The Evangelical Unicorn: A Third Way on Gay Marriage

I reviewed two books by evangelicals on gay marriage for The Christian Century — God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines and A Letter to my Congregation by Ken Wilson — and the review is now available online. Here’s the core of what differentiates their books:

Ken Wilson is a lifelong pastor in the Vineyard movement, which grew out of the Jesus movement of the 1970s. Wilson started Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1975 and has pastored that church ever since. Wilson’s book A Letter to My Congregation came after his own two-year journey.

Vines’s book is oddly lacking in autobiography. He briefly recounts the day that he came out to his parents—“my dad’s worst day”—but then gets right to his argument that long-term, monogamous, same-sex relationships are not contrary to the Bible because they’re never mentioned in the Bible.

Vines’s father plays a large role in the book. Vines the younger repeatedly tells how his father changed his mind on this verse or that view based on the study that the two undertook together. Although it’s clear that Matthew’s orientation was the impetus for the project, he never suggests that his own attempt to live as a holistic person or his father’s love for his son had any effect on changing either of their minds. They cast their stance as a totally intellectual decision: they studied the Bible and changed their minds. This book, Matthew hopes, will do the same for many others.

Wilson takes a very different tack, talking openly about his heart being changed. As a charismatic Christian, Wilson has no trouble attributing his change of heart and mind to the provocation of the Holy Spirit. This isn’t just about the intellect for Wilson but also about being open to the active movement of God in the world and in the heart of the believer. So ultimately the issue is not just about what the Bible says but about what the Spirit whispers.

Wilson frequently cites Bible scholars N. T. Wright and Richard Hays, both of whom are on record as opposing the normalization of gay relationships in church or society. Wilson defers to their scholarship, but not to their conclusions. As he sees it, his pastoral office trumps their scholarship.

But I am a pastor. When I am expected (or urged) to exclude those who otherwise bear the marks of the Spirit in their lives on the basis of these texts, I have to face the problems associated with applying the prohibitions to people in modern-day monogamous gay relationships.

Read the rest of the review HERE.

Here’s a Patheos livechat about Vines’s book with Vines, Rachel Held Evans, Jay Bakker, Deb Arca, and YFB.

Is Rob Bell This or That?
Justice Is Possible #Ferguson
Ladies and Gentlemen, We Have a Subtitle
Limping Into the New Year — A Christmas Diagnosis
  • ChuckQueen101

    Read the full review. Very good and helpful. I think Rick Warren has a point (made on facebook) though with regard to Tony’s statement “Rick Warren told CNN that he feared God’s disapproval if society altered its understanding of marriage.” The statement as it reads leaves the impression that Warren’s concern is God’s disapproval of society. Warren’s actual concern, I believe, was God’s disapproval of him if he went along with society on accepting same-sex marriage.

    But Tony gets it right. Warren is no pope nor are any of the other big time evangelical leaders, and certainly younger evangelicals will continue to break rank on this issue. I think it is unfortunate that such otherwise good scholars like N.T. Wright and Richard Hayes can be so wrong on this. I wonder if in time they don’t reverse their positions and come down on the right side of history.

    I found the comment made by the Episcopal priest to Tony telling (“the truth is we just don’t care as much about the Bible as you do”), though I don’t think that his comment is reflective of all mainline churches. I know many mainline members in my neck of the woods who take the Bible very seriously.

  • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

    “In the end, every person and every congregation needs to make a choice. Will they affirm the full humanity and imago dei of LGBT persons or not?”

    This is the kind of framing of the question that makes me despair of Christian teaching ever being understood. Who exactly, in centuries past, has claimed that gay people are not human? Or that they are not created in the image and likeness of God? When has the assertion that some act is a sin ever implied that the actor is not fully human? Doesn’t it, in fact, establish the very opposite, since sin can only be committed by rational beings?

    It seems a uniquely modern conceit that the notion of sin has become so unbearable that it can only be predicated of sub-humans. Our ancestors in the faith saw its ubiquity more clearly. We take it as an affront to our humanity.

    • ChuckQueen101

      It really comes down to what you call sin and how you treat it doesn’t it? How convenient to group all same-sex relations into the same category calling them sinful. Then it’s a matter of getting rid of the sin. Think of how the religious establishment treated lepers in Jesus’ day. Call people unclean and then exclude them, deny them rights, etc. What’s the end result? We diminish their humanity and deny their capacity to bear the image of God. Tony got it right.

      • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

        “Then it’s a matter of getting rid of the sin.”

        So far as I can tell, Christianity has never dreamed of getting rid of sin. We are exhorted to follow the commandments of Christ, and we seek and receive forgiveness for sin when we fail to do so. But I don’t think that everyone ever dreamed that we could just get rid of sin. Or sinners.

        Lepers, of course, were excluded because of their communicable disease, not because of any sin. Jesus loved them, and healed them. But he didn’t call for the end of quarantines, and he complied with the Law in sending healed lepers back to the priests for re-integration into the community. It was a very harsh measure only justified by their level of medical knowledge. But I don’t think anyone ever thought of lepers as non-humans, or deprived of the image of God.

        • gimpi1

          Actually, Leprosy is not very communicable. 90-95% of all people are naturally immune, and people who have contracted leprosy are only contagious for a few weeks after being infected. There’s no need to isolate them after that contagious period.

          Now, in Biblical times, they didn’t know that, so they developed a bunch of rules to isolate the victims of what was, at the time, an untreatable and unpleasant disease. These rules caused a lot of additional suffering for those afflicted with leprosy. They also assumed moral weakness on the part of sufferers, in part because ancient people apparently sometimes confused leprosy with syphilis. But the fact is, most of their rules were not necessary. They were wrong on the means of transmission and level of contagion.

          My point is that the ancient world made many mistakes, born of ignorance, that we have no business making today. Mistakes in disease-transmission. Mistakes in regarding misfortune as a sign of immorality. Mistakes in regarding inborn traits as a reason to condemn someone. Mistakes that cause harm. That’s why I believe it’s important to use many sources of information in making decisions.

          The Bible is only one source. It offered mistaken information on disease that caused unnecessary suffering. We know better now, so we don’t follow its rules. It also contains what our best information today tells us is mistaken ideas about the nature of gay people. Why is it reasonable to discard its leprosy protocols, but keep its beliefs about gay people?

