Monday, November 07, 2011

Bending Scripture To Affirm Behavior

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Ross Murray, director of religion, faith and values for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), witting for CNN's Belief Blog says, "America is embracing its lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender citizens. Don't believe me? Just look at the progress being made in the faith community."

As our culture stumbles toward Sodom with words such as "tolerance," "diversity," "inclusion," "equality," and even "love" being inverted and revised, let's look at Murray's recent message delivered by CNN.

Let's look at "the progress being made" by revising and bending Scripture---even the Apostle Paul's writings, to affirm a behavior and the belief that homosexuality is both normal and Christian.

Ross Murray writing for CNN says, "For those of us who identify as LGBT, church was a place of fear and secrets. We had to figure out how to hide ourselves or how to find a more welcoming community."

"But that," he says "is changing."

Murray's column is a snapshot of the message being fed into mainline Christian churches today and to this generation through public education and entertainment. A generation that has not, for the most part, been taught a biblical worldview.

Progress is being made. Murray writes, "Whole Christian denominations have accepted and embraced the reality of LGBT believers within their ranks and in their leadership," identifying Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and Unitarians.

As the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible has been undermined in these and other church organizations, a more relative, seemingly socially acceptable gospel has replaced the gospel "once delivered."

The mainline churches are dying, while the "Emergent or Emerging" churches are more interested in being cool and friendly than biblical.

Rather than biblical truth molding the culture, the culture has come to mold biblical "truth." Because, to many, truth is relative. You have your truth I have my truth---there are no absolutes.

Both "tolerance" and "love" have been revised to mean only "affirming" or "celebrating" in regard to homosexual behavior, creating a peer pressure against those who disagree. Murray references a Public Religion Research Institute poll that he says finds "71% of Catholics in America support lesbian and gay people," implying that if you disagree or hold a different view for any reason, or even disapprove of their behavior, you are out of touch, outdated and disconnected to the current culture.

He says, "Those who oppose equality can call it what they like, but the reality is that we are living in a society that has learned how to value LGBT people as they would others."

Obviously a reference to Christ's teaching to love others as we love ourselves.

The blatant deception in this is the implication that we are unable to love another person while categorically condemning their behavior. Yet it is both biblical truth and concept that God hates sin, yet loved us even in our sin and gave His Son for our redemption. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."

God can hate the sin, yet love the sinner. So can we.

GLAAD has a history of challenging and silencing anyone who disagrees with their agenda and behavior. In January of this year they petitioned CNN to stop inviting "anti-gay" guests on their programs who disagree with the GLAAD message.

Murray gives a clear example of how he and other homosexual activists are deceiving many church members, already devoid of a biblical worldview, by insisting that if you get to know homosexual individuals, you will like them. If you like them, you will no longer be fearful of them and therefore accept them. And acceptance is always predicated on affirming their behavior. Murray and other homosexual activists never allow anyone to accept the person, while rejecting their behavior. This he says fulfills the Scripture in 1 John 4: 18 that says, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear," denying that anyone could possibly reject their behavior out of moral conviction, rather than fear.

In Murray's most blatant bending (breaking) of scriptural truth, he contends that affirming homosexual behavior, "Lives out the apostle Paul's wish for the Corinthians that some day we may know fully, even as we are known."

"It is," Murray insists,"a biblically informed reality that is helping to make the world a better place."

He is referring to I Corinthians 13:12, which is not a "wish," but a reference to what will happen when Jesus Christ returns. Paul says at that time, "I shall know fully, even as I am known"---as God knows me, contrasting how he, Paul, in earthly human form sees "in a mirror dimly," "knowing in part."

So the glorious hope of knowing God fully at the second coming of Christ is now a "wish that we will get to know LGBT people better," thus making the Apostle Paul, who strongly condemns homosexual behavior, a homosexual advocate.


