Homophobe responded to my biblical letter

[carrowsboy]

Bible Criticizes Homosexuality

Editor, Times-Dispatch: Letter-writer Brandon Harlow asserts, "It is simply deceptive to pretend the Bible is anti-gay." Contrary to his position, the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality, along with all other sin, as these passages show:

Leviticus 18:22: "Homsexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."

Leviticus 20:13: "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."

Romans 1:27: "And the men, instead of having normal sex relations with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved."

I Corinthians 6:9-11: "Don't you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshippers, adulterers, or homosexuals will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers."

I Timothy 1:8-11: "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."

It is impossible to use the Bible to justify homosexuality. Smoke and mirrors can't change the word of God. Susan R. Hogue. chester.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773024993&path=%21editorials%21letters&s=1045855935005

[Dookus]

1. well...

the bible DOES condemn homosexuality. I never understand why people want to argue that it doesn't.

I think the bigger argument to make is why should our society live by the rules designed by a desert tribal people 3,000 years ago.

[emanymton]

5. To Do So ...

means we cannot eat pork and chickens must be killed in special ways.

And while we are at it, we are then allowed to have slaves and wives! Sound like a fun GOP time to me.

"Bring em on."

[Andy_Stephenson]

10. Ask Ms Hogue...

If she has any poly cotton belnd stretch pants. Mixed Fibre clothing is clearlt forbidden in leviticus as well. You might want to ask her how her neighbors stand the stench of her "Burnt offering unto the lord". I could go on...but you get the point.

[Sandpiper]

16. Yeah, but

the bible DOES condemn homosexuality

Jesus never uttered a word against it in any of the four gospels. Any New Testament condemnations of homosexuality come exclusively from Paul. You would think if it was that big a deal, Jesus would have at least found it worthy of a mention.

On top of that, most Xtians reach back to the Old Testament for verses condemning homosexuality, which is the old law, which Jesus said he had come to fulfill.

[Dookus]

18. Correct...

but the bible does not consist solely of the New Testament.

As an atheist (and a gay man), I don't give the slightest bit of regard to what the bible condemns. Pretending that it DOESN'T condemn homosexuality, though, is a losing argument. It's right there in black and white.

Instead of contorting the meaning, i prefer to just say "so what?" when somebody says the bible condemns homosexuality.

[Sandpiper]

23. You've figured out

The most effective approach. Christian fundies operate from the frame of mind that everyone cares what the bible says, regardless of whether they are christian.

By saying "so what" you suck the wind out of their sails, and pretty much all they're left with is ranting about how you're going to hell for your disbelief.

[thinkingwoman]

26. if homosexuality is such an awful sin

why isn't mentioned in the ten commandments?

Judging by what is included and what is not included in the big ten laws to live by, homosexuality is outranked by:

remembering the sabbath
not lying
not lusting after your neighbor's wife

and the all important...

not making graven images like big stone replicas of the ten commandments.

God please save us from your followers.

[arcane1]

2. one question for that person:

does he obey EVERYTHING that Leveticus says?

[Syrinx]

3. in my paper today,

was a letter "against" homosexuality. I could figure out if the letter was serious or not. I don't think it was.

-----

Dear Editor: In response to Robert Stone's letter on Jan. 5: Not only is
homosexuality a sin according to the Bible, but the Bible is very clear
about what God's people are to do in response to homosexuality. "If a
man lies with a man as one lies with a woman ... they must be put to
death" (Lev. 20:13). The Bible doesn't specify exactly what method
should be used to kill such men. For some offenses, God prefers burning
the evildoer alive (Lev. 21:9), while for other offenses God is equally
satisfied with stoning (Lev. 20:2). However, nowhere in the Bible can I
find any allowance for forgiveness of such an offense, contrary to Mr.
Stone's letter.

Maybe Saint Paul would provide an exception, but since the condemnation
in Leviticus is directly from God himself, it should be clear what
Christians are to do to homosexual sinners. I do agree with Mr. Stone
that when God's people carry out God's punishment, whether burning
sinners alive or stoning or any method pleasing to God, it should be
done in a loving, not a hateful, attitude. Remember: "God is love" (1
John: 4:16).

Also, with regard to the increase in referrals to juvenile courts
reported in Sunday's edition, titled "Unruly students going to jail,"
the Bible is clear about this also. Rebellious sons are to be stoned
(Lev. 21:21). A few good stonings would keep those teenagers in line! We
just need to follow the Good Book and we wouldn't have all these
problems.

[Syrinx]

4. check out the smiley!!!

That just appeared. I copied the letter, and the leviticus verse ended with a lipsmack or something!

Laugh out loud!

[carrowsboy]

6. Freudian slip!

I noticed that too. I guess it was the sequence of numbers or something!

[Syrinx]

7. as it straight man, it's embarassing

:9

(I looked it up.)

