Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

Complementarianism, or the argument from the Created Order is a last ditch attempt to condemn all male to male relationships. This argument is often expressed by the entertainment preachers with the sarcastic line, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." But, the perfection of the created order does not define sin; and in addition, since the fall no one lives in the perfection of Eden. As Jesus himself explained about divorce:

"They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matt 19:7-9, KJV)

The hardness of their hearts describes living in a fallen world, and Jesus says divorce was not the created order or intent; yet, Jesus goes on and permits divorce where a spouse commits fornication. Jesus will not permit something that is sin. Jesus understands the situations of his children living in a fallen world.

I see I've been described as an unregenerate homosexual, and someone coming out of left field with odd, heretical ideas. Those are typical responses when they can't discuss the scriptures intelligently; so it comes to name calling. The following shows I'm far from out of line with biblical scholarship:

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, Copyright 2001, Baker Reference Library
"Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term 'sodomy.' This interpretation depends upon uncertain translation, while Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Sirach 16:8-9 give other reasons for the judgment. The assumption of homosexuality in Sodom dates from the Greek occupation of Palestine, when 'the Greek sin' seriously endangered Jewish youth and strong scriptural warning was necessary... It is usually assumed that the male cult prostitutes common in heathen shrines but forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23:17), though sometimes prevalent (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), were homosexual." page 574

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised, Vol. 4, 1988, Eerdmans
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')." page 437

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647; which is considered the 'gold standard' of Christian confessions
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship."

The 1689 Second London Confession of Faith of Baptists
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it." Retained almost identical wording from the Westminster

It is my sincere prayer that any Christian parent or family member who is burdened with the stress of not knowing how to deal scripturally with a loved one or Christian friend who for whatever reason, is attracted to and loves his own sex rather than the opposite sex, can find the comfort in God's word and escape the bigotry in so much of conservative Christianity. I imagine many people read who do not post. A review of the tone and inferences made in many of these posts does explain why Christians are so often called "homophobic". There is another reason as well. It is known that the extremely homophobic person is usually repressing or hiding his own same-sex inclinations.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/

If someone becomes Homosexual after being sexually Abused and Mentally Traumatized, how does a [Compassionate and Understanding God] view this?

Obviously I'm talking about the words/labels, when discussing the Bible, not persons. The words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined about the 13th century by the church of Rome; and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" created in Germany in the 19th century, coming into English around 1900. We are living in a day when many (maybe 30%) think they fit somewhere in the modern idea of LGBTQ, and some young people are truly confused about it. So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males. I'll be using the 1885 English Revised Version because of its literal accuracy. I'll usually use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for English, since I'm using an older English version. On definition of the Hebrew and Greek I'll use accepted standard reference works.

Sodom:
Lot, being covetous chooses the land toward Sodom because of its fruitfulness, being called "like the garden of the LORD". (Gen. 13:10, ERV)
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13, ERV)

Webster's: "men, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race...Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense", Strong's "Hebrew enowsh a mortal, a man in general". Therefore, Gen. 13:13 would mean the "people" of Sodom were exceedingly wicked, not just the males.

A key verse about "men" and "males" in OT Hebrew:
In Gen. 17:23 is the strange sounding phrase "every male among the men of Abraham's house" where "male" is the Hebrew zakar and "men" is the Hebrew enowsh. It is clear that the English "men" must be seen in context to determine if it means males; or mortals, humans in general.

"But before they lay down, the men(enowsh) of the city, even the men(enowsh) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:4-9, ERV)

The word "men" here means young and old, all the people, male and female. There is no reason to think only males here because it is all the people. This wicked people want to "know them", the angels who appear as men; and we know this has sexual connotations because of Lot's offer to give his virgin daughters to them. Lot addresses his fellow citizens as "brethren", the Hebrew 'ach and Strong's gives "a brother" as the basic meaning, but then adds {used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1).} Webster's defines "brother" literally as male, but definition #2 reads "Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers." When we say "brethren of the church" we don't exclude the ladies. Lot is speaking as we would say "neighbors". Verse nine clearly states an act of violence, "drew near to break the door", in other words this was going to be a rape, and rape is an act of dominance and violence, not sexual desire. In years past I'd have considered rape an act solely committed by males, but in our wicked day it's clear it can apply to both sexes. I can only see attempted rape here in the Sodom record, possibly by the entire city rather than only the males. The Lord GOD tells us what the sin of Sodom was:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, ERV)

No sexual sin is specifically mentioned here, but the sins of "pride" and "haughtiness" are clearly mentioned. Yet there is the word "abomination" that translates the Hebrew to`ebah and Strong's defines it thus: "1(properly) something disgusting; 2(morally, as noun) an abhorrence; 3(especially) idolatry; 4(concretely) and idol." This Hebrew word is found 41 times in Ezekiel, more than any other OT book and it seems to be largely associated with idolatry in Ezekiel, yet 22:11 does connect it with adultery, and again in 33:26. More on this word "abomination" later when looking at Lev. 18:22 and Deut. 23:17.

