'Because God said so!'

[veteran]

The original point of the OP truly is ludicrous. What is that idea that there's no reason why God hates homosexuality FOR CHRISTIANS? Does that mean He doesn't hate homosexuality for non-Christians? What an absurd idea of confusion.


YES, God gave reasons WHY He hates the sin of homosexuality.

Lev 18:22-25
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
(KJV)


What Aspen has done is to question God by wanting to know 'why' He said such practices are an abomination and confusion. If those who question God on why He defined those practices as abomination, when one should easily know why by the natural use of His creation, then they will question everything else He said was sin also.


Rom 1:26-32
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(KJV)

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,

I understand what you saying - i agree

Maybe some of the problem is the way we both express our points.

Winnetou,

Unfortunately, I do not have much time today since I must go at work in a couple of minutes.

Why is it people with your sort of views so often make these comments?

My facts simply were ignored. No matter whatever I wrote, it was answered with "the Bible says it so". But the Bible "does not" say it so as all of you think.

No, the Bible says what we have quoted, anyone can test that by opening any of the versions that have been quoted, and see what we have quoted and cited is correct. They will see that it is you who has added things that are not said.

And I understand that the Bible was abused by many leaders in a Christian church. So how they abused the Bible in the past to justify slavery and sexism.

And now some are doing it to justify homosexuality, but not in the same way, they did misuse what the Bible says for trying to justify slave trading, however there is no scripture that can be used to justify homosexual practice.

I recognize that I must lead my own life. I may love another person of same gender and can nevertheless be a good Christian at the same time.

Not if its a sexual relationship one cant, because the Bible says that is not loving God. Christ said that people who do not do what He teaches do not love Him.

The original point of the OP truly is ludicrous. What is that idea that there's no reason why God hates homosexuality FOR CHRISTIANS? Does that mean He doesn't hate homosexuality for non-Christians? What an absurd idea of confusion.

Well said.
Exactly.

 

[aspen]

The original point of the OP truly is ludicrous. What is that idea that there's no reason why God hates homosexuality FOR CHRISTIANS? Does that mean He doesn't hate homosexuality for non-Christians? What an absurd idea of confusion.


YES, God gave reasons WHY He hates the sin of homosexuality.

Lev 18:22-25
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
(KJV)


What Aspen has done is to question God by wanting to know 'why' He said such practices are an abomination and confusion. If those who question God on why He defined those practices as abomination, when one should easily know why by the natural use of His creation, then they will question everything else He said was sin also.


Rom 1:26-32
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(KJV)

Give me a break, Veteran. I am surprised that you even bothered to comment - I didn't mention black helicopters or the UN even once in the OP.

I've already stated many times that homosexuality is a sin. Sure God calls it an abomination and unnatural - these are not reasons why it is a sin - it is simply another word for sin.

God declared it a sin so it is a sin - no reason is necessary for God's sovereign will.

Sin is sin for believer and nonbeliever - with the nonbeliever, it just does not matter - everything they do outside of Christ is equally damning - that is my point.
If you can't make sense of this simply idea, move along - slink back to your conspiracy theories.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

Give me a break, Veteran. I am surprised that you even bothered to comment - I didn't mention black helicopters or the UN even once in the OP.

Ugh? Did Veteren mention these on another thread?

I've already stated many times that homosexuality is a sin. Sure God calls it an abomination and unnatural - these are not reasons why it is a sin - it is simply another word for sin.

Surely these are reasons why it is sin. It is un-natural because it is contrary to what God created man and woman for.

Sin is sin for believer and nonbeliever - with the nonbeliever, it just does not matter - everything they do outside of Christ is equally damning - that is my point.

Or one could say with the non-believer it matters even more because the believer can repent.
God created all men and women, His purposes are the same for all whether they choose to believe or not.
I would also qualify the non-believer. There are people who have not heard, or not sufficiently heard the gospel, as opposed to those who have and rejected it. For the former one cant expect them to know what is right and wrong, for the latter one can.