          • Jeff Preuss

            I also read an essay the other day (and no, I probably couldn’t find a link today if I tried…), detailing how leprosy was treated during Biblical times as something markedly unlike any other illness. Other maladies were considered sicknesses that needed healing; leprosy was considered something that needed cleansing with ritualistic prayer ceremonies to ask God to wash the uncleanness away.

            So, it wasn’t treated with medicine as a malady of the body, rather it was treated with prayer as a malady of the soul.

            Edit because CONJUGATION issue. Oy.

            • gimpi1

              Yes, there was a general feeling that it was not a disease, so much as a state of being soiled in some way. Remember the cries of “Unclean, unclean.”

              My point is that we know better now. We know that disease is not caused by capricious spirits. We know how to actually treat diseases that the ancient world feared. I’n not saying everyone should just toss out the Bible. I’m not saying the Bible is bad. But, as a medical text, a basis for psychology, a science textbook, or a basis for laws, it simply is not the best source out there.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/ Tony Jones

      When who someone is attracted to and even loves is called an “innate disorder,” it does seem to speak to their very humanity.

      • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

        Isn’t the idea that all humanity suffers from an “innate disorder” rather well-established in Christian theology? Even if you reject the idea (as many of our contemporaries have come to do), surely it’s undeniable that Christian theology has never held that deep-rooted disorders like avarice, pride, or lust somehow diminish the humanness of the person who has surrendered to them. Otherwise none of us are human.

        If I am attracted to, and even love someone other than my wife, that certainly arises from an innate disorder. Whether I act on that attraction or not, I remain in the image of God, and am no less human for it.

        I don’t intend here to argue about what constitutes sexual sin. I am really making a different point, that it is, in effect, creating a straw man when you say that the proposition “x is a sin” implies the proposition that “a person who does x is not fully human.” If you are going to engage in controversy, address the point, and don’t bring in extraneous accusations that don’t follow from your opponents’ position. I think that that will avoid a lot of talking past each other.

        • Caspian

          Rick, assuming your sincerity in this dialog, I will venture to say that saying/believing “x is a sin” in and of itself is not inhumane treatment. Although I strongly suspect if the Evangelicals/fundamentalist waxed on about remarried couples being “innately disordered” as much as they berate the GLBT community, the long term affects would be the same.*

          But unfortunately Evangelicals/fundamentalist are NOT simply ‘saying/believing’ homosexuality is a sin. They have outspokenly lumped gays with people who drink too much, people who steal, people who cheat on their spouses and people who sexually abuse children all because Bob and Joe live a monogamous life together. What’s more they have used the long arm of government to bar GLBTs from the same Creator given and inalienable rights that they themselves claim and enjoy. And that is the biggest crux of the matter.

          If all humanity is recognized as having certain
          rights, then a small group of others are told they do not share in those rights, then you are very much denying their humanity. And that empowers the majority to treat these people ‘without rights’ in disrespectful and demeaning ways, further alienating their humanity. They are (or have been) denied services, shelter, and justice within the judicial system to name but a few wrongs.

          The Church should have been at the forefront in preventing these atrocities (regardless of her theological stance on homosexuality). Sadly it’s been just the
          opposite. Only now is the Church beginning to return to the principles of Christ in the treatment of GLBTs; though not without tragic losses and childish infighting.
          It’s because of this that books like Vines’ and Wilson’s are
          necessary. These are advocates for the Church to treat GLBTs with dignity (treat them as fellow human beings) and not to return to the old way.

          *Incidentally, that is exactly how remarried couples WERE treated just 60 years ago. And these heterosexuals in fact didn’t stand for it. GLBTs may be late to the party,
          but are no less inclined to share in the ‘Revolution’ that heterosexuals started.

          • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

            “assuming your sincerity”

            I appreciate it.

            “Only now is the Church beginning to return to the principles of Christ in the treatment of GLBTs”

            This is, of course, where the disagreement lies.

            As I said above, I don’t intend to re-argue what’s been re-argued a thousand times. The contemporary church is again going through what it has often gone through. As with the division over divorce and re-marriage, we will have a part that sticks with the existing sexual norms, and a part that goes with the new.

            My only point to Our Host was, given the level of heat surrounding this debate, there is no need to make one’s opponents worse than they are. The traditional notion of chastity (admittedly itself a laughable word to many) incorporates an older notion of sexual liberation, one that doesn’t go quite so far as Buddhism, but which still assumes a human capacity to keep sexual desire within the bounds of a relationship between a husband and wife. I know that most progressives would disagree, and it probably is already a minority view. But it has nothing to do with treating sexual sins as somehow, in some special way, obliterating the image of God in the actor.

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      This might hold if said pastors of past and present didn’t equate LGBT+ people with child-abusers. Many say they are incapable of a good marriage or parenting. A few have claimed gay people eat feces. Many have claimed LGBT+ people recruit children. In both the movies ‘Clue’ and ‘Julie and Julia’, we can see the fear of gay people being enemies of the USA that influenced past Christian-dominated politics. Always evil/undesirable/”we all must fear…” is pretty dehumanizing.

    • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

      Who exactly, in centuries past, has claimed that gay people are not human?

      Answer: Anyone who insists that gay people must shut down their sexuality in order to be faithful to God. Sexuality is an essential human dynamic that enables us to live as the relational beings God created us humans to be – that is as true for gay people as it is for the straights.

      Those who claim that gay sex is sinful and that gay relationships are forbidden are, in fact, saying that people who are gay are intended by God to live less than fully human lives.

      • Andrew Dowling

        Wow, well said.

    • http://abipwu.blogspot.com Melissia

      “Who exactly, in centuries past, has claimed that gay people are not human?”

      Off the top of my head?

      The Family Research Council.
      The American Family Association.
      Michelle Bachmann.

      All of whom have gleefully proclaimed that non-heteronormative people are less human than heteronormative people.

      • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

        “non-heteronormative people are less human than heteronormative people.”

        So my question to you would be, is this a quote from one of your sources, or simply a characterization based on an assumption that anyone who thinks something is wrong must think that someone who so acts must be less human?

        • http://abipwu.blogspot.com Melissia

          They wish to commit genocide, putting all non-straight people to death, or expelling them all from the country by force. That’s not something you do to equal human beings.

