Can A Gospel Singer Be Gay?
DJz...@gmail.com
magazine? It's a good read...quite lengthy, a little over 5 pages.
I had heard about the scandal when it happened and didn't know what had
become of him. I'm glad he's still singing and his faith has never
wavered.
Chris Perdue
"Restoration Team" members and they said that there are signs of deliverance
of the life of Kirk from the struggle he had. Praise the Lord!
Chris P.
<DJz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122106708....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just Allan
Five pages!? Is that an article, or an advert? : )
Just Allan
<ca...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>I am a pastor of a church, and I have been in contact with one of the
>"Restoration Team" members and they said that there are signs of deliverance
>of the life of Kirk from the struggle he had. Praise the Lord!
>
>Chris P.
Wonderful to still be hearing such comments... I know a few
ex-homosexuals who repented, regained normal sexual desires for the
opposite sex, married and now have their OWN children (instead of
robbing an adopted one of the security of a normal and complete
family).
As Jesus taught... Who will love God the most? The one who was
forgiven the most.
Allan.
Jr.
this:
A gay person can be anything he wants to call himself.
If he wants to be a Gospel singer he can be one.
As we found out, once KT was outed he was no longer a viable Gospel singer.
In that case you would say no, a gay could not be a Gospel singer once he
was outed.
What kind of testimony can a gay person have?
"Jesus forgives me every day for being gay?"
The Bible tells us that homosexuality (men lying down with men) is an
abomination to God.
How can one who is an abomination to God be a Gospel singer?
David Ching
"Jr." <pauls...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:zcEEe.177784$_o.175645@attbi_s71...
> How can one who is an abomination to God be a Gospel singer?
A non-practicing gay does not lie with other men and, according to you, is
not an abomination. Nevertheless, he remains gay.
-- David
dack jarvis
> As we found out, once KT was outed he was no longer a viable Gospel singer.
Clearly you haven't been keeping up with his newsletter -- he's not only
viable but quite actively singing again in churches all over the place.
> What kind of testimony can a gay person have?
Clearly you also didn't go buy the magazine and read the article. He's
sharing his own genuine testimony. KT aside, you'd be amazed at what
God can do in a gay person's life, if you'd open your eyes and ears to
what's going on all around you, and keep your mouth shut for a little
while... just 'hide and watch' to see what's happening in the lives of
countless thousands of gay and lesbian folk in churches all over the
country and around the world.
> The Bible tells us that homosexuality (men lying down with men) is an
> abomination to God.
According to the article, he hasn't had sex with ANYone since he and his
wife divorced, back in '86. Even the most ardent fundamentalist knows
the difference between experiencing temptation and yielding/submitting
to that temptation. Give it a rest already. He hasn't had sex with a
guy, and is apparently quite successful in not yielding to that part of
himself. He has chosen NOT to act on his sexuality, preferring to
remain faithful to the teachings he was raised with. How he manages to
do that is between him and God, and nobody else's business. Sure, it's
a struggle for him and creates a conflict for him, and probably
disheartening at times, but his life and his music is of a higher
priority than his sexuality, and he does what he must do in order to
keep his priorities. Talking about it publicly strengthens his resolve,
and helps others to face their own trouble spots as well.
If his music, his life, and his testimony touches lives in a positive
way (which you would know it clearly does, if you were actually paying
attention), why do some folks continue to hide in a newsgroup to
bad-mouth him? All the lies and criticism of Kirk speak more about the
character of the critics than it does about Kirk.
Get over it already.
--
Dackleigh Robinson Jarvis III
"Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko."
- John Loeffler
Chris Perdue
>
> "Jesus forgives me every day for being gay?"
Jr.,
Didn't God/Jesus tell the lady who was caught in the act, to go and sin no
more. He knew her heart and she was forgiven. I may be reading it wrong,
but I think you don't think someone can be delivered from such a sin. If
that is the case... then God can forgive every sin, except homosexuality, is
that what you are saying?
What kind of testimony can he have? ONE OF DELIVERANCE, like me from
alcohol, drugs, pornography, lieing, gossip, etc.
-Chris
Don
Back to good ole gospil music please
Don
Jr.
If you haven't had sex in 20 years doesn't that make you celibate?
IF you are indeed celibate than how in the h - double toothpicks can you
decide you are gay?
Dack - I have nothing to get over.
I don't read his newsletter, I don't care as long as he isn't invited to
sing at our church he can do what he THINKS is right.
"Chris Perdue" <ca...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:ApQEe.2091$cg....@news02.roc.ny...
Jr.
that is why you so vehemently defend "gay christians"
"dack jarvis" <dackj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10LEe.26017$TU....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
dack jarvis
> I just have one stupid question
> If you haven't had sex in 20 years doesn't that make you celibate?
> IF you are indeed celibate than how in the h - double toothpicks can you
> decide you are gay?
Again, "gay" is who you are and where your attractions are, not what
you do about it. I am gay and celibate, same as Kirk (although for
different reasons). So what?
> Dack - I have nothing to get over.
Your ignorance, self-righteousness, and pride would be a good place to
start.
> I don't read his newsletter, I don't care as long as he isn't invited to
> sing at our church he can do what he THINKS is right.
Then you are wrong in your heart and apparently don't much understand
what grace is all about. What if he were invited to sing at your
church? What would be wrong with that? He's done you no wrong (unless
you think honestly baring one's soul is "wrong"). Wouldn't it be a
good thing for people to hear it straight from his own mouth where he is
in his life and his ministry, instead of rumors and propaganda? You
are missing out on some good music and good ministry, but that's your
own choice, I suppose, but you are wrong in that choice.
dj
Jr.
I only have one thing to say to you and then I am done on this redundant
thread.
I upped my status in life - UP YOURS!!
"dack jarvis" <dackj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lNTEe.25414$dz.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Just Allan
wrote:
>Oh, yes, Dack. I remember now. You are one of the gays on this newsgroup and
>that is why you so vehemently defend "gay christians"
Now there's an oxymoron - with extreme emphasis on the "moron" part.
Just Allan
<ca...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>What kind of testimony can he have? ONE OF DELIVERANCE, like me from
>alcohol, drugs, pornography, lieing, gossip, etc.
>
>-Chris
Once you gave up drugs, you stopped being a drug addict.
Once you gave up lying, you ceased being a liar.
Or one would hope so. : )
We don't now introduce ourselves... "Hi, I'm a liar/porn/drug/alcohol
addict - dredging up our past lives, thus constantly referring to
ourselves as the failures we once were. Oh sure, it may come up from
time to time that someone was a drug addict, etc. But a normal person
doesn't consider those things as part of their identity any longer.
They are free from their sin - not known by it.
A "gay christian" or a "celebate gay christian" continues to label
themself with their sin. (Although one of these does it arrogantly
and the other just foolishly.) They count their homosexuality equally
as part of their identity as their supposed faith - give the two
labels equal billing so to speak.
By constantly identifying themselves by their sin, they are not yet
free from it. And if you're not free from sin, you're automatically
free from righteousness by default:
"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from
righteousness."
It is normal we should "be ashamed" of the things we used to do. It
is abnormal to promote them...
"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?
for the end of those things is death."
So when someone says, "I'm a sodomite Christian", or even, "I'm a
celebate, sodomite Christian"... The first is not yet ashamed of
their sin, since they still identify themselves by their perverse acts
- and the second one admits they haven't bothered to put to death
their old man. They haven't overcome the same perverse lusts, else
they would have ditched the homosexual label along with the sin.
And on the last day, Jesus Christ will honor the labels they gave
themselves.
Allan.
Just Allan
wrote:
>I just have one stupid question
It's not stupid.
>If you haven't had sex in 20 years doesn't that make you celibate?
>IF you are indeed celibate than how in the h - double toothpicks can you
>decide you are gay?
Because they still toy with their homosexual lusts even if it is only
in their mind. So they haven't yet claimed any victory. The Bible
says that if a man and a woman lust for each other, it is better for
them to marry than to burn with lust. There is no such solution given
for homosexuals because it must be forsaken. There's no sexual
solution like with a man/woman marriage. Homosexuality is not even
recognised as a valid choice. So if a man still lusts for other men
5, 10, 20 years on, he's been IN SIN for 5, 10 or 20 years - whether
he acts on it or not - because the Bible clearly says homosexual lust
is a WILLING CHOICE and a perversion.
Not inherited, not born with, not learned or taught - CHOSEN.
>>> "Jesus forgives me every day for being gay?"
That line above turns my stomach. Jesus does not forgive sin we
cannot be bothered turning away from.
Allan.
TommyDale
being glorified?"