And some Christian churches are teaching this. While others simply remain silent.
God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Very Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

:: Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. This is a rehash of several of Gary’s earlier blogs, but it’s worth refuting once again. To argue that all morals – even Biblical morals – are absolute is tough to do with a straight face. I was a Christian long enough to know that the Bible is not a clear guide on morality. Instead it’s vague on many topics, contradictory on others, and doesn’t even touch on some (cloning, anyone?). As a result, Christians disagree widely on the meanings of passages found within.

    Our morals are constantly evolving – yes, even our Biblical morals. Slavery was at one time a biblical truth, and the Bible was used to justify it. So was stoning. And the unequal rights of women. And the separation of the races. If we look in the Bible, we can – and did – find passages that support all of these things.

    Why are we no longer using the Bible to justify these once deeply held "moral absolutes"? Because we LEARN… that blacks are equal humans to whites, that woman are equal to men, that stoning is cruel, that owning people as slaves is abhorrent. We are learning about gay people in the same way.

    That’s why Gary goes out of his way to dehumanize us … by calling us perverts. By describing our marriages, our commitments and our families as “behaviors.” By mocking "tolerance." It’s much easier for you to hurt us if you believe that God stands by you, and if you don’t think of us as people, more similar to yourselves than we are different.

  2. I can see that 10:12 Anonymous has fouled up in his comments on many levels. To say that the Bible is not a clear guide to morality means he didn't understand it, didn't want to understand it or got bad advice. Prayer and a pure heart could have helped. In the Old Testament we are given guidelines to avoid the evils mentioned, and remain a pure people. And then to say Gary doesn't "think of us as people" means you missed the whole point of the article, and are blinded by your own prejudices against Gary. Gary is promoting love and tolerance, not your kind of hate and insistence on full acceptance of a sinful lifestyle.
    P.S. I love reading these rebuttals. They tell me how to pray for you. Don't look to people for solutions, Look to God and His Word. Ken

  3. Seriously. Jesus praised the Roman Centurion and healed his lover. Its amazing how may Christians lose track of the difference between Jewish tradition and the teachings of Jesus where context was always paramount.

    I've been told there are many rooms in the mansion of heaven - those who spend their time worrying about the possible riff-raff that might be let in are just putting their own reservations in jeopardy.

    But do take it up with the concierge - he's probably gay and can set you right up ;)

  4. Great news. I just read that the Toronto Zoo is going to separate a gay penguin couple to try to get them to mate with opposite sex penguins.

    I just don't understand why penguins would choose such a perverted lifestyle.

  5. Ken @12:01... Your response is a common one. If we disagree, I just don't understand or I've been misled by others. But somehow, through prayer or whatever means, you are able to cut through all the confusion and you KNOW absolutely what God wants for all of us. Well, thank God for you, or where would we be?

    Nevertheless, you leave my main point unaddressed: that our ideas of morality change as we learn, that our interpretation of what God wants for us has consistently changed as we learned more.


  6. Well said Gary. I wish this could be heard from more pulpits today. Thank you for your vigilance in speaking the truth. It matters.

  7. T.G.

    You are in error on several points. If you're going to try polemics. You need the read the Bible.

    1. Nowhere is slavery as it was practiced in this country affirmed in Scripture.

    2. Women are equally valued with men throughout the Bible, we have different roles to play in society and within the family unit. There is no favoritism with God. He says so on several occasions.

    3. Stoning is no more cruel than beheading, hanging, electrocution, gas, or lethal injection. If you take a life, you forfeit your own. That's clear biblical teaching, hasn't changed in 6000 years. Thou shall not murder.

    4. Separation of Israel from the nations around it has nothing to do with racial purity or discrimination. It had to do with religious purity, so they would not be led astray to worship idols. "Thou shall have no Gods before me", hasn't changed either.

    5. Using Scripture out of context to justify immoral behavior is just as wrong now as it was when others did it.

    6. Where the Bible is silent, I am silent. Sexual immorality of any kind is forbidden in Scripture. Morals are not relative.

    Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Assyria, Rome, Holy Roman Empire, Napoleanic France, British Empire, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, all descended into moral relativism and became morally bankrupt. That's why they're not around. Our country is on its way to a similar fate unless we repent and confess our sins, both nationally and individually.