This is a case of how one looks at it, If one looks at it from God's pov, He created all men and women for His purposes. If one looks at it from the world's pov, particulalry a humanist secular pov, the non-believers dont have to be subjected to God's purposes

 

[dragonfly]

Or one could say with the non-believer it matters even more because the believer can repent.

I don't think you mean that the non-believer can't repent, do you? The non-believer can repent, too.

from the world's pov, particulalry a humanist secular pov, the non-believers dont have to be subjected to God's purposes

I think it's sad non-believers don't grasp that God has spoken in so many ways that they will be without excuse on the day of judgment. This is a great truth:

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 

[Foreigner]

I think it's sad non-believers don't grasp that God has spoken in so many ways that they will be without excuse on the day of judgment. This is a great truth:

-- I believe you are correct, unfortunately.

 

[Winnetou]

Winnetou,
Why is it people with your sort of views so often make these comments?

Because it is correct. I must leave my apartment every day at 6 o'clock to be in the work at 7 o'clock. It is 5:30 in Germany now in the morning. So I have thirty minutes time at the computer.

No, the Bible says what we have quoted, anyone can test that by opening any of the versions that have been quoted, and see what we have quoted and cited is correct. They will see that it is you who has added things that are not said.

To understand a verse in the Bible, one must deal with the textual and temporal context. And wondering how certain words were translated. Was it translated correctly or sloppily. I am sure that the Bible translators did their best. But sometimes this is not enough. They have often translated wrongly or insufficiently as Leviticus (abomination) and Romans 1 ("natural" and "Unnatural") proove it.

And now some are doing it to justify homosexuality, but not in the same way, they did misuse what the Bible says for trying to justify slave trading, however there is no scripture that can be used to justify homosexual practice.

Homosexual love relations were never topic of the Bible. "Homosexuality" in connection with the adoration of other gods and the separation from Jehova, however, spare. And I have this temptedly to make you clear. Not homosexuality itself is condemned but only in the connection with the real sins (shrine prostitution, adoring false gods, leaving the God of Israel).
Are you not clever and reasonable enough to understand this?

Not if its a sexual relationship one cant, because the Bible says that is not loving God. Christ said that people who do not do what He teaches do not love Him.

Speak Christ against homosexuality? Does he speak about homosexuality at all? No! Why not?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Winnetou,

I never doubted for a moment that you had to go to work, just that people with your sort of views mention these things. However, it actually helpful, it means don’t expect an immediate reply.
The point you made was the Bible doesn’t says what we have claimed. It does. It doesn’t say what you have claimed. My point was that anyone can test by looking at the Bible.
So you make a false statement and then try and move on to a tangent.

Your susbsequent point is meaningless, we have all agreed that the Bible texts need to be taken in context not only within its passage but also within the Bible holistically, knowing to whom it is being written, and the culture of the time. Only then can we really understand best the revelation God is imparting.

Now you are still lying about the word of God. Even when you try and dispute the word natural it still reads without the word natural...
[sup]27 [/sup]In the same way the men also abandoned .. 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.
So we see men who abandon relations with women and commit indecent acts with men are in perversion. I prefer error rather than perversion for the best translation.

Now, as to context, if you knew the Bible you would know that God created woman to be in faithful union with man (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5) and that sexual relations outside that are immorality.(Matt 19, 1 Cor 5-7 etc) It’s the anatomical reality. So what do you think natural means? Look at the passage, their hearts turn to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.so men who have relations with men instead of women have truned their hears from God and are committing wickedness.

So what you are doing with the passage, is exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping homosexuality which is created as an idol. The Bible says it is a lie, you dont believe that either.

Homosexual love relations were never topic of the Bible.

Homosexual love relations are paganism. No such thing to God. False teachers introduce heresey (2 Peter 2) The Bible shows such concepts are not love, but sexual immorality.