While there appears to be a change in his life, Kirk Talley will never
regain the numerous fans he once had, because those who follow Biblical
teaching will not condone his performing while in conflict.
dack jarvis
TommyDale wrote:
> regain the numerous fans he once had, because those who follow Biblical
> teaching will not condone his performing while in conflict.
Those who actually follow Biblical teaching don't waste their time
wondering if they can condone or condemn another human being. They
can't and they know it.
dack jarvis
Jr. wrote:
> Dack
> I only have one thing to say to you and then I am done on this redundant
> thread.
>
So, having withdrawn from further discussion, you admit by default that
all of my points were correct, else you would have responded directly.
You and your kind are an embarrassment to society and Christianity.
Jr.
"dack jarvis" <dackj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ogFe.4333$h.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
steve
have you noticed the same old gay bunch promoting there agenda every
time they get a chance. Its good to see someone other than you and i
standing for the word of god.
steve
overlook what God says about the sin of homosexuality? sure gays can be
saved, sure GOD will forgive their sins, but they must turn from their
sinful ways. Stop picking and choosing what you want from the bible. If
you believe in JESUS, if you believe in salvation, if you believe in
grace, then how can you ignore what the same GOD says about the sin of
homosexuality. Did God make a mistake when he called homosexuality an
abomination? Did he make a mistake when he said men should not lay with
men as with women? You need to stop promoting your homosexual agenda
here because no one is listning. My GOD is great and he meant what he
said homosexuality is a sin, and no practicing homo can be saved.
steve
I try not bring up the subject anymore, but i refuse to let the homos
promote their agenda. its wrong and i am gonna tell them it's wrong.
steve
got news for you dack you ain't as smart as you think. That's right i
said ain't.
steve
steve
to be informed makes me sick.
TommyDale
You misunderstood my comment. What I said was that the fans can't
condone the fact that he was singing the Gospel while he was in
conflict. He should have stepped down for a period of time to prove
himself. This is common, even for heterosexuals who have had illicit
affairs and sinned. We will never knowingly allow or condone a
homosexual to openly perform on a Gospel music stage without pointing
out the sin.
As much as I like Kirk Talley, and hope he gets his life straight
(literally), he had no business performing while under this bondage of
homosexuality. I wish he would have come clean with the fans sooner,
and not just when he got exposed in the news. The friends and/or
family that covered it up did a great disservice in co-conspiring with
him to keep it covered up as well.
Jr.
before swine.
The gays on this board who claim to be "Christians" make me sick.
Listening to Dack spew his gay words makes me believe all the more that God
can cause an ass to speak as he did with Balaam's
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122351745.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just Allan
"Folks are dumb, where he comes from - they don't get much
learnin'..."
Just Allan
>Allen, what does the words gay and christian have in common?
Well, real Christians have lots of joy... }:-D
Just Allan
>Dack how can you claim to know so much about grace, and willingly
>overlook what God says about the sin of homosexuality? sure gays can be
>saved, sure GOD will forgive their sins, but they must turn from their
>sinful ways. Stop picking and choosing what you want from the bible.
As I said a long time ago, I think he/she/they/it are fakes. They're
only here for amusement. They stumbled on this group a long time ago
and invested 15 minutes on google - learning enough about Southern
Gospel to sound legit. That way they can post enough on topic
messages to remain out of the killfiles, but enough sodomite agenda to
still "amuse" themselves.
>If
>you believe in JESUS, if you believe in salvation, if you believe in
>grace, then how can you ignore what the same GOD says about the sin of
>homosexuality. Did God make a mistake when he called homosexuality an
>abomination? Did he make a mistake when he said men should not lay with
>men as with women? You need to stop promoting your homosexual agenda
>here because no one is listning. My GOD is great and he meant what he
>said homosexuality is a sin, and no practicing homo can be saved.
I don't think a non-practicing homosexual is saved either. Because
they still "regard sin in their heart" and has not been "renewed in
the spirit of their mind". I've seen homosexuals with a real
repentance. And I've seen those who have returned to their sodomy
too. You can always tell the difference in their
walk/faith/commitment/prayer/... everything - long before they return
to lap up their vomit.
Allan.
Jr.
tendencies until he was basically outed by a blackmailer.
He admitted basically that he was sorry he was caught.
Then it seemed on the surface at least that his first order of business was,
"how can I get out of this and keep my career?"
He surrounds himself with all kinds of Christian counselors and declares he
has been "miraculously delivered" from a sin he claims he was not practicing
in the first place.
He wasn't really gay, he "just felt gay".
Totally bizarre.
Oh, yes, and by the way, we never have seen a public apology and admission
to the SG world. He has never owned up publically nor has he publically
asked forgiveness as far as I have seen.
dack jarvis
Just Allan wrote:
> As I said a long time ago, I think he/she/they/it are fakes. They're
> only here for amusement. They stumbled on this group a long time ago
> and invested 15 minutes on google - learning enough about Southern
> Gospel to sound legit. That way they can post enough on topic
> messages to remain out of the killfiles, but enough sodomite agenda to
> still "amuse" themselves.
1. I don't introduce the topic, so you can't fault me for speaking up
and being ready to provide factual information on the matter and keep
the discussion balanced. The so called Christians who have such an
issue with it have never provided anything but denominational opinion
and personal interpretation on the issue of being gay, and those
opinions and interpretations are fully debunked by science, medicine,
and Biblical scholarship, available for all to read and study.
2. It is the alleged "Christians" here who are incapable of discussing
the matter, so they resort to personal insults and ad hominem attacks.
Such emotional fanaticism shows they have no legitimate grounds on which
to stand, and nothing from the Bible they claim to know so well.
As for Allan's opinion of me, it's based on invented fantasies in his
own head; what he thinks of me is patently false and therefore irrelevant.
If people don't want to discuss being gay, they shouldn't keep bringing
it up, or else they should realize there are enough gay folk around to
set the record aright. Even if individuals choose to killfile someone
else, the posts will remain for honest people to see both sides.
steve
LOL poor gay folk everyone always picking on them LOL. before you go
sweeping around my back door ( oh shoot wrong choice of words in this
group) porch. don't you think you should sweep around yours. Get use to
it, because as long as i stay around here your vomit won't go unnoticed
steve
they belong ( the bottom of the toliet). By the way i am proud to say
that my church has taken a stand aginst these scum. I will never be a
part of any church who endorces homos.
steve
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
Well, he can put together a coherent sentence and correctly punctuate
it, which seems to be beyond your capabilities.
--
Hank Gillette
For Bush to get rid of Rove, would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar
Bergen. - Marshall Wittman
Hank Gillette
Just Allan <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote:
> As I said a long time ago, I think he/she/they/it are fakes. They're
> only here for amusement. They stumbled on this group a long time ago
> and invested 15 minutes on google - learning enough about Southern
> Gospel to sound legit.
As usual, you never let facts get in the way of your opinions.
dack jarvis
steve wrote:
> Im still waiting dack. CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE
>
Chapter and verse for what? you didn't ask for anything.
Jr.
I will bet your eyes are brown. You are so full of it.news:9DCFe.2342$G71....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
dack jarvis
Jr. wrote:
> Dack
> I will bet your eyes are brown. You are so full of it.
> "dack jarvis" <dackj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9DCFe.2342$G71....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>2. It is the alleged "Christians" here who are incapable of discussing
>>the matter, so they resort to personal insults and ad hominem attacks.
Jr.
You spew your gay garbage all over this newsgroup without a shred of
Scripture showing your point is right.
Most Christians here have buried your gay lifestyle in Scripture that says
being gay, wanting to be gay, thinking about being gay, acting gay, are all
sins against God.
You show nothing but your cutsey comments and think that you are right
because people won't battle with you on a point that God has already
decided.
When you can quote Scripture that says anything connected with being gay is
ok with God, get back to us.
Until then, just keep it to yourself. We really don't want to hear it.
dack jarvis
Jr. wrote:
> The point is Dack that you have no point.
>
> You spew your gay garbage all over this newsgroup without a shred of
> Scripture showing your point is right.
'scuze me???
What follows is quoted from the material of Robert Truluck, one of many
Biblical scholars who has actually studied the material:
(www.truluck.com)
In preparation for each passage, read the entire chapter. For Romans
1:26-27, read the first 3 chapters of Romans. Read Genesis chapter 38
for a clear picture of the Old Testament attitudes about women, sex, the
necessity of producing offspring, the control of men over women, the
double standard for men and women, and other sexuality issues.
(And here is a different understanding of those Bible verses all y'all
abuse so much)
Genesis 19:5:
"Bring them out to us that we may know them."