Jesus spoke of Sodom, and his words spoken to the Jews are:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15, ERV)

One other statement about Sodom is in the NT book of Jude:

"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7, ERV)

Who is being referred to as "these"? It appears to be the angels as I read it. The Revised English Bible clearly translates in that manner:

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7, REB)

So what does "strange flesh"(ERV) or "indulged in unnatural lusts"(REB) mean? In the Greek, strange is heteros which Strong's defines as "other or different"; and flesh is sarx which Strong's defines as "flesh (as stripped of the skin)." In Jude 14 the book, Prophecy of Enoch, is mentioned and in that book the story of Gen. 6:1-4 is thought to be about angels, "sons of God"; who have sexual relations with humans, "daughters of men". Since the non-canonical book of Enoch is referenced, I believe the "strange flesh" or "different flesh" refers to the people of Sodom attempting to rape angels, which is clearly a different flesh. The "different flesh" can not mean a human to human, but more fitting to human to angel, see: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes." (1Cor 15:39, ERV)

Isn't pride and a haughty spirit at the base of all violent criminality? Isn't sin very much about pride and a haughty air. We see it daily in minor things, where the normal rules of society are just ignored by those who think it does not apply to them. The healthy person parking in Handicapped Zones; the aggressive, reckless and high speed driving, etc. Prisons are full of people who think society's rules are only for others. The Apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, gives a historical look at what the Jews thought about Sodom, and I'll use the old KJV translation:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

Leviticus 18:22 and Deut. 23:17,18 will be in the next OP. This is taking more space than I had thought.

This will be my last post in this thread, unless I actually see someone demonstrate, show where I have twisted a verse, used an incorrect definition or taken it out of context. I will respond and discuss if I ever see a serious exegetical response instead of bigoted opinions propped up incorrectly on various texts. So, here is my last reply here, to the job of many I suppose.

A Biblical Guide for Male to Male Love

The background or culture of the Bible is based upon the family unit; male/man/husband wed to female/woman/wife with the children. The instructions for a happy married life are found in the the Bible, but there are no direct instructions to males who love only other males. The sins against marriage in the Bible are opposite sex sins, fornication and adultery. The few times sins of males with males involve sex involve rape, idolatry, promiscuity and abuse; sins found in today's definition of a "sodomite" But the Bible does have teaching that is indirectly of great help to the man who loves another man.


"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21, REB)

1. A man did not choose his race, hair color, height, family into which he was born; and likewise he does not choose who he loves, for that is an absurdity. Therefore, the sexual orientation of a man is determined by God, how He made him.
2. It is an impudence to think we can argue or challenge how God has given us the sex nature, therefore reparative therapy not only does not work, it causes one to argue with God over His decision.
3. The law of Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21 is still the law for men who love men and this verse does not alter that.
4. Why God would make a man to love other men, we are not told. Maybe it is to make the man more compassionate toward others who face life's difficulties through no fault of their own. The account of Job comes to mind; he suffered great difficulties that were not because of his sin; yet his religious, pharisaical three friends spouted doctrine and theology at him; as if they knew he sinned and brought this upon himself, misapplying God's law. The male who loves only other males will experience this same thing, especially if he attends certain churches, whether they are called fundamentalist, conservative, evangelical or right-wing.

"For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’" (Matt 19:12, REB)

While the literal word found here is "eunuch", its usage is not literal in this verse. A male who loves males is certainly not capable of a biblical allowed/described marriage, and to attempt it is a sin against himself and especially toward the unsuspecting woman. This male was determined by birth to be same-sex oriented, even if other uncertain factors may have figured in.