"Homosexuality" in connection with the adoration of other gods and the separation from Jehova, however, spare.

Same sex acts are described in Romans 1 as being done by people who have turned from God, in Leviticus by people who are not God's people.

Are you not clever and reasonable enough to understand this?

I can read. I understand the lie you offering but the Bible doesnt say and connaot mean what you claim.

Did you know lying is a sin as well. and unbelief.?

Speak Christ against homosexuality? Does he speak about homosexuality at all? No! Why not?

As the Bible says what God detests is same sex relations. According to the dictionary that’s part of your homosexually.
Dont lie.

 

[Foreigner]

Homosexual love relations were never topic of the Bible. "Homosexuality" in connection with the adoration of other gods and the separation from Jehova, however, spare. And I have this temptedly to make you clear. Not homosexuality itself is condemned but only in the connection with the real sins (shrine prostitution, adoring false gods, leaving the God of Israel).
Are you not clever and reasonable enough to understand this?

-- That is completely false.

Lev. 18:22 has absolutely nothing to do with "shrine prostitution, adoring false gods, leaving the God of Israel", etc.
That is covered mainly in 1Kings and 2Kings.
Her it states simply, "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination."

Reading that as a stand alone verse, in context with the entire sentence, or in context with the entire chapter doesn't change that.
And however you wish to translate/retranslate the word "abonination" it still defines it as a sin, unacceptable to God.

And 1 Cor. 6:9
"You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,"
Makes the distiction of male prostitution, but also homosexual activity itself.

Same verse, different translation:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"
The "effeminate" portion is on the role taken sometimes through homosexual prostitution, but it also mentions homosexual activity itself outside of prostitution.

Same verse, yet a different translation:
"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,"
Again, specific distinction between male protitution and homosexual activity itself.

And it makes no distiction for whether the homosexuals are "in love" or not.

"Are you not clever and reasonable enough to understand this?"

Speak Christ against homosexuality? Does he speak about homosexuality at all? No! Why not?

-- Christ also never spoke out against beating your wife or selling your children into slavery.
"No! Why not?"

 

[dragonfly]

Hello Winnetou,

Speak Christ against homosexuality? Does he speak about homosexuality at all?

Yes He did - every time He mentioned fornication. He is quoted three times by Matthew, and once by Mark.


Strong's Definitions

fornication
New Testament Greek Definition:
4202 porneia {por-ni'-ah}
from 4203; TDNT - 6:579,918; n f
AV - fornication 26; 26
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse
with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the
sacrifices offered to idols


Other times in the New Testament are: twelve times in Revelation, fourteen times in the epistles, three times in Acts, and once in John.

'Fornicator' is mentioned four times in Corinthians, and once in Hebrews.


You may not have realised that homosexual behaviour is covered by the word 'fornication', but it is in New Testament Greek.

 

[aspen]

Here is the interesting part of this argument for me - Winnetou clearly believes that homosexuality is not a sin - but I think the end result of any conversation with a believer who has a different point of view is to convince them of their error or if that is not possible, try to convince everyone else they are not really a Christian.

Crazy

 

[dragonfly]

Hi aspen,

I know you are in real earnest about this kind of situation, but we fight against God if we don't take on board what He has said already, from a very long time ago. God will do the final judging one day, but Paul exhorts us to 'mark' and 'avoid' those whose teaching is different from the Lord's, because His teaching is designed to instruct us in godliness. 1 Timothy 6:3.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

 

[Foreigner]

Here is the interesting part of this argument for me - Winnetou clearly believes that homosexuality is not a sin - but I think the end result of any conversation with a believer who has a different point of view is to convince them of their error or if that is not possible, try to convince everyone else they are not really a Christian.

Crazy

-- Not necessarily. I have had my mind changed/eyes opened/perspective altered many times in conversations with other Christians.
It wasn't that I was "driven and tossed about by the sea" in my opinions, but if you support your opinion with scripture, etc. it carries a lot of weight.

