THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LI'BLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE

[KCKID]

Why are SO many Christians hung up on homosexuality? While the average Christian would be hard pressed to locate such a text in their Bibles if asked, they would undoubtedly say “Because it’s a sin according to the Bible.� I personally find such a response difficult to accept and rather strongly suspect that one’s ‘religious belief’ on this issue is NOT the driving force behind their aversion/condemnation of homosexuality. I mean, if Christians REALLY desire to condemn ‘sin’ as they perceive it they could give homosexuals a break and instead have a field day targeting the many other human behaviors going on within society that God appears to hate. But …they don’t . . .well certainly not with the same zeal they do toward homosexuality.

So, what is going on here? Does the Bible really condemn sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender? Or, does the Bible not address the matter of homosexuality at all …or, at least, not as we today recognize homosexuality? Would the Bible authors have even been aware of one’s innate sexuality as well as the complexities surrounding sexuality in general? Or, in simple terms, would they, as with many males of today, have regarded some males as 'effeminate' (or ‘sissies’) based on both ignorance and their own perceived cultural image of the ‘alpha male’? Or, if these authors were considered to be writing by divine authority, might we then say that God is the instigator of such ignorance and has allowed this ignorance to persist from generation to generation?

My main question in this thread is: of the ‘thimble-full’ of scriptures that are commonly used by Christians to condemn homosexuality (sexual attraction/desire directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex), how many of these texts might be considered to be far too ambiguous (open to several possible meanings or interpretations) to have caused such a furor within Christendom in general and specifically resulted in the division of a number of present-day Christian denominations? Can these few scriptures be analyzed so accurately that they can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to condemn homosexuality as we refer to the term today? I say no …they cannot. I’ve given my reasons in the past and will do so again if challenged.

Please discuss the below scriptures, as best you can, exegetically, i.e.
observation: what do the passages say?
interpretation: what do the passages mean?
correlation: how do the passages relate to the topic of homosexuality as we define it today?
application: how should these passages affect your/my life?

Note: I've purposely used the NIV for the following texts.

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire . . .etc. (NIV)

Should there be other related Bible texts to the topic feel free to present them based on the above criteria for analysis. I purposely omitted the Sodom and Gomorrah saga since it's been done to death and quite clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. However, likewise feel free to present that strange tale for discussion should you find it to be relevant.

[99percentatheism]

My apologia before Caesar? Let's see:

I will address Caesar as to not make this a "personal" attack on anyone and just a loving treatment of truth as any Christian would be forced to make at the founding of The Church era, that does not end until Christ is calls for that purpose.


Danmark:


While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality,[/bold]

"Nearly silent?" It condemns it everywhere it is mentioned. And for the record, there is NO nearly silent PRO homosexuality statements anywhere. Because there isn't any pro homosexuality statement in all of scripture.

First defense reality based.

. . . a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave.

And sexually? It is pronounced and emphatically NOT in homosexual sex acts.

Caesar,

This is not about simply thoughts, although those too are subject to judgment, but about Christian love. Which is acted out in repentance and forgiveness, this is about behavior and actions. Living the faith and not just preaching what one does not do themselves. For that sir, is hypocrisy.

The New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, and love.

Yes, ALL have sinned and ALL mus repent. And Caesar, in our "religion" encouraging people to sin, celebrating sin and sinning is a horribly worse thing to do that to just sin yourself.

Over and over we see Jesus rejecting legalism and insisting on love and compassion as the essence of Christianity.

What the New Testament rejects, what Jesus condemns is this attitude:

Caesar, does not the rabble mob, or the thief demand that they have reasons for their behavior and negative actions? Is it love to support them in their wrongdoing? Or can that actually get someone hurt? Or is it the very definition of love to be honest about what is wrong?

I notice with a certain satisfaction, that people here avoid my positions and will do anything to avoid a point by point debate of the fact that there is no such thing as same gender marriage anywhere in the Bible. Nor is there any clear affirmation of same gender sexuality anywhere in scripture as well. In fact, neither Jesus (nor Moses) every said a word about homosexuality.

