul is putting forth, White says, is a condemnation of the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.8
In light of this interpretation of the meaning of arsenokoitai, White concludes with an emotional appeal: Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. Sothis passage saysnothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.9
Not Such a Mystery. Clinical psychologist and theologian Stanton L. Jones10 admits that White effectively invokes the mystery of arsenokoitai, the unusual word Paul uses in 1Corinthians6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10 that is commonly translated homosexual sin.11This, however, is not such a mystery, he argues, and its unraveling reveals a more complex picture of Pauls use of Leviticus.
Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.
Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1Corinthians6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a man-lier). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus18:22and 20:13? Dont do that!
Sparse and Ambiguous Evidence? Theologian John H. Elliott, Professor Emeritus of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Francisco, has written one of the most thorough studies of 1Corinthians6:9-10 to date.12 He concludes that nothing in 1Corinthians, or for that matter in any other biblical writing, speaks directly of the biological or psychological condition of homosexuality or homosexual orientation as this is understood today and as it concerns believing Christian gay persons intent on worshipping and serving God.13

He concludes from his research that the Bible in its entirety, as with 1Corinthians specifically, offers sparse and ambiguous evidence concerning male-male sexual relationships, and is conditioned by cultural perceptions and behavioral patterns too alien to those of modern times to provide an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosexuality as homosexuality is currently understood.14 If a case is to be made for or against the morality of homosexuality as it is understood in contemporary society, Elliott argues, it will have to be made on evidence other than 1Corinthians6:9-10 and other similar passages contained in the Bible.

A Dubious Hope. Elliotts argument does offer additional backing to Whites argument. However, we need search no further than theologian Robert A.J. Gagnons excellent rebuttal to the type of argument put forth by Elliott.15 Space constraints will not permit the development of the details of any one particular proposition he puts forth, but a summary of the most prevalent points makes a case strong enough to call in to question Elliotts support of Whites argument and, in turn, Whites argument itself.

Proposition 1. To broaden the word arsenokoitai to include exploitive heterosexual intercourse appears unlikely in view of the unqualified nature of the Levitical prohibitions.16

Proposition 2. In every instance in which the arsenokoit word group occurs in a context that offers clues as to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list), it denotes homosexual intercourse.17

Proposition 3. The term arsenokoitai itself indicates an inclusive sense: all men who play the active role in homosexual intercourse. Had Paul intended to single out pederasts he could have used the technical term paiderasts.18

Proposition 4. The meaning that Paul gave to arsenokoitai has to be unpacked in light of Romans1:24-27. When Paul speaks of the sexual intercourse of males with males (arsenes en arsenes) in v.27, he obviously has in mind arsenokoitai.19
Based on these propositions and others he explores, Gagnon boldly states that others would have us believe that it is an open question whether arsenokoitai in Pauls mind would have applied to all forms of same-sex intercourse, including the kinds of non-exploitative forms allegedly manifested in our contemporary context, but this dubious hope has to be maintained in the face of many additional obstacles.20 Gagnon concludes that 1Corinthians6:9 confirms that Pauls rejection of homosexual conduct is just as applicable for believers as for unbelievers and that it is self-evident, then, that the combination of terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are correctly understood in our contemporary context when they are applied to every conceivable type of same-sex intercourse.