It is those that make the claims and say it is so without scripture to support it, or worse yet omit parts of scripture or twist the scripture to support their points. Seeing that as a tool they use shows they have an agenda more than a desire to witness and help.

 

[aspen]

Hi aspen,

I know you are in real earnest about this kind of situation, but we fight against God if we don't take on board what He has said already, from a very long time ago. God will do the final judging one day, but Paul exhorts us to 'mark' and 'avoid' those whose teaching is different from the Lord's, because His teaching is designed to instruct us in godliness. 1 Timothy 6:3.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Wow dragonfly,

I really disagree - so much. I like you and love you as a Christian brother, but brother, we disagree.

Christianity is not defined by doctrine - it is defined by love for God and neighbor. I recognize Winnetou as a brother - until he/she tells me otherwise, despite doctrinal error. Doctrine can and will be corrected - errors of the heart are permanent

I discovered this working with criminals - harden criminals are too afraid to submit to anyone - including God - they are truly 'on their own' in this life and I believe they will be 'one their own' in the next without Jesus. Doctrinal correctness is a luxury of the literate and educated - the heart is what Jesus judges.

 

[dragonfly]

Doctrinal correctness is a luxury of the literate and educated - the heart is what Jesus judges.

I love you, too, brother, but this is where the rubber hits the road.​

I understand completely what you're saying about hardened criminals having difficulty trusting God, but the gospel is the same to all - mercy for those who will turn from their sins to trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and power to sin no more. John 5:14; John 8:11.​

You have said more than once you would be the first to tell a Christian who practises homosexual acts, that this is sin.​

John 14:15 If you all love me, keep my commandments. ​

Acts 17:30 - 32​

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all people every where to repent: because ​

He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he has ordained; ​

[whereof] He has given assurance to all, in that He has raised Him from the dead. ​

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: ​

and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter]. ​

Romans 2:11 - 13 ​

For there is no respect of persons with God. ​

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: ​

and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; ​

(for not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.... ​

16 '... God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ ...'​

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,

Here is the interesting part of this argument for me - Winnetou clearly believes that homosexuality is not a sin -

And some people believe the earth is flat. And your point? We can see that according to God homosexual practice is sin. Winnetou isnt God.

but I think the end result of any conversation with a believer who has a different point of view

But Wninnetou isnt believer with a different pov, to deny what the scripture says, as Winnetou does, is to be a non-believer.

is to convince them of their error or if that is not possible, try to convince everyone else they are not really a Christian.

If one denies Gen 19, Lev 18, 20, 1 Cor 6-7. Romans 1, Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5, 1 Tim 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1, just to propose something that is contrary, with no scriptural support, then Jesus isnt Lord of their lives. they are slaves to what has mastered them.
Jesus sent away the rich man who tries to justify himself.
The NT says the one who denies they sin is a liar.

 

[aspen]

I love you, too, brother, but this is where the rubber hits the road.​

I understand completely what you're saying about hardened criminals having difficulty trusting God, but the gospel is the same to all - mercy for those who will turn from their sins to trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness and power to sin no more. John 5:14; John 8:11.​

You have said more than once you would be the first to tell a Christian who practises homosexual acts, that this is sin.​

John 14:15 If you all love me, keep my commandments. ​

Acts 17:30 - 32​

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commands all people every where to repent: because ​

He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he has ordained; ​

[whereof] He has given assurance to all, in that He has raised Him from the dead. ​

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: ​

and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter]. ​

Romans 2:11 - 13 ​

For there is no respect of persons with God. ​

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: ​

and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; ​

(for not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.... ​

16 '... God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ ...'​

Absolutely yes I will be the first one to tell a homosexual that there behavior is sinful - but it is certainly not the first thing I would tell them - oh no! I would work to create a relationship first - it might take months or years.

