Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's the same thing. Even Jesus said angers toward a brother in the heart is the same as if you actually killed him. Secondly, we all sin yes but that doesn't mean you condone it. Or tell people to deceive others. As deception is a sin all on it's own whether you are deceiving someone to accept homosexaulity or deceiving someone to give to a chairty. Ah whatever.

Depends on your type of anger.



So being angry at someone is the same. But being angry at an act of sin isn't. Jesus was angry that the house of God was turned into a house of theives, that it wasn't being worshipped like it should or honored. And his anger of that particular sin, or whatever you wish to call it, caused him to do something to fix it. Like it angers me and grieves when I know people are constantly going to hell, that their are kids being abused, and other stuff. But I'm not angry at a person. I'm angry at situation.

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother without cause will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,'(a term of contempt) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.

I thought these quotes were very interesting and they are from a book called "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (homosexual activists)

"As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care. At the same time it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before...How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?"

"The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising."

"To one extent or another, the separability - and manipulability - of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign."

"When you're very different and people hate you for it - this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then - when your one little difference is finally accepted - can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one."

"The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome."

"We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean "subverting" the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends - using the very processes that made Americans hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard- whether they like it or not." eek

"In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label "gay", either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype...

Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it's very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invarialbe feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement."

"It makes no difference that the ads are lies, eek not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."

"Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us for two reasons: first they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel. Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement."

"We argue that , for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay even though sexual orientation, for most humans , seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence." eek

"To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is open to a can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it."

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.


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


Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.


All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.


All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.


If you dare to cry f*****t, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.


Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.


We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.


There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.


We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.


The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.


All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.


The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.


"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
"We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

Ephesians 5:11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Ephesians 5:13
But everything exposed by the light becomes visible,

2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Romans 16:18
For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

1 Corinthians 6:9
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

You're quite right, and quite hypocritical. Watch closely.



Ezekiel 16:48-50
48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.


You may say that "detestable" referred to homosexual sex, but the hebrew word is "to'ebah", referring to treason. Most likely referred to idols. It's clear here that Sodom's sin was disrespect towards guests. In addition, angels don't have genders. Duh.




Leviticus 18:22 and 20:12 both referred to male temple prostition, a pagan practice in those days. God wanted the Israelites to distances themselves from these people. In addition, they were refuted by the passage in the new testament, Colossians 2:13-17.



13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.


^-^

SonnyBabe

3) Romans 1:18-32 talks about how people turned away from God. When they followed Him, they had normal relationships. Once they turned away from God, they started acting gay (no God lead to homosexuality). verses 26b-32 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty that they deserved.
Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do the things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."
That's not saying that gay people are horrible people, but it is saying that things like that come from ungodly people. They can turn around, just like you can with any other sin.

Some context would be nice.

Romans 1:14-17
"14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]"

Romans 2 (too long to post)


When we look at the passage in its full context, it's plain that this is a condemnation of hypocrites, not homosexuals.

FURTHERMORE. The verses 26 and 27 were simply an aside. The direct punishment God gave out, abandoning them to wickedness, came as a result on refusing to acknowledge Him. Check the list of depravities he gave them over to. Is homosexuality mentioned? No.

This passage is meant to show a church what they will become like if they continue on their current path. It is a parable, and as such, it is the moral of the story that matters; Don't be a hypocrite. Would we take the parable of the man sowing seeds as instructions to throw seeds on the road before the field?

SonnyBabe

Notes:

1) (Quoted word-by-word from my Bible.)
Is the gay lifestyle really wrong? Shows like Will & Grace, Boy Meets Boy, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would say no. Instead, they would argue that homosexuality is "an alternative lifestlye"--one that you hear about more and more on TV and also in the courts.
For example, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage was unconstitutional. They also decided that the definition needed to change from union of a man and a woman to the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

I highly doubt your bible mentions W&G, BMB, or QEFTSG.

Our nation is bsaed on secular teachings, not any one religion, as proven by the Treaty of Tripoli. As such, it is only right that they ignore religious pressure when forming laws.