    God's Word does not change, we trifle with it at our own peril. God is not mocked, we will reap what we sow. If we sow to the flesh we will reap corruption; if we sow to the Spirit we will reap eternal life.

    God's Word well says about man, "ever LEARNING and never coming to the knowlegde of the truth."


    If you got sick and went to the doctor and he healed you, would he be affirming your behavior? Or showing compassion?

    Gary was quite clear and biblically correct that I am to love the sinner, but not the sin.

    Jesus demonstrated this principle on several occasions. He died for you, will you not deny yourself and live for him?

    Craig in Lacey

  8. If you got sick and went to the doctor and he healed you, would he be affirming your behavior? Or showing compassion?

    Ah but he praised the Roman and healed his companion. And in the addition where Jesus is said to save the adulterer they said he made a point of saying 'sin no more'.

    Again, you can rationalize it all you want but the philosophy of Jesus obviously includes room for all sorts of people you think it might not. That's your choice, this is America, but it does seem you are missing the message Jesus taught.

  9. Precisely the point, go and sin no more.

    I haven't missed the message at all, it's repent(change your mind about your behavior) and seek God on His terms, not our own, which Jesus taught.

    You can bend Scripture to affirm sin if you want,this is America, you will pay the price for eternity.

    Craig in Lacey

  10. yes you have - being gay isn't a sin, in fact two people in love are worthy of praise and miracles.

    You can be gay and sin, just as you can be straight and sin, but neither is a sin and and of itself as the Bible illustrates.

    The old laundry lists of 'don'ts' are gone for Christians and replaced with the 3 principles of Jesus - love God, love yourself, love others.

    But you don't understand this and one can only hope that someday you'll see the light.

  11. Again you missed the point, Jesus praised the centurion's faith that Jesus could heal the servant from a distance and not have to go to him, not any supposed relationship between the two. You really should read the account before commenting on it.

    Homosexual behavior has always been biblically forbidden, both Old and New Testament. Therefore it is a sin.

    Loving God means obeying Him both through your words and actions, loving yourself means seeing your need for repentance and confessing your sins before God, Loving others means letting Jesus work through me by the power of the Holy Spirit to help, heal and lead others to Christ.

    The Bible was written for correction, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness. It is not to be trifled with by reading into it something that is not there to try to justify your behavior.

    Love between a man and women within the bonds of marriage is the relationship which Jesus(God) affirms. Since He is the Creator of all things, it is his right to do so.

    Craig in Lacey

  12. You really should read the account before commenting on it.
    I have, in Greek. You should try it. What you miss is that was the 'commendable' part of the entire situation.

    Homosexual behavior has always been biblically forbidden, both Old and New Testament. Therefore it is a sin.
    Please, where is that exactly? I know one specific sex act was proscribed to the Jews, but most Christians have never been Jewish and even most gay men don't even bother with it.

    It is not to be trifled with by reading into it something that is not there to try to justify your behavior.

    Don't need to - again, Jesus had nothing to say about the subject even when confronted with it specifically. Its a non issue to Christians, shoot it doesn't even have an other worldly context since there is no sex in heaven.

    Now sanctimonious judgmental hypocrites - that could happen in heaven - if such souls were allowed entry.

    You, as usual, are worried about the wrong things.

  13. Ah... Lev. 20:13, Gen. 19, Deut. 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24,15:12,22:46 ; 2Kings 23:7

    Matt 15:19, Romans 1:24,27 ,1Cor 7:2, Eph 5:3, Jude 1:7.

    Again, there was no demonstrated relations between the Roman and slave. Since Jesus is the author of the above verses He had plenty to say about the subject.

    By your logic any sexual behavior is permissible because there is no sex in heaven.

    Again, you're "ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth". You say that you see and walk in the light, therefore you remain blind and in darkness.

    May God grant you discernment and a new heart.