aspen2,
And some people believe the earth is flat. And your point? We can see that according to God homosexual practice is sin. Winnetou isnt God.
But Wninnetou isnt believer with a different pov, to deny what the scripture says, as Winnetou does, is to be a non-believer.
If one denies Gen 19, Lev 18, 20, 1 Cor 6-7. Romans 1, Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5, 1 Tim 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1, just to propose something that is contrary, with no scriptural support, then Jesus isnt Lord of their lives. they are slaves to what has mastered them.
Jesus sent away the rich man who tries to justify himself.
The NT says the one who denies they sin is a liar.

Yeah - we disagree completely; no need to breakdown your post.

 

[dragonfly]

it might take months or years

Hi aspen,

There is no scriptural justification for such a slow lead-in to proclaiming God's good clean truth, and you can't be sure you have years in hand.

You will be surprised at the people who are glad to hear God died to deliver them from their torment, just as you will be even more surprised at the people whose pride stops them from admitting they need a Saviour.

David Wilkerson gave testimony of a day when several cross-dressers turned up at Times Square Church and sat quite near the front. He gave his message in faith that God would be able to speak through him to them. Next week when those who returned, came in, they were all dressed normally. It's about love, as you say, but love does not leave people without hope. It states God's loving boundaries and declares freedom within those constraints. Outside those constraints sin abounds. Romans 2:4, 5, 6.

Matthew 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first.
Jesus said to them, Verily I say to you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not:
but the publicans and the harlots believed him:
and ye, when ye had seen [it], repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

Absolutely yes I will be the first one to tell a homosexual that there behavior is sinful - but it is certainly not the first thing I would tell them - oh no! I would work to create a relationship first - it might take months or years.

Me too. But what are you going to tell them if they ask what you feel about homosexual relations?
You see my friends have not taken offence and many homosexuals wont, but many will, the very fact that you tell them the truth means they have their barrier.
People are no different, some are open to the gospel and some are closed to it. Where people were closed Jesus taught His disciples to wipe the dust of their feet. That doesnt mean we stop praying for them and be stop being available for them.

Yeah - we disagree completely; no need to breakdown your post.

Ok so your response then implies that Winnetou is a believer despite not believing.
And that Jesus didnt send away the rich man. So that implies you are an unbeliever as well.
Your response implies the NT does say the one who denies sin is a liar.
Sorry thats not good enough aspen2. False teaching that is outright lying, that claims to be believing, damages the church when not dealt with.

A believer has a contrite heart to God and His word, whether struggling or not, outright bold denial especially of sin, is not the heart of a believer. 1 John 1:10 "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
These people spend their time emphasising how they are believers and how the sin isnt a sin.
We must pray for them but love them as pagans.

 

[Winnetou]

Before I start with my comment I would like to apologize for my bad English. It is conscious me that through this misunderstandings and misinformations can be happen. But I will never lie. I don't lie about the Bible and their statements at all.

The point you made was the Bible doesn’t says what we have claimed. It does. It doesn’t say what you have claimed. My point was that anyone can test by looking at the Bible.
So you make a false statement and then try and move on to a tangent.

You claim that the Bible says it so. I claim the opposite. You have only the Bible and your faith as a witness. I have the Bible as my witnesses; my faith and many scientific research results worldwide. Everyone published by Bible scientists.
Who of both of us has well the better foundation? I think that it is me!

Your susbsequent point is meaningless, we have all agreed that the Bible texts need to be taken in context not only within its passage but also within the Bible holistically, knowing to whom it is being written, and the culture of the time. Only then can we really understand best the revelation God is imparting.

If it is that way for it, I then wonder why you and others put so much value on Leviticus and the law of Mose? How it says Paul but by Jesus Christ the law of Mose were fulfilled.
And why other parts of the Mosaic law is not demanded with the same doggedness like the ban on the homosexuality?