Author's Note: "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality
exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever
mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add
words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were
homosexual.
"SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate
the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they
also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A
"Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which
included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James
Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect
translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." (See the recent
book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology.
University of Chicago Press, 1997.)
The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male
sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed
because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the
Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.
No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the
sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom
mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of
hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and
destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50;
Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7,
the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos ("different flesh" and
from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or
people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never
used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."
The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in
the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law,
people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many
Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request
of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his
house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress
in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that
the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and
take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it
protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.
Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters
to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than
any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did
Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people
were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the
incident.
Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in
the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been
conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have
sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she
conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she
gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why?
Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term
that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all
of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is
that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute
a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word
"know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is.
The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms.
The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear
Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any
further explanation.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?
To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does
say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with
homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance
or rejection of Gays and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches
that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they
do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.
The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or
feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the
majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid.
The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic
preachers and teachers. The Gay and Lesbian minority in our society
today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind
closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob
that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not
"know" and control.
Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia)
and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed
against a small group of isolated strangers (like Gays and Lesbians
today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or
anywhere else in the Bible.
Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah,
which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19.
Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these
stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual
orientation. Neither should we.
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an
abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to
heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to
guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation
or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was
used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or
associated with idol worship.
Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used
more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian
people, the following material is given to help you think objectively
about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a
hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians.
Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus
11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including
rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs,
clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25
demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and
unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not
make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that
creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You
can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after
giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and
goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt
offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be
a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about
them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?
Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete
rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried
out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband
from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus
19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various
kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds
of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall
not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your
beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people
do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded
equally with all the others.
Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood
restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores,
barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses
made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of
these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have
you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that
are made of mixed fabrics?
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me
and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject
my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry
out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will
appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste
away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your
seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of
punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the
commandments continues through many verses.
Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others.
"Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the
speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your
own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible
in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong
path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love
your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach
love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn,
humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to
me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that
could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.
Any charge against Gays and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of
Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!
The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and
absurd in the light of the total content of the book. To call the
content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce
any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in
the letters of Paul.
Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual
understanding. Jesus and his disciples had been condemned by the
religious leaders because they did not wash and eat according to the
Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending? Don't you see that
whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you;
because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is
eliminated? (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added,
"That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you.
Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of
coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance and
foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."
Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians
2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary
principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you
submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do
not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with the
using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are
matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made
religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of
no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in 2:14
that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of
decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out
of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Many people have answered the argument that most of the "abominations"
in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew
that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared to be
unclean. If you follow that logic, you would declare anything that is
unhealthy to be an "abomination." We know that cigarettes, alcoholic
beverages, fat food and many other things are unhealthy; so why are they
not also called "abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible
literalists with protests and pickets against cigarette machines, all
liquor stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that sells
anything that is unhealthy? The reason is simple. The use of Leviticus
to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the light of
the facts.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is absurd and
makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.
To me personally, the message of Jesus Christ always has been good news
for everyone. Personal evangelism has been my basic emphasis in the
ministry since I became pastor of a small rural church in South Carolina
in 1952 when I was nineteen years old. Our little church led the
Baptist Churches of South Carolina one year in per capita baptisms. In
all of my churches, both Baptist and MCC, my emphasis has been personal
evangelism. What is your emphasis in your ministry? I personally have
led hundreds of people to Christ and taught other hundreds of people to
become effective in sharing Christ with others. During all of this time
I have been homosexual. I have realized that I was gay since I was a
about 10 years old. God loves me just as I am and uses me in ministry
that fits me and my life as an individual. I pray that you find the
same thing for yourself.
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their
women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And
in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and
burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing
indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for
their error."
Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices
that were common in the time of Paul.
Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a
car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been,
where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!
Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and
oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women,
blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice
people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers,
the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often
difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very
difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in
response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening
to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know,
what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.
As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using
Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.
When I taught a college course in the Book of Romans, I decided to
memorize Romans, as Augustine suggested. The effort paid off. Being
able to visualize the message of Romans as a whole immediately cleared
up a lot of Paul's thought that I had not been able to untangle before
by traditional means of study. It helped so much that I continued to
memorize the books of the Bible that I taught in college courses.
The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The
gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who
believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in
their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians
3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither
male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous
religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the
context of the verses.
Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar
words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to
translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that
would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and
in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.
Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged
the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not
the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his
writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and
affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.
Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire
and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at
about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in
Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite,
worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from
Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate
from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better
than we do.
The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the
suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean
by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros
is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26
probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery
cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.
We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used
this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The
term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term
is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against
nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God.
"Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the
usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature"
was evil, since God also "acted against nature."
One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in
1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is
unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as
"Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the
word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of
the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not
ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23
referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary
and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love
does not behave "indecently."
This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into
Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some
indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what
"some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the
husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to
adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but
he did not define the term.
Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers
interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways
himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas
is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on
useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning
of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.
If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners,
he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than
emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or
mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same
sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation.
As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and
Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.
SPECIAL NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the
Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the
characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The
word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or
"perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything
possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek
dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and
simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a
mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural
affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at
all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for
"family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to
people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being
directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who
despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and
sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as
"unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or
"perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are
needed elsewhere!
The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt
instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the
original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his
other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for
every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in
Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who
passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself;
for you who judge practice the same things."
I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
Author's Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual"
do not mean effeminate or homosexual!
I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person 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
fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and
whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
Author's Note: The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean
homosexual!
These two verses contain completely wrong translations to create
"homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts may not hurt you,
but they can make you hurt yourself! The homosexual ghosts in 1
Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created by the inaccurate and
intentionally misleading translation of two Greek words.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including
lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human
behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual"
does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not
mean "effeminate"!
The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term
(homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis , "sex"). The term
"homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years
ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to
the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in
1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.
The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other
similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words
meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the
Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of
Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and
uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female
customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed
in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality,
they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in
Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for
homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy
1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this
in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.
"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1
Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The
word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8
and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used
anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to
sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those
who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or
stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect,
ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient
usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.
This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to
gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a
mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and
has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for
them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Evil homophobic Bible "translations from hell" must not go unchallenged.
The use of these translations by ignorant religious bigots to incite
fear and hate against Gays demands a clear, academically sound, credible
and easily understood response. Material given in this web site is only
a beginning. Every Bible word that has been incorrectly used to wound,
alienate and oppress people must be examined in detail and carefully
exposed. God has called us to return the Bible to the oppressed and
outcast people for whom it was written.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy
1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22;
20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of
condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and
condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these
passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None
originally were aimed at homosexuals.
====== And here's part of another article from Truluck:
Sexual Orientation Is NOT Mentioned In The Bible
Our understanding of sexual orientation as we know it today did not
exist 50 years ago, much less in biblical times. Only in 1973 did the
American medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize
that homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime.
See Psychiatry and Medicine at
http://www.truluck.com/html/psychiatry_and_medicine.html
Sexuality is seldom discussed in the Bible. The Bible view of the role
of women as property, the absolute importance placed on having children
to continue the family, the customs and demands related to marriage and
inheritance and an obvious demonstration of male dominance and control
can be seen vividly described in Genesis chapter 38.
In the Bible, all women were property that belonged to their father or
husband. Women were members of the covenant people of God only
because of their relationship to their father, brother or husband.
Women could not carry circumcision, the "sign of the covenant," in their
bodies. The Old Testament does not include a belief in "heaven" or a
future time of reward and continued life. The only way a man could live
on after his death was through his children ("seed"). No man was
allowed to remain unmarried. Old Testament Hebrew does not have a word
for bachelor.
Marriage in the Bible was not based on romantic love but on a legal
contract usually entered by parents on behalf of their children. The
average age for marriage in the time of Jesus was 14 for girls and 16
for boys. Average life expectancy was only 25 years. The Greek word
for romantic love, EROS, is never used in the New Testament, though it
was the most common word for love in the Greek speaking world.
To read bits and pieces of biblical material into present day culture is
to misrepresent the Bible and to distort its message of God's love in
Christ for all people in today's world.
TommyDale
separation of church and state". There is no such thing!
Jr.
Testament references.
The New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to God
How does Truluck spin that?
"dack jarvis" <dackj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CBMFe.2525$G71...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Jr.
doesn't say what it says.
That homosexual doesn't mean homosexual.
If so, what is his spin on this and what does it mean?
I guess by that standard we can look at the New Testament and my authors
note is this:
"Saved doesn't mean saved" "forgiven doesn't mean forgiven"
Again Dack you fall way short of your packaged gay society proof that
Christians are wrong and gays are right.
