The Conspiracy To Twist Bible Verses To Suit Their Antigay Agenda - Romans 1:26-27

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I'll answer your question. I believe in the context of where it was used that it means a group of people who all believed that what they were doing wasn't wrong. That they were given a special place in that society and were protected by the law. God warned them not to do that because by justifying them legally the whole country would be guilty of the same thing.

reply to post by jackflap


They were put in a context of WORSHIPPING false gods. This is idolatry.

As in my OP and in the website, they were given into false gods and idol worshipping, forgetting the true God. All their behaviors were in according to their gods demands.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Yep. You keep on proving my point over and over again.

Only because you are not only a deaf alien but a blind one as well. Your eyes only let you see what you want to.

Why do you keep on saying that I am trying to make it okay or more accepted? It is the antigay Christians who make it less accepted or less "OK".

Only the most extreme Christians are truly militant against gays, and in my opinion they are wrong to do that. They should simply state the truth and leave the rest to God.

It doesnt matter that "antigay Christians who make it less accepted or less "OK"." It matters what the Bible/God says and it is clear that it says homosexuality is a sin. A person would either have to be delusional, stupid, blind, or unable to accept the truth to believe the Bible doesnt clearly say it is a sin.

If homosexuality is as bad as modern Christians make it out to be, you'd think that Jesus would at least mention it.

Homosexuality is no different in God's or Jesus's eyes then any of the other sins listed in Leviticus or anywhere else in the Bible. A sin is a sin. Jesus didnt mention you shoudnt have sex with an animal (which was next in the laundry list of sins and I am in no way saying gay people have sex with animals any more than straight people do), but I doubt that didnt mean he didnt think it wasnt a sin.

reply to post by grapesofraft


It seems like I am the only one fighting this Everyone else is too afraid to come in to support me

Anyway...

Only because you are not only a deaf alien but a blind one as well. Your eyes only let you see what you want to.

Yes, I am really deaf But I can see clearly. So do many scholars. Most of those words are not mine, but SCHOLARS.

Here's a few scholars:

Aristides, AD 124-126
Justin Martyr, AD 100-165
John Chrysostom, AD 347-407
Matthew Henry, AD 1662-171
Dr. Merrill F. Unger, 1909-1980

Many antigay scholars studied these scholars' teachings. Why diverge from their teachings and studies?

A person would either have to be delusional, stupid, blind, or unable to accept the truth to believe the Bible doesnt clearly say it is a sin.

And yet it keep on saying that it's wrong within the context of idolatry, never outside.

Jesus didnt mention you shoudnt have sex with an animal (which was next in the laundry list of sins and I am in no way saying gay people have sex with animals any more than straight people do), but I doubt that didnt mean he didnt think it wasnt a sin.

You don't hear them shouting from their pulpits that sex with animals was wrong or an abomination. And yet they make homosexuality one of their top, if not the top, sins.

It's like they have beef with homosexuality. Why?

reply to post by Deaf Alien

You don't hear them shouting from their pulpits that sex with animals was wrong or an abomination. And yet they make homosexuality one of their top, if not the top, sins.

It's like they have beef with homosexuality. Why?

I agree that some churches do this, but most do not. Regardless it is wrong to just harp on this one sin and over inflate it. Even though I do believe the Bible clearly states that it is a sin, it also states lots of other things are sins and in the end we are all guilty of something. If we werent we wouldnt need to repent and seek forgiveness through Jesus.

I think there are 2 main reasons why a church would continually harp on homosexuality.
1. The pastor is a closet homosexual or one of the main people in the church. For instance, Ted Haggard and several Catholic Priests.
OR
2. It is in retaliation and/or fear of the "gay agenda", for lack of a better way to describe it. I think most people are growing in tolerence but I also think many people feel like they are being forced to accept it, which creates a backlash and fear of change.

Well good luck with everything. I guess we can agree to disagree on this. I just wanted you to show my side of the argument. I do believe we need to be careful to try not to rewrite the Bible to make our sins acceptable. I for one of guilty of many sexual sins, but I think I am better to accept the truth and ask for forgiveness and to take my punishment when the day comes, then to try to manipulate the Bible to suit my desires.

With that I am out of here.

EDIT: Because I had to change hard on to harp on... lol

[edit on 7/22/2009 by grapesofraft]

If I could just interject here as an impartial observer...

I think that GRAPESOFRAFT is entirely right.

First off, let me state that I am not a arguing from any particular religious viewpoint - mostly 'cause I don't have one. But if you take the Bible as meaning what it says, then Grapes is winning this debate in my opinion. Deaf Alien is really stretching the point here.

The reason being is exactly what Grapes said; Leviticus is "a laundry list of sins." It seems to me, Deaf Alien, that you are making a logical error in assuming that every injunction must, somehow, be tied to the previous admonition(s). That is fallacious. A prior enumerated crime does not necessarily have an attachment or contingency upon the previously listed crime.