And NO, I will not withdraw my characterization of a "protest group" and their "demands." No matter how it may be altered for political expediency.

Caesar,

If I "protested" your decisions, would I not be "demanding not to follow them and that you would have to do what I wanted you to do instead?

To protest Caesar is to demand that his authority does not exist and mine has replaced it.

That would carry a death sentence or imprisonment and torture.

The essence of why 99%'s legalism condemning 'homosexuality' is wrong:

"Heterosexual Christians are being unbiblical by using the clobber passages as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins� that they themselves are not tempted to commit, while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those sins listed in the clobber passages that they do routinely commit.'

Caesar,

Does the APA take power and authority over Christians and The Church? Is this not persecution to demand that secular morality has power and control of Christian truth? In fact, "everyone" is "born a sinner" in Christian theology, and yet for some unknown reason, the LGBT crowd shouts for a congenital excuse, to commit and encourage sin and sinning by "protesting" their "demands" that everyone live by LGBT pride desires and any dissent, any questioning, any opposition to their demands is hate based and a "phobia."

Caesar,

Isn't there a distinct hypocrisy in the demands that Christians should live as Christians should by preaching and living "love" and yet, in the same demand, Christians must be forced to violate their own beliefs? Is THAT not hate based?

Homosexuality is briefly mentioned in only six or seven of the Bible’s 31,173 verses. (The verses wherein homosexuality is mentioned are commonly known as the “clobber passages,� since they are typically used by Christians to “clobber� LGBT people.) The fact that homosexuality is so rarely mentioned in the Bible should be an indication to us of the lack of importance ascribed it by the authors of the Bible.

Caesar,

This is a political spin tactic. The so-called "Clobber passages" are directly addressing real life events that were of major concern to Christians. AND still are. As Jude points out perfectly. From the NIV Jude 1:

The Sin and Doom of Ungodly People

3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

Caesar, the pro-homosexuality movement was begun not in the Church, but in demands of homosexuals in the secular world. It was one of desiring to engage in homosexuality without being physically assaulted and/or suffering loss in social or business areas.

The Gospel would be in agreement that no man or woman should be physically for engaging in sin. And also sir, no one should be threatened in the exact same way for preaching and believing that homosexuality is inappropriate and sinful behavior for a Christian to engage in. For our Lord was clear that everyone sins and is in need of salvation.

While the Bible is nearly silent on homosexuality, a great deal of its content is devoted to how a Christian should behave.

Caesar,

And in every insistence of sexual behavior the Christian should "keep the marriage bed undefiled" as well as their unmarried life. Our Lord reasserted that marriage was man and woman/husband and wife. There is sir, no such thing as "same sex marriage" anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, invented, defined, or justified in all of scripture.

Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion.

And Caesar, in "Christian love" is the reality that encouraging sin and sinning places one in a worse condition than making a mistake and committing a sin. It is anti-love to promote a lie as the truth.

It is love to encourage a Vandal or Visigoth, that they have the right to ransack Rome, because they have always had the feeling in their mind that they were both to sack Rome. If, as long as they engage in their behaviors without harming others and if they claim they have an intrinsic feeling from "as long as they can remember" for justifying their feelings?

We Christians sir, conquered Rome by convincing Roman citizens to live as Christians. That included a call to repel homosexuality. Our Apostle Paul made this unmistakably clear. Peter agreed that we are treated badly because people don't want to be "judged" by us. But they are free to live their lives any way they choose. And we should be too. We "conquered Rome" by preaching love, repentance, forgiveness and eternal life. It would be hellish to preach that anyone can commit sins as long as they feel justified in doing so.