          People thought interracial marriage was wrong and against God’s plan, too, didn’t make it any less bigoted for them to try to enforce their religious views on everyone else as law.

          I think the entire Evangelical movement is wrong, full of hate and lies and paranoia, but I’m not hateful enough to wish to have them put to death. The same cannot be said for the American Family Association, which has advocated for the death penalty for gay people, or the Family Research Council, which has advocated for all gay people to be “exported” from the country (their word). Or Michelle Bachman, who is a lying ass that claims gay people have a conspiracy to rape children in order to garner votes.

          Just because you’re willing to lie to yourself to convince yourself that these things aren’t treating others as less than human doesn’t mean anything other than that you are a liar.

          • Nicholas Kr.

            The problem is the linguistic substitution that’s going on – “human” can signify both certain (although still not that high) standards (“will you behave like a human being?”, “humane treatment”), and the lowest common denominator (“Ted Bundy, Warren Buffet and people from Focus on the Family are all human”). “Fully human and imago dei” is just a fancy restatement of “human”, which fully keeps the ambiguity. That’s why it seems like a statement deliberately designed to actually say nothing at all. Wilm Roget and Rick Allen, I think, are making the same fundamental point, only from opposing personal perspectives on the issue.

            It’s like Lexicon of Inconspicuously Ambiguous
            Recommendations (“I am pleased to say that this candidate is a former colleague of mine”, “I cannot
            say enough good things about this candidate or recommend him too highly”), only less sophisticated.

    • WilmRoget

      ” Who exactly, in centuries past, has claimed that gay people are not human?”

      Essentially everyone who preaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ communicates that message.

      • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

        So everyone but me agrees that only non-humans can sin?

        • WilmRoget

          It seems that everyone but you agrees that though teachers of ‘homosexuality is sin’ dehumanize gays and lesbians, it doesn’t actually change our species. And that those who do teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ are not particularly consistent, or they would not teach ‘homosexuality is sin’.

          • Nicholas Kr.

            That’s the point. “Fully human and imago dei” is empty rhetoric that makes me suspect that the person who spews it is performing a double-game of some kind.

          • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

            My point from the beginning has been very simple, having to do, not with the morality of homosexual acts, but with the nature of sin, and the Christian notion of its ubiquity in the human race. It is common, in the rhetoric surrounding the revision of sexual mores, to claim that to call something a sin is to dehumanize. If that is so, then Moses, the prophets, and Jesus are the greatest dehumanizers of all time. We can argue about whether divorce, adultery, usury, abortion, war, materialism are sins. But the humanity of those of us who so act is never in question. Beasts cannot sin. To say that something is a sin presumes, in the Christian conception of the world, that only a human can commit it.

            • WilmRoget

              And your point, from the beginning, has been a convenient fraud. Conservative, anti-gay theology is not consistent in its reasoning, so trying to pretend that it does not dehumanize GLBTQ people by declaring that they are utterly forbidden to express their sexuality because ‘animals don’t sin’, is a empty casuistry, and a poor example of it.

              Further, equating homosexuality with “divorce, adultery, usury, abortion, war, materialism” is vicious and depraved. It shows an absolute lack of morals on your part, since that comparison requires either ignoring the concepts consent and harm, or not understanding them.

              • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

                Oh, well. As with Melissa above, I think these conversations don’t really have anywhere to go after “you liar,” “you fraud.”

                I do think, since a considerable portion of the Christian world will continue to adhere to traditional mores, that it will be better for everyone if the nature of those differences are understood and not exaggerated. But maybe that’s for the next generation, after all the lines have been drawn.

                • WilmRoget

                  Rather than address the fraud, you’re going to pretend that calling you on it creates such an imposition on you that you cannot participate.

                  ” since a considerable portion of the Christian world will continue to adhere to traditional mores,”

                  Oh, I’m sure that the people who once supported antisemitism, slavery, racism and sexism believed that too.

              • Nicholas Kr.

                Of course it’s not consistent in its reasoning.

                But people are perfectly capable of holding inconsistent thoughts in their heads and of genuinely believing the casuistries they spew.

                Besides, I don’t think that “gay sex is bad” and “gays are homo sapiens sapiens” are particularly inconsistent statements, in themselves.

        • Nicholas Kr.

          Yeah, don’t get why people think that the “fully human and imago dei” rhetoric is somehow significant. It’s just a fancy way of saying “homo sapiens sapiens”.

      • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

        Wilmroget,
        Assuming that you think that calling homosexuality a sin is sin itself, are you saying that those who say homosexuality is sin are not human too?

        Don’t know about you. Don’t know if past abuse has made it too difficult for you to make distinctions or whether there is another issue.

        • WilmRoget

          “Assuming that you think that calling homosexuality a sin is sin itself,
          are you saying that those who say homosexuality is sin are not human
          too?”

          Assuming that your question is sincere, and not yet another nasty game –

          are you saying that your belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is innate, intrinsic, that it determines who you can be in an intimate, authentic relationship with, that you would have to lie about yourself to the entire world, if you believe otherwise?

          In other words, Curt, your comparison is false. There is an intrinsic difference between the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’, and being homosexual.

          ‘Don’t know if past abuse has made it too difficult for you to make distinctions or whether there is another issue.”

          Nice ad hominem. It shows you have substantive reply.

          Now two days ago, you asked about a couple of passages, and I provided detailed rebuttal to your abusive interpretation of those to passages.

          You have remained silent, and chosen instead this nasty direction instead.

          • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

            WIlmRoget,
            Your first paragraph shows your problem. I played no game and I wasn’t nasty. But you make a personal attack right away.

            Your avoiding the question and it is simple. You accused those who say homosexuality is sin as denying the humanity of gays. Now I am asking if you say that saying homosexuality is sin is itself a sin, are you denying the humanity of those who believe that homosexuality is sin? That question is simply applying to you the standards you’re apply to others. There is no false comparison.

            People who say homosexuality is a sin say that because from what they read from Bible and how homosexuality, like heterosexual sins, are outside God’s design for sex.

            In addition, you make your accusation based on your set of definitions. And while many older conservative Christians do wrongly treat gays as second class citizen, not all younger conservative Christians do. A number of them support full equality for gays including marriage equality. BTW, that is my position too. So how is it that those who advocate for full equality for gays are saying that gays are not human. Doesn’t the support such conservative Christians have for equality for gays contradict the conclusion you make from your definitions?