Having more closely documented the particular use of the word arsenokoitai and its consistent witness in the NT, we have discovered that homosexual sin in 1Corinthians6:9-10 isnt as culturally relevant as many who support the pro-homosexual agenda to normalize aberrant sexual behavior would have us believe.
- C. Wayne Mayhall
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTES
1. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stewart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 71.
2. Ibid., 71-76.
3. Mel White is also a Christian minister and filmmaker, who describes how he reconciles his homosexuality with his Christian faith in his book Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Plume Books, 1994).
4. See Whites What the Bible Says-and Doesnt Say-about Homosexuality, available at http://www.soul-force.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf. This twenty-four page booklet is widely circulated by Soulforce, an interfaith movement founded by White, that is committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teachings against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.
5. Ibid., 18.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Jones is Provost of Wheaton College. His scholarly work includes coauthoring with Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Churchs Moral Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
11. Stanton L. Jones, A Study Guide and Response to: Mel Whites What the Bible Says-and Doesnt Say-about Homosexuality, available at http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/resources/b ... lWhite.pdf. This forty-one-page booklet is circulated by the Center for Applied Christian Ethics of Wheaton College, in Wheaton, Illinois.
12. This argument appears in Elliotts No Kingdom of God for Softies? Or, What Was Paul Really Saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in Context, Biblical Theology Bulletin, 34 (Spring 2004): 17-40.
13. Ibid., 38.
14. Ibid., 39.
15. This argument appears in Robert A. J. Gagnons The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 303-39. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, is also the author of the following related works: Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2003), and Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful? in Christian Sexuality, ed. R. Saltzman (Minneapolis: Kirk House, 2003).
16. Ibid., 319.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid. 325
19. Ibid., 326.
20. Ibid., 325

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 276 by KCKID]

You're straining at a gnat. The passage in the New KJV reads in modern English:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

But it isn't just that translation of that one verse. The whole of chapter 20 in Leviticus is composed of "divine" prohibitions, mostly sexual, but also against child sacrifice (to the pagan god Molech), bestiality, etc., all with the penalty of death. Trying to read into the passage above something other than what it obviously means because it isn't convenient to their agenda, is the bread and butter of religious demagoguery and dogma.

The homosexual's only options in the face of this bigotry, is to either reject the religion outright, or offer your throat to the bigots. There is no "they don't really mean it" middle ground. If they don't mean it, then they must reject that part of the inerrant holy word of God, which they will never do. The only thing more mystifying than all this is gays and women defending Islam....strange bedfellows indeed. This is all beyond any reasonable comprehension, and what always happens when you free your emotions from any homage to reason.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 278 by 99percentatheism]

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

[KCKID]

You're straining at a gnat. The passage in the New KJV reads in modern English:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Um ...how is that interpretation any different to the one presented in post 276?? I don't know that I'm straining at a gnat but I am a tad puzzled that you present the very scripture that is under analysis in post 276 as though I'm not aware of it.

But it isn't just that translation of that one verse. The whole of chapter 20 in Leviticus is composed of "divine" prohibitions, mostly sexual, but also against child sacrifice (to the pagan god Molech), bestiality, etc., all with the penalty of death. Trying to read into the passage above something other than what it obviously means because it isn't convenient to their agenda, is the bread and butter of religious demagoguery and dogma.

You comment above about one "reading into the passage something other than what it obviously means" but you don't address what that obvious meaning is. The item I present in post 276 DOES address quite adequately a credible, even if not entirely accurate, account of what that passage means. All you've given is a 'drive by' personal opinion which doesn't amount to a hill of beans in a debate.

The homosexual's only options in the face of this bigotry, is to either reject the religion outright, or offer your throat to the bigots.

You're a difficult study, TPT. I sense that you have your tights in a twist with Christianity and Christians but you also appear to have some animosity toward homosexuality. Any chance sharing your thoughts on both these items with us?

There is no "they don't really mean it" middle ground. If they don't mean it, then they must reject that part of the inerrant holy word of God, which they will never do.

Again, I have no idea where you're coming from with regard to this particular topic and its relationship to the scriptures. I'm guessing that you're using irony above.

The only thing more mystifying than all this is gays and women defending Islam....strange bedfellows indeed. This is all beyond any reasonable comprehension, and what always happens when you free your emotions from any homage to reason.

Y'know, I have no idea what any of that means.

Note: The first video presented in post 276 has been given pretty much a 'nod of accuracy' by two Jewish scholars that I'm acquainted with, one of whom participates on this forum. It's this one in case you didn't watch it.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 278 by 99percentatheism]

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

Both of the articles I presented would be directly addressing your attempts to homosexualize the Church with supposed support. These articles address the liberal theology you are espousing. I can't see any reason why you would say otherwise.

The articles:

HTTP://WWW.CHRISTIANPOST.COM/NEWS/REVIE ... GAY-CHRIST...