If heterosexual Christians are obligated to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of homosexual acts, how much greater is their obligation to look to the Bible to determine the sinfulness of their behavior toward gay persons, especially in light of the gay community’s call to them for justice?"

http://notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at ... sexuality/

Caesar,

Where is the justice in calling us to redefine sin and sinning? That sir, is the very definition of hate and intolerance. Why can't homosexuals live life as they see fit and allow us to do the same thing?

There is a clear moral principle that we should only condemn behavior that is volitional and violates a moral principle. We all agree that we should not condemn as sinful, those who behave in a certain way because of their genetic make up. I think we can agree that we should not condemn people for behavior that is the result of their being 'hard wired' to be sexually attracted to those of the same sex.

Caesar,

Not only is this a wholesale reinventing of Christianity (a dire threat to extinction), it places psychological associations and in many times anti-Christian people as authorities over every Christian Church and denomination on earth. Although we have predictions that this kind of thing is to happen, who wants to bring about this destruction of the Church? What kind of people want to do this?

Caesar, if you take notice, there is almost a complete support from atheists for homosexual pride. Now again, that is fine for "the world and its ways," but we are not of this world.

Peter, an Apostle that knew well what it feels like to reject the truth said this:

1 Peter 4
NIV

Living for God

4 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. 2 As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

What 99% calls the 'gay agenda' or 'gay pride' is simply a call for justice, for equality, for love, just as Jesus demanded justice, equality and love.

Caesar,

Our Lord taught and preached that marriage is a man and woman/husband and wife. And even our detractors point that out to us "Christians" that violate that immutable configuration by committing sexual sins like adultery. And now they desire to make us justify another sexual sin? The APA has a justification for adultery known as sexual addiction. Is that now to take a position of authority over Christian truth about adultery? Is there now to be a "sexual orientation" excuse for adultery AND promiscuity? And in many cases, adultery and promiscuity causes no one any harm and are engaged in by consenting adults. How far do Christians have to go for being led by secular morality?

And also, there is not one pro-homosexuality statement anywhere in the Bible. Not one person has ever produced a clear statement to prove cause for it. And yet my positions are deemed offensive, hateful. Yet, I am in the right and my detractors have no proof against my positions.

And Caesar, I have many, many, many, many, many, many, many, other scriptures that I have used that shows that "contending for the faith" against the pro-homosexuality positions are sound, logical, honest and love based.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 161 by 99percentatheism]

Are you still refusing to respond to post 159 and all of the others I have presented?

[dianaiad]

Doesn't the secular Constitution protect Christians from persecution?

By 'persecution' do you mean the outcry aimed at certain Christians such as "bigot!" and "homophobe!" and, perhaps, "hypocrite!" ...? If the shoe fits the one on the receiving end of these cries then no less than this kind of retaliation from those they persistently malign should be expected. But, it's hardly persecution ...rather, deserving.

How can "the United States of America, a country that guarantees its citizens freedom of religion," force Christians to accept the sexual behavior of homosexuals and bi-sexuals and Transsexual people to alter and redefine what is inappropriate for Christians. It seems the very nature of your position is that non and anti Christians can do as they see fit and Christians can too.

Does one's rights for freedom of religion outrank the rights of those that want freedom FROM religion?

I have heard this one, quite frequently. I have a couple of questions to ask you. OK, since I had to come in and edit this post to fix the link anyway, I'll fix this too. I have one question to ask you.

Will you show me, in the constitution, where there is any mention of 'freedom from religion?'

Indeed, freedom OF religion is the only right that is mentioned... twice... in the bill of rights, and it is mentioned first. First, that congress shall make no law establishing a religion, and second, congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

There is no mention of 'freedom from.' None. Nobody is supposed to be able to force you to participate in a religious event with which you disagree (such as mandatory prayer in schools), because we are supposed to have the freedom to believe, and behave according to those beliefs, as we wish.


Or to be far more blunt, if you have no religion, fine...but your lack of religion does not entitle you to force others to acknowledge your position and count it superior to theirs. They don't get to force you to participate in their events...you don't get to make them hide their beliefs behind closed doors.