            • WilmRoget

              ” I played no game and I wasn’t nasty.”

              Wrong on both counts.

              “But you make a personal attack right away.”

              Nope.

              “Your avoiding the question and it is simple.”

              No, I did not. Nice lie though.

              “That question is simply applying to you the standards you’re apply to others.”

              No, it is not. And guess what, you’ve avoided my question:

              “are you saying that your belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is innate, intrinsic, that it determines who you can be in an intimate, authentic relationship with, that you would have to lie about yourself to the entire world, if you believe otherwise?”

              Yes, or no?

              “There is no false comparison.”

              Yes, there is. I explained in detail.

              “People who say homosexuality is a sin say that because from what they read from Bible and how homosexuality, like heterosexual sins, are outside God’s design for sex.”

              How condescending of you to explain something I know. Now, people who are gay are born that way, it is innate, intrinsic, immutable. It is not a conscious decision or choice.

              So you are equating the conscious choice to believe ‘homosexuality is sin’ with the innate, inborn, instinctive sexual orientation ‘homosexual’. That is a false distinction.

              “In addition, you make your accusation based on your set of definitions.”

              Nope. Actually, I make my accusation based on Scripture, Matthew 7:15-23 to be precise.

              ” And while many older conservative Christians do wrongly treat gays as second class citizen, not all younger conservative Christians do.”

              Not all conservative Christians, of any age, believe ‘homosexuality is sin’. But every person who does believe that, regardless of age, gender, religion, ethnicity, or any other trait, intrinsically treats GLBTQ people as second class (or worse) citizens. Abuse is intrinsic to that belief.

              “BTW, that is my position too.”

              There is no reason to believe that, many of your statements have been proven false. Further, your hypothetical support for civil equality does not alter the fact that your theology on this matter is intrinsically evil.

              “So how is it that those who advocate for full equality for gays are saying that gays are not human.”

              Anyone who preaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ intrinsically dehumanizes GLBTQ people. Your attempts to obfuscate and cloud the issue does not help you. After all the set “those who advocate for full equality for gays” is predominantly, if not exclusively comprised of people who reject ‘homosexuality is sin’.

              “Doesn’t the support such conservative Christians have for equality for
              gays contradict the conclusion you make from your definitions?”

              No.

              • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                WilmRoget,
                I avoided no questions in our first conversation and yet that was your last comment in our last set of responses. You claimed that works salvation was involved with saying homosexuality was a sin. I addressed that from the scriptures. And, as you did with all of your responses, you accused me of doing something wrong.

                But that is not question of the day. The question is how is one who says homosexuality is a sin regard homosexuals as not being human while advocating full equality for homosexuals in society? That was the question.

                As for your most recent question, let me ask this. Certainly people can have a sincere and authentic beliefs in Islam, Judaism, atheism, or any other religions. So are Christians who claim those faiths are sin because what we believe about Christ denying the humanity of people with those faiths? Note here that I am not asking you to agree with what Christians are saying. I am asking if our view that such faiths are sin because their faith is not in Christ mean that we are denying their humanity?

                • WilmRoget

                  “I avoided no questions in our first conversation”

                  Please stop lying.

                  ” I addressed that from the scriptures.”

                  What you did not do was refute the fact that your interpretation of I Cor 6 is works= salvation theology.

                  “you accused me of doing something wrong.”

                  You are doing something wrong. But how hypocritical of you, for all you are doing here is accusing hundreds of millions of people of doing wrong.

                  “But that is not question of the day.”

                  You are wrong. All of the flaws I’ve pointed out in your argument, that you have not defended, are still on the table.

                  “That was the question.”

                  And that question was answered, and you lied about it. Please repent of your sin. And then there’s the question you still have not answered:

                  Are you saying that your belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is innate, intrinsic, that it determines who you can be in an intimate, authentic relationship with, that you would have to lie about yourself to the entire world, if you believe otherwise?

                  Yes, or no?

                  “let me ask this.’

                  Your dodging communicates dishonesty and sin.

              • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                Btw, there was no false comparison. I have no doubts about the authenticity of the relationships between many gays just as I have no doubts about the authenticity of the relationships between many straights. Authenticity is not the issue here. The issue is what we as people are doing with what God commanded. And all you said was that we were dreadfully wrong, I would disagree but would respect your answer. But, just like what many of my fellow fundamentalists do in speaking against homosexuality, you overstated your case.

                That is why I am asking you to compare your definition-driven reasoning that Christians who say homosexuality is sin are denying the humanity of gays with the facts on the ground that there are such conservative Christians who advocate for the full equality of gays in society. Unfortunately, there are so many Conservative Christians who work to deny the full equality of gays in society. They do so because they want Christianity to have a privileged place in society and thus control over everyone. I’ve spoken against that since the mid 1990s in a fundamentalist church. The way that many of my fellow conservative Christians have worked to stigmatize gays and make them feel less than others is abhorrent. They forget what Romans 3:9 says:

                What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

                The gentiles Paul referred to were described in Romans 1 and the Jews from Romans 2.

                • WilmRoget

                  “Btw, there was no false comparison.”

                  You absolutely did make a false comparison.

                  “The issue is what we as people are doing with what God commanded.”

                  You are not.

                  “you overstated your case.”

                  No, I do not. People are murdered and raped, tortured, beaten, driven to suicide, burned alive, doused with acid as the intentional enforcement of ‘homosexuality is sin’. You have consistently avoided that fact. I am understating the case, if anything.

                  “on the ground that there are such conservative Christians who advocate for the full equality of gays in society.”

                  Your question is based on a fantasy with no basis in reality. You have not proven that any such people exist.

                  “Unfortunately, there are so many Conservative Christians who work to deny the full equality of gays in society.”

                  Denying the fully equality of GLBTQ people is intrinsic to the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’. Even if some hypothetical conservative Christian did support civil equality, but proclaimed ‘homosexuality is sin’ in their hearts, they are lawbreakers, they show favoritism against homosexuals.

                  Your games are not helping you.

                  • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                    WilmRoget,
                    Son in other words, you want to insult me and you want conflate those who say homosexuality is sin with those who physically persecute gays. And what do you require? The names and contact information of the people I know? And why do you say such people do not exist? Aren’t you saying that because there are those who physically persecute gays, those who merely say that it is sin but support equality for gays do not exist. Sorry, that last assertion of yours is speculative and based on overgeneralization. In addition, you use your definitions to deny the existence of people who exist though I personally know such people exist.

