A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS
- A review of 'The Bible and Homosexuality' -
[from www.religioustolerance.org]

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 12 March 1999 /

1. General Overview & Introduction

 So you're a homo! Congratulations. Now the first thing you'll want to do is gain divine approval and sanction for your social, spiritual, and
sexual madness. But how to do this? If you want to be a Christian, you have a big problem. The Bible takes a dim view of perversion, and
there's just no getting around that. Or maybe there is? One possibility is to join one of the many liberal and enlightened post-modern
churches that give much lip-service to the scriptures, but only accept those portions of it that they find congenial to their vanity (for
example, the Church of the Poisoned Mind and Twisted Heart).
.
 OR you could approach the Bible in such a way that the truth of things becomes so blurred and obscure that the only thing that remains
certain is the Lie. So how do we do this? Well, first we have to understand that the Bible is a collection of ancient patriarchal documents
of little relevance to post-moderns, and that the people who wrote these books were very stupid and ignorant, and did not even know
what homosexuality is. Thus the first fact to bear in mind is that the words 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' do not appear anywhere in
the original language texts of the biblical books. So of course, they had no knowledge of non-exploitive, consensual sexual activities within
the context of homosexual partnerships. And, of course, all homosexuals are non-exploitive, consensual sweethearts who wouldn't hurt
a fly even if their life depended on it; and the idea that most homo's are promiscuous whores and sluts is only a myth generated by
homophobic bigots afraid of their own latent homosexuality.
.
 Well, now that we have our facts straight (and we certainly don't want *them* to be twisted, now do we?), we are ready to destroy ...
ummm, sorry; I mean: to examine what the scriptures have to say about our collective orientation; which is genetically determined at
conception, and "cannot be changed through prayer, religious conversion, aversion therapy or counseling, any more than race or gender
can be changed." Of course, all of these ideas are lies; as the existence of bisexuals (genetically determined to be oriented to both
genders, perhaps?) and those who have changed their patterns of sexual behavior clearly demonstrates.
.
 Moreover, the Wicked One (Darcy K.) was not genetically determined to her promiscuous "freedom" and her vile "sexual liberation", but was,
rather, conceived through incest, and nurtured on the approving madness of a corrupt and perverse Woman-Church that justifies its hatred
of all *man*kind by claiming that their grossly favored Lesbian-christians are vulnerable and oppressed incarnations of Christ ... When the
truth is that they are monsters of spiritual death, abominations of desolation, and faithful daughters of their true father (the Father of Lies;
who was a murderer from the very beginning).
.
 As to the modern English versions of the Bible, it is apparent that the translators are biased homophobes who deliberately distort certain
verses so as to favor their hatred and fear. Hence we have the KJV of the fundies, and the NIV of the evangelicals. So 4X the KJV wrongly
translates Deut.23:17 so as to condemn 'sodomites' rather than 'male prostitutes'. Liberal Christians, however, recognize that the Bible
contains "many translation errors", and understand that these passages "relate to customs of a long-past era that cannot be applied in
today's society." These verses are safely ignored or discarded.
.
 So whereas fundies and evangelicals view the sinfulness of a sexual act as being defined by the act itself, liberal Christians know that
"whether a sexual act is a sin or not is defined by the participants' relationship, not by the act itself." Of course, the Bible in no way
justifies such an interpretation of the texts; but that's OK, since it would be inappropriate to allow the sacred scriptures to influence or
determine the way we think about things! Thus, since the Hebrew scriptures condemns specific immoral behaviors (eg. sex in temples),
rather than homosexual acts in general, liberal Christians conclude that safe "homosexual sex within a truly consenting and committed
relationship is not sinful." Now isn't that nice?
.
 Thus there are "biblical references that condemn same-sex sexual behavior, but they are all within contexts related to violence, idolatry,
promiscuity and exploitation. Careful reading within the historical setting reveals that it is the violence, idolatry, promiscuity and
exploitation that is condemned, not the same-sex sexual behavior" ('Response to the Judicial Charge' by Jimmy Creech). In other words,
if you lie down with dogs, don't be *too* surprised when you get up and discover yourself to be with fleas!
.
 In the same way, Paul was clearly ignorant of consensual, committed homosexual relationships, and therefore: "Perhaps Paul's criticism
of homosexuality (if that was his intent) is no longer valid today." But actually, there's no 'perhaps' about it. That clearly *was* his intent;
and yes, the Word of God does indeed remain valid for all True Believers (even today) ... Despite the idiocy of liberal Christians, and all false
and deceitful psychobabble to the contrary! Praise be the Lord, who preserves us from the lies, deceptions, and double-minded hypocrisy
of evil minds and hardened hearts!