"I should like everyone to be as I myself am; but each person has the gift God has granted him, one this gift and another that. To the unmarried and to widows I say this: it is a good thing if like me they stay as they are; but if they do not have self-control, they should marry. It is better to be married than burn with desire." (1Cor 7:7-9, REB)

1. The oft heard solution "It's not a sin to be homosexual, just a sin to perform a homosexual act" is contradicted because abstinence from sex for a lifetime, is clearly a "gift" that not all men have, and verse 26 of this chapter shows Paul was speaking of only a temporary time of troubles where he advised the single life, not a lifetime of celibacy.
2. By definition a homosexual is one who desires sex with his same gender; but if the act is sinful; the desire or lust for it is sinful. "But what I tell you is this: If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt 5:28, REB) The "lust" mentioned here is the Greek epithumeo and it is translated "desire" as well as "lust" in the Bible. So if the homosexual act is sin, the desire for it is sin.
3. Paul speaks of opposite sex relations here, and marriage is given as the answer if one does not have the ability to abstain from sex. But, marriage is not an option or solution to the Bible believer. But there is an answer in a wisdom book.

"Here again I saw futility under the sun: someone without a friend, without son or brother, toiling endlessly yet never satisfied with his wealth—‘For whom’, he asks, ‘am I toiling and denying myself the good things of life?’ This too is futile, a worthless task. Two are better than one, for their partnership yields this advantage: if one falls, the other can help his companion up again; but woe betide the solitary person who when down has no partner to help him up. And if two lie side by side they keep each other warm; but how can one keep warm by himself? If anyone is alone, an assailant may overpower him, but two can resist; and a cord of three strands is not quickly snapped." (Eccl 4:7-12, REB)

1. The gender indicators in this paragraph are all male so it is not speaking of marriage, even though some have thought so.
2. Some translations like the KJV, RSV, ESV add translator's words in v8 similar to "he never asks", but the ERV, ASV, NRSV and REB I've quoted stick with the Hebrew text as written.
3. This passage certainly teaches it is not good for a man to be alone, isolated so the next verse applies to him as well.

"Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I shall make a partner suited to him.’" (Gen 2:18, REB)

For a man whose desire for companionship, emotional connection and physical intimacy is solely toward other men, he must have a "partner suited to him", another man, not a woman.

"Some companions are good only for idle talk, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24, REB)

The Puritan John Trapp has an interesting comment on the last phrase of this verse:
"Such a friend is as one’s own soul, a piece so just cut for him, as answers him rightly in every joint. This is a rare happiness."

The Methodist Adam Clarke also comments on the last phrase of the verse:
"Some apply this to God; others to Christ; but the text has no such meaning."

"Love is patient and kind. Love envies no one, is never boastful, never conceited, never rude; love is never selfish, never quick to take offence. Love keeps no score of wrongs, takes no pleasure in the sins of others, but delights in the truth. There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, its endurance." (1Cor 13:4-7, REB)

This description of true love must be kept in mind in any relationship, including that of male to male companionships.

Conclusion:

While each person's character, individuality may determine how the man who loves men forms his life and relationships, there is one thing I believe is of high importance; using the idea "Don't ask, don't tell" about male to male relationships. This is especially true of most churches, most families, jobs, and best in schools, grades 1-12. Once going to university, there may be more flexibility.

Just as bars and cocktail lounges are not the place for men to find a wife, it is equally true with the man seeking a male mate. Caution is advised on seeking a partner, and maybe the Internet gives a safe way to seek a suitable friend/mate. Definitely seek friendship first, don't go looking for a 'hook up'.

Even for those Christian men who only love men, and can't get away from the teaching "it is sin!"; I suggest the following by Dr. Smedes for consideration:

"I think that homosexual people are not responsible for their sexual orientation toward loving people of their own gender.
I think that, as a class, homosexual people are as moral, as spiritual, as decent and good, as creative, and as much in need of the grace of God as heterosexual people are.
I think that homosexuality is not the sexual orientation that God intended in creation. It is a genetic lapse. It is nature gone awry. There is tragedy in it. And homosexual people are called to live as morally within their tragedy as the rest of us are called to live within whatever may be ours.
I think that homosexual people merit the same rights and bear the same responsibilities within society that anyone else does.
I think that, if celibacy is not possible, it is better for homosexual people to live together in committed monogamous relationships of love than not. Homosexual partnerships that are committed offer the best moral option available." page 243 of "Sex for Christians" Revised Edition 1994 ... Dr. Smedes (1921-2002) was professor emeritus of theology and ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California... a Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. book.