An analogy would be the Crimes Code of any given state today. It may list - in any given order - murder, rape, arson, burglary, theft, etc. One only has to be charged with any one crime to be considered guilty. A judgment of arson is not contingent upon a rape. A murder indictment is not reliant upon a robbery for guilt to be found and the perpetrator to be duly sentenced. Such crimes may overlap - but they are NOT required to do so. The admonitions about pagan god worship are in and of themselves crimes. The other crimes may be intertwined, but there is nothing to lead me to believe they are a required component - just like being a burglar doesn't require you to be an arsonist today.

reply to post by passenger


Then you would be essentially going against the grain of scholars who have studied this for centuries. The very antigay scholars of today even studied from those scholars. Homosexuality as a sin is a RECENT phenomenon. I can show you evidence of this.

You said that grapesofraft is winning the argument? Against me? Read the link in my OP and try debating with the scholars.

Nobody ever answered my question: Why does the Bible always mention homosexuality WITHIN the context of idolatry? What does it say about homosexuality outside of idolatry?

No, nobody is winning the argument. Sorry.

The reason being is exactly what Grapes said; Leviticus is "a laundry list of sins." It seems to me, Deaf Alien, that you are making a logical error in assuming that every injunction must, somehow, be tied to the previous admonition(s).

Again.... according to scholars:

The chapters before and after chapter 18 deal extensively with idolatry. We can therefore expect that much of chapter 18 will deal with the same topic.

www.gaychristian101.com...

Take it up to the scholars.

Not to mention all this crap from the Old Testament NO LONGER APPLIES

Does this include the 10 Commandments?

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Here's a few scholars:

Aristides, AD 124-126
Justin Martyr, AD 100-165
John Chrysostom, AD 347-407
Matthew Henry, AD 1662-171
Dr. Merrill F. Unger, 1909-1980

Ok here is what I found about your list of scholars who YOU SAY support your notion that homosexuality is not considered a sin in the Bible.

1. Aristides was gay, but I actually found nowhere that he tried to say homosexuality wasnt a sin.

2. Justin Martyr - made the following comment. Doesnt sound like he thinks homosexuality is supported by the Bible.

[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And any one who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods." Justin Martyr, First Apology 27 (A.D. 151).

3. Saint John Chrysostom - doesnt sound like a big homosexual sex fan to me.

Saint John Chrysostom denounces homosexual acts as being contrary to nature. Commenting on the Epistle to the Romans (1: 26-27), he says that the pleasures of sodomy are an unpardonable offense to nature and are doubly destructive, since they threaten the species by deviating the sexual organs away from their primary procreative end and they sow disharmony between men and women, who no longer are inclined by physical desire to live together in peace.

The brilliant Patriarch of Constantinople employs most severe words for the vice we are analyzing. Saint John Chrysostom makes this strong argument: “All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men…. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions [of the homosexuals] satanic, but their lives are diabolic….. So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body….. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.” (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV, in J. McNeill, op. cit., pp. 89-90)

4. Matthew Henry - hmmm what do you think?

Matthew Henry tells us "It was the most unnatural and abominable wickedness that they now set upon, a sin that still bears their name, and is called SodomyIt was a punishment that answered to their sin. Burning lusts against nature were justly punished with this preternatural (beyond what is natural) burning. Those that went after strange flesh were destroyed by strange fire."

5. Unger- I couldnt find any views of his on homosexual acts, but he did write a lot of books, so maybe you can find me a quote of his that supports your OP.

Originally posted by KiliRae

Not to mention all this crap from the Old Testament NO LONGER APPLIES

Does this include the 10 Commandments?

LOL, Jesus actually said that Old Testament law does still apply, including the 10 commandments. He was simply sent as a way of forgiveness once we broke the Law.

reply to post by grapesofraft

I agree that some churches do this, but most do not. Regardless it is wrong to just harp on this one sin and over inflate it. Even though I do believe the Bible clearly states that it is a sin, it also states lots of other things are sins and in the end we are all guilty of something. If we werent we wouldnt need to repent and seek forgiveness through Jesus.

Right. One of my points of this thread and my other posts too is to break down their theology that homosexuality is a sin. Why? To weaken their influence in politics. If they had their way, we'd see a different way of life. I can give you a few examples of prominent antigay Christians trying to get laws against homosexuals.

I think there are 2 main reasons why a church would continually harp on homosexuality. 1. The pastor is a closet homosexual or one of the main people in the church. For instance, Ted Haggard and several Catholic Priests.

Well, that goes without saying

2. It is in retaliation and/or fear of the "gay agenda", for lack of a better way to describe it. I think most people are growing in tolerence but I also think many people feel like they are being forced to accept it, which creates a backlash and fear of change.

Well, that's another possibility.

This is a good example of reactionism. Homosexuality was accepted and it was all fine and well until certain group of people goes against it and even called for death.