2. The NT & Games With Words

 Now 'The Bible and Homosexuality' by www.religioustolerance.org is a quite sizable online essay made up
of the following nine sections:
.
     (1) Summary and Caution
     (2) Biblical References to Same-Sex Activity
     (3) People's Beliefs Regarding the Bible
     (4) Specific Verses From the Book of Genesis
     (5) Specific Verses From the Rest of the Hebrew Scriptures
     (6) Homosexuality in the Bible: New Testament - All Views
     (7) Same-Sex Relationships In the Bible
     (8) Conclusions
     (9) References
.
 Now to be honest, I didn't actually go through each and every section (I just don't have the stomach for that
much drivel), but I did study the main sections (ie. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8). So the chapter on the New Testament is easily
the most significant for our purpose here, and it is actually quite interesting in various ways. Thus the best way
to understand what homo-hermeneutics is all about is to observe how it actually works; ie. how it actually treats
the following verses:
.
     Matthew 5:22; 8:5-13; 19:4-5; 19:10-12;
     John 3:16; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9;
     1Timothy 1:9-10; and Jude 7.
.
 Now, unfortunately, the many and various constraints imposed on newsgroup postings (eg. the shorter, the better)
do not allow me to examine the treatment accorded to all of these citations (although I would dearly love to do so),
but I can hardly do right by the Reader if I do not offer a detailed analysis of at least two of these references.
Therefore, I must beg your pardon for the excessive length of this series of articles. I trust that your patience will
be rewarded if you elect to carry through to the end.
.
 Now the core feature of the homo-interpretation of the above references hinges on what can only be called 'playing
tricks with words'. Thus in Mt 5:22 "raca" means something like "effeminate homo", while 'moros/fool' means something
like "homo shark" (ie. the homo opposite of raca). So v.22 is thus made into a condemnation of homophobia. In Mt 8:5
"pais" means something like "boy-toy" (ie. young sex-slave); and in this case there is some substance to the argument
that the sexual connotations of the word have been suppressed by translators.
.
 In Mt 19:4-5 it is supposed that the "them" of 'made them male and female' refers only to married couples, and so has
no relevance to homosexuality at all. Now this interpretation is incredibly deceitful and underhanded, and deliberately
misses the point that Jesus is making here. But then, that is precisely the point and purpose of homo-hermeneutics;
to draw attention away from the truth by focusing on peripheral matters and secondary details, or (failing that) by
willful and deliberate misinterpretation. And so it goes.
.
 The two passages, and their interpretation, that I have selected for your edification are 1Corinthians 6:9-11
and the Epistle of Jude ...

3. These Will Not Inherit the Kingdom

 Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be deceived! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate appeasers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers
will inherit the Kingdom of God. And these some of you were; but you were washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.  ---  1Corinthians 6:9-11 (Prophet Version)

4.  The Problem With Jude

 So can we trust religioustolerance.org, and place our faith and eternal destiny in the things that they say about the Sacred Scriptures?
Before you answer, have a close look at their brief commentary on 1 Timothy 1:9-10, which includes the following statement: "The book
of Romans was one of the 'Pastoral Letters' written by an unknown author perhaps half a century after Paul's death, and falsely attributed
to Paul." But, of course, everyone knows that Romans is an authentic (indeed *the* quintessential) epistle by Paul. What religioustolerance.org
means to say is that "The book of 1Timothy was ...".
.
 Now I point out this absurd error not to ridicule the maintainers of the www.religioustolerance.org web-site, but to show the Reader that
this sort of careless and bumbling "typo" is just the sort of mistakes that are typical (and indeed pervasive) of the "noble" enterprise of
homo hermeneutics. Yes, they are so common because they arise directly from an enormous absence of love and respect for the Word
of God! And having so quickly and erroneously dismissed 1Timothy, they move on at once to the enlightened interpretation of the prophet
Judas:
.
 "As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in the like manner to these fallen angels, having indulged in fornication,
and having lusted after *strange-flesh*, are set forth as an example of those undergoing the penalty of eternal fire." [Jude v7]