There is no such thing as 'freedom from' religion, any more than there is a 'freedom from' atheism. If others believe in something you don't, (or if you don't believe in something they do) neither one of you has the right to force a change of behavior or belief upon the other. You do NOT get to insist that a religious icon that you can see is abrogating your freedom to not believe, any more than 'they' get to object to, say...a Darwin fish or a pink unicorn on your lawn.

You do not get to decide for the believers what they 'should' and 'should not' believe or accept...or do about it.

And you should be very grateful that this is in the constitution, because those nations which officially went with the 'freedom FROM religion' were not only uniformly anything but free, they were also, without exception, murderous: murderous to a degree that their actions, along with those of Germany, prompted a new word that means 'murder by government," Democide.


You do not have freedom from religion. You have freedom OF. That is, you may believe or not as you wish. You may participate, or not, as you wish. You may pay attention to religious events and displays, or not, as you wish. You may not be forced to go against your own beliefs and principles because someone else's 'freedom from' whatever it is you believe, or don't believe, trumps your own view.

You have the freedom to be athieist, or agnostic, or ignostic, deist or theist; you have the freedom to tell everyone what you think of their beliefs, and to promote your own.

Nobody has 'freedom FROM' your atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, deism or whatever it is you are; you are free to be, and act, according to your beliefs. I am not free to keep you from doing so, just because I disagree with you and don't want to see or hear you.

And you are not free from mine. It's in the constitution; I am free to exercise my beliefs. You are NOT free to keep me from doing so, just because you don't feel like seeing or hearing it.

So, no. There is no such thing as 'Freedom from religion,' and you should be very glad of that...because if you can enforce 'freedom from' now, what happens when the folks belonging to the religion you want to be free from get the political power and the courts? Suddenly you'll be the one everybody has 'freedom from.'

[Danmark]

I'm sure that is what some Christians heard when the Lions were sent in to the Coliseum, by Roman citizens that had "nothing personal" against them. Just their civic positions.

"Your" and "you" I'm just thinking out loud here, but that looks like a personal response to me. And I have taken it as a personal attack. But I can no longer make that stand. What I take as insulting, personally, is just exactly the same as the LGBT agenda proponents here. My positions. In real life, I couldn't stay any farther away from the issue or the people promoting it, UNLESS they enter my Church world and demand authority. Which will never happen. I just don't get to have a crowd behind me here to protect "me." "Me," as in what the "you" and "yours" defines.

I will no longer make any charge of a personal attack here. I don't need to anyway. That the sun "rises" is another immutable fact. The person with the stone no longer in their hand, knows exactly what they have done and what motivated them. Mt apologia is sound. I am guilty of no charge made against me by LGBT (and Q and +) proponents. Christian love is not in supporting sin and sinning. It is though, the very embodiment of repentance and forgiveness. That IS LOVE based and LOVE driven.
....
No one, as in NO ONE has ever produced one single pro gay piece of scripture in all the time I have been posting at this website.


"Legalism?" That's a personal insult. And you know it.


Show me what the "clobber passages" are without streaking out to google to find them. If you had been following, instead of furthering accusations against me like the "legalism" charge you falsely accuse me of, you would know that I use many, many, many, many scriptures that show gay theology is not based on scripture but on the 20th and 21st century gay pride movement. That is why I must endure charges like "legalism" instead of ever seeing anyone post pro-homosexuality scriptures.

"Legalism:
1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology
a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws."
The reason the preceding argument, and many others like it, are 'legalistic,' is because they refer to the 'strict adherence' to the letter of Levitical law 'rather than the spirit' of the law, the reason for the law.