:evilgrin:

[camero]

8. Um, The Old Testament also condemned usury

Well, we should get warmed up. We got alot of rocks to throw. :)

[Sandpiper]

17. The tenth commandment also tells us

That we should not covet our neighbor's belongings. If we got rid of coveting, the whole basis for capitalism would be up in smoke. :D

[camero]

21. So True

[TrogL]

9. Don't get me started

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[Andy_Stephenson]

11. A good resource

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. Oh and by the way...Paul...of Romans fame...

talks to the lord about removing his "affliction"...never said what the afflicition was...But me thinks he doth protest too much.

[FDRrocks]

13. Bible criticizes hate and violence....

stick it up his ass.

[davidinalameda]

14. the term homosexual is only about 100 years old

the modern concept of being gay is probably not much older.


and if these people would take the time to go back and look at the bible and what the original actually said instead of cutting and pasting this crap, they might actually learn something

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. Amen!

:evilgrin:

[Bolo Boffin]

19. The Romans quote doesn't condemn homosexuality, per say.

No, really, it doesn't. Paul makes it clear what's got him all in a tizzy.

In Romans, the women exchange an "natural act" for an "unnatural" act, but the men exchange women for men. The women, therefore, are doing this "unnatural" act with men, not women. Otherwise, Paul would have said they exchanged men for women.

In other words, the women get the men to do the "unnatural" act, and then the men throw the women over for men. Paul is saying here that women turn men into homosexuals by engaging in alternate acts of intercourse with them.

This is crazy!! This is not true - this is a culturally bound statement, and Paul is hopelessly deluded here. Paul's prissy squemishness here shouldn't be dogma for anyone.

As far as the other verses are concerned: The Corinthian and Timothy quotes are from lists of sins, and the word translated "homosexuals" is therefore standing alone without a lot of context. The word is a compound Greek word that doesn't appear anywhere else before this historically, so it's a good guess that this is a Pauline neologism. And since the two Greek words used to make the word are prominent in the extant Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22, it's a very good guess that the word is meant to describe people who commit the taboo of Leviticus 18:22. Literally, Leviticus says, "Don't lie with men as you do with women. This is taboo." Don't put your penis into men, basically. The compound Greek word in Corinthians and Timothy translates roughly to "men-liers," and so ties into the Levitical concept.

Why the taboo against sex with men? Because in an age of high infant mortality, homosexual acts are not useful for the tribe. Most sexual laws are about increasing fertility, because if you have enough children and keep them alive long enough, you can grow armies and sweep over your enemies. You can have the land. You can then raise children to farm the land and tend the animals. Homosexual sex is a luxury that nomadic tribes couldn't afford.

It's also about sanitation, another Levitical imperative. Sex involves bodily fluids, and the swapping of bodily fluids means potential disease and illness. Diseases and illnesses mean deaths to the tribe members, which conflict with fulfilling the societal goals above.

But in a modern age, where sanitation and medicine has progressed far beyond the ancient technologies, where infant mortality is not the problem it once was, where we're experiencing a bona fide population explosion, and where we better understand the genetic and psychological roots of homosexuality, these ancient taboos are no longer valid. It's as outmoded as thinking the sun revolves around a stationary flat earth.

The Bible was made for Humanity, and not Humanity for the Bible. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality, but there are reasons why it does so. Since those reasons are now invalid, the condemnation is also now invalid.

[Dookus]

20. Until

this country is declared an official theocracy, my best answer is still "So what?"

[Bolo Boffin]

22. LOL!

Basically, that's what I'm saying, too.

[booley]

24. the irony is...

the Bible (all the different versions) are so contradictory that when you take every line as literal or still with relevance today,you end up disproving one part in order to prove another...

According to the Bible, God is love and mercy and Just
But also according to the Bible, God kills a whole lot of people for really silly reasons.

according to the Bible, it's wrong to Kill
But also in the bible, Genocide IS ok..

according to the New testement, jesus is God.
but accordin to the old testment, jesus can't be God becuase God is indivisable, without begiining or end and never changes. No can God ever be a man.

And on and on.

As they say, the devil is in the details. You find God in the whole picture. if people just concentrated on being nice to one another instead of justifications to treat each like crap... but oh well, you guys probably knew that already.

[Malva Zebrina]

25. that's pretty much it

in a nutshell. It is a convienence for evil, hatred and bigotry, is especially violent, and in some parts totally wrong in it's primitive science. Indeed the bible was written for tribal support and that includes bashing the babies of the enemy(the other tribe) against the rocks to kill them. It is also, imo, not suitable for children under the age of eighteen to read as there is erotica and descriptive pornography in it, which some call "poetry" <snicker> It has, imo, done absolutely nothing for the benefit of mankind, or womankind in all those thousands of years but reinforced a tribal hierarchy amongst those to whom that is important. Since it does support violence and murder and killing and the subjection of women, slaves and others who are on the low end of the pecking order, it has been convienent to keep around to satisfy the reptillian brain from which humanity still needs to evolve--plus, the belief it offers is irrestable--that is, that there is "life after death" most people find it very difficult to believe that they will not live forever--impossible to imagine just dead--or oneself as a "nothing"


I agree with the--so what? approach. :