 Well, well, well! I art so overcome, that I art at a loss as to how to begin. What can we say about such a huge and smelly pile of bullsh*t?!
Dare we suggest that religioustolerance.org has not the faintest glimmer of understanding as regards the unfortunate epistle of Jude? Is this
not perfectly apparent to *all* True Believers? ... No?! ... Then let us hasten at once to the heart of the matter. Let us see if there is any
truth to the assertion that Jude does not "define exactly" which "sexual perversion" he is talking about ...
.
 Now the first thing to do in order to understand v.7 is to place it within its proper context. And the proper context is surely the entire
epistle as a whole. So the Universal Epistle of Jude is a letter to the "Called Ones". It contains 25 pungently prophetic verses; which can
be set forth according to the following the thematic divisions:
.
      1. Address, Blessing, & Opening (v.1-4)
      2. The Lord's Constant Judgment (v.5-11)
      3. The True Nature of These Distorted Ones (v.12-19)
      4. Final Warnings & Admonitions (v.20-25)
.
 The document as a whole is remarkably unified, coherent and concise, *and* communicates its intent with both power and passion ...
But only to those who have ears to hear, and a heart open to receive the Truth in humility and thanksgiving. In other words, ONLY the
eyes of faith are open to see and understand the Word of God! ...
.
 In this letter to the churches, the prophet Jude has it in mind to warn the faithful People of God about certain unrighteous people who have
entered into their assemblies, and made themselves right at home therein. And who are these people, you ask? The prophet tells us that they
are "the Ones of Old (who were written about, and judged ungodly)". And what do these 'Ones of Old' do? They deny Christ, and pervert grace
"into a license to be sexually unrestrained." And now they have "crept in" among you (v.4).
.
 The prophet then goes on (in section two) "to remind you (for you once knew all these things)" of what the Lord did to "those who believed
not" (v.5). In v.6 he mentions "those Angels ... under darkness for the judgment", and then it's on at once to our misinterpreted v.7 (see
above). Here we learn that the Ones of Old indulge in fornication, and lust after "strange-flesh". And what might 'strange-flesh' be, you ask?
Well, let us just say that it has nothing whatsoever in common with the *one-flesh* that our Lord spoke so passionately about! In any case,
what "these Dreaming Ones" (v.8) "understand 'naturally' is as unreasoning animals; and in these things they are corrupted" (v.10).
.
 Are we beginning to have an inkling about who the prophet is worried about? No? Well fear not, for Jude hastens at once to describe the true
nature of the creeping Ones of Old, who are now "hidden reefs in your love-feasts, feasting together with you without fear (and always mindful
unto themselves)". He compares them to "waterless clouds carried about by the winds ..." (v.12), and "wild waves of the sea, foaming out their
own shameful actions" (v.13).
.
 Is the light of understanding beginning to break through the heavy darkness of ignorance, and centuries of deliberate misunderstanding and
willful concealment? "Yes, these Ones are the grumblers and complainers who walk according to their own lusts. By their mouths they speak
haughty words; and also admire persons for the sake of advantage." (v.16). Are you still unsure? Then consider this: "These are the Ones
creating divisions; these "natural" men and women (being utterly bereft of the Holy Spirit)" (v.19)!
.
 Now does anyone dare to claim that the prophet Jude does not know *exactly* who these people are, and the things that they do? ...
Who rejects the Lord's righteous commands in the name of 'freedom and liberation'; and at the same time defiles the flesh without shame
or conscience or remorse (cf. v.8)? Does anyone dare to accuse the Word of God of being ignorant about these Dreaming Ones?! Do you
understand now why the many and varied apostate churches ignore and reject the epistle of Jude? Yes indeed; for they consider it a great
and terrible error that it was ever even included among the Holy Books in the first place!
.
 This, then, is the sole goal and purpose of all homo hermeneutics: to blind your eyes to the saving Truth by any and every means at
their disposal. Therefore do NOT be deceived! The Word of God offers thee all that thou needest to know concerning these so-called
"controversial" matters. And the Lord gave thee the mind and will to seek out the Truth; and the heart to embrace it fully and without
doubting ...
.
 Therefore, let me end this brief primer on homo hermeneutics with a quote (taken from the interpretation of 1Cor.6:9) by T.Crater:
"... A hallmark of Evangelicals is that we take a literal, normal, face-value interpretation of the Bible. Some people attempt to keep
some form of Christianity and hold on to homosexuality, too. It leads to strange interpretations of the Bible."
.
... Oh, yes; you can certainly say *that* again! 

/ Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-3 / 13 March 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
>> textman wrote: A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS-3 ... 3. These Will Not Inherit the Kingdom
>> Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be deceived! Neither fornicators,
>> nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate appeasers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards,
>> nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God. And these some of you were; but you were washed and
>> sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. [1Corinthians 6:9-11 / Prophet
>> Version] Now the homo-interpretation of this passage begins with the recognition that the two Greek terms that I have
>> here rendered into English as 'effeminate appeasers' and 'sexual perverts' have been variously translated in 25 English
>> versions as 'unmanly', 'decadent', 'homosexuals', 'sodomites', 'perverts', 'male prostitutes', 'catamites', 'pederasts', and
>> so on. From all this the writers observe that "Apparently, lesbians are not included in this condemnation." But this
>> suggestion clearly does violence to the passage, since Paul is obviously being deliberately inclusive in this list of
>> unrighteous people ... <snip> 
.
> JohnJ say: I've clipped the rest of this silly post. If Paul did not mean males where you
> rendered it "sexual perverts", why did he write in Greek, "male-bed".
.
 Dear JohnJ, 'arsenokoitai' does not mean 'male-bed'. According to my lexicon, 'arsenokoites' means 'one guilty of unnatural offenses'.
Now I have seen definitions that make reference to this obscure 'male-bed' thingy of yours, but this obviously harkens back to the
original root meanings of the root words. Which is to say that centuries later, when the Koine Greek was being used everywhere, the
word had developed new meanings and uses. Thus when Paul uses 'arsenokoitai' he is obviously NOT referring to 'male-beds', but rather
to sexual perverts in general. If Paul had wanted to be more particular by focusing specifically on gays, he would have said pederasts
(or 'paiderasste') or sodomites, or something to that effect. So there is a very good reason why Paul chose the term 'arsenokoitai', and
it certainly wasn't to make reference to something as absurd as male-beds!

.
> Now, if you want to render it "sexual perverts" that is fine with me.
.
 It is? Please excuse my skepticism ...
.
> That does not mean "homosexuals"!
.
 According to JohnJ, no, of course not. But according to the Word of God it most certainly includes homosexuals of all genders and
transgenders and subgenders, all gays and bi's and dykes and femmes, and even all the many stripes and colors of the pervert-rainbow.
Moreover, the Lord does not make special provisions for "consensual and committed adults in 'loving' same-sex partnerships".   . . .
.
> If you folks do not think so, go to the online dictionary page which will let you put "pervert" in the seach
> line and select "all dictionaries" and you'll find out that "sexual pervert" is never equated with homosexual.
> http://www.onelook.com/
.
 That's true enough. Modern dictionaries would not dare to be so politically incorrect as to link the two words together directly.
However, the various definitions of 'pervert' (that I found by way of John's recommended www.onelook.com) are *very* suggestive ...
.
 From Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: Topic: Perverse, Pervert -> "to turn away" is used metaphorically in the
sense of "perverting" in Luke 23:14. "to distort, twist" is translated "to pervert" in Luke 23:2. "turned aside, corrupted," in Matt. 17:17;
Luke 9:41; Acts 20:30; Phil. 2:15. "to transform into something of an opposite character" as the Judaizers sought to "pervert the gospel
of Christ. "to turn inside out", "to change entirely," is used metaphorically in Titus 3:11, RV, "is perverted" (AV, "is subverted"). See SUBVERT.
.
 From Webster's dictionary: PERVERT -> 1. To turn from truth, propriety, or from its proper purpose; to distort from its true use or end;
as, to pervert reason by misdirecting it; to pervert the laws by misinterpreting and misapplying them; to pervert justice; to pervert the
meaning of an author; to pervert nature; to pervert truth. 2. To turn from the right; to corrupt.