                    When you are ready to answer the question, I’ll be waiting.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Son in other words, you want to insult me”

                      Ironically, your entire premise here has been to insult GLBTQ people, and of course, to insult and denigrate me.

                      “conflate those who say homosexuality is sin with those who physically persecute gays”

                      Actually, that originates with Jesus. Matthew 7:15-23 explicitly states that false teachers are revealed by their evil fruit, and the fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is entirely evil.

                      So you are basically rejecting Christ’s own teaching here. Sad how quick people like you who defend ‘homosexuality is sin’ are to reject Jesus Christ in defense of their malice.

                      “And why do you say such people do not exist?”

                      Because you have provided no evidence of their existence, and because you have made so many false assertions, your word alone is not evidence.

                      “Aren’t you saying that because there are those who physically
                      persecute gays, those who merely say that it is sin but support equality
                      for gays do not exist.”

                      No. Are you always this dishonest when caught in sin? Just provide real world examples to back up your claim, or admit that it was fiction.

                      “. In addition, you use your definitions to deny the existence of people who exist though I personally know such people exist.”

                      Nice false accusation there. Please repent.

                      “When you are ready to answer the question, I’ll be waiting.”

                      I answered your question. But you still have not answered mine:

                      Is your belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is innate,
                      intrinsic, that it determines who you can be in an intimate, authentic relationship with, that you would have to lie about yourself to the entire world, if you believe otherwise?”

                      Yes, or no?

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,
                      Actually, I have said nothing about gays outside of what is written in the Scriptures and I have documented that. I Cor 6:9, for example, lists the sins of people not inheriting the Kingdom of God and they included adultery and homosexuality. In addition, I quoted Romans 2:26-28 which described in detail what is defined as sin in this manner. So if you feel insulted, and I understand the feeling, realize that you are reacting to what the Scriptures are saying.

                      I understand if you disagree. I have friends who are homosexuals who disagree with me on this matter. I also have former friends whose sensitivity prevented them from being friends. I understand that reaction because of how Conservative Christians have stigmatized and even persecuted them.

                      But reciting the Scriptures does not deny your humanity, treating you as someone who is not equal in society does. And, as far as I can see, the only way you can say that your humanity is denied is that you would have to deny your own humanity, because of the authenticity of your relationships, to follow what the Scriptures say. I understand that but you are not alone. Both the same Christ who died for the sins of those who believe in him and the same apostles who declared we are saved by grace tell all of us that we must carry our cross and die to sin. We are in the same boat though sins can differ. So the question is whether the Scriptures define homosexuality as sin.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “I have said nothing about gays outside of what is written in the Scriptures and I have documented that.”

                      Please stop the lies.

                      “I Cor 6:9, for example, lists the sins of people not inheriting the Kingdom of God and they included adultery and homosexuality.”

                      No. Now bear in mind, I pointed out your mistakes with this passage in detail 3 days ago, and you have yet to make any rebuttal. So here is it yet again:

                      “I Cor 6:9:

                      First, fraud, leaving off verse 10, since not only includes the punishment, but the reference to slanderers such as yourself.

                      The phrase ‘men who have sex with men’ simply does not occur in Paul’s text. It is a gross and deliberate mistranslation of two distinct terms that Paul uses, malakoi, and arsenokoite. Neither were used in Paul’s
                      culture to refer to homosexuals. Greek of Paul’s day had seventeen words that referred to homosexuals:

                      http://www.gaychristian101.com

                      none of which Paul used. That is a huge problem right at the start.

                      Malakoi means ‘soft, fine’. Not male prostitute (porn-oi) or catamite or sodomite. It was used as a euphemism for effeminate – and effeminate in that culture included avoiding military service, failing in business, even trying to hard to be attractive to women. By Paul’s standard, G.W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Rick Warren would all be mocked as malakoi.

                      Arsenokoite Paul apparently made up. He did not define it, and it is irrational to presume that Paul would be so prideful and arrogant that he would invent yet another word for homosexuals in a language that already had
                      seventeen terms. It’s most likely meaning is traders in sex slaves.

                      Now, there are two versions of the list, as I pointed out. The second version, in I Timothy, includes murder, patricide and matricide. And the thing about lists is that they intrinsically establish a comparison,a relationship between everything on the list.

                      So when you translate malakoi and arsenokoite as ‘men who have sex with men’, or accept such a translation, you are asserting that homosexuality is comparable to murder, addiction, stealing, adultery, matricide, and so
                      on.

                      And that is slander on your part. Everything else on Paul’s lists cause harm and violate consent, homosexuality does not. By equating our innate capacity for love and intimacy with these things, including extreme acts of violence like murder, you slander us, and you
                      show that you have no moral sense, or just turn it out when it suits you.”

                      There are more problems that I did not cover the first time. For example, since the passage has the judgement ‘will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven’, your abuse of it makes salvation contingent either on being born heterosexual, or on having heterosexual sex.

                      The first option essentially tells GLBTQ people that they might as well reject God, because they have no hope of salvation, you’ve declared that they cannot, no matter what, be saved.

                      The second option, focusing on sex acts, makes Christianity into a sex cult, where people have to engage in a certain kind of sexual behavior to win God’s favor. Essentially, you are making heterosexuality the condition for salvation, rejecting Christ’s death and resurrection, and contradicting Paul’s ‘justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ’.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,

                      If you want to argue the translation of the word in I Cor 6:9, I understand. Though the word malakoi, if memory serves, has more than one meaning and so this translation could very well be correct. BTW, leaving out vs 10 neither implies fraud nor makes your case.

                      But then you have to explain Romans 1:24-26:

                      Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

                      26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                      In these verses, it isn’t a matter of quibbling over words, the concepts are spelled out. The problem is that men and women were exchanging the natural relations with one another for unnatural relations with members of the same gender.

                      But something else has to be spelled out. From the beginning, you have started with the premise of authenticity as the determining factor for whether homosexual relations were accepted by God. The problem is that we start dead in sin. Do we have a measure of common grace in us? Certainly. But because we start dead in sin, human authenticity does not carry the weight you ascribe to it, that is according to the Scriptures. The Gospel of John in particular declares how man out of his own humanity will never believe in and follow Jesus. That God must quicken us to believe..