Now you are still lying about the word of God. Even when you try and dispute the word natural it still reads without the word natural...
[sup]27 [/sup]In the same way the men also abandoned .. 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.
So we see men who abandon relations with women and commit indecent acts with men are in perversion. I prefer error rather than perversion for the best translation.

For heavens sake; I slowly get too silly. I have explained to you what these verses mean and to be more precise from the original text. You can apparently or do not want to understand. I have seldom experienced something stubborn like this! Does it hurt very much actually?

So what you are doing with the passage, is exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping homosexuality which is created as an idol. The Bible says it is a lie, you dont believe that either.

My Goddess (or is it Goodness?), this is sick !!!! Is really to ignorance and stupidity not to outbid to think I would worship homosexuality. My approaches to biblical texts is scientifically, not naively. I am not a hillbilly from Bavaria. I can prove each of my statements with quotations of Bible scientists. Most of it by the way religious Christians or Jews.

Homosexual love relations are paganism. No such thing to God. False teachers introduce heresey (2 Peter 2) The Bible shows such concepts are not love, but sexual immorality.

Am here I the single umptieth person with intelligence and education in the Bible? It looks that way. I think I should leave this forum before I am still infected with the stupidity virus or the ignoramus flu.

Same sex acts are described in Romans 1 as being done by people who have turned from God, in Leviticus by people who are not God's people.
I can read. I understand the lie you offering but the Bible doesnt say and connaot mean what you claim.

A simple question: Why are so many Christians homosexual or bisexual? And why hides everyone this in family and parish? Think about it!

Did you know lying is a sin as well. and unbelief.?

I do not lie about the Bible and I do not tell any untruths either. I am a Christian and have my faith. I read in the Bible, and make me thoughts and notes to this every day. And I am looking for the answers to my biblical questions in my private library.
A sin is in principle lie for me. Sometimes I, like all of us, lie to not hurt the feelings of other people.

As the Bible says what God detests is same sex relations. According to the dictionary that’s part of your homosexually.
Dont lie.

Once again and this time for the particularly stupid and ignoramuses: The Bible does not condemn the homosexuality at itself; but only in connection with temple prostitution, the turning to heathen divinities, and the averting of God.
Christians who are homosexual and do not do all this do not come under these verses from the Bible.
Understood, peat head?

PS: YOU MADE ME MAD

And 1 Cor. 6:9
"You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,"
Makes the distiction of male prostitution, but also homosexual activity itself.

Same verse, different translation:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"
The "effeminate" portion is on the role taken sometimes through homosexual prostitution, but it also mentions homosexual activity itself outside of prostitution.

Same verse, yet a different translation:
"Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,"
Again, specific distinction between male protitution and homosexual activity itself.

I am really very grateful that you have just taken this verse. It shows anyway how wrong many Bible translations are. Paul used the words (German notation) "Malokoi" and "Arsenokoites" in the original text. Luther translated "catamite" (Malokoi) and and "pederast" (Arsenokoites) correct. I found some interesting statements for the two concepts on the Internet:

In 1997 the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae database listed 73 usages of arsenokoites, but most of these appear in contexts similar in pattern and vocabulary to Paul’s lists. None of them indelibly mark the word with a single meaning (though for at least one context the meaning ‘homosexual’ would be impossible). It is both claimed and disputed that the term tends to occur between listings of sexual sins and social sins, which would suggests that the term originally had some sort of relationship to sexual injustice – and all of the usages found are compatible with this interpretation. In all of them the term could indicate subjugation to and/or exploitation by a powerful aggressor, whether in the context of rape or of treatment of slaves – i.e., coercive, non-procreative sex. Still, even this meaning is not absolutely forced on us – and meanings do change with time.
The force of Paul’s warnings very likely were instrumental in helping eliminate temple prostitution. This left behind a word of uncertain meaning that Paul had sternly disapproved of … and audiences were left with filling in the blank. Child molestation, anal/oral intercourse with one’s wife, and masturbation were three topics that certainly, at different times, became associated with the word; the latest simply is (male) homosexuality.
The end result of a lot of research is simply that – in spite of a lot of claims – the meaning of arsenokoites is obscure. One prominent investigator of the meaning of arsenokoites, Dale Martin of Yale University comments, “I should be clear about my claims here. I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant, I am claiming that no one knows what it meant.”
Not many others are so humble; most have their favorite candidates for its meaning and, in the case of anti-gays, the meaning is confidently given as something akin to ‘(practicing) homosexual’ (variations on this theme depend on the writer’s political leanings). All such translations betray a serious ignorance – often intentional – of both ancient Greek and the culture in which the word was used; and they also basically reveal an entrenched political position – nothing more. Source: http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Arsenokoites.php