Tuesday, Jun 10, 2014

Review of Matthew Vines' God and the Gay Christian

By Scott Hinsche

__________________________________________________

Is Arsenokoitai Really that Mysterious?
Article ID: JAI013 | By: C. Wayne Mayhall

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arseno ... christian-...

This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume30, number06 (2007). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomiteswill inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor.6:9 NKJV).

Matthew Vines, who I have heard speak with Welton Gaddy on his radio program, is not only on the same mission that you appear to be on, but he of course uses the exact same methodology. From Leviticus to Jude, the gay theological position follows the same well-worn track on the wide road that leads to the what the world and its ways has embraced in the promotion of homosexuality and the gay pride movement. These so-called "clobber passages" are not the only statements of non-support for the homosexualization of either the Bible or The Church. As you know by now so well, there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere celebrated, condoned, supported or even mentioned in the Bible.

Isn't it a fact that the definition "gays" in the OP, is a declaration that it is about promoting gay pride in The Church and not preaching the Gospel to the lost? The gay pride movement comes from a secular political agenda and has nothing to do with Christian reality. Why not keep it there? It needs repeating: There is no such thing as same gender marriage OR any supportive language in the New Testament for either same gender sexual behavior or same gender marriage.

Why shouldn't you write an OP about a new gay denomination where homosexuals and bi-sexuals can promote their own sexual behavior in any religious doctrine that they so choose? You can use those supposed pro-gay scriptures to invent your new theology? Like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have? Why the need to force "mainstream Christianity" to accept a homosexualization activism effort?

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 278 by 99percentatheism]

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

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.

Thank you.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

[Replying to post 278 by 99percentatheism]

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.

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.

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

Thank you.

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

[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.

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.

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. 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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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

How come there are so few takers?

[ThePainefulTruth]

You're straining at a gnat. The passage in the New KJV reads in modern English:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Um ...how is that interpretation any different to the one presented in post 276?? I don't know that I'm straining at a gnat but I am a tad puzzled that you present the very scripture that is under analysis in post 276 as though I'm not aware of it.

You're straining at a gnat to come up with anything other than the obvious intent. If you're intent was something other than that, it was lost in the bibliobabble, but it obviously wasn't.

But it isn't just that translation of that one verse. The whole of chapter 20 in Leviticus is composed of "divine" prohibitions, mostly sexual, but also against child sacrifice (to the pagan god Molech), bestiality, etc., all with the penalty of death. Trying to read into the passage above something other than what it obviously means because it isn't convenient to their agenda, is the bread and butter of religious demagoguery and dogma.

You comment above about one "reading into the passage something other than what it obviously means" but you don't address what that obvious meaning is. The item I present in post 276 DOES address quite adequately a credible, even if not entirely accurate, account of what that passage means. All you've given is a 'drive by' personal opinion which doesn't amount to a hill of beans in a debate.

I haven't used this response in a long time, but when my brains are splattered on the brick wall, the only thing left is....Whatever.

[KCKID]

You're straining at a gnat. The passage in the New KJV reads in modern English:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Um ...how is that interpretation any different to the one presented in post 276?? I don't know that I'm straining at a gnat but I am a tad puzzled that you present the very scripture that is under analysis in post 276 as though I'm not aware of it.

You're straining at a gnat to come up with anything other than the obvious intent. If you're intent was something other than that, it was lost in the bibliobabble, but it obviously wasn't.

Okay. Thanks for the debate.

But it isn't just that translation of that one verse. The whole of chapter 20 in Leviticus is composed of "divine" prohibitions, mostly sexual, but also against child sacrifice (to the pagan god Molech), bestiality, etc., all with the penalty of death. Trying to read into the passage above something other than what it obviously means because it isn't convenient to their agenda, is the bread and butter of religious demagoguery and dogma.

You comment above about one "reading into the passage something other than what it obviously means" but you don't address what that obvious meaning is. The item I present in post 276 DOES address quite adequately a credible, even if not entirely accurate, account of what that passage means. All you've given is a 'drive by' personal opinion which doesn't amount to a hill of beans in a debate.

I haven't used this response in a long time, but when my brains are splattered on the brick wall, the only thing left is....Whatever.

Okay. Again, thanks for the debate.