I refuse to argue this point anymore because you are just wrong and can't
see the forest for the trees.
I have better things to do with my life than argue a point that has already
been made. The gay lifestyle is wrong. Period. End of sentence. End of
argument.
If is also amusing to me that you quote something called yada because all I
can say is
ok Dack, yada, yada, yada. Whatever
dack jarvis
Jr. wrote:
> Why do you continue to give us gay people's references to some obscure Old
> Testament references.
> The New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to God
> How does Truluck spin that?
If you would read the entire post, you'd have your answer.
TommyDale
Church and State"? Please tell us, the Supreme Court wants to know as
well...
dack jarvis
ask him yourself. :-)
TommyDale wrote:
> Please give us your reference of the "Constitutional guarantee of
> separation of church and state". There is no such thing!
>
--
TommyDale
such thing exists in the Constitution. Beware of those who tell half
truths and total lies. Whoever Rober Truluck is, he doesn't know
diddly-squat about the Constitution, or probably anything else. His
word is worthless.
Just Allan
wrote:
>Why do you continue to give us gay people's references to some obscure Old
>Testament references.
>The New Testament clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination to God
>How does Truluck spin that?
I see from another post, quoted by someone else that he's at it again.
"Supported by science/medicine/the Bible/etc." - indeed - HA! Science
struggles to correct its errors CONSTANTLY - new text books are
printed every year to try and fill the holes in the sinking boat of
evolutionary-based bias. Medicine too contradicts itself from one day
to the next. (I'm surprised he didn't complete the picture of his
foolishness and add politics in the mix as well.)
The Bible on the other hand never changes! It doesn't have to correct
its errors, because it was right to begin with - it does need to be
corrected or adjusted like all the philosophies of man that he relies
on. The Bible says a foolish man builds on sand that shifts.
Just from his statement alone that he bases his beliefs on
homosexuality on those sources PLUS the Bible, shows he's just not
right in the head - since the things he refers to mostly OPPOSE the
Bible (as does he, so it should be expected I guess). And let's look
at the other side of the fence for a moment... Even the people from
those sources themselves would say he's a fool - because they know
their beliefs cannot be reconciled with the Bible (at least the
sections of their beliefs that he's referring to). So he's not
accepted by EITHER camp. (Emphasis on the word "camp".) He's
considered a fool in both! See a pattern here? It's just like the
act of homosexuality itself really, since in all nations and faiths,
there's one thing they all agree on - homosexuality is a sick
perversion.
It's not because they're a "persecuted minority" - it's because
they're just plain WRONG.
The only way to reconcile the nut-job beliefs on homosexuality the
medical world has been posturing lately - and evolutionary based
science - together with the Bible, is to openly admit to the world you
have a feeble mind, due to the incredible acrobatics of logic that
have to be performed. But Romans already told us that...
Romans 1:20-23
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things.
Allan.
Just Allan
wrote:
>My biggest problem with KT was that he did not reveal his homosexual
>tendencies until he was basically outed by a blackmailer.
I always wondered if he ever did anything to help that guy. Yes, I
said HELP him. He sinned once - KT sinned for years. I can't help
but think of when the Lord sent Nathan to King David to point out his
sin. Going by the KT incident, Nathan would have been carted away to
jail! And if he was, I bet David would have stepped in (eventually
anyway) and admitted the sin was his own, not Nathan's and that Nathan
should be released. I couldn't stand by and say nothing while a judge
punished someone else for my sin. To me this would speak volumes of a
true repentance.
>He surrounds himself with all kinds of Christian counselors and declares he
>has been "miraculously delivered" from a sin he claims he was not practicing
>in the first place.
>He wasn't really gay, he "just felt gay".
>
>Oh, yes, and by the way, we never have seen a public apology and admission
>to the SG world. He has never owned up publically nor has he publically
>asked forgiveness as far as I have seen.
I thought he had - no matter. Did he say that somewhere - that he
"just felt gay"? Just asking, since the quote marks make it sound
like he said it somewhere - because from what I read, he was sending
pictures of himself naked to other men which is hardly a "feeling".
Hm... Must be about time for the sodomites to whine like sissies that
I'm bashing their poster boy - when I'm not. But don't let a little
thing like facts get in the way of another of their fantasies.
Allan.
Hank Gillette
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Cause he don't agree with TommyDale's preconceived notions.
TommyDale
Constitution question.
So Hank, do you think the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "Separation of
Church and State"? Apparently Dack and Robert Truluck do. If you
agree, then please point out the
phrase. As for my "preconceived notions", I base my beliefs on facts,
and what is in the Holy Bible (King James, thank you). What do you
base yours on?
Jr.
most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
That concept came up on this board. He didn't have sex. He just had gay
feelings.
"Just Allan" <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9r1ge1tafaicc0mps...@4ax.com...
Just Allan
wrote:
>I put the quotation marks around it to make it stand out as being one of the
>most ridiculous things I have ever heard.
>That concept came up on this board. He didn't have sex. He just had gay
>feelings.
OH - LOL. The things people say, eh!?
TommyDale
defenders.
Just Allan wrote:
>"... from what I read, he was sending pictures of himself naked to other men >which is hardly a "feeling".
Just Allan
wrote:
>As for my "preconceived notions", I base my beliefs on facts,
>and what is in the Holy Bible (King James, thank you). What do you
>base yours on?
Any and every source that confirms what he already thinks. The Bible
has a few names for this... Unteachable, proud, stiffnecked,
foolish...
Proverbs 17:16
Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing
he hath no heart to it?
steve
of the world like ( punctuation ) than you are about your own soul.
don't worry everyone here already known you are as screwed up as dack.
steve
steve
steve
girls.
steve
abomination? do you think God made a mistake when he said men should
not lay with men as with women?
Hank Gillette
Just Allan <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote:
> Any and every source that confirms what he already thinks. The Bible
> has a few names for this... Unteachable, proud, stiffnecked,
> foolish...
>
You've perfectly described yourself.
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
Communication is important. If you write like someone who didn't finish
3rd grade, people aren't going to take you seriously.
As far as being as screwed up as Dack, I'll take that as a compliment.
He appears to be healthier mentally than most people here.
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
> why would anyone want to read that crap you print. i certanly dont.
You certainly wouldn't want to get confused with facts, or see another
viewpoint other than your own.
Hank Gillette
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So Hank, do you think the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "Separation of
> Church and State"? Apparently Dack and Robert Truluck do. If you
> agree, then please point out the phrase.
The concept of "Separation of Church and State" comes directly from the
First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Just because the phrase isn't in there doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist. The Constitution didn't mention slavery by name either, but it
existed at the time it was written.
I would think that people of all religions would embrace separation of
church and state. If the government decides to support one religion, it
necessarily has to be against others. What makes you so sure that your
version of "church" would be the one the government would pick?
> As for my "preconceived notions", I base my beliefs on facts,
> and what is in the Holy Bible (King James, thank you). What do you
> base yours on?
Just the facts. I appreciate that you recognize the difference between
what is in the Bible and the facts.
So, do you hold the King James version of the Bible above all other
versions? Do you hold it above the original Hebrew and Greek? Is it your
belief that the KJV was translated without error and has the same
infallibility as the original texts?
Dack's essay pointed out the possibility that the texts that most people
assume refer to homosexuality were mistranslated. Unless you believe
that the KJV was translated without error, I don't see how you can
dismiss this possibility out of hand.
TommyDale
liberal viewpoint, and misapplying the intent of the framers of the
Constitution. Their intent was clearly stated. And you correctly
acknowledge that the terminology "Separation of Church and State" are
not there. The terminology was from a personal letter written by
Thomas Jefferson, and is musused on a daily basis by history
revisionists and judicial activists.
I consider the King James the best guideline in this day, and of course
it is not above the original Hebrew and Greek but then I don't speak or
read Hebrew or Greek. One thing I can say is, it is dangerous to
borrow multiple translations just to prove a point, such as the current
day New Agers like Rick Warren do. He used at least 19 different
translations to prove points in his books about "purpose driven"
garbage.
I totally dismiss the idea that homosexuality is either normal or
acceptable to God. It is a sin.
Just Allan
wrote:
>I consider the King James the best guideline in this day, and of course
>it is not above the original Hebrew and Greek but then I don't speak or
>read Hebrew or Greek.
He doesn't obey the original Hebrew and Greek EITHER ANYWAY, LOL!!!
steve
the things that matter most in life like salvation. When you see St.