                      BTW, other than that, you are still trying to deduce your way out of what the Scriptures say. If you wish to rely on Jesus, He backed the law and the prophets by saying that the heavens and earth pass away before the smallest part of the law does. .

                      If you wish to make it an issue of salvation, everybody is in the same boat. We all need to repent and the refusal to repent indicates that saving faith has not come. It isn’t us who judges God’s law, it is God’s law that judges us. That puts you and me in the same boat regardless of our differences.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Though the word malakoi, if memory serves, has more than one meaning and so this translation could very well be correct.”

                      No, it cannot be correct.

                      “But then you have to explain Romans 1:24-26″

                      I did. Three days ago, and then again today (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/07/21/the-evangelical-unicorn-a-third-way-on-gay-marriage/#comment-1554986905). So let’s start with that failure on your part. Let’s include the fact that the traditional interpretation of this raped portion of Romans 1 has been refuted across the internet on thousands of websites, for at least two decades, and you have not accounted for any of that rebuttal.

                      “In these verses, it isn’t a matter of quibbling over words, the concepts are spelled out.”

                      In these verses that you deceitfully and fraudulently raped out of context, the meaning of the actual greek words Paul used is still important.

                      “The problem is that men and women were exchanging the natural relations
                      with one another for unnatural relations with members of the same
                      gender.”

                      The problem is that people engaged in idolatry were going against their inborn, instinctive, innate, personal nature, their ‘physikos chresis’ toward the opposite gender. Homosexuals do not have a ‘physikos chresis’ toward the opposite gender. Heterosexual sex is unnatural for homosexuals, it goes against our nature.

                      You see, homosexuality is natural. It occurs in nature, has been documented in more than a thousand species. It tends to correlate strongly with sociality, with living in groups like flocks, herds, packs, prides, tribes.

                      Like so many of your peers, you not only use a falsely broad understanding of ‘physikos’, denying the Creation itself in the process, you completely ignore the crucial concept that ties everything together: abandoning or exchanging.

                      Homosexuals cannot abandon heterosexual desire, Curt. They don’t have it. It is fraud to be literal about one concept in Paul’s sentence, and then completely ignore the concept that proves that your literal interpretation cannot possibly be accurate.

                      Paul is describing heterosexual idolaters, not homosexuals. To quote myself yet again:

                      Paul is writing about heterosexual idolaters being lead by that idolatry into sexual behavior they find shameful because itis against their innate nature. The point is not to condemn same-sex sexuality, but to show how the abandonment of one’s innate spiritual orientation to
                      God leads to abandoning other innate orientations, like sexual orientation.

                      The really sick thing about your theology, Curt, is
                      that you try to coerce homosexuals into abandoning our innate sexual orientation, and our innate spiritual orientation to God, to engage in what for us is shameful and disgusting, heterosexual sex, and to put you
                      and your peers in God’s place.

                      Which is why the last half of Romans 1 describes people like you, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Martin SSempa, Jesse Helms, and so many more, much more than it ever fits GLBTQ people:

                      29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

                      Sure, you deny it, but you have demonstrated many
                      of these traits in your posts here. And the reality is people who believe as you do purposefully and intentionally persecute other human beings.

                      And then, there’s your biggest mistake of all. See, you
                      never even respect Paul enough to even get to his actual point in all of this.You’ve raped a very subordinate detail into an excuse to persecute other human beings, and never got to Paul’s point:

                      You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because
                      you who pass judgment do the same things. (and so on) Romans 2.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,

                      Hold, why can’;t it be correct? Whether my memory is correct on this is whether the word was used in multiple ways in Greek.

                      I(n addition, your exegesis of the Romans 1 passage fails on this account. Though did Paul was addressing Gentile unbelief as his main subject, idolatry from this, what Paul specifically mentioned as unnatural was the use of the same gender for sexual relations rather than the use of the other gender. Note what Paul says in Romans 1:26b-27:

                      Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                      Now though the specifics about what was unnatural for women is not explicitly stated in 26b, that it is like what men did is stated in 27 and what men were doing, as listed in 27 is that they abandoned natural relations with women for unnatural ones with men. It was the substitution of the natural use of the opposite gender for the unnatural use with one’s own gender that is explicitly stated as being unnatural. That other people would interpret that differently is not new. But if you want to compare who translate what, yous translation will have to oppose 2 millennium of what became 3 major branches of CHristianity and its interpretation. And when it comes to that point, it isn’t necessarily who is on which side that counts it is why people say what they are saying. The words Paul uses here clearly identifies the gender of the people with whom one is engaged in sex with as being what is unnatural according to God’s Creation.

                      As for your comment regarding what is natural for the homosexual. I understand the concern. But realize that what is God’s Creation how things were before the fall, not afterwards. We all suffer from natural inclinations that are sinful. We all do. Heterosexual adultery and fornication are natural inclinations for those fallen in sin. What Paul is referring to what is natural here is not what has become natural for man because of the fall into sin that occurred with Adam. What Paul refers to what is natural here is what was natural for man while in the Garden before the fall.

                      Another discussion of what is natural can be seen in Galatians 5: 19ff. There, Paul lists attributes that are natural to those who do the works of the flesh. Sexual immorality is one of them. Sin is what is natural for everyone of us because of the Fall. The Scriptures define what is natural according to creation regarding sex both in the Genesis account as well as this passage in Romans. And in this passage in Romans, the trade places of the gender used to have sexual relations tells us that the nature Paul referred to was what was defined by creation.

                      Paul’s specific words contradict what you are saying but whether we are homosexual or heterosexual, we are caught in Paul’s talk about sin. Romans 2 describes the sins of the Jews, and we could easily generalize that to all who believe in God. And that culminates in Romans 3:9 who we are naturally,, is equally condemned. This is repeated in Galatians 5:19-21. And Galatians 5:22-24 lists what is consistent with the Spirit seen in those who have crucified the flesh–what is natural for fallen man.

                      BTW, if you want to list some of the website that you think refute the above interpretation, then list them and we can discuss them.

                      Finally, again you confuse stating what is sin with judgment. To say that pride or sex outside of God’s design, or bitterness is sin is not judgmental. Paul lists these actions or attributes as sin. What is judgmental is when we speak down to the other person and treat them as being less than ourselves because of the faults we see in them.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Hold, why can’;t it be correct?”

