Replies

The "Gay Christian" movement has gotten a lot more sophisticated than saying "Oh, that was just Paul's opinion."

I do wish that somebody would go to the links I've posted,and take this seriously, because souls and whole societies are very much at risk because of the "new" "gay" "Biblical" "scholarship" (yes, quotes around each word.) It is straight-from-the-seminaries slick, and highly misleading to people who may actually be trying to discern God's purposes and do the right thing.

Their basic Scriptural claim is that all of the supposed condemnations of homosexuality in the Old and New Testaments referred to "straight" people engaging in same-sex relations for sinful lustful reasons, and not to "naturally-gay" people who are honorably in love-and-marriage type relationships.

Genesis: Sodom: it said "all the men in the town." Clearly, most would have been straight. And they wanted to rape Lot's visitors. Clearly, rape is wrong. Has nothing to do with people who are "naturally gay" involved in loving sexual relations.

Deuteronomy and Leviticus: primitive Hebrew tribal rules which both Jesus and Paul said we New Testament people don't have to follow. It includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, eating non-kosher foods; also requires that non-virgin brides and all adulterers should be stoned to death.

ROMANS 1:26-27 -- NATURAL AND UNNATURAL -- This is explicitly about men giving up natural relations with women, and lying with men. Does not refer to men who are "naturally" gay who never had relations with women, and therefore never gave them up. Refers to people who "refused to acknowledge and worship God," "and for this reason were abandoned by God into sexual depravity." Therefore does not refer to Gay Christians who have never refused to worship and acknowledge God, and who are not involved in sexual depravity, but rather, are involved in relationships equivalent to marriage.

And here's the trump: 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10 condemning "MALOKOIS" AND "ARSENOKOITAI" (Greek words usually translated "effeminates" and "male prostitutes."); But the "Gay Christians" say those words refer only to ritual prostitutes in pagan temples. Again,they claim that there is no reference to just-plain homosexuals per se.

And thus many are being misled, to their great misfortune in this life and the next.

And they think they have a HIGH view of Scripture. Sad.

It tires me to write all of this, because I don't accept the validity of any of these arguments. I'm just trying (doggedly) to illustrate the fact that they have engaged linguists and professors and ministers and so forth to develop arguments based on plausible Scripture scholarship and the "correction" of supposed "mis-translations." But I don't see anybody addressing this point-for-point.

Forgive me if I was a little brief in my previous response. A good lawyer might argue in defense of homosexuality based on Scripture, due to "errors" in the Scriptures which somehow obscured an otherwise neutral position on same-sex relations, i.e., given that the old Torah civil laws are no longer applied, they were written from--or for--a certain perspective, etc. I am not a good lawyer, but I'm decent at dismantling the arguments from the so-called Gay Christian movement, just like social justice "Christians," just like pro-choice "Christians," and so on.

We can do it point-for-point, if you'd like. I'm not at all impressed by the radical homosexual movement's apparent sophistry, or "sophistication," if you'd prefer.