Peter at the pearly gates tell him you know how to spell , and see how
far it gets you. Can you spell H - E - L - L
dack jarvis
Of course not.
PEOPLE made a mistake when they misinterpreted what OTHER people wrote
and self-canonized.
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
> Hank, bet i have more college than you., and i am more concerned with
> the things that matter most in life like salvation.
You probably have more years in the fourth grade that I do, too. It
doesn't mean you took advantage of the opportunity.
Hank Gillette
Just Allan <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote:
> >I consider the King James the best guideline in this day, and of course
> >it is not above the original Hebrew and Greek but then I don't speak or
> >read Hebrew or Greek.
>
> He doesn't obey the original Hebrew and Greek EITHER ANYWAY, LOL!!!
Ah, we have a Hebrew/Greek scholar among us.
Hank Gillette
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You need to read that First Amendment again. You are taking a very
> liberal viewpoint, and misapplying the intent of the framers of the
> Constitution. Their intent was clearly stated.
What do you think their intent was?
>
> I consider the King James the best guideline in this day, and of course
> it is not above the original Hebrew and Greek but then I don't speak or
> read Hebrew or Greek. One thing I can say is, it is dangerous to
> borrow multiple translations just to prove a point, such as the current
> day New Agers like Rick Warren do. He used at least 19 different
> translations to prove points in his books about "purpose driven"
> garbage.
>
Well if you don't understand Hebrew or Greek (and I don't either), then
you are dependent on those who do to get the meaning of the original
scriptures. How do you know that the King James Version is correct in
every case?
> I totally dismiss the idea that homosexuality is either normal or
> acceptable to God. It is a sin.
Yeah, I get that you think that. But I think it's more based on your
personal feelings and upbringing than some direct revelation from God.
steve
Doesn't this mean that God himself inspired the very words in the bible?
steve
either of us think. The only thing that matters is what the word of God
says.
steve
to be concerned with such trivial things. Seems to me that you are
trying to deflect attention away from the fact that homosexuality is a
sin.
steve
> Jr. wrote:
> > The point is Dack that you have no point.
> >
> > You spew your gay garbage all over this newsgroup without a shred of
> > Scripture showing your point is right.
>
> 'scuze me???
>
> What follows is quoted from the material of Robert Truluck, one of many
> Biblical scholars who has actually studied the material:
> (www.truluck.com)
>
>
>
> In preparation for each passage, read the entire chapter. For Romans
> 1:26-27, read the first 3 chapters of Romans. Read Genesis chapter 38
> for a clear picture of the Old Testament attitudes about women, sex, the
> necessity of producing offspring, the control of men over women, the
> double standard for men and women, and other sexuality issues.
>
>
> (And here is a different understanding of those Bible verses all y'all
> abuse so much)
>
>
> Genesis 19:5:
> "Bring them out to us that we may know them."
> LOL I think thats it they wanted to play ring around the rosies.
> Author's Note: "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality
> exists in the original Hebrew. No later Bible references to Sodom ever
> mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add
> words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were
> homosexual.
>
> "SODOMY" is not a biblical word. Laws against sodomy not only violate
> the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state; they
> also use an incorrect and wrongly translated term for the laws. A
> "Sodomite" in the Bible is simply a person who lives in Sodom, which
> included Lot and his family. The term "sodomite" in the King James
> Version of Deuteronomy 23:17 and I Kings 14:24 is an incorrect
> translation of the Hebrew word for "temple prostitute." (See the recent
> book by Mark D. Jordan: The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology.
> University of Chicago Press, 1997.)
>
> The average person assumes that the Bible clearly condemns male to male
> sexual intercourse as "sodomy" and that the city of Sodom was destroyed
> because of homosexuality, which is seen as the worst of all sins in the
> Bible. These assumptions are based on no evidence at all in the Bible.
>
> No Jewish scholars before the first Christian century taught that the
> sin of Sodom was sexual. None of the biblical references to Sodom
> mention sexual sins but view Sodom as an example of injustice, lack of
> hospitality to strangers, idolatry and as a symbol for desolation and
> destruction. See Deuteronomy 29:22-28; 32:32; Ezekiel 16:49-50;
> Jeremiah 49:18; 50:41; Isaiah 13:19-22 and Matthew 10:14-15. In Jude 7,
> the term "strange flesh" is Greek hetero sarkos ("different flesh" and
> from which the word "heterosexual" comes) and refers to foreign idols or
> people. It is not homo ("the same") flesh or people. Sarkos is never
> used in the New Testament as a word for "sex."
>
> The word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is Hebrew YADA. It is used 943 times in
> the Old Testament to "know" God, good and evil, the truth, the law,
> people, places, things, etc. It is a very flexible word, as are many
> Hebrew words. In Genesis 19:5, the word was used to express the request
> of the people of Sodom that Lot should bring out the strangers in his
> house so that they could know who they were. Sodom was a tiny fortress
> in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that
> the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and
> take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it
> protected. Lot himself was an alien in their midst.
>
> Lot's strange response to the request was to offer his young daughters
> to the men, an offer that seems to me to be far more reprehensible than
> any problem of sexual orientation. If the men were homosexual, why did
> Lot offer to give them his daughters? These hostile and violent people
> were heterosexual, and homosexual orientation had nothing to do with the
> incident.
>
> Special note on YADA: The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in
> the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with". People have been
> conditioned to think that "to know someone biblically" means to have
> sex. The use of YADA in Genesis 4:1-2 to say that Adam knew Eve and she
> conceived and gave birth to Cain is followed by saying that later she
> gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA. Why?
> Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex. It is a general term
> that describes many kinds of intimate relationships. I have studied all
> of the uses of YADA in the Old Testament, and my personal conclusion is
> that it never means what we mean by sexual intercourse. Just substitute
> a common slang expression for sexual intercourse instead of the word
> "know" in Genesis 4:1 and you will see how inappropriate the idea is.
> The Old Testament Hebrew writers never thought or wrote in those terms.
> The Bible never gives any details about sexual acts. The only clear
> Hebrew term for sexual acts is "to lie with," which is left without any
> further explanation.
>
> WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN SODOM?
>
> To twist the story to say what it does not say is to miss what it does
> say. The story does not deal with sexual orientation or with
> homosexuality and has no bearing at all on the issue of God's acceptance
> or rejection of Gays and Lesbians. The story of Sodom clearly teaches
> that evil and violent people who attack aliens and strangers whom they
> do not know or understand receive God's quick and terrible punishment.
>
> The purpose of the story is to show that misunderstood, strange, or
> feared minorities in any community are in danger from violence by the
> majority when that majority is ignorant, ungodly, selfish and afraid.
> The real message of Sodom is backwards from the claims of homophobic
> preachers and teachers. The Gay and Lesbian minority in our society
> today is more like the guests in Lot's house who were protected behind
> closed doors ("in the closet") than like the frightened mindless mob
> that wanted to expose, humiliate and destroy people that they did not
> "know" and control.
>
> Set the record straight! Genesis 19 is about the fear (like homophobia)
> and anger of a mob (like many misguided religious fanatics) directed
> against a small group of isolated strangers (like Gays and Lesbians
> today) in their midst. Sexual orientation is not the issue here or
> anywhere else in the Bible.
>
> Read also the strange story in Judges 19:1-30 of the Levite in Gibeah,
> which was patterned after the story of Lot and the angels in Genesis 19.
> Jewish teachers before the time of Christ never saw either of these
> stories as having any connection with homosexuality or sexual
> orientation. Neither should we.
>
>
> Leviticus 18:22:
> "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an
> abomination."
>
> Leviticus 20:13:
> "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them
> have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
>
> Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to
> heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to
> guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation
> or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was
> used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or
> associated with idol worship.
>
> Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used
> more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian
> people, the following material is given to help you think objectively
> about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.
>
> The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a
> hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians.
> Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus
> 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including
> rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs,
> clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25
> demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and
> unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not
> make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that
> creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You
> can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
>
> Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after
> giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and
> goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt
> offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be
> a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about
> them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?
>
> Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete
> rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried
> out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband
> from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus
> 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various
> kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds
> of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall
> not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your
> beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people
> do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded
> equally with all the others.
>
> Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood
> restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores,
> barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses
> made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of
> these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have
> you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that
> are made of mixed fabrics?
>
> The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me
> and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject
> my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry
> out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will
> appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste
> away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your
> seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of
> punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the
> commandments continues through many verses.
>
> Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others.
> "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the
> speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your
> own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
>
> If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible
> in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong
> path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love
> your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach
> love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn,
> humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to
> me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that
> could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.
>
> Any charge against Gays and Lesbians based on the life and teachings of
> Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!