.
 From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: per·vert -> 1 to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right.
CORRUPT: to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted. MISDIRECT: to divert to a wrong end or
purpose. MISUSE: to twist the meaning or sense of. MISINTERPRET: synonym see DEBASE. per·vert·er noun
.
 Hey, John, does any of this ring any bells with you?
.
> I just ran through all the dictionaries and nowhere did I find homosexual for sexual pervert. I did
> find 'pederast' and 'sodomite' in a synomym section, but not 'homosexual'. You translate good,
.
 Why thx, John. It's very good of you to appreciate this. I suppose then, that you would not want to be so ungallant as to
suggest that homosexuals ought to be counted among the Lord's Righteous Ones ... ?
.
> whoever you are. <G>
.
 Oh ho! So you don't know who textman is, do you? This explains a lot. Most of your sort have sense enough to steer well clear
of the prophet. Lest the Lord smite them with a most awful and terrifying smite-ing! :)
.
> It is clear that sexual pervert cannot meant homosexual: "Overt homosexual practices are still regarded as
> perversions, from a legal point of view in some communities. However, the presence of homosexual tendencies
> is considered within the normal range by clinicians." Dictionary of Psychology, J. P. Chaplin, Ph.D., 1985
.
 Gee, the faithless servants of the Evil One think that homosexuality is not a perversion at all, but indeed is "normal", do they?
Wow! I am, like, sooooooo shocked, Uno! [insert copious sarcasm here]
.
> As far as the legal jurisdictions, Alabama still has it outlawed for blacks and whites to marry!  <G>

.
 And this relevant to the current discussion how?
.
> The Roget's International Thesaurus, 5th Ed., 1992. "heterosexual, straight" are in section 75.13  "homosexual;
> bisexual; lesbian" are in section 75.14   In section 75:16 are the synonyms: "sexual pervert; pervert, deviant,
> deviate, sex or sexual pervert, sex fiend, sex criminal, sexual psychopath; sodomist, sodomite, sob <Brit nonformal>,
> bugger; pederast; paraphiliac; zoophiliac; pedophiliac; sadist; masochist; sado-masochist; ..." on and on, but not
> homosexual!
.
 Well, John, I guess you're conveniently forgetting that the original root meaning of the Greek word 'arsenokoitai' (ie. male-bed)
clearly indicates that homosexuals are to be considered as foremost among those sexual perverts that Paul is referring to.
.
> Textman, if I were you, I'd hold to that comic's job before quiting to become a Bible translator or expositor. <G> JohnJ
.
 Well, John, I don't have a job (or indeed any means of acquiring an income), and my "wit" has not gained me even so much as a milligram
of gold. In any case, while I am already a translator and expositor of the Sacred Scriptures, that is certainly not my primary function. No
indeed, for I am called by the Lord of Glory to be a prophet unto His lost and wayward People; and *that* is my vocation (now & unto my
final breath)!

/ Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics-4 / 14 March 1999 / Newsgroups > alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>>>> textman wrote: A PRIMER ON HOMO-HERMENEUTICS-4 ... 4. The Problem With Jude <snip the whole thang!>
.
>>> "*** Joe ***" replied: There is No problem with Jude, however some people have a problem
>>> understanding Jude. Jude 1:1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ ...
.
>>  Dear Joe, about your translation: VERY FRAGGIN GROSS!!!! - the one who despises bad translations - textman ;>
.
> *** Joe *** replies: Hello textman
.
 textman answers:  Hi Ho, Joe ...  :)
.
> Please tell us who you are to make such a bold statement;
.
 textman: a slave of Jesus Christ, and a brother to the prophet Jacob.
.
> please post your credentials?
.
 My WUT?! Credentials? Oh, good grief! ... Well ... ummmm ... That is, I used to have credentials, but I seem to have misplaced them ...
However, if you have the faith to believe that the Lord of Glory is able to send upon His wayward People a lowly and worthless prophet
(such as textman), then be advised that any authority I may have comes solely from the Holy Spirit Herself; praise be Her grace and
generosity!
.