    Craig in Lacey

  14. Ah... Lev. 20:13, refers to a single sex act proscribed to jews as ritually unclean. You know like eating shrimp.

    Gen. 19 No sexual behavior at all in the story of Sodom. Yes some say that it involved a threats of rape, both same and opposite sex but we do both agree that forced sexual congress is wrong regardless of the gender combination, right? And the threat of same sex rape is diluted by the very same chapter number in Judges where the same request was made of a man, but the gang subsequently raped a woman to death with the man saying that he was threatened with death, not sexual assault. But I do agree, the behavior of rape is bad.

    Deut. 23:17 - a proscription for all from becoming temple prostitutes. I agree idolatry is bad.

    1 Kings 14:24, 15:12,22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 men and women were consecrated to pagan gods. The hebrew word קדּשׁ refers to people of both genders, you are depending on mistranslations - men and women alike were condemned for this idolatry.

    Matt 15:19 No mention of same sex attractions at all.

    Romans 1:24,27 heterosexuals who were punished by God with same sex desires, a reference to the various Mystery cults popular in Rome at the time. Its talking about trendy bisexualism (look at the Facebook trend of heterosexual women giving each other kisses for pictures for a modern day equivalent). No mention of people attracted to same gender without being turned that way by God.

    1Cor 7:2 Married Corinthians were utilizing the various fidelity loopholes to commit adultery (sex with a prostitute was ok, sex with same gender didn't count, etc) and it even said that male masturbation was a proscription from entrance to heaven (that was done in a public in several ways at the time, primarily in a ritual context). Again, never addresses same sex attractions.

    Eph 5:3 again, no mention of gays.

    Jude 1:7 refers to having sex with 'other flesh' a term that no greek speaking person would use for human on human sex regardless of their gender combination. Scholars know this is about the Enochian legends that were very popular at the time of Jude's writing and the 'other flesh' the people at Sodom were supposed to have had was with angels, resulting in the monstrous offspring mentioned in even the mundane Genesis chapter of the Bible. There is no honest way for someone to use the term 'other flesh' to mean same sex behavior in any Roman era context.

    And that's what I don't understand, even if you think some are debatable all the Kings and Jude references are simply wrong. If your beliefs are really because of these references, doesn't that mandate a need to re-evaluate the stance on some level?

  15. Lev. 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" There is no mention of ritual anything here. It is a proscribed behavior because God says it's a sin, like the prohibition against adultery v.10, 12, 14; bestiality v.15, 16; incest v.17, 19, 20. Look at v. 22 .... because they did all these things, I abhorred them. Certainly the pagans weren't expected to follow your supposed Jewish 'ritual laws' were they? God punished them for their sin and drove them out of the land.

    Gen. 19 Diluted? by whom? You? There's a reason the act is named after the city. Even after the men were offered Lot's daughters, they said no. The whole of the men showed up, young and old, all they wanted was sex with what they thought were men. No sexual behavior at all in the story? Jesus said to look upon someone with lust is just as bad as the act. You forgot that, huh? God destroyed the plains cities for their wickedness. They are still there, what's left of them that is.

    Deut 23:17 All sexual immorality is a sin, regardless of gender

    1Kings See above.

    Matt. 15:19 Again, all sexual immorality, whether homosexuality, bestiality, incest, adultery, fornication, etc. is forbidden by God.

    Romans 1:24-27 is very explicit. You are a heterosexual who has perverted God's intent to satisfy you own desires.

    God turned you that way? LOL... that's hilarious! Ah....let me see....what verse was that again.......hmmm.....I don't seem to recall God ever saying that He created people attracted to the same sex... You're going to have to look that one up and get back to, that's rich. whew, had to catch my breath.

    No, that saddens me that you think God would force you to live in opposition to His intent and will. The God I serve is neither cruel nor uncaring for His creation.

    Seriously though man, will you not repent and receive God's forgiveness? It's not too late!!

    1 Cor 7:2 Each man should have his own wife, not each man should have his own husband. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve=). Not Eve and Sue either!