>
> The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is ludicrous and
> absurd in the light of the total content of the book. To call the
> content of the Book of Leviticus the "word of God" and try to enforce
> any part of it today is without support in the teachings of Jesus and in
> the letters of Paul.
>
> Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual
> understanding. Jesus and his disciples had been condemned by the
> religious leaders because they did not wash and eat according to the
> Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending? Don't you see that
> whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you;
> because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is
> eliminated? (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added,
> "That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you.
> Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of
> coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance and
> foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."
>
> Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians
> 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary
> principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you
> submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do
> not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with the
> using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are
> matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made
> religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of
> no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in 2:14
> that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of
> decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out
> of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
>
> Many people have answered the argument that most of the "abominations"
> in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the people back then knew
> that pork was unhealthy, and that is why pigs were declared to be
> unclean. If you follow that logic, you would declare anything that is
> unhealthy to be an "abomination." We know that cigarettes, alcoholic
> beverages, fat food and many other things are unhealthy; so why are they
> not also called "abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible
> literalists with protests and pickets against cigarette machines, all
> liquor stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that sells
> anything that is unhealthy? The reason is simple. The use of Leviticus
> to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the light of
> the facts.
>
> The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is absurd and
> makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.
>
> To me personally, the message of Jesus Christ always has been good news
> for everyone. Personal evangelism has been my basic emphasis in the
> ministry since I became pastor of a small rural church in South Carolina
> in 1952 when I was nineteen years old. Our little church led the
> Baptist Churches of South Carolina one year in per capita baptisms. In
> all of my churches, both Baptist and MCC, my emphasis has been personal
> evangelism. What is your emphasis in your ministry? I personally have
> led hundreds of people to Christ and taught other hundreds of people to
> become effective in sharing Christ with others. During all of this time
> I have been homosexual. I have realized that I was gay since I was a
> about 10 years old. God loves me just as I am and uses me in ministry
> that fits me and my life as an individual. I pray that you find the
> same thing for yourself.
>
>
> Romans 1:26-27:
> "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their
> women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And
> in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and
> burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing
> indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for
> their error."
> Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices
> that were common in the time of Paul.
>
> Taking anything that Paul said out its context is like trying to drive a
> car blindfolded. You don't know where you are, where you have been,
> where you are going, or who you just ran over and killed!
>
> Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and
> oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women,
> blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice
> people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers,
> the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often
> difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul's writing is very
> difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in
> response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening
> to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know,
> what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.
> As 2 Peter 3:16-18 pointed out, we have to be on guard against using
> Paul's writings in unhealthy and destructive ways.
>
> When I taught a college course in the Book of Romans, I decided to
> memorize Romans, as Augustine suggested. The effort paid off. Being
> able to visualize the message of Romans as a whole immediately cleared
> up a lot of Paul's thought that I had not been able to untangle before
> by traditional means of study. It helped so much that I continued to
> memorize the books of the Bible that I taught in college courses.
>
> The theme of the first 3 chapters of Romans is expressed in 1:16: "The
> gospel is the power of God for spiritual freedom (salvation) for all who
> believe." Paul showed that all people equally need and can have Jesus in
> their lives. Paul's gospel is inclusive, as expressed in Galatians
> 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither
> male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
>
> Romans 1:26-27 is part of Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous
> religious worship and rituals. Read all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 for the
> context of the verses.
>
> Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar
> words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to
> translate. The argument is directed against some form of idolatry that
> would have been known to Paul's readers. To us, 2,000 years later and
> in a totally different culture, the argument is vague and indirect.
>
> Verse 25 is clearly a denunciation of idol worship, "For they exchanged
> the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not
> the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."." Paul at no point in his
> writing dealt with same-sex orientation or the expression of love and
> affection between two people of the same sex who love each other.
>
> Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, the second largest city in the empire
> and the crossroads of world trade and culture. Pausanius observed at
> about the same time as Paul that there were over 1,000 religions in
> Corinth. The most prominent were the fertility cult of Aphrodite,
> worship of Apollo, and the Delphi Oracle, which was across the bay from
> Corinth. Paul's readers would have been aware of the religious climate
> from which he wrote Romans and would have understood Paul a lot better
> than we do.
>
> The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the
> suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean
> by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros
> is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26
> probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery
> cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.
>
> We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used
> this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The
> term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term
> is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against
> nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God.
> "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the
> usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature"
> was evil, since God also "acted against nature."
>
> One more word needs special attention. "Committing indecent acts" in
> 1:27 is translated by King James Version as "working that which is
> unseemly." Phillips goes far beyond the evidence and renders it as
> "Shameful horrors!" The Greek word is askemosunen and is formed of the
> word for "outer appearance" plus the negative particle. It speaks of
> the inner or hidden part or parts of the individual that are not
> ordinarily seen or known in public. "Indecent" in 1 Corinthians 12:23
> referred to the parts of the body that remain hidden but are necessary
> and receive honor. 1 Corinthians 13:5 used the word to say that love
> does not behave "indecently."
>
> This word for "indecency" was used to translate Deuteronomy 24:1 into
> Greek to say that a man could divorce his wife if he "found some
> indecency in her." The religious teachers argued endlessly about what
> "some indecency" meant. Some said it was anything that displeased the
> husband. Others were more strict and said it could only refer to
> adultery. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus commented on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but
> he did not define the term.
>
> Paul was certainly aware of the variety of ways that the teachers
> interpreted the word "indecency," and he used it in a variety of ways
> himself. To read into "indecent acts" a whole world of homosexual ideas
> is to abandon the realities of objective academic study and to embark on
> useless and damaging speculation that cannot be supported by the meaning
> of the word or by Paul's use of it elsewhere.
>
> If Paul had intended to condemn homosexuals as the worst of all sinners,
> he certainly had the language skills to do a clearer job of it than
> emerges from Romans 1:26-27. The fact is that Paul nowhere condemned or
> mentioned romantic love and sexual relations between people of the same
> sex who love each other. Paul never commented on sexual orientation.
> As in the rest of the Bible, Paul nowhere even hinted that Lesbians and
> Gay men can or should change their sexual orientation.
>
> SPECIAL NOTE on Romans 1:31, where the King James Version translated the
> Greek word astorgous as "without natural affection." This is one of the
> characteristics of people "with a reprobate mind" (KJV of 1:28). The
> word for "reprobate" is more recently translated as "depraved" or
> "perverted" in order more neatly to fit the sexualizing of everything
> possible in the list. The literal meaning of "reprobate" (Greek
> dokimon) is "to fail to measure up" or "to fail to meet the test" and
> simply means that the list of things that follows is the result of a
> mind that has abandoned God. The word astorgous, "without natural
> affection," is used only here and in 2 Timothy 3:3. It has nothing at
> all to do with homosexuality or with sex. It is the Greek word for
> "family love" or "family ties" with the negative prefix. It refers to
> people who despise and reject their family members. Rather than being
> directed at homosexuals, it is a term that is directed at people who
> despise and reject their own homosexual children and brothers and
> sisters! Modern translators, knowing this, usually render the word as
> "unloving," and the implication of some sort of "unnatural" or
> "perverted" affection is removed. Many more translation corrections are
> needed elsewhere!
>
> The use of Romans 1:26-27 against homosexuals turns out to be a blunt
> instrument to batter and wound people who were not intended in the
> original text. Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his
> other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for
> every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in
> Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who
> passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself;
> for you who judge practice the same things."
>
> I Corinthians 6:9:
> "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be
> deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
> nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."
> Author's Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual"
> do not mean effeminate or homosexual!
>
> I Timothy 1:9-10:
> "Law is not made for a righteous person 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
> fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and
> whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
> Author's Note: The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not mean
> homosexual!
>
> These two verses contain completely wrong translations to create
> "homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts may not hurt you,
> but they can make you hurt yourself! The homosexual ghosts in 1
> Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created by the inaccurate and
> intentionally misleading translation of two Greek words.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in including
> lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of depraved human
> behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word translated "homosexual"
> does not mean "homosexual" and the word translated "effeminate" does not
> mean "effeminate"!
>
> The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term
> (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis , "sex"). The term
> "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years
> ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to
> the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in
> 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.
>
> The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other
> similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words
> meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the
> Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of
> Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and
> uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female
> customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed
> in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
>
> When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality,
> they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in
> Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for
> homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy
> 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals. See the full discussion of this
> in John Boswell's book: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
> Homosexuality - Appendix 1, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.