This is precisely what Jesus spoke out against:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. — Matthew 23: 23-24

Leviticus 19 is infamous for its many precise laws that most Christians today don't give much thought to, let alone try to follow them:
Sowing your field with two kinds of seeds;
Wearing a garment made of two kinds of material;
Not eating the fruit of a tree until the 4th year;
Not eating any meat with the blood in it;
Not telling fortunes or interpreting omens;
Not getting tattoos.
Not 'rounding off the hair on your temples;'
Not 'marring the edges of your beard.'*

But the heart of Leviticus 19 is the 18th verse:
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

It is legalism to insist that the letter of these laws be followed, instead of focusing first on loving your neighbor.

Another major error of the argument quoted above is the demand that a verse be found that specifically endorses homosexuality:
No one, as in NO ONE has ever produced one single pro gay piece of scripture in all the time I have been posting at this website.

The absence of a verse endorsing any particular act, or type of person is not the equivalent of condemning that act or person. Of far more importance are the many references to love, humility and fairness to all, regardless of their condition or status:

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you — Colossians 3:11-13

Essentially what Jesus condemned was the hypocrisy of being unfair and applying a double standard by condemning others for committing sins they themselves are not tempted by, while failing to keep the supreme law of love, justice, and mercy.
That is legalism.
It is legalism to use the 'clobber passages' as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins," while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those "sins" they routinely commit.

There is a logical rationale for wearing blended fabrics today. There is a logical rationale today for accepting gays and lesbians into the Christian church. And even those who rage against it, know what that rationale is. The old law assumed that homosexuality was a free and depraved choice. We now understand that it is more a matter of genetics, of nature. Hence the frequently asked question to heterosexuals: "When did you decide to be attracted to women instead of men?"

_______________________
*Despite it's many specifics, including reference to sexual sins,
there is no mention of homosexuality in Leviticus 19.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 162 by Joab]

Article: "Gay Activists Plan Protest at General Assembly"
Posted on May 25, 2000
May 25, 2000

Soulforce group demands equal recognition for homosexuals in PC(USA)
by Evan Silverstein

- http://www.archives.soulforce.org/2000/ ... n-protest-...

"Current PC(USA) policy bars sexually active gay members . . ."

"We’re done with the debates; those aren’t working," said Jean Holsten, a Presbyterian attorney from Davis, Calif. . . ."

There ya go.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

I'm sure that is what some Christians heard when the Lions were sent in to the Coliseum, by Roman citizens that had "nothing personal" against them. Just their civic positions.

"Your" and "you" I'm just thinking out loud here, but that looks like a personal response to me. And I have taken it as a personal attack. But I can no longer make that stand. What I take as insulting, personally, is just exactly the same as the LGBT agenda proponents here. My positions. In real life, I couldn't stay any farther away from the issue or the people promoting it, UNLESS they enter my Church world and demand authority. Which will never happen. I just don't get to have a crowd behind me here to protect "me." "Me," as in what the "you" and "yours" defines.

I will no longer make any charge of a personal attack here. I don't need to anyway. That the sun "rises" is another immutable fact. The person with the stone no longer in their hand, knows exactly what they have done and what motivated them. Mt apologia is sound. I am guilty of no charge made against me by LGBT (and Q and +) proponents. Christian love is not in supporting sin and sinning. It is though, the very embodiment of repentance and forgiveness. That IS LOVE based and LOVE driven.
....
No one, as in NO ONE has ever produced one single pro gay piece of scripture in all the time I have been posting at this website.


"Legalism?" That's a personal insult. And you know it.


Show me what the "clobber passages" are without streaking out to google to find them. If you had been following, instead of furthering accusations against me like the "legalism" charge you falsely accuse me of, you would know that I use many, many, many, many scriptures that show gay theology is not based on scripture but on the 20th and 21st century gay pride movement. That is why I must endure charges like "legalism" instead of ever seeing anyone post pro-homosexuality scriptures.

"Legalism:
1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology
a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws."
The reason the preceding argument, and many others like it, are 'legalistic,' is because they refer to the 'strict adherence' to the letter of Levitical law 'rather than the spirit' of the law, the reason for the law.

Is it legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof. There is not one supporting piece of scripture for homosexual sex. Noe, homosexual marriage. That's not legalism, that is just facts.