    Jude 1:7 As to the angels, the men of Sodom were unsuccessful in their intent, ergo, no offspring. Notice v.4, this clearly has nothing to do with any legends, but false teachers who crept in and perverted God'd word for their own gain. Jude is warning the church about what happened to those who were disobedient to God's Word and telling them to remain steadfast in their doctrine or suffer the same fate as the examples given. V.7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomarrah 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."

    I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the Bible. It must be read in context and as a whole. Don't treat God's grace as a license to sin.

    Craig in Lacey

  16. Simply put Craig, you are reading a comic book version of the bible.

    In leviticus the word being translated as 'abomination' is one of several words that were done so, inaccurately.
    The one in this verse, 'toevah', meant 'ritually unclean' in all 103 usages in the Bible and was chosen because they were railing against the religious practices of the pagans they were residing with at the time - Jews weren't allowed to act like pagans. It is an 'abomination' to be ritually unclean... for a Jew.

    I'm not Jewish, are you?

    And yes, regarding Sodom there is a reason for 'the act' being named after the city - idiots who came long after changing the story of what happened. And, yes, the gang did refuse Lot's offering up his daughters to be raped, just as the gang did in Judges 19, its just in that chapter the coward pushed the woman out the door and the gang proceeded to rape her to death - not a very 'gay' thing to do, eh?

    No sex occurred at all in the story of Sodom and the only sex that occurred in the nearly identical story in Judges was heterosexual. You are just reading into the story what you want to read. Oh and we do agree that these stories are about rape only, and that is always wrong, right?

    The other old testament passages you haven't said anything new and Matthew was written in greek and there was no word for homosexuality in greek. And there is nothing intrinsically 'immoral' about homosexuality than there is heterosexuality.

    As to Romans again its quite clear from its references to animal headed gods to its saying that God turned these people over to their desires with a word that in greek means 'as a jailor turns over custody of his prisoners'. Again, there were not people who were gay, these were the trendy hipster new agers of the time indulging in trendy bisexual activity in a popular ritual 'new age' setting.

    As to your version of Jude, please go read it in the original language, it doesn't say what they have told you it says. The old testament and the writings of that time are clear on what the sins of Sodom were, they were haughty, greedy, and proud and preyed upon strangers who came to their town. Jesus knew this when he said how towns that didn't make the apostles welcome would be treated the same.

    You already know quite a bit of greek, you will find reading the texts for what they really say quite illuminating considering the fantasies you're stating as fact here.

    Oh and god and I get along just fine - please don't fret. I've accepted Jesus and I dare say I follow his teachings in the gospels better than most. All the magic woo woo stuff that those that followed are required contradicts what Jesus himself said - you'd best take that with a grain of salt.

    Don't know what more discussion will do here - you have a happy Thanksgiving and hope you can take at least a little rest from trying to make everyone else as perfect as you ;)

  17. Here it is, tow'ebah or to'ebah, prop. something disgusting(morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; espec. idolatry or (concr.) an idol.- abominable(custom, thing), abomination.

    If it is true as you say for pagans to be ritually unclean, why did God call them an to'ebah in v.4, clearly God wouldn't care would He? He ran them out of the land. Adultery is an abominationin v. 10, 12, 14, so its only ritually unclean, right? Jesus was a Jew who was crucified to pay the price for sin, Jew and Gentile alike. What was an abomination for pagans and Hebrews then is still true for pagans and Christians today.

    You have irrefutable proof of the story being changed. I'd like to hear it. I agreed in my last post that no actual sex occurred i.e. no offspring. The Bible is clear that the intent is the same as the act, Jesus said so. I agree rape is wrong, the men had ample opportunity with Lot's daughters, but chose the men instead.
    All the men chose Lot's guests, hmm, a sexual preference perhaps. Yes, wickedness covers a lot of things, in this case, perversion.

    I hope I haven't said anything new, I stand on what Scripture says. The greeks never needed a word for homosexuality, its what they were known for; hence the slang connotation.

    Please read all of Romans 1, God let them do what their sinful nature desired because they exchanged Him for idols. God called them shameful lusts...hmmm...could it be because they are a perversion of his intent and will.There was homosexual behavior which God clearly called indecent. Many things can be idols, don't have to be animal heads, maybe gay pride=).