> It's good to have you in the group.
.
 Thx. It's much appreciated. But I'm not actually new to this group. Not by any means. In fact, a.c.bible used to be one of my favorite
newsgroups. But I've been avoiding posting here lately because the UseNet censors and moderators have been going out of their way
to give me grief, and indeed practically forced me out. But I am now returned (though doubtless only for a short time), because there
is no ng in cyberspace that needs me more than this one! That's why I posted Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics here, as well as to a.r.c.
biblestudy. May it make a lasting impression upon those who need it most!
.
> book of Jude (KJV) 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are
> sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called: <snip rest of epistle>
.
 This is a slight improvement; in that the KJV is a *marginally* better translation than the one you presented previously. But this too
is, alas, woefully inadequate; and indeed a rather shoddy piece of work. The Prophet Version is, by comparison, vastly superior in every
conceivable way. After all, who is more able to translate the words of a prophet than another prophet? Neither scholar nor bishop nor
committee is thus fit to do justice to the wonderfully synthetic mind of the prophet Jude! ... Therefore, receive thee the PV with faith
and gratitude; as befits a true disciple being worthy of the Name:

 "From Jude: a slave [ie. a prophet] of Jesus Christ, and a brother to [the prophet] Jacob.
To those Called Ones: loved by God the Father, and kept in Jesus Christ.
Mercy to you! And may peace and love be multiplied."
 -- The Universal Epistle of Jude v.1-2 / Prophet Version

/ Re: Primer on Homo-Hermeneutics / 14 March 1999 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
> Bruce Robinson of www.religioustolerance.org emails textman in answer to his criticisms of their online essay:
> <snip> The longer that I work in the field of religious tolerance, the more I realize that EVERYTHING depends
> upon your basic concept of the Bible. If you believe that it is inspired by God, and thus inerrant, then everything
> else follows: from a Christian's beliefs concerning equality of the sexes, concerning homosexuality, concerning
> spanking children etc.
.
 Dear Bruce, I tend to agree. However, I must take exception to your direct line from inspiration to inerrancy. The scriptures are certainly
inspired (ie. written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), but this does *not* mean that it is perfect in every detail. Indeed, I firmly
reject the concept of inerrancy; at least in regards to matters of science and history.
.
> If you believe that it is writings by a number of authors who are promoting their own, different, religious beliefs,
> then your beliefs about these topics (and many more) logically follow.
.
 They do? Perhaps not. Indeed, logic has very little to do with it.

.
> Fascinating. As with racism and sexism, there is no possibility of ending homophobia through reason. It will
> necessitate  changes in the law.  Regards,  Bruce Robinson, Coordinator
> The "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" is a multi-faith group which promotes religious tolerance.
> Address: OCRT, Box 27026, Kingston ON Canada K7M8W5. URL:  http://www.religioustolerance.org
.
 That, sir, is a frightening probability!
.
> I think that you are misunderstanding the nature of our site. We are not a Christian site.
.
 Dear Bruce, this I already know. Where then is my misunderstanding?
.
> We are a multi-faith site (Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccan, Christian)
.
 A "multi-faith" site is a web-site devoted to spreading lies, and serving the Wicked One. Either you are for Christ, or you are
against Him! Since you are clearly against Him, how is it that you dare to call yourselves 'Christian' in any way, shape, or form?
.
> We attempt to explain both conservative and liberal Christian views.
.
 You do not 'explain' them so much as merely offer an over-simplified and woefully inadequate version
of what you consider to be 'liberal' and 'conservative' Christian views.
.
> We are not contrasting fundamentalist vs. homosexual views as you imply.
.
 Perhaps you do not think so, but that is exactly how it comes across.
.