New Hampshire high schooler allegedly suspended for saying there are ‘only two genders’ sues school district

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-hamp...pended-only-two-genders-suing-school-district

Hello Mailman Dan... not sure why you posted this on this particular thread. While I do agree wholeheartedly there are only 2 sexes, determined by the genitalia you were born with, this idea that we choose our sex by how we feel, or that we can claim to be black when we are actually white is nonsense, a delusion. On transgenderism, even the John Hopkins Hospital doctor who used to perform sex change operations came to reject the idea. A good article on it is on CNS news.:

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/nat...-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex

For the male who is solely attracted to, can only love another male romantically, and is a truly Christian believer; there is no option to go the LGBTQ route or attend the apostate liberal churches. While I believe the Bible nowhere condemns or calls such love between two males a sin, the same cannot be said of the LGBTQ wickedness such as seen on that disgusting Gay Pride Parade debauchery. But the typical conservative church's approach of telling the young man he must change his sexual orientation, or live in sexual abstinence all his life, I'm convinced is not only not biblical, it is laying upon the young man's shoulders a burden that is no more than what the Pharisees did as Christ described it in Matthew 23.

I really can't understand how so many Christians don't see that this exists as much among Christian families as in the world at large, and I refer only to the homosexual orientation itself. Not only did the false hopes of Exodus International collapse in failure, you have those professed Christian men, preaching against the homosexually oriented, who get caught involved in the same. I have in mind 3 in particular who can be researched online: Ted Haggard, George A Rekers and Eddie Long. George A Rekers, a psychologist and SBC Pastor who testified in various government hearings against various 'gay' bills; was himself caught vacationing with a "rentboy".

I know I sound iconoclastic in this thread, but as I read the Creeds and Confessions of our faith, read commentaries out of our past, seeing their understanding of Scripture, I wonder how truly 'Christian' some churches are in this day. While many sing "Give me that old time religion" they are as in the following:

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls: but they said, We will not walk therein. (Jer 6:16, ERV)

Hello Mailman Dan... not sure why you posted this on this particular thread. While I do agree wholeheartedly there are only 2 sexes, determined by the genitalia you were born with, this idea that we choose our sex by how we feel, or that we can claim to be black when we are actually white is nonsense, a delusion. On transgenderism, even the John Hopkins Hospital doctor who used to perform sex change operations came to reject the idea. A good article on it is on CNS news.:

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/nat...-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex

For the male who is solely attracted to, can only love another male romantically, and is a truly Christian believer; there is no option to go the LGBTQ route or attend the apostate liberal churches. While I believe the Bible nowhere condemns or calls such love between two males a sin, the same cannot be said of the LGBTQ wickedness such as seen on that disgusting Gay Pride Parade debauchery. But the typical conservative church's approach of telling the young man he must change his sexual orientation, or live in sexual abstinence all his life, I'm convinced is not only not biblical, it is laying upon the young man's shoulders a burden that is no more than what the Pharisees did as Christ described it in Matthew 23.

I really can't understand how so many Christians don't see that this exists as much among Christian families as in the world at large, and I refer only to the homosexual orientation itself. Not only did the false hopes of Exodus International collapse in failure, you have those professed Christian men, preaching against the homosexually oriented, who get caught involved in the same. I have in mind 3 in particular who can be researched online: Ted Haggard, George A Rekers and Eddie Long. George A Rekers, a psychologist and SBC Pastor who testified in various government hearings against various 'gay' bills; was himself caught vacationing with a "rentboy".

I know I sound iconoclastic in this thread, but as I read the Creeds and Confessions of our faith, read commentaries out of our past, seeing their understanding of Scripture, I wonder how truly 'Christian' some churches are in this day. While many sing "Give me that old time religion" they are as in the following:

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is a good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls: but they said, We will not walk therein. (Jer 6:16, ERV)

Sodomy is in our laws and it is a perfectly good term since we all know what it means.

Reminds me of a line in a movie (North By Northwest) via James Mason, "Semantic's, must we?"

I took a law class in high school, and in the state I was in, the term referred to certain activities that made us of the 'hinder parts' (not the legal term) or the mouth. And it applied to married couples. I don't think courts allow enforcement anymore. But the term is not all that clear.

And there was more they were attempting at Sodom that just sodomy. They were trying to do something, some of it maybe homosexual-like activity, toward angels.

Part of this was also the opposite of being hospitable. Rather than sharing with guests, they wanted to force sexual activity on them, whether they knew they were angelic beings or not.