This is precisely what Jesus spoke out against:
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. — Matthew 23: 23-24

The gay agenda is not a gnat in the eye of a believer. It is a different Gospel. Unless you can present words from the Gospels that clearly depict same gender sex acts as appropriate. That is not legalism, that is honesty.

Leviticus 19 is infamous for its many precise laws that most Christians today don't give much thought to, let alone try to follow them:
Sowing your field with two kinds of seeds;
Wearing a garment made of two kinds of material;
Not eating the fruit of a tree until the 4th year;
Not eating any meat with the blood in it;
Not telling fortunes or interpreting omens;
Not getting tattoos.
Not 'rounding off the hair on your temples;'
Not 'marring the edges of your beard.'*

But the heart of Leviticus 19 is the 18th verse:
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'

I do "love my neighbor as myself." I do not encourage them to sin. Not even the kinds of sin I commit.

It is legalism to insist that the letter of these laws be followed, instead of focusing first on loving your neighbor.

My neighbor smokes cigarettes. Should I encourage that behavior? How loving is that?

Another major error of the argument quoted above is the demand that a verse be found that specifically endorses homosexuality:
No one, as in NO ONE has ever produced one single pro gay piece of scripture in all the time I have been posting at this website.

If the desire to wipe away Christian truth about marriage and husbands and wives and replace it with gay theology instead, then how is that not a kind of progressive legalism? That any truth can be wiped away and replaced by some new cultural fad? Jesus being God is "offensive" to many people. Does that get whitewashed too? The resurrection is unacceptable to many people. That's get's the intolerance label hung around the necks of believers that MUST hold to it in order to even be believers? How much of Christian reality gets the political correctness routine?

The absence of a verse endorsing any particular act, or type of person is not the equivalent of condemning that act or person. Of far more importance are the many references to love, humility and fairness to all, regardless of their condition or status:

HUMILITY! LOVE! How is the way Bible-affirming Christians are treated looks like humility and love? Gimme a break. If we hold onto the Gospels and the guidance of the New Testament we are labeled the way I am in these threads.

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you — Colossians 3:11-13

Essentially what Jesus condemned

What !!?? That is written by Paul to the Colossians. Jesus AND Paul kept marriage as man and woman/husband and wife. There is no way to homosexualize any theological stance of either.

And we do have Paul putting into writing the following:

If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?

I have the right to do anything,� you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything�—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.� The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.� But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

That is not the relying on of legalism, that is contending for the faith.

. . . was the hypocrisy of being unfair and applying a double standard by condemning others for committing sins they themselves are not tempted by, while failing to keep the supreme law of love, justice, and mercy.

Are you claiming that there any kind of sin can be excused away and/or wiped away by pop culture and protest marches?

It is legalism to use the 'clobber passages' as justification for applying absolute standards of morality to homosexual “sins," while at the same time accepting for themselves a standard of relative morality for those "sins" they routinely commit.

Your accusation there is not legalism, it is a bold charge. Where are the adultery pride parades? The divorce and remarriage pride organizations? Not even the Academy Awards can qualify for that.

There is a logical rationale for wearing blended fabrics today.

They have nothing to do with encouraging and celebrating sexual sins.

There is a logical rationale today for accepting gays and lesbians into the Christian church.

Prove that. "Gays and lesbians" as words, were invented in the 20th century. Homosexuality though a 19th century word, as a sexual behavior, has been denounced since the canon of scripture. And you seem to be avoiding that
"marriage" is immutably man and woman/husband and wife. Where is the homosexual affirming of that? No matter how one arrived at their sexual tastes, there is no such thing as same sex marriage in Christian scriptures. The cause for homosexualizing The Church has no justification. LGBT's are not flooding into the Church and away from "gay pride" they are flying the gay pride flag on the side of Church buildings. And when I was in Obama's hometown, visting the Science Museum with my wife and kids, I saw two old churches with rainbow flags (gay pride flag) on them.