                      For one thing, the end result is evil. Your interpretation of all of these passages cannot be correct, because the fruit of that interpretation is evil.

                      ‘I(n addition, your exegesis of the Romans 1 passage fails on this account”

                      No.

                      “what Paul specifically mentioned as unnatural was the use of the same
                      gender for sexual relations rather than the use of the other gender.”

                      No. Homosexuality is not intrinsically unnatural. But since you keep going there, written language is unnatural. The name Curt is unnatural. Computers and the internet are unnatural. Most of modern life is unnatural.

                      I’ve addressed your clearly deliberate fraud repeatedly. You are ignoring a key concept, one that links the example of what people are doing, to the rejection of God Paul mentions in the verses you are being too dishonest to apply: exchange.

                      ” It was the substitution of the natural use of the opposite gender for the unnatural use with one’s own gender that is explicitly stated as being unnatural.”

                      Sex with the opposite gender is only natural for heterosexuals and bisexuals, it is unnatural for homosexuals.

                      “As for your comment regarding what is natural for the homosexual. I understand the concern.”

                      Stop the condescending lies.

                      ” But realize that what is God’s Creation how things were before the fall, not afterwards.’

                      Though not particularly coherent, you are presuming, without a shred of evidence, that heterosexuality was a part of the ‘pre-fall’ Creation. That is not supported by the Bible.

                      Further, you are still using a false and dishonest rendering of ‘physikos’. It does not mean ‘universal nature’. It mean innate, instinctive, inborn nature.

                      “What Paul refers to what is natural here is what was natural for man while in the Garden before the fall.”

                      And you, out of pride, assume that means heterosexuality. There is no evidence to support that claim. Nothing in Paul’s text even hints at that.

                      Instead, Paul references the Creation now, in those verses you are being too dishonest to factor in. Paul says that the Creation itself communicates God’s nature now, so that people are without excuse.

                      And that Creation is not predominantly heterosexual, much less exclusively so. Curt, the majority of life on earth is not heterosexual, it is asexual, neither male nor female. The next most common form of gender/sexuality is forms of hermaphodism, having the reproductive organs of both genders – as in flowering plants, but also species of invertebrates like many molluscs. And then comes heterosexuality, but the most successful form of heterosexuality is found in social insects, bees and ants and termites, in which only a tiny number of individuals out of populations of millions, reproduce. And there’s homosexuality, and species that change gender during their lives, and species that have many, even thousands of genders.

                      Natural is simply much, much, much larger than your false, evil producing theology recognizes.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Galatians 5: 19ff. There, Paul lists attributes that are natural to
                      those who do the works of the flesh. Sexual immorality is one of them.”

                      Your presumption that homosexuality = sexual immorality is the sin of slander on your part, and as a slanderer, Curt, you are barred from the Kingdom of Heaven, unless you repent.

                      Think about it. Is your need to revile and slander homosexuals so great that you will put yourself under God’s eternal wrath just to feel the pleasure you get from putting us down?

                      The word that your translated as ‘sexual immorality’ is derived from the greek word for prostitution. It has come to have a broader, false meaning only because of the evil in the hearts of people like you. Homosexuality is not prostitution, equating it with prostitution is the sin of slander.

                      But let’s look at that list in full. I know, you avoid looking at things in full, because doing so tends to damn you.

                      “Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
                      Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:”

                      Now, the plain cold truth, Curt, is that people like you, who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ are constantly engaged in these behaviors. All too often, they engage in them as the direct result of believing and acting on ‘homosexuality is sin’.

                      You, Curt, have committed these sins of the flesh, in the process of defending ‘homosexuality is sin’: hatred, idolatry, wrath, strife, heresy, murder (in thought and word) variance (strife, contention), and so on.

                      Your work here has entirely been a sin of the flesh. People who believe as you do raped and murder, slander, persecute, harass, beat, stab, shoot, destroy real human beings

                      for the purpose of carrying out ‘homosexuality is sin’.

                      Your belief, and every expression of it, ‘homosexuality is sin’ is a sin of the flesh.

                      But of course, you focus on the bit that you think you can use to condemn hundreds of millions of people, to bend them to your sinful will, and you didn’t even consider the rest of Paul’s text:

                      “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
                      Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”

                      These traits are all found in same-sex relationships, and in same-sex lovemaking. And against such, there is no law.

                      Your side kills people, our side makes love.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “BTW, if you want to list some of the website that you think refute the
                      above interpretation, then list them and we can discuss them.”

                      When you don’t even pay attention to what I have presented so far, and don’t provide any outside sources yourself? Get over your arrogance and pride.

                      “Finally, again you confuse stating what is sin with judgment.”

                      Again, you are still lying about the meaning of words to excuse your evil sin against hundreds of millions of people.

                      You judge and sentence to death and damnation hundreds of millions of human beings, so you can feel exalted.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “But something else has to be spelled out. From the beginning, you have
                      started with the premise of authenticity as the determining factor for
                      whether homosexual relations were accepted by God.’

                      Not sure where you get that, since you provide no quote. But it seems that you are suggesting that inauthenticity, dishonesty, would be acceptable to God.

                      “The problem is that we start dead in sin.”

                      So let’s presume that it is heterosexuality that is the sin. After all, it was a male/female couple who brought sin into the world. The first curse in the Bible directed at humans explicitly targets the fruit of heterosexual intercourse. They raised the world’s first murderer, if Genesis is taken literally. Every villain, every bad person, described in the Bible is either explicitly described as heterosexual, or presumed to be. The Bible contains more than three hundred passages specifically prohibiting certain expression of heterosexual sexual acts.

                      And from the scientific, biological perspective, sexual reproduction is a solution to the issue of death and disease – both of which the Bible states are the product of sin. It is more likely to conclude that heterosexuality is the product of a fallen world, than to conclude that about homosexuality.

                      And digging a bit deeper, for most of recorded human history, in most of human culture, heterosexual relationships have been intrinsically unequal and unjust. Systemic gender inequality has been an intrinsic and all but inseparable component of heterosexual marriage and heterosexual sexual intimacy for most humans. It was legal in the U.S. for a husband to rape his wife until nearly the end of the 20th century, and to this day, women are still treated as inferior to men, even by their own husbands.