Male same-sex sexual behavior was punishable by death in the Old Testament, and also forbidden. This, along with various incestuous activities, adultery, a type of child sacrifice, and sex during menstruation were sins for Gentiles to commit, wickedness for which they were being driven out of the land.

The New Testament also condemns male-with-male sexual behavior and may indicate lesbian activity is wrong to when it says that even their women turned from their natural use to that which is against nature. Female same-sex activity is not stipulated as a death penalty sin in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament does not get specific about what act was performed. It says he who lies with a man as one does with a woman. This phrase may be at the root of the word translated 'abusers of themselves with mankind' or 'homosexuals'-- arsenokoites. One of the Leviticus verses in the Greek translation used in the first century uses 'arsenos koiten', which may be the source for Paul's word 'arsenokoites'-- man bedders, with 'bed' having a sexual connotation in some contexts.

Some of the religious advocates for same-sex sexual perversion argue that Paul only condemned child molestation. This is very clearly false from the text of Romans 1, which speaks of 'men with men working that which is unseemly'. There is no mention of children. Also, if a married woman who was raped in the Old Testament was not guilty of the death penalty crime of adultery, why would the religious LGBT activists want us to believe that child victims of rape are 'malakoi' in I Corinthians 6 and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree that it is likely that those who take arsenokoites in I Corinthians 6 to refer to the more aggressive participate in a same sex act and 'malakoi' in this context to refer to the receptive partner to be correct. 'Malakos' means 'soft' and is used for men who lacked male virtue. I looked up the Greek references to the word. One referred to men who plucked hair out of their thighs. That sounds like a feminine-style grooming ritual, but thighs were also used for same-sex sex acts back then as well, apparently. I saw a scene from a movie where two guys were accusing two men of being gay. They called one 'the pitcher' and the other 'the catcher.' I had never heard that, but I assume I know what it means, that arsenokoites is the picture, and the malakoi is the catcher-- the manbedder's softee.

I do think preachers should lay off on language like, "Homosexuality is a sin" or 'Homosexuals go to Hell'. For people born after Gen-X, for anyone left wing, and anyone who studies the term academically, 'homosexual' has to do with ___attraction___ to the opposite sex, whether or not sex acts are taking place. A Christian could struggle with same-sex attraction or have the propensity to struggle with it without giving in to the lusts of the flesh. People who have that propensity can be saved and not live that lifestyle. Based on the historical definition, they could be considered 'homosexual.' That is what the term meant in German. 'Gay' and 'Lesbian' also refer to attraction/'orientation' in the LGBT movement. So if you say, "Gays are going to Hell" to the person with same sex attraction's ears, that means they are going to Hell for struggling with same sex attraction. That is probably not the message most preachers who say such stuff want to convey.

Nor should the Christian who has struggled with same-sex attraction go around calling himself 'gay' or herself 'lesbian'. The problem with the movement is they wrap their identity in the lusts of the flesh. Your average normal single male doesn't call himself, a 'Propensity to fornicate Christian', even if he has to avert his eyes at times around the opposite sex to keep from sinning. If you've got to run and leave the robe behind to keep from committing adultery, you shouldn't call yourself "Wants to commit adultery Christian."

We should continue to preach the word of Gospel which included the message of judgment to come. Several examples from Paul, Peter, and John when preaching the Gospel included this message of Jesus coming back to be judge of the just and the unjust. It was even included in Paul's presentation of the Gospel to Felix in such a way that Felix trembled when he spoke of the judgment to come.

And these verses do not target only homosexual sins but do include them as an example and we should do the same if we want to see the same results of people repenting and believing in Christ today that Paul witnessed.

1 Corinthians 6:9-20
English Standard Version
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

There is no question that homosexual attraction not acted upon is just as evil as attraction toward a minor but not acted upon is evil.

It is a shame to even speak of those things they do in secret. Yes homosexual sin was an example that scripture gives as the worst condition of mankind when given over to their rebellion to sin. (Rom 1) It is clearly considered by God as one of the worst things a person can do. It will receive greater judgment than other sins and Sodom and Gomorrah was an example to help us learn that lesson.

People can philosophically argue against it all they want, but soon God will show them how much his wrath burns against this type of extra heinous sin. And it is the promoting and encouraging of this sin to the children in the Public Schools that will be the flash point of the judgment. He will not let it go unanswered. Better that these teachers were never born than to tempt one of these children to sin by experimenting with homosexual sins.