And even those who rage against it, know what that rationale is. The old law assumed that homosexuality was a free and depraved choice.

"Old rationale?" I could get banned very easily if I posted just a few links to "gay websites."

We now understand that it is more a matter of genetics, of nature. Hence the frequently asked question to heterosexuals: "When did you decide to be attracted to women instead of men?"

The explosion of gay pride and the popularity of gay behavior has been since Stonewall has it not? Since the free love sixties? Pop culture is a very strong influence of behavior. This is what prompted Christians to label the rise of gay pride as a gay agenda.

Despite it's many specifics, including reference to sexual sins,
there is no mention of homosexuality in Leviticus 19.

Then it should be quite easy to find pro homosexuality in the Hebrew scriptures. (Ask someone here that practices one of the several forms of Judaism.) A commandment to honor they father and thy father's husband. A commandment to honer thy mother and her also "lesbian" wife. To rejoice when they son finds his gay mate. A daughter given away in marriage to her lesbian wife. The absolutely foreign nature of any of those configurations is so pronounced as to be impossible to fathom in any Bible based manner.

There is nothing wrong in opposing the homosexualization of The Church. And far more support from scripture to put it in its proper place and oppose it. Or, as Jude puts it: "I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ."

[Danmark]

Is iy legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof.
. . . .
My neighbor smokes cigarettes. Should I encourage that behavior? How loving is that?

[emphasis applied]

I confess I do not understand the first sentence. I think I understand the 2d. It is commendable if you do not judge your neighbor for his smoking. I don't think the issue is whether or not you 'encourage' your neighbor to smoke, but whether you can look upon him, and treat him as a neighbor despite his habit.

But what is curiously lacking in your response is a rejoinder to the argument about the absence of a statement in the Bible that supports homosexuality, or to the position a Christian should take if it is a fact that members of the gay and lesbian community are not gay and lesbian by choice.

[99percentatheism]

McCulloch

And may I just reiterate something I've asked before - why should the United States of America, a country that guarantees its citizens freedom of religion, base any part of its legal decisions - for example, its position on gay marriage - on the sacred book of any particular religion?

In other words, why does it MATTER what Jesus or Moses said about homosexuality?

Did it matter what they said about slavery? Thank goodness we figured out a way to end that abomination without requiring a special revelation from above.

Over a millennium of Christian domination in the West and slavery continued. The rejection of Christian dogma known as the Enlightenment take hold and the abolitionist movement gains ground.

European and "western" Christianity came from European minds and cultures. Paul made it clear how Christian slaves were to be treated. As brothers (and sisters). That European culture had its several millennia old influence on Europeans speaks more for the fallacy of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

The "enlightenment thinkers, also came from that environment. If you notice TODAY, the slave trade market is quite well funded in European nations still. And, the enlightenment also brought us the French Revolution and its atrocities. And of course, Russia and Germany from the wellspring of Enlightement-Europe.

What did Jesus and Moses say about slavery? Please create another thread, post your opinion and let's see where it goes.

Amazing Grace was written by a slave ship captain.

No one will dispute the historical fact that a good number of profession Christians did join the abolitionist movement and that they saw it as an extension of their Christian values.

Original Christian values. Predating humanism. And how many rich European humanists, deists and other non Christian worldviews owned slaves in the "New World." And of course the old word as well. The Enlightenment also brought us the wonders of eugenics. But returning to the OP, have you ever noticed that homosexuality is the returning of a distinctly non Christian era of European history is it not?

So, si fueris R�mae, R�m�n� vīvit� m�re; si fueris alibī, vīvit� sicut ibi (“if you should be in Rome, live in the Roman manner; if you should be elsewhere, live as they do there�) is not exactly like we think today: "When in Rome do as the Romans do." It is more about respect and politeness than debauchery. Christians are Christians and not secularists, but one can accept "the law of the land" but reject its theological implications.

Have you ever read President Abraham' Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech?