> And, by the way, none of us are gay or lesbian. We are all heterosexuals.
.
 Then you really ought to know better, hadn't you?
.
>> tx: But having now cleverly installed themselves (by force) within the Kingdom of God (as if they were righteous
>> and faithful believers), the authors are not satisfied with this, and go on at once to again assert that orientation
>> is incapable of change, and that "homosexual behavior is not intrinsically sinful ..."
.
> We assert nothing. We are merely explaining the beliefs of others.
.
 And doing a piss-poor job of it, I might add.
.
> We have our own beliefs. However, if we have done our job well, you should not be able to identify them.
.
 And what purpose does it serve to conceal your ideas and beliefs from us? Do you seriously imagine that by hiding
the truth from your Readers you are somehow gaining credibility by way of a false and deceitful objectivity?
.
>> Thus we can plainly see that the ideology that empowers the entire convoluted edifice of the homo hermeneutics
>> rises from a direct denial of the truths revealed in scripture. So they deny that homosexuality is sinful, when the
>> entire biblical tradition clearly indicates otherwise.
.
> We do not deny that homosexuality is sinful. We acknowledge that - homosexual rape - homosexual prostitution -
> homosexual rituals in Pagan temples - men sexually abusing boys - heterosexuals acting as homosexuals in orgies
> are all sinful, according to the Bible. But the Bible is silent on homosexual behavior within committed, monagamous,
> gay/lesbian relationships.
.

 You yourself claim that such relationships existed in biblical times, but were conducted in secret (for obvious reasons). So if "committed,
monogamous, gay/lesbian relationships" are not a modern invention, then why should you suppose that the Word of God is entirely
ignorant about them? Just because Scripture does not *explicitly* say that "committed, monogamous, gay/lesbian relationships" are
ALSO evil and sinful, does not mean that the Holy Spirit did not know them. Indeed, the prophet Jude clearly suggests that these
people have always been with us, and that these 'Ones of Old' were written about and judged ungodly.
.
>> They deny that orientation/behavior can be changed by faith and conversion, when Paul clearly states that is
>> precisely what happened to the Corinthians believers! Now they do not dare to call Paul a liar directly, but that
>> is exactly what their feeble denials and pathetic assertions amount to.
.
> We do not call Paul a liar.
.
 Yes, I know. I just said this: "they do not dare to call Paul a liar directly" ...
.
> Who knows. Perhaps the Corinthians were able to change their sexual orientation.
.
 My dear Bruce, art thou completely dense? "Orientation" is a psycho-babble buzzword utterly bereft of all meaning and significance!
Paul is *not* talking about this fanciful "orientation". He states directly that the sexual perverts among them ceased to be such
following their conversion and baptism and anointing. They ceased to be perverts because they stopped *behaving* as perverts.
Paul does not mention whether or not they still lusted after strange-flesh. Perhaps some of them did; but this did not stop them
from *acting* as good and faithful True Believers should. ... That is the point!
.
> We do not say that sexual behavior is unchangable. Homosexuals, as for heterosexuals, can choose to be celibate.
> However, we do make the point that sexual orientation is, in the 20th century, essentially fixed in adults.
.
 Really? And why on earth should you suppose that 20th century adults are somehow different from all the previous generations? Has
our great and wondrous enlightened wisdom and super-scientific knowledge made us into a new super-species of homo-sapiens? Are
we all now little gods and godlings, able to turn the cosmos inside out, and upside down, but yet utterly incapable of changing our
sexual habits and affections?
.
 Let me tell you something: If people have changed, it only that they are even more vain and arrogant and self-serving than they ever
were! And if this non-existent "orientation" is somehow "fixed", you may be well assured that it is only because they wish it to be so!
.

> Our survey of studies into the effectiveness of reparative therapy shows this.
> See:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm
.
 Who gives a flying fart about reparative therapy? I'm talking about handing everything that we have and are over to the Lord.
I'm talking about opening your hardened hearts to your Savior in humility and thanksgiving. I'm talking about the power of faith
and grace to transform us into "new creatures" ... Into God's sons and daughters. Wut? You don't think that the Faith of the
saints and apostles is able to effect any significant changes in Believers? Check out the testimonies of those who have done
just that (thx2 Ben & MrsRat):
.
     http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/index.html
     http://www.webpulse.com/sanctuary/dave/bibgay.htm
     http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/index.htm
     http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mjseydel/2god.html
     http://www.firststone.org/
     http://members.aol.com/delivermin/index.html
     http://www.clearsail.com/~mrnewman/index.htm
     http://homosexresolve.netministries.org/
     http://www.loveinaction.org/front.shtml
     http://www.telepath.com/lovgrace/
     http://personal.riverusers.com/~rtheckler/sins-god.htm
     http://www.execulink.com/~newdirec/
     http://www.tftrust.u-net.com/