>
> "Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated "effeminate in 1
> Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means "soft" or "vulnerable." The
> word is translated as "soft" in reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8
> and Luke 7:25 and as "illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used
> anywhere else in the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to
> sexual orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers those
> who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or
> stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect,
> ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based on ancient
> usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.
>
> This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as references to
> gender orientation has been disastrous for millions of gay, lesbian,
> bisexual, transsexual people. This mistaken translation has enlisted a
> mighty army of ignorant religious fanatics against homosexual people and
> has turned many Lesbians and Gays against the Bible, which holds for
> them as for all people the good news of God's love in Christ.
>
> Evil homophobic Bible "translations from hell" must not go unchallenged.
> The use of these translations by ignorant religious bigots to incite
> fear and hate against Gays demands a clear, academically sound, credible
> and easily understood response. Material given in this web site is only
> a beginning. Every Bible word that has been incorrectly used to wound,
> alienate and oppress people must be examined in detail and carefully
> exposed. God has called us to return the Bible to the oppressed and
> outcast people for whom it was written.
>
> Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy
> 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three: Leviticus 18:22;
> 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of their original setting of
> condemning idolatrous religious practices and wrongly used to judge and
> condemn people of the same sex who love each other. None of these
> passages refer to people of the same sex who love each other. None
> originally were aimed at homosexuals.
>
> ====== And here's part of another article from Truluck:
>
> Sexual Orientation Is NOT Mentioned In The Bible
>
> Our understanding of sexual orientation as we know it today did not
> exist 50 years ago, much less in biblical times. Only in 1973 did the
> American medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize
> that homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime.
> See Psychiatry and Medicine at
> http://www.truluck.com/html/psychiatry_and_medicine.html
>
> Sexuality is seldom discussed in the Bible. The Bible view of the role
> of women as property, the absolute importance placed on having children
> to continue the family, the customs and demands related to marriage and
> inheritance and an obvious demonstration of male dominance and control
> can be seen vividly described in Genesis chapter 38.
>
> In the Bible, all women were property that belonged to their father or
> husband. Women were members of the covenant people of God only
> because of their relationship to their father, brother or husband.
> Women could not carry circumcision, the "sign of the covenant," in their
> bodies. The Old Testament does not include a belief in "heaven" or a
> future time of reward and continued life. The only way a man could live
> on after his death was through his children ("seed"). No man was
> allowed to remain unmarried. Old Testament Hebrew does not have a word
> for bachelor.
>
> Marriage in the Bible was not based on romantic love but on a legal
> contract usually entered by parents on behalf of their children. The
> average age for marriage in the time of Jesus was 14 for girls and 16
> for boys. Average life expectancy was only 25 years. The Greek word
> for romantic love, EROS, is never used in the New Testament, though it
> was the most common word for love in the Greek speaking world.
>
> To read bits and pieces of biblical material into present day culture is
> to misrepresent the Bible and to distort its message of God's love in
> Christ for all people in today's world.
dack jarvis
> Dack, 2 Tim 3: 20 says all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
> Doesn't this mean that God himself inspired the very words in the bible?
No, not the literal words in each and every language where it might
appear, in all the various translations. And not even the exact
literal words of the original language, which was first an oral
tradition for many generations before much of it was written.
Furthermore, when 2 Tim 3:20 was written, the Bible that exists today
was NOT even written and gathered into a single collection (which didn't
happen until several centuries later). That verse doesn't refer to any
of the New Testament writings at all. You'd have to find external
proofs (i.e., something OTHER than the Bible) to show that the Bible
writings were dictated word-for-word. And, it has to be objective
proofs, not personal or subjective like "the Holy Spirit told me so" --
that has no validity to anyone else but yourself.
If you believe the Holy Spirit told you so, then that's fine and I
wouldn't take that away from you -- but it only applies to you because
you have no tangible and objective way of proving it to anyone else, and
you can't expect anyone else to take your word for it without valid
evidence.
What happened to the 14 books of the King James Bible that are no longer
there? (the Apocrypha) If it was really inspired, why would anyone be
allowed to take them out? The King James Version was just a
politically-based revision of the Geneva Bible, and they kept the
Apocrypha originally, but later those portions were removed.
TommyDale
Hank Gillette wrote:
> In article <1122572841.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You need to read that First Amendment again. You are taking a very
> > liberal viewpoint, and misapplying the intent of the framers of the
> > Constitution. Their intent was clearly stated.
>
> What do you think their intent was?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
This says two things, quite simply: Congress will not establish a
state religion, such as was done in England. Instead, they provided
for total freedom of worship in the second phrase, "or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof". It says NOWHERE that a government employee
cannot pray publicly, or that a student may not pray at public school,
or read his/her Bible freely in public. It does not say "you are free
to worship as long as it doesn't offend your neighbor". These
outrageous interpretations have come through the rotten liberal court
system and from the ACLU. And we all know it.
Hank Gillette
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It says NOWHERE that a government employee
> cannot pray publicly, or that a student may not pray at public school,
> or read his/her Bible freely in public.
I wasn't aware that they couldn't. What is unconstitutional is religious
activities organized by the school, i.e. teachers leading Bible reading
or prayer in the classroom. Perhaps if you could imagine a Muslim
teacher reading the Koran and leading prayers to Mecca in the classroom
you might understand why this is a bad idea.
As far a a government employee praying publicly (at work, I presume you
mean), what rationale is there for that? They are at work to do a job.
That's what they are getting paid for, not to make a spectacle of their
religion. The government doesn't expect them to do their work while at
church. It seems reasonable to me that while at work they should do
their job rather than praying.
Finally, in both cases, I wonder why the Christians aren't following the
instructions that Jesus gave:
" And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have
their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
If they can't even understand and follow something as simple as this,
why should I take their interpretation of some of the more obscure
writings?
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dack, 2 Tim 3: 20 says all scripture is given by inspiration of God.
> Doesn't this mean that God himself inspired the very words in the bible?
So you believe the Bible because it says that it is true? I'm pretty
sure that the Koran and the Book of Mormon say the same thing.
You can believe what I say, because I never lie. Pretty convincing, eh?
Hank Gillette
"steve" <stevr...@aol.com> wrote:
No, that's what matters to you. I reject the authority of the Bible.
There are too many contradictions and outright falsehoods for me to take
as anything but a collection of ancient writings.
So, if God told you to raise and army and kill several thousand people,
including women and children (except for the virgin women and girls who
you could keep for yourself and your army), would you do it?
Just Allan
>> Genesis 19:5:
>> Author's Note: "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality
>> exists in the original Hebrew.
It took me all of three seconds to check the Strong's number on the
above. One of the possible meanings is: "to know (a person
carnally)". Now since just two verses later, in vs. 7, Lot then says
to them: "do not so wickedly" - it's hardly likely the other possible
meanings were even REMOTELY implied - namely - that they just wanted
to "understand", or "perceive" who the angels were. Wanting to "meet"
someone is not wicked. Wanting thrust them in the buttocks is - and
for hundreds of years people have known this, since it's exactly where
the act of sodomy gets its name - from the pervies of sodom.
>>No later Bible references to Sodom ever
>> mention homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Many modern translations add
>> words to the text to create the lie that the people of Sodom were
>> homosexual.
Wow, this "article" is one of the most foolish things I've ever read.
It's far more foolish than the comments Dack, Hank, etc. have used in
the past. I've never before seen such a poorly-researched load of
tripe. It does more to discredit the homosexual agenda than support
it and I'm not talking the Bible contradictions - the lies and errors
in logic are hillarious!!!
What I don't get is - why fake it!? Why does a panzy even want to
fool themselves that they know God!? God is not a man that He should
lie - and His Word says that homosexuals KNOW what they are doing is
wrong and they KNOW the judgement that they'll receive... Yet they
blantantly LIE about it and say they believe God accepts them, when
His Word has already said quite clearly they are liars. Why even
bother!? They know they don't believe it, God knows they don't
believe it, and every normal person knows they don't believe it - so
why pretend?
What a waste of time when they could just face reality instead.
[sigh]
Allan.
Jr.
Southern Gospel Music have for you?
Southern Gospel music is one of the purest forms of praising God with the
truth.
Why are you even lurking around this group other than to stir up dissension
and hatred and vomit out your gay philosophy?
"Hank Gillette" <hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hankgillette-3144...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
TommyDale
quoted in the Constitution? It isn't.
Hank Gillette
"TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are avoiding the original issue. Where is any of your statements
> quoted in the Constitution? It isn't.
>
I guess I don't understand your point. A lot of things aren't quoted
verbatim in the Constitution. The Constitution was written with broad
strokes. That's one of the reasons we have courts, to interpret whether
laws are constitutional or not.