What can you do? You can do nothing but react to those who oppose you or you could just hide.

Well good luck with everything. I guess we can agree to disagree on this. I just wanted you to show my side of the argument.

Thanks for taking the time to debate this with me.

I do believe we need to be careful to try not to rewrite the Bible to make our sins acceptable.

Right, which is one of the points in my OP. Christians have to be careful not to rewrite the Bible.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Leviticus 18:29, 'Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.'(emphasis added)NIV
It also mentions in Verse 22: 'Do not lie with a man...'

ANY of these things. Can't avoid that. Again, each enumerated sin is a sin in and of itself.

Scholars from gaychristians101 (or whatever) certainly aren't likely to have a skewed agenda are they? And as far as the whole issue of 'scholars' is concerned: I'm not a 'scholar' but I also don't have to be a farmer to know when I am stepping in horse $#!^.

So if Christians are suppose to be followers of Jesus Christ, why do so many still seem to put so much guff into the Old Testament? Including the gay bashing?

I am just really confused by all this, it just seems to be picking and choosing what you want to hear/read/see/believe.

reply to post by KiliRae

I am just really confused by all this, it just seems to be picking and choosing what you want to hear/read/see/believe.

Well, yeah basically that's the point of the OP. We have gone slightly off topic from the verses of Romans 1:26-27 but I guess it's relevant somehow.

The point is that those verses are in the context of pagan worship which certain Christians seem to ignore. Why is that?

reply to post by Deaf Alien

Right. One of my points of this thread and my other posts too is to break down their theology that homosexuality is a sin. Why? To weaken their influence in politics. If they had their way, we'd see a different way of life. I can give you a few examples of prominent antigay Christians trying to get laws against homosexuals.

Wow ok now I finally understanding your motive. Well in my opinion you cant break down their theology about homosexuality because it clearly states in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin.

IMO, the way you are going about it will do you more harm than good. It is just going to piss Christians off that you are making some weak case based on a totally odd interpretation of those verses/chapters.

The best thing you can do is to live your life and ignore those that are against you. There is always going to be somebody who doesnt like every group of people.

Most of what is going on now is a backlash because many people feel like they are having "the gay agenda" forced down their throat. I think most people are fairly tolerant and getting more so, but in some ways I think certain groups pushing the agenda so hard actually is making many people less tolerant. I think if it could just slow down a bit everything would go smoothly and gays would get more and more rights with less backlash from religions and other groups. That is just my opinion though from observing people.

reply to post by passenger

Scholars from gaychristians101 (or whatever) certainly aren't likely to have a skewed agenda are they? And as far as the whole issue of 'scholars' is concerned: I'm not a 'scholar' but I also don't have to be a farmer to know when I am stepping in horse $#!^.

How about Religous Tolerance website? www.religioustolerance.org...

Are they stepping in horse manure? Not to mention various sites?

Matthew 5: 17-19: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them...not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law... Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least ..."(emphasis added) NIV

That's why. Show me a passage where Jesus said sleeping with your Aunt or another man is OK! He didn't give carte blanche for sinning - only forgiveness for those that recognized their sins. He never claimed that the Old Law/ Old Testament was done - only that He had the authority to override the punishment for breaking it.

So let's not confuse not sinning with being forgiven for sinning. They are two different concepts.

I appreciate you getting a tad off topic for me and explaining what Jesus really meant. Or at least how his words have been translated and handed down.
But the OP has just as much a valid point that it seems many Christians take certain passages completely out of context, while ignoring others. Isn't there a passage about eating shellfish and being stoned in the Old Testament? If Christians are going to lash out at the homosexuals then why not lash out at the Red Lobster crowd?
I have to run out but yes I ll look up the verse I am referring too and either correct myself or post it. If someone beats me to it. Thanks!

Originally posted by defcon5
You are actually over thinking this, its really very simple in the bible. The bible defines what a marriage relationship is supposed to be, and the Ten Commandments state that any sexual activity outside the marriage relationship is sinful (whether it be adultery or fornication). That even includes heterosexual relationships out of wedlock. The marriage relationship is very clearly defined as it is used frequently as an allusion to Christ (husband) and his Church (Bride).

Ahem... I'll just point out this video for ya, and you can take the "marriage relationship being clearly defined" and laugh your way right on down the road






as for the topic of romans 1. I agree with ya Deaf, that chapter is definitely speaking about pagan worship.

I'll not get into an argument relating to the other verses, but that romans one, for sure

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Jomina]

reply to post by Jomina


I wanted to give you 1000 stars for your post.

I am deaf and usually I need subtitles to understand the videos, but this video I didn't need subtitles. I understood clearly.

I am sure Christians will come to debate this.

Is incestous marriage acceptable? Etc. Etc. Another example that certain Christian choose to ignore.

So it's pretty much down the toilet.

Thanks.