SonnyBabe

By now, you might wonder what the real scoop is. In the face of changing legislature, has God's view of homosexuality also changed?
Here's the short answer: No.
Now here's a longer one: in Romans 1:18-32, the apostle Paul has particularly hash words for those who engage in idolatry and homosexuality. Men and women who practice homosexuality go against God's design for sexuality and will experience consequences for their actions.
Two important messages need to be given on the subject of homosexuality. One is for out society, where biblical notions of right and wrong are sometimes viewed as outdated. That message is that some lifestyles are not acceptable "alternatives."
The second message is for Christians. While homosexuality is a sin, it is not the unforgivable sin. (See Mark 3:29.) God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves other people who do wrong. Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sin of homosexuality, just as it paid for the sins of lying, greed, lust, hate, and pride.
Homosexuals, like all wrongdoers, stand guilty before God. If that were the whole story, there would be now hope. The great message of Romans--and of the entire Bible--is that Jesus can set us free, regardless of what we've done wrong.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

You're right, No he didn't, No they won't, The first message violates the constitution, while the second is wrong, God MADE homosexuals, It's not a sin, we are not guilty, And you're right on the last count that Jesus can save anyone.


ANY QUESTIONS.

Does that look realistic to you? Because in my opinion, the person who wrote this was either joking or schizo.

Why are you feeding people this garbage? It doesn't mean anything, as homosexuality is listed nowhere as a sin.

This list was actually mistranslated from its original greek. "Male prostitute" was "malakoi", while "homosexual offender" was "arsenokoitas". Respectively, these are the young and old followers of a practice called pederasty, where young boys were given to old men for teaching about sex in exchange for sexual favours. =D Yay, *****!

Feminized their appearance. In Roman times, it was seen as immoral to lower your social status, and as men were seen as having a far higher social status than women, it was bad for them to pretend to be women. The passage has also been interpreted by some much more fluent friends of mine as referring to those with soft morals.

The terms malakoi (lit., “soft men,” but taken in the sense of men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners) and arsenokoitai (literally, “men who lie with [koite] a male [arsen]”) in 1 Cor 6:9 are clearly inclusive of all homosexual bonds, as is evident from the following. With regard to malakoi note: (a) its place in a vice list amidst other participants in illicit sexual intercourse, (b) its pairing with the immediately following arsenokoitai, (c) Philo of Alexandria’s (a first-century Jew’s) use of cognate words to refer to the effeminate male partner in a homosexual bond, and (d) occasional Greco-Roman usage of malakoi (and the comparable Latin molles) to denote effeminate adult males who are biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men. With regard to arsenokoitai note: (a) clear connections of this word to the absolute Levitical prohibitions of man-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13), evident from the fact that the word, exclusively used in Jewish and Christian contexts until late in antiquity, was formulated directly from the Levitical prohibitions, that ancient rabbis used a parallel Hebrew term, mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), to apply to all men-male sexual bonds, and that 1 Tim 1:10 explicitly connects opposition to this vice (among other vices) to the law of Moses; (b) early Judaism’s univocal interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions against men-male intercourse as allowing only sexual relations between a man and a woman (e.g., Josephus, Philo, the rabbis); (c) the singular use of arsenokoites and related words subsequent to Paul in connection with male-male intercourse per se, without limitation to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes; (d) the implications of the context of 1 Corinthians 5-7, given the parallel case of adult, consensual incest in ch. 5, the assumption of consent in the vice list in 6:9-10, the citation of Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16 (see also 11:7-9, 12), and the presumption everywhere in ch. 7 that sex is confined to male-female marriage; and (e) the fact that the Greco-Roman milieu considered it worse for a man to have sex with another adult male than with a boy because the former had left behind his “softness.”

The best of the scholarly proponents of homosexual practice recognize the point made above. Note that I do not cite such support for my own sake. I have researched the matter of Scripture and homosexual practice in its historical and hermeneutical context as much or more than the scholars below have. Rather I cite these scholars for the sake of those who can’t hear truth from the writings of someone who does not endorse homosexual practice but may hear it from those who do endorse such behavior.