    I admit I've never read Jude in Greek, I'll do that and get back to you.

    Unfortunately, not heeding the woo woo stuff will leave you without the 'rest of the story'.

    Don't forget to find that verse about God creating men to be wed to other men. I really would like to read it.

    A Happy Thanksgiving to you also and God knows I'm a looooong way from perfect=). Edified yes, perfect.... ah,no.

    Craig in Lacey

  18. Craig you are just being combative now. I said the Jews weren't allowed to do ritually unclean things. And your reasoning that because Jesus came for everyone that everyone's laws someone mush together makes no sense. Leviticus was written for the Jews. Again, I'm not Jewish.

    As to proof that 'knowing' means something other than just that I need prove nothing, The word 'knowing' is rarely used in a sexual context and always in a voluntary one, they had a different word for forced sexuality. The idea that the gangs were outside the doors of these men asking sweetly for voluntary sexual congress is ridiculous.

    The Bible makes it clear in both Genesis 19 and Judges 19 that this were gangs calling out a stranger. And the only sex that happened without any 'knowing' demanded at all was men with a woman.

    As to the sins of Sodom we have Jesus and a number of other passages that list the cities sins, none mentioning anything sexual. The Wisdom of Solomon gives a long list, again never mentioning sexuality. In fact the only place sex is mentioned is Jude, and it is only in the context of 'other flesh' which means people having sex with something other than human, and scholars say that was the Enochian traditions of the angels having sex with the women of earth mentioned briefly in Genesis and covered more extensively in other hebrew writings.

    What we do know is that what God has joined together in love is not for anyone to 'sunder'.

  19. No, you are not a Jew, but a Gentile. God clearly called homosexual behavior 'to'ebah'(disgusting) for anybody. Jew or Gentile(pagan) alike. The whole of Lev. 20 is a laundry list of sins. God says don't do it. This isn't don't eat shrimp, don't eat certain animals, wash your hands in a certain way. God prescribed death for most of these offenses in Lev. 20 which He did not for ritual uncleaness and drove out those in the land before the Israelites and they were Gentiles, like you and me. He destroyed the cities of the plains for like offenses and they were Gentiles. He destroyed the world with a flood and they were Gentiles. If you're going to try your hand at hermeneutics, at least open a book of fundamental logic.

    Combative? hardly. I'm practicing polemics, the refutation of error. If you are a Christian, don't you know you're supposed to be in the world but not of it? You're not to act like a pagan. Gee, Oshtur! Don't you know your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and when you behave in a way contrary to God's intent you drag the Spirit thru the mud too. We are not to grieve the Spirit!

    As to Sodom, you made the charge that the story was made up, not me. I made no reference to the word "yada". When did I say anything about voluntary anything? There is no indication that the men knew the angels were such, notice v.5 "Where are the men....., not angels. More likely they were tired of each other and desired someone new. Judges has nothing to do with this story, that's a strawman.

    You missed Jesus' teaching on lust, didn't you?

    As to Jude, notice v.7 ...sexual immorality and perversion(heteros sarkos), there is debate as to whether this refers to angels or not. What is not debatable is the sexual immorality and the use of AND to indicate "in addition to".
    Their intent to pervert sex with these strangers was an additional reason why God destroyed them, not the only reason.

    We were both incorrect on the Greeks not having a word for homosexual, it's arsenokoites, 1 Cor. 6:9; not to be confused with malakoi(effeminate) 1 tim. 1:10.

    I know, I know, gay christian 101 disagrees, but consider the source. I'll stick with what the Bible says about itself. You will find no affirmation there, no matter how many false teachers say so. The Spirit reveals truth, not someones opinion of it.

    The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing.

    Still waiting for that verse=). You mean it's not in there?! Imagine that!

    Craig in Lacey

  20. Craig toevah means ritually unclean just as eating shrimp are and the like. As you should know the Torah scholars say the punishments were not a mark of the severity of the 'sin' but rather how difficult it was to get people to not do the act.