Malakos
The other specific word that is critical to Paul’s meaning appears only in one of the two letters. In 1 Corinthians, before the word arsenokoites, is the word malakoi. Unlike arsenokoites, malakos is a very common word, with lots of uses. Generally speaking it means ‘soft,’ ‘flexible,’ or ‘delicate,’ as in fine (expensive) fabric, gourmet delicacies, gentle breezes. Matthew (11:18) and Luke (7:25) use it.
It also refers to morals, where ‘flexible’ is not so good a thing, including dissolute, cowardly, lazy, weak, unstable, easily influenced – all qualities that were seen as feminine. In the culture of the time, women were culturally seen to be pretty, delicate … and worthless, far below the level of men, barely above the level of children and slaves.
Paul was speaking to a culture and world phenomenally different from ours. That culture, with apologies to modern sensibilities, made an absolute virtue of misogyny; male domination of women was a part of the natural order. Except as child bearers, women were chattel, not even remotely on the same level as men.
And to share any womanly characteristics was utterly unmanly. In this context, womanizers, who were interested in things that were worthless by definition, were considered effeminate. By contrast, male-male sex – associated with athletics and learning – was far more manly than what resulted from the love of a woman. And male-male sex between a master and his slave was not a matter of
being homosexual at all; it was a matter of domination, of power. Greeks (and the Romans who absorbed their culture) took it for granted that everyone both could and might want to take part in either kind of sexual activity. The Greek idea of effeminate had very little in common with the modern notion – it reflected pervasive cultural misogyny. (...)
Had Paul wanted a word that applied to the penetrated partner (i.e., female-like), there was a perfectly specific Greek word for that. And if Paul had really condemned someone for being ‘effeminate’ in the context of his time, he would have meant something very different from what the word means two millennia later, and we would consider him sexist and alien to a (modern) Christian’s belief
system.
The word malakos was simply not the same as effeminate with its current homosexual stereotype overtones. Feminine, or womanly, perhaps, along with some less complimentary adjectives; but not effeminate. Early versions of the Bible in English translated malakos as a general weakness of character or degeneracy (weaklings, wantons); however, with the translation that was named for King James, the dominant translation shifted to effeminate, where it stayed until the mid-20th century. Thereafter, purely out of sexual ideology, the translation has shifted to particular sexual acts/orientation. There is no more evidence to support this shift than there was the earlier one to effeminate.
That some people persist in insisting that both of these words condemn homosexuality despite some clear evidence to the contrary is driven by an ideological interest in marginalizing gay/lesbian people rather than devotion to religion or any sort of accurate translation. And any attempt to stake an ethical position based on the Bible as the “word of God” without explicitly acknowledging
the intermediacy of a translator exposes the speaker not so much as insecure but rather as at best ignorant and thoroughly lacking in credibility.
The fact is that these passages which are so often misused to abuse homosexuals are not the Bible’s main position on the subject. Jesus’ message itself is actually quite different (...) Source: http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Malakos.php

Conclusion:

For me gets clear, that these people are not around the Bible and her message; but condemn others therefore.