If you'd kept reading before answering, you would have seen that I covered the very clear line between sexual Immorality and homosexuality. Clear line. Made by the bible...not me.
As far as your presumptions....this has nothing to do with your or my 'interpretations' of scripture. You do not wish homosexuality to be a sin, and so you are twisting everything. Gods intent is so very clear, and I can do nothing but shake my head as you disregard him. It's not me you are arguing against now...it's him.
As far as homosexuality NOT being mentioned in the destruction of S & G...oh come on! Let's review what GOD said:
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7, ESV)
20 Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” (Genesis 18:20-21, ESV)
Basically, what your using as your argument here is that the bible didn't repeat things twice. You're saying that having already said what their sins were, that in the next paragraph when it describes the actual destruction, it really needed to run through them again. Of course "homosexuality was not mentioned in the destruction"...for that to be true then flaming gay people would have had to fall out of the sky!! No...the reasons for the destruction was their sins...one of them being homosexuality, which those verses covered neatly. You may try and explain away the verses that speak of sexual immorality or the men's homosexual natures (gang gay rape is about as real as it comes), but you just cannot....they are clearly there. Your argument makes zero rational sense. It's certainly not theologically sound.
Hmmm. Isn't it odd that you have managed to find a bible version that seems to support your idea? I wonder how many you had to look through before you arrived at it?
I see 10 versions that use the word "homosexual" ἀρσενοκοίταις
6 that use the phrasing "defiled themselves with mankind" or "abusers of themselves with men" or "males who lie down with males"...and the meaning of those words are quite clear.
And 3 that use "sodomite"...again clear and yet another proof of what Sodom's sins were.
Only two of those version use the term "whoremonger" and yet they do not use it in place of "homosexual"...they use it before that word.
whoremongers, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if
there be any other thing that to sound doctrine is adverse, (Youngs Literal Translation)
For
whoremongers, for
them that defile themselves with mankind, for
menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other
thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (KJV)
Now, you may wish to say that since the KJV doesn't "say" the "actual" word "homosexual" that you're home and free, but sorry, it just doesn't work like that. Even the scholars who wrote the KJV had to translate from the Greek. And what does the Greek say?
πόρνοις
ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούση διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται
You see the highlighted word?
Homosexual, Strong Number 733
arsenokoites: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Original Word: ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ
Short Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity
Definition: a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity; a sodomite, pederast.
And the "anit-gay" brigade? Dude....did you even read any of the scriptures I posted previously? The BIBLE lays down a very easy to follow track from sexual immorality to homosexuality. So your anti-gay brigade is Paul, it's Jude, it's John, it's Moses....it's God. You're shaking your fists at the sky telling God he wrote his own book wrong.
I'm sorry, but honestly. Again? You are so desperate in your argument that you have to pull out "they didn't use the exact right word". The intent is SO VERY OBVIOUS...any clearer and it would be leaping off the page. If you cannot see the obvious intent of any given passage, despite the language used, then you will get absolutely nothing out of scripture.
Consider....how many Jews missed the coming of Christ and his purpose because they did not SEE the intent in all the Messianic prophecies?? Oh sure, you could excuse them because the bible didn't actually say "the virgin will be called Mary, daughter of....." But please note that God did not excuse the people for this...he called them slow, foolish, stubborn and wicked.
Oh....and just so you can't lean back on your KJV again for 1 Cor 6:9:
Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ
κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ
οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε
ἀρσενοκοῖται
Whoops, there's that words again.
Really? Paul made it up? Huh...well then, it must be a new word inspired by the Holy Spirit. Guess God is REALLY trying to get his point across about homosexuals.
Says you. Hmmm...you, verses scripture. Let me think.
Okay...well, let's pretend for a second you may be right. Golly...what to do about that word. If only the bible gave us some other clues as to what we should think about this topic. Oh wait:
26 For this reason God gave them up to
dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for
those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise
gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for
one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in
themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:26-28, ESV)
I wonder if you can find a bible version to completely explain away all those words?
Yeah....see, I see the above kind of verses as being fairly clear. Sorry, it could just be my fault for being a rational, logical sort of person.
Yes, and some religions kill others too. People are sinful, they mess up, they take bastardized passages and make up all kinds of weird and heretical doctrines. That is WHY it's so important to look at these very clear passages. People will claim the bible backs up anything...and you know what...in most cases their twisting it just like you are doing.
You misunderstand me....I am not a gay hater. I think that like the rest of humanity, they are lost, enslaved and in desperate need. In those circumstances I would offer them friendship, even acceptance once they know where I'm at and have made it clear they have chosen...it is, after all, their choice. I have cousins who are gay...and quite honestly we get along fine, cause while they know I think it's a sin, they also know that I realise they don't live under the rules of 'my religion'...they don't try and claim Jesus as their own, and in that case, they are free to live as they choose.
But what I am saying is that homosexuals should never be welcome into membership at Church. This is not my edict, but my Lords. I would not welcome them just as I would not welcome a Pastor having a little bit of fluff on the side, trying to pass it off as stress relief....something that is "hardly a sin".
If people want to be worldly, fine, that's their choice. But they cannot be both worldly and heavenly. If you want to follow Christ, you've got to actually listen to what he says....and clearly you are not. You're in the unfortunate in-between. You desperately want to belong to Christ, but are unwilling to see what his scriptures say...and what they say is that if you try and hang around in the middle, you will be spat out.
Yeah? I have been considering it....nothing useful is really happening...same arguments with no real benefit.
The only real thing stopping me is that people (myself included lately) just keep posting, so if I lock it, what's to stop another from opening?
I think the real problem is that there are not many 'on the fence'....there is pro gay and anti gay in the Church matter....and when I see something that is just so blatantly wrong....I sorta can't stop myself from needing to correct it!!
Anyway, I'm nearly done...my arguments are just water off a ducks back....so if others think the thread needs to be shut, let me know and I'll do it....we could probably use a short holiday from the whole topic....
...yes it is, no its not, yes it is, no its not, yes it is, no its not