I think it is simplistic to try to interpret the Constitution based on
what things were like in 18th century. Otherwise, it would still be
acceptable to whip criminals with the lash.
Nor do I think the framers intended that. They recognized that times and
standards changed. That's why the Constitution has lasted for over 200
years, because we can continually reinterpret it to fit the times.
I'm still puzzled by exactly what you want in regard to religion and the
government. Do you think it is a good idea for the government to get
involved in religion? What exactly are you looking for?
Hank Gillette
"Jr." <pauls...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> If you don't believe the Bible is true then what attraction does
> Southern Gospel Music have for you?
> Southern Gospel music is one of the purest forms of praising God with the
> truth.
I've explained this already a few times, but it won't hurt to do it
again, I suppose. I grew up with Southern Gospel music. My father was a
big fan and would go to sings for miles around. I like the sound and
harmonies, even though I don't believe the message.
It's similar to going to the diner for meatloaf and mashed potatoes and
gravy, even though you know it's really not that good for you. Southern
Gospel music is like comfort food for my ears.
> Why are you even lurking around this group other than to stir up dissension
> and hatred and vomit out your gay philosophy?
What gay philosophy? I don't have a gay philosophy; I'm not gay. My
philosophy is that the government should stay out of peoples' private
lives and treat everyone equally under the law, whether they are are
black, white, gay, straight, rich, poor, smart, dumb, male, female, or
any other segmentation you want to make. That's it.
I came to this group because I was interested in Southern Gospel. I'm
not leaving until I'm ready. If you want to continue to show your lack
of Christian love and tolerance, don't blame me for pointing it out.
As for stirring up dissension and hatred, I plead not guilty. I don't
start these gay threads. I'm not the one who hates people because of
their sexual orientation. My only crime is to point out the prejudice
and stupidity of some of the posts here.
Maybe you don't get any opposition when you go into your gay-bashing at
your church, but you're not at church here. You are in a public forum
that anyone with internet access can read and respond to. If you don't
like being called on your ignorance and hatred, I suggest you take it
back to your church where it belongs.
TommyDale
Hank Gillette wrote:
> In article <1122654395....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "TommyDale" <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You are avoiding the original issue. Where is any of your statements
> > quoted in the Constitution? It isn't.
> I guess I don't understand your point. A lot of things aren't quoted
> verbatim in the Constitution. The Constitution was written with broad
> strokes. That's one of the reasons we have courts, to interpret whether
> laws are constitutional or not.
And this is why such a firestorm is currently underway to prevent the
Supreme Court from swinging toward the conservative side for the first
time in 5- or 60 years. The Constitution is written as a specific
document, it is not a living, breathing document that liberals want it
to be.
> I think it is simplistic to try to interpret the Constitution based on
> what things were like in 18th century. Otherwise, it would still be
> acceptable to whip criminals with the lash.
I have no problems with treating criminals like criminals.
> Nor do I think the framers intended that. They recognized that times and
> standards changed. That's why the Constitution has lasted for over 200
> years, because we can continually reinterpret it to fit the times.
Reinterpreting the Constitution is like changing the Bible to fit
whatever you want. Both are incorrectly done.
> I'm still puzzled by exactly what you want in regard to religion and the
> government. Do you think it is a good idea for the government to get
> involved in religion? What exactly are you looking for?
That's the point: I not only want the government to NOT get into
religion, I want it to butt out when anyone wants to practice the
religion of their choice. I want to put the ACLU out of business.
> --
> Hank Gillette
dack jarvis
>
>>Nor do I think the framers intended that. They recognized that times and
>>standards changed. That's why the Constitution has lasted for over 200
>>years, because we can continually reinterpret it to fit the times.
>
> Reinterpreting the Constitution is like changing the Bible to fit
> whatever you want. Both are incorrectly done.
It only seems incorrectly done when it isn't done the way you'd prefer
it to be done. The Constitution must be applied to the times, same as
the Bible. Man wasn't made to fit the Bible. The Bible was made to fit
man ... and when it no longer fits, it needs to be corrected, altered,
reinterpreted, or whatever it takes so that remains relevant to the times.
>>I'm still puzzled by exactly what you want in regard to religion and the
>>government. Do you think it is a good idea for the government to get
>>involved in religion? What exactly are you looking for?
>
>
> That's the point: I not only want the government to NOT get into
> religion, I want it to butt out when anyone wants to practice the
> religion of their choice. I want to put the ACLU out of business.
When one person's practice of religion infringes on the rights of
others, there must be some civil guidelines that apply equally to all
people, and equally enforced.
Just Allan
wrote:
>Hank. If you don't believe the Bible is true then what attraction does
>Southern Gospel Music have for you?
>Southern Gospel music is one of the purest forms of praising God with the
>truth.
>Why are you even lurking around this group other than to stir up dissension
>and hatred and vomit out your gay philosophy?
You've got it in one.
steve
of God then tell me how do you know that you are saved? I take it that
is your belief. Also, tell me how do you know that the story of Jesus
Christ is not a parable?
TommyDale
dack jarvis wrote:
> TommyDale wrote:
> >
> > Reinterpreting the Constitution is like changing the Bible to fit
> > whatever you want. Both are incorrectly done.
>
> It only seems incorrectly done when it isn't done the way you'd prefer
> it to be done. The Constitution must be applied to the times, same as
> the Bible. Man wasn't made to fit the Bible. The Bible was made to fit
> man ... and when it no longer fits, it needs to be corrected, altered,
> reinterpreted, or whatever it takes so that remains relevant to the times.
Wrong! The Constitution was designed to follow "Natural Law"...ever
hear that term? And changing the Bible to fit man is a total HERESY
and God will deal with those people when their time comes.
> >>I'm still puzzled by exactly what you want in regard to religion and the
> >>government. Do you think it is a good idea for the government to get
> >>involved in religion? What exactly are you looking for?
> >
> >
> > That's the point: I not only want the government to NOT get into
> > religion, I want it to butt out when anyone wants to practice the
> > religion of their choice. I want to put the ACLU out of business.
>
> When one person's practice of religion infringes on the rights of
> others, there must be some civil guidelines that apply equally to all
> people, and equally enforced.
Wrong again...why would someone's practice of religion infringe on the
rights of others? Who would that be -- atheists? Get over it!
steve
that make's sense as to why you are so misguided. I hope one day the
Holy spirit does a work on you, and i hope you get saved. You see I was
a drug addict who was lost without hope. I didn't see any reason to
live any longer, but then the Holy Spirit spoke to me and i knew i had
to be saved. I gave my heart to Jesus, and things have never been the
same. Now i have something to live for, and thats to serve Jesus. I
know there is a God, because he lives in my heart. I dont expect you to
believe that, because you will never know that feeling unless you get
saved. As for believing the bible, the bible says that faith comes by
hearing, and hearing by the word of god. Ro 10:17 The bible also says
that without faith it is impossible to please God. So, if you have
faith you will believe the word of God, and if you do not have faith
then your salvation is in question.
steve
God that lives in my heart.
steve
everyone thinks they hate gay people? I do not hate gays and i don't
think others here do either. Yes i am passionate about the word of God,
as you seem to be about gays. Now you are saying that you are not gay?
By the way if i saw you in danger from an oncoming car wouldn't you
want me to tell you or push you out of the way?
steve
bible being made to fit man is just plain silly. Just goes to show you
how much work remains for us Christians to do.
steve
LOL, LOL
Just Allan
>Hank, why is it that when Christians stand up for the word of God that
>everyone thinks they hate gay people? I do not hate gays and i don't
>think others here do either.
They've been told that a few hundred times.
>Yes i am passionate about the word of God,
> as you seem to be about gays. Now you are saying that you are not gay?
>By the way if i saw you in danger from an oncoming car wouldn't you
>want me to tell you or push you out of the way?
It's also been demonstrated those who say gay & Christian is
compatible, deceive and doom those who listen to the Lake of Fire -
and therefore - THEY are the ones who really hate homosexuals. They
are satan's assistants - stealing away the Word of God like in the
parable, before the Word can take root in their hearts. Since they
also teach a false belief, they don't know Jesus and therefore they
know and teach ANOTHER Jesus.
Allan.
Just Allan
>Thats it. The men of Sodom wanted to play ring around the rosies. LOL,
>LOL, LOL
And a third point I forgot until now... Lot offered his daughters to
the sodomites for sex... So the pervies only wanted to meet the
angels, but Lot says to not do wickedness, and then offers his
daughters to them for sex when they only wanted to... MEET or PERCEIVE
who they were!?
It's laughable the lengths people go to, to deceive themselves.
Allan.