For example, Louis Compton in the massive Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003) has written:

According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Similarly, Bernadette Brooten, who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity and its relation to early Christianity (especially Rom 1:26), at least from a pro-homosex perspective, criticized both John Boswell and Robin Scroggs for their use of an exploitation argument:

Boswell . . . argued that . . . “The early Christian church does not appear to have opposed homosexual behavior per se.” The sources on female homoeroticism that I present in this book run absolutely counter to [this conclusion]. (p. 11)



If . . . the dehumanizing aspects of pederasty motivated Paul to condemn sexual relations between males, then why did he condemn relations between females in the same sentence? . . . Rom 1:27, like Lev 18:22 and 20:13, condemns all males in male-male relationships regardless of age, making it unlikely that lack of mutuality or concern for the passive boy were Paul’s central concerns. . . . The ancient sources, which rarely speak of sexual relations between women and girls, undermine Robin Scroggs’s theory that Paul opposed homosexuality as pederasty. (Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996], 253 n. 106, 257, 361)

She also criticized the use of an orientation argument:

Paul could have believed that tribades [the active female partners in a female homosexual bond], the ancient kinaidoi [the passive male partners in a male homosexual bond], and other sexually unorthodox persons were born that way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God. (p. 244)

On the issue of homosexual orientation, incidentally, which many today still falsely claim to be radically new knowledge, note the following quotation from Thomas K. Hubbard:

Homosexuality in this era [viz., of the early imperial age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook, 386)

William Schoedel in a significant article on “Same-Sex Eros: Paul and the Greco-Roman Tradition” states that “some support” exists in Philo, Abraham 135 for thinking that Paul might be speaking in Rom 1:26-27 “only of same-sex acts performed by those who are by nature heterosexual.” But he then dismisses the suggestion:

But such a phenomenon does not excuse some other form of same-sex eros in the mind of a person like Philo. Moreover, we would expect Paul to make that form of the argument more explicit if he intended it. . . . Paul’s wholesale attack on Greco-Roman culture makes better sense if, like Josephus and Philo, he lumps all forms of same-sex eros together as a mark of Gentile decadence. (Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, pp. 67-68 )

Schoedel also acknowledges that a “conception of a psychological disorder socially engendered or reinforced and genetically transmitted may be presupposed” for Philo (p. 56 [emphasis added]; see also my short review and critique of Schoedel in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 392-94).

Martti Nissinen, who has written the best book on the Bible and homosexuality from a pro-homosex perspective and whose work I heavily critique in The Bible and Homosexual Practice (precisely because it is the best on the other side), acknowledges in one of his more candid moments:

Paul does not mention tribades or kinaidoi, that is, female and male persons who were habitually involved in homoerotic relationships, but if he knew about them (and there is every reason to believe that he did), it is difficult to think that, because of their apparent ‘orientation,’ he would not have included them in Romans 1:24-27. . . . For him, there is no individual inversion or inclination that would make this conduct less culpable. . . . Presumably nothing would have made Paul approve homoerotic behavior. (Homoeroticism in the Biblical World [Fortress, 1998], 109-12)

Dan O. Via also acknowledges in his response to my essay in Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress, 2003) that the Bible’s rule against homosexual practice is “an absolute prohibition” that condemns homosexual practice “unconditionally” and “absolute[ly]” (pp. 93-95). In his essay in Two Views he rightly notes:

The Pauline texts . . . do not support this limitation of male homosexuality to pederasty. Moreover, some Greek sources suggest that—at least in principle—a relationship should not be begun until the boy is almost grown and should be lifelong. . . . I believe that Hays is correct in holding that arsenokoites [in 1 Cor 6:9] refers to a man who engages in same-sex intercourse. . . . True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does. . . . First Cor[inthians] 6:9-10 simply classifies homosexuality as a moral sin that finally keeps one out of the kingdom of God. (pp. 11, 13)

Even Walter Wink, in his generally mean-spirited review of my book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had to admit:

Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme [of homosexual practice]. This section is filled with exegetical insights. I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it. . . . Gagnon imagines a request from the Corinthians to Paul for advice, based on 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 [on how to respond to a man in a loving and committed union with another man]. “. . . . When you mentioned that arsenokoitai would be excluded from the coming kingdom of God, you were not including somebody like this man, were you?” . . . No, Paul wouldn’t accept that relationship for a minute. (“To Hell with Gays?” Christian Century 119:13 [June 5-12, 2002]: 32-33; at

In short, the notion that Paul—or, for that matter, any other author of Scripture or Jesus himself—would have been favorably disposed to same-sex intercourse in the context of a committed union shows a great misunderstanding of the texts of Scripture in their historical context.



Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.