    Talking about missing Jesus' messages - he was quite clear on what the sin of the 'cities of the plains' were - how they treated strangers as the rest of the bible and ancillary writings confirms.

    And yet the word 'yada' to know, is central to these story. There is no reason to think it means other than what it means 'to be acquainted with'. The gang came up outside both houses and demanded the strangers come out. Gangs do this today - you always leap to the assumption they plan on having sex with the people?

    And Judges has nothing to do with the story? Another gang, the exact same question of the stranger, the offering of women, refused both places, and yet when the woman is forced out the second gang rapes her to death. And you make the bizarre assumption "More likely they were tired of each other and desired someone new."?! You really do need to practice your polemics since the more reasonable solution is this is just your typical lawless gang just wanting to cause harm to their victims.

    And Jude refers only to whoring "ekporneuō" and the reference to 'other flesh'. There is a condemnation of promiscuity in and of itself and sex of people with something other than people. Since there were greek words for beastiality the angel story is the one that sounds most reasonable in a biblical context.

    And again, arsenokoites was in a letter to the Corinthians by Paul in his attempt to tell them they had to remain faithful to their spouses and the old Roman exceptions to the marriage vow didn't apply.

    Oh and malakoi meant 'soft' and was in the context of a man 'not being a man' by getting sexual gratification through masturbation which it was interpreted as until the writing of the King James bible (guess if masturbators aren't getting into heaven there just aren't going to be many people there)

    Again, you believe what you want but it is all irrelevant - as Jesus pointed out on the Sermon on the Mount, no matter how good the person there will still always be that one thing they won't do. And God loves us all regardless and being perfect isn't even a condition of salvation anymore.

    As to your 'verse' if you remember your creation story Jehovah didn't create man to have sex with anything - it was only the bite from the apple, the act of sin, that initiated all sex. Gay or straight its as much as God's plan as anything else.

    The obsession with sex is probably far worse a sin than the mere act but isn't that one of the core teachings of Jesus, that it is the intent that is the sin not any mere act?

    Again, this is America you have a right to practice whatever religion you want, but your interpretation of scripture to justify your own prejudices is pretty obviously just that.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  21. Gary, what can I say you've been tricked again, this is the tract that the Family Research Council puts out, I'd send you the link if it were permitted but since Tony didn't even bother to remove the footnote numbers the plagiarism is pretty easy to find.

    Laumann was talking about the dynamics of the Chicago 'gay ghetto' which are places that people move to have maximum number of sexual contacts. He wasn't talking about gay men in general and would be like talking about 'typical gambling' for those that choose to live in downtown Las Vegas. Note that Seattle doesn't even have a 'gay ghetto' anymore.

    The study in the Netherlands was of young urban gay promiscuous men from the Amsterdam AIDS surveillance cohort, selected because their behaviors put them at risk for getting AIDs. Again, be like going to a clients of a STD clinic and trying to derive typical straight behavior.

    The Pollak reference actually took me some time to research since it is originally a reference to a reference to a reference (a cardinal sign of someone trying to deceive you.) Fortunately the book it appeared in is available very cheap on Amazon (the postage to ship it cost more) so I ordered a copy. It is not an independent observation but just Pollak referring to the Bell work mentioned later in your letter - so it is in reality just the same bad reference twice. Repeating a misrepresentation doesn't make it any truer.

    So I will skip to that one the Bell study was done to see the extremes, not to find the average. They recruited their participants by actively seeking them out in gay bathhouses, gay gehtto gay bars in San Francisco in the 70's. Shoot people MOVED to San Francisco just to have wanton sex in the 70's. In the foreword of their book the author say that in no way shape or form can their findings be used to determine 'average' gay male behavior.

    I could go on but it is just the same old deliberate deceptions of someone else gossiped by another. (what does the Bible say will happen to gossips?)

    Now what we do have is the government social services (GSS) study that they have done for decades. They don't do this for any agenda, just done to see what Americans are doing. Now their finding is that the median lifetime number of sexual partners for a straight male was 6, for gay males 7.