Yes. In it Lincoln expresses that while men on both sides of the Civil war assert that God was on their side, he asserts that the Divine will cannot be truly known.

Does he now?

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

- http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

The will of God prevails — In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of either party — and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect this.

"God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time." From your reference above.

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?�

4 “Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

7 “Why then,� they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?�

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.�

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

[12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.]

"God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time." From your reference above.

And by the way, what does your opinion in this post have to do with the redefining of appropriate sexual behavior for Christians? Why do Christians have to be forced to live their lives by non and anti Christian views?

Christians, granted the freedom of religion, should be free to prohibit among their number any sexual behavior that they deem unsuitable to the Christian doctrine.

Well thank you. But we do not need license from any human authority to know what Christian truth is.

No one, as in NO ONE has ever produced one single pro gay piece of scripture in all the time I have been posting at this website.

Personally, I have no interest in whether or not homosexuality is allowed or prohibited in a religion that I am not a part of, so long as they make no efforts to compel me to abide by the rules of their religion.

Compel? You mean like Hate Crimes legislation?

Neither do I care about the rules about Kosher or Halal food.

Neither did Abraham.

The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.�

“Very well,� they answered, “do as you say.�

6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,� he said, “get three seahs of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.�

7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

However, since the Christians have made repeated attempts to make their personal and religious prohibitions into law, I have become interested.

As in opposition to Christians?

It would be of great value for those who champion the case for liberty and freedom, if we could find inconsistency and hypocrisy in the current anti-gay viewpoints held by the Christians.

First, "anti-gay" is a neologism and propaganda. Second, it is anything but hypocrisy to oppose homosexuality (an 18th century invention) for Christians, since redefining marriage and encouraging homosexual behavior are both issues with which Christian truth have two immutable positions on based on scripture.

But your observation that Christians should live as Christians and the non and un and anti Christians within our secular society should live the way they want to? I couldn't agree with more!

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

Is it legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof.
. . . .
My neighbor smokes cigarettes. Should I encourage that behavior? How loving is that?

[emphasis applied]

I confess I do not understand the first sentence.

If it is legalism to use scripture to define Christian truth, then Jesus and every other voice in scripture is from a legalistic spouting religionist. Stating that there is scriptural support for this or that isn't legalism. It is simply being honest.

I think I understand the 2d. It is commendable if you do not judge your neighbor for his smoking. I don't think the issue is whether or not you 'encourage' your neighbor to smoke, but whether you can look upon him, and treat him as a neighbor despite his habit.

If I give him or her the $95.00 for a carton of cigarettes, that is encouraging and supporting his bad behavior. It would be anti Christian, based on scripture and Christian reality. No different than celebrating gay pride. Which of course is encouraging gay behavior. Which of course is encouraging sin and sinning. That is not loving based on Christian truth. Which is based on Christian behavior and what is written in the scriptures.

But what is curiously lacking in your response is a rejoinder to the argument about the absence of a statement in the Bible that supports homosexuality, or to the position a Christian should take if it is a fact that members of the gay and lesbian community are not gay and lesbian by choice.

It is not important how one becomes "oriented" to engaging in sin. Once the sin is discovered, it needs repenting of. Christians do not submit to the power and authority of the American Psychology Association. Nor do Christians support and encourage the sinner to continue in sins. NOR, do Christians celebrate or entice or coerce people to sin. Or they shouldn't according to no lessor an authority than Jesus:

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.�

The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!�

[Danmark]

Danmark

Is it legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof.
. . . .
My neighbor smokes cigarettes. Should I encourage that behavior? How loving is that?

[emphasis applied]

I confess I do not understand the first sentence.

It is unfair, and dishonest to chop my post the way you have done. You have exposed your character or lack thereof by this kind of editing.

What I said I did not understand was this post of your's:
"Is iy legalism to present scripture to support a theological absolute? No it isn't. It is not legalism, but proof. "

Please refrain from editing my posts to say what I did not.