"For the male who is solely attracted to, can only love another male romantically, and is a truly Christian believer; there is no option to go the LGBTQ route or attend the apostate liberal churches. While I believe the Bible nowhere condemns or calls such love between two males a sin,"

This is the deception and lie that has been created that will take many people straight to hell. Two males in a romantic relationship IS NOT LOVE, it is is sin and lust. IF what you are saying is true how can you stop with only males "in love " why not two people who are married that are in love with someone different than they married? Flesh call it to love God call it the sin of Adultery which he said those who do such a thing will not see the kingdom of God.

God said a man should not lay with a man as he does a woman. You are lowering the Holiness of God to appease a sexual sin.

Fornicators, drunkards, and those who engage in a homosexual lifestyle and practice these things are not saved nor all they Christians. There is no such thing as a gay Christian. IT is not love or romantic it is SIN. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.

Just because a person preaches against sin and then is caught in sin is not removing the truth that it is still SIN. you do not justify sin by pointing out the sins of those who said do not sin, we all who do that will be held accountable in this life of the next.

We should continue to preach the word of Gospel which included the message of judgment to come. Several examples from Paul, Peter, and John when preaching the Gospel included this message of Jesus coming back to be judge of the just and the unjust. It was even included in Paul's presentation of the Gospel to Felix in such a way that Felix trembled when he spoke of the judgment to come.

And these verses do not target only homosexual sins but do include them as an example and we should do the same if we want to see the same results of people repenting and believing in Christ today that Paul witnessed.

1 Corinthians 6:9-20
English Standard Version
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

There is no question that homosexual attraction not acted upon is just as evil as attraction toward a minor but not acted upon is evil.

It is a shame to even speak of those things they do in secret. Yes homosexual sin was an example that scripture gives as the worst condition of mankind when given over to their rebellion to sin. (Rom 1) It is clearly considered by God as one of the worst things a person can do. It will receive greater judgment than other sins and Sodom and Gomorrah was an example to help us learn that lesson.

People can philosophically argue against it all they want, but soon God will show them how much his wrath burns against this type of extra heinous sin. And it is the promoting and encouraging of this sin to the children in the Public Schools that will be the flash point of the judgment. He will not let it go unanswered. Better that these teachers were never born than to tempt one of these children to sin by experimenting with homosexual sins.

You state: "God said a man should not lay with a man as he does a woman."

You seem to paraphrase Lev. 18:22, but how do you apply that to a Christian believer, since it is NOT for us!

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV)

You are merely parroting the homophobic ignorance of the fundamentalists.

You state: "God said a man should not lay with a man as he does a woman."

You seem to paraphrase Lev. 18:22, but how do you apply that to a Christian believer, since it is NOT for us!

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV)

You are merely parroting the homophobic ignorance of the fundamentalists.

I took a law class in high school, and in the state I was in, the term referred to certain activities that made us of the 'hinder parts' (not the legal term) or the mouth. And it applied to married couples. I don't think courts allow enforcement anymore. But the term is not all that clear.

And there was more they were attempting at Sodom that just sodomy. They were trying to do something, some of it maybe homosexual-like activity, toward angels.

Part of this was also the opposite of being hospitable. Rather than sharing with guests, they wanted to force sexual activity on them, whether they knew they were angelic beings or not.

Male same-sex sexual behavior was punishable by death in the Old Testament, and also forbidden. This, along with various incestuous activities, adultery, a type of child sacrifice, and sex during menstruation were sins for Gentiles to commit, wickedness for which they were being driven out of the land.

The New Testament also condemns male-with-male sexual behavior and may indicate lesbian activity is wrong to when it says that even their women turned from their natural use to that which is against nature. Female same-sex activity is not stipulated as a death penalty sin in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament does not get specific about what act was performed. It says he who lies with a man as one does with a woman. This phrase may be at the root of the word translated 'abusers of themselves with mankind' or 'homosexuals'-- arsenokoites. One of the Leviticus verses in the Greek translation used in the first century uses 'arsenos koiten', which may be the source for Paul's word 'arsenokoites'-- man bedders, with 'bed' having a sexual connotation in some contexts.