    Again, any person who uses studies like this to try and define 'typical behavior' of anyone is at risk of their souls. Shoot to a Christian it doesn't even matter since they are told not to stereotype - it wouldn't matter if 99% of a group were like this to the 1% that weren't to a Christian. right?

    Gary I know you would love deceits like you were told to be 'true' but they aren't and sharing them just hurts you more than you seem to be able to understand both spiritually and politically - people hate being played for fools and the FRC deceits are so easily shown to be just that. Want to know why the liquor initiative passed - when it became clear the opponents were lying.

    I'm preparing Thanksgiving dinner for 10 gay men, one couple together for 25+ years, one for 10, 3 single people with 2 from long term relationships where their partners have recently died (neither from AIDS by the way) and myself and my new husband, the minister.

    Take care and may be avoid being so grievously tricked in the future.

  22. sorry that was NOT for this thread. sorry, please discard and I will publish in the right thread.

  23. Really? To'ebah means disgusting, an abomination, I couldn't care less what the Torah scholars say, I care what the Bible says about itself.

    More accurately "yada" means to know intimately
    as in Adam yada Eve(Gen. 4:1). It is the same sense in which God desires to know and be known. The gang in this case clearly had that intent as the story reflects. I assumed nothing.

    The man in Judges was not an angel nor identified as one. So which is it? There was no actual sex in the Sodom account and the rape and death of the concubine in Judges. Some of the men in Judges, all of the men of Sodom desired what God had forbidden in Gen. 19 and it cost them dearly. That is the only common denominator.

    It was the intent that was punished and Jude warns the church not to repeat the behavior or suffer a similar fate. Again , sexual immorality of any kind is forbidden.

    To your point, does that mean we're going to be perfect? Of course not, if that were so Jesus wouldn't have had to die on the cross. Does that mean we can live like a corinthian? Of course not. Grace is not a license for sin. We are not to wallow in it as if there are no consequences. Perfection never was a condition of salvation.

    The word arsenokoites means homosexual, the word malakoi means yes,soft, as in "making oneself into a woman" or acting like one. Paul didn't pull any punches. I know it's popular to bend Scripture to the times but it's just as wrong now as in the past.

    As to the "verse", it doesn't nor has it ever existed. Steve's not there, neither is Sue. Man and woman were created complete with everything necessary to become one flesh,. God didn't need to add any plumbing after the eating of the fruit( Not apple).

    Your interpretation to justify your behavior when no justification can be found is an exercise in futility. I'll keep praying for you man. Happy Thankgiving

    Craig in Lacey

  24. Craig its pretty obvious you don't know much about the bible, the original texts and just rationalize what you want.

    Toevah means ritually unclean, and only means 'disquisting' in the sense that all ritually unclean things are to those who are telling people they are ritually unclean.

    Yada was used 947 times, and the vast majority of times it just meant 'to know', like when someone's in a house and a gang calls out 'hey send your friend out we want to meet them' in a threatening way. Never was it used in anything other than a consensual sex way when it was used as a euphemism for sexual congress.

    Oh other than the one sole exception you insist it means then. Right.

    You obviously have no intent on doing anything but justifying your preconceptions - you were taught lies and you are bent on justifying them.

    There was no word for homosexual in greek - the Roman culture didn't organize their sexual paradigm by who you did it with but what you did when you did it. Paul was referring to the ways people were being unfaithful using the Roman loopholes that were allowed even if married being 'soft', masturbation, being one of them.

    Of course you can believe differently if you want - this is America, but there are Christians who don't share your beliefs and they are just as much Christians as you are.


  25. You may believe as you want, that's a given, in America or anywhere else for that matter. The Bible is clear in it's teaching on the subject.

    I never claimed yada always meant in a sexual context, only in the context it was given, as in Gen 19. Homosexual behavior is disgusting and an abomination in the eyes of God, whether you be Jew or Gentile.

    There is a Greek word also for angel, which was not used in Jude. That pretty much settles that.

    Craig in Lacey


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.