Some of the religious advocates for same-sex sexual perversion argue that Paul only condemned child molestation. This is very clearly false from the text of Romans 1, which speaks of 'men with men working that which is unseemly'. There is no mention of children. Also, if a married woman who was raped in the Old Testament was not guilty of the death penalty crime of adultery, why would the religious LGBT activists want us to believe that child victims of rape are 'malakoi' in I Corinthians 6 and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

I agree that it is likely that those who take arsenokoites in I Corinthians 6 to refer to the more aggressive participate in a same sex act and 'malakoi' in this context to refer to the receptive partner to be correct. 'Malakos' means 'soft' and is used for men who lacked male virtue. I looked up the Greek references to the word. One referred to men who plucked hair out of their thighs. That sounds like a feminine-style grooming ritual, but thighs were also used for same-sex sex acts back then as well, apparently. I saw a scene from a movie where two guys were accusing two men of being gay. They called one 'the pitcher' and the other 'the catcher.' I had never heard that, but I assume I know what it means, that arsenokoites is the picture, and the malakoi is the catcher-- the manbedder's softee.

I do think preachers should lay off on language like, "Homosexuality is a sin" or 'Homosexuals go to Hell'. For people born after Gen-X, for anyone left wing, and anyone who studies the term academically, 'homosexual' has to do with ___attraction___ to the opposite sex, whether or not sex acts are taking place. A Christian could struggle with same-sex attraction or have the propensity to struggle with it without giving in to the lusts of the flesh. People who have that propensity can be saved and not live that lifestyle. Based on the historical definition, they could be considered 'homosexual.' That is what the term meant in German. 'Gay' and 'Lesbian' also refer to attraction/'orientation' in the LGBT movement. So if you say, "Gays are going to Hell" to the person with same sex attraction's ears, that means they are going to Hell for struggling with same sex attraction. That is probably not the message most preachers who say such stuff want to convey.

Nor should the Christian who has struggled with same-sex attraction go around calling himself 'gay' or herself 'lesbian'. The problem with the movement is they wrap their identity in the lusts of the flesh. Your average normal single male doesn't call himself, a 'Propensity to fornicate Christian', even if he has to avert his eyes at times around the opposite sex to keep from sinning. If you've got to run and leave the robe behind to keep from committing adultery, you shouldn't call yourself "Wants to commit adultery Christian."

You state: "God said a man should not lay with a man as he does a woman."

You seem to paraphrase Lev. 18:22, but how do you apply that to a Christian believer, since it is NOT for us!

"These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." (Lev 26:46, ERV)
"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34, ERV)

You are merely parroting the homophobic ignorance of the fundamentalists.

Presidente, you write a lot there that I would have full agreement with, but a few points I differ. It seems that in discussion of homosexuality, it is the "sex' that is focused on. But, for an exclusively homosexual male, it is not such a narrowly focused matter. I quote:

"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment." Taken from the American Psychological Association web site. I don't agree with everything on that site, but what I have quoted I believe is accurate.

I have also found that among Christians, when the term "same-sex attraction", SSA, is mentioned; it seems to come across that all men are heterosexual but have varying degrees of same sex desires(temptations). It appears certain that a minority of males are totally and exclusively homosexual in all areas of their desire for relationship. The idea that they are merely fighting against a temptation to lust, does not fit; it is their unchosen nature, how God made them, Rom. 9:20,21. Paul indicates that not all men have the "gift" of sexual abstinence, so that puts the exclusively homosexual male in a bind for sure, since marriage is not a biblical option.

I do agree though, for a Christian who is exclusively homosexual, it is a mistake to label himself gay or homosexual. We know labels can be misleading and the term "gay" conjures up images like the LGBTQ activist crowd. A homosexual who is a Christian detests that Gay Pride Day parade display!

One other comment I'd make is about the idea of Paul taking his wording from the Septuagint from Lev. 18:22. It is tricky to compare NT use of the Greek against the Septuagint. In 2 Sam. 13:15, Amnon's rape of Tamar is referred to as "love" and the Greek there is agape.

As a side note, it is obvious from my posts that I have studied this topic for years. I have many pages of notes on this topic and I condensed them and organized them as I have posted on here; Sodom, Leviticus, Paul's 3 writings on the topic. Yesterday I printed them out and gave them to a Christian lady who has as a relative who is homosexual and they attend the same fundamentalist church. That family is all to pieces over their situation and the church gives nothing but condemnation and totally unworkable solutions producing nothing but pain and guilt in the young man. I have striven to always adhere to Paul's instruction:

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6, ERV)

I know I'll stand before God and give an answer for sharing my views on this, so I do not write these posts recklessly.