                      God condemns injustice, but heterosexual relationships have been fundamentally unjust pretty much all of the time. Talk about manifesting a fallen world.

                      ” But because we start dead in sin, human authenticity does not carry the weight you ascribe to it,”

                      Which again simply strengthens the argument that it is heterosexuality that is sin.

                      ” you are still trying to deduce your way out of what the Scriptures say.’

                      No, I’m not. You are bearing false witness yet again. I am refuting your interpretation of a few passages that you’ve raped out of context. I am disputing what you say. You are not Scripture.

                      Do you get that, Curt? You are not Scripture.

                      “If you wish to rely on Jesus, He backed the law and the prophets by saying that the heavens and earth pass away before the smallest part of the law does.”

                      And Jesus said that if you judge others by the Law, you are judged by it as well. You just bound yourself to all of the Law. Both Jesus and Paul keep reminding us not to do that, but you do it anyways.

                      Further, Jesus gave us a test for false teachers: they bear evil fruit. Everyone who teaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ bears evil fruit. Jesus also stated that the whole of the law is ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ and “love God with your entire self” – yet you abuse your GLBTQ neighbors with slander, and you, in essence, assert that God made them wrong, hates them, and wishes them dead.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “If you wish to make it an issue of salvation, everybody is in the same boat.”

                      Your dodge is so dishonest. The problem is that your fraudulent rendering of I Cor 6:9,10 makes salvation contingent on sex. Not Jesus. Not grace. Sex.

                      You teach evil, and Romans 2 reminds us:

                      “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge
                      another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

                      5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.””

                      So what have you and your peers done?

                      You’ve create a culture of hostility and violence that produces murder and rape. Real human beings are murdered or raped as the deliberate enforcement of ‘homosexuality is sin’. That culture of hostility and violence produces systemic injustice, making you and your peers ‘workers of iniquity’. It drives millions of people of all sexual orientations away from God completely, it drives people to harass and abuse GLBTQ people to the point of suicide.

                      So – do you repent, or will you be repaid for all that harm?

                    • WilmRoget

                      ” In addition, I quoted Romans 2:26-28″

                      Well, for one thing, it was Romans 1. Romans 2:26-28 doesn’t help you at all:

                      “26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.”

                      Second, again, I pointed out the huge flaws in your use of the two verses from Romans 1 that you raped out of context three days ago, and you still have not provided a substantive rebuttal. So let me quote myself again:

                      “Now, Romans. Rom 1:26-28

                      First off, you have raped this out of context, that is fraud, and it shows that you have no respect for the Bible. Verse 26 even starts with a concept that points back to the prior verses: “Because of this”, or in other translations “for this cause”.

                      So why the fraud? Why did you skip those prior verses?
                      Well, they create a very specific context, they explicitly describe idolatry:

                      18 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
                      against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plainto them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

                      21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22
                      Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

                      24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this,”

                      People exchanged the truth of God, for idols. The
                      archeological record shows that there existed fertility religions that used “images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” and combined sex with worship. People had sex with priestesses and priests to earn the blessings of their god/goddess.In Rome, the dominant such religion was the worship of Cybele/the Great Mother, and her consort Attis, who castrated himself. Priests of that religion castrated themselves to be like their deity, dressed like Cybele to “channel” her, and had sex with worshipers.

                      This is what Paul is reminding his readers of, in Romans 1, this is what he is writing about. Not homosexuals.

                      Which brings us to the bit your raped out of context. Here Paul writes again of ‘exchanging’ and ‘abandoning’, saying that people abandon or exchange their ‘physikos chresis’ – their innate nature, instinctive and inborn sexual use of – the opposite sex.

                      Even you should be able to see, if you are honest about it, that this cannot refer to homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have an inborn sexual use of the opposite sex. They cannot abandon or exchange what they do not have. And frankly, bisexuals have no need to abandon or exchange, since their innate nature is sexual attraction to both gender.

                      Only heterosexuals can abandon heterosexuality, the physikos chresis toward the opposite sex. Paul is writing about heterosexual idolaters being lead by that idolatry into sexual behavior they find shameful because itis against their innate nature. The point is not to condemn same-sex sexuality, but to show how the abandonment of one’s innate spiritual orientation to God leads to abandoning other innate orientations, like sexual orientation.

                      The really sick thing about your theology, Curt, is that you try to coerce homosexuals into abandoning our innate sexual orientation, and our innate spiritual orientation to God, to engage in what for us is shameful and disgusting, heterosexual sex, and to put you and your peers in God’s place.

                      Which is why the last half of Romans 1 describes people like you, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Martin SSempa, Jesse Helms, and so many more, much more than it ever fits GLBTQ people:

                      29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

                      Sure, you deny it, but you have demonstrated many
                      of these traits in your posts here. And the reality is people who believe as you do purposefully and intentionally persecute other human beings.

                      And then, there’s your biggest mistake of all. See, you
                      never even respect Paul enough to even get to his actual point in all ofthis. You’ve raped a very subordinate detail into an excuse to persecute other human beings, and never got to Paul’s point:

                      You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because
                      you who pass judgment do the same things. (and so on) Romans 2.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      Actually, Romans 1:26-28 is what deals with homosexuality by concept. BTW, the context for Romans 1 is the indictment of those who don’t believe in God. The context for Romans 2 is the indictment of those who believe in God. This is all brought together in Romans 3 in order to say that though the Jews were entrusted with God’s Word, we are all equally under sin (Romans 3:1-9).

                      And, Paul’s main subject in Romans 1:18ff is, what I just wrote above, those who don’t believe in God. But included in that discussion is a discussion about homosexuality. It isn’t a discussion about male prostitutes. And it may not be included in the Paul’s comments to the Jews in Romans 2 because of the strict Mosaic laws forbidding homosexuality. So though the focus of Romans 1 is on the gentile unbeliever, what is said about homosexuality applies.

                      Now for the personal attack, note what I wrote to you previously:

                      But reciting the Scriptures does not deny your humanity, treating you as someone who is not equal in society does. And, as far as I can see, the only way you can say that your humanity is denied is that you would have to deny your own humanity, because of the authenticity of your relationships, to follow what the Scriptures say. I understand that but you are not alone. Both the same Christ who died for the sins of those who believe in him and the same apostles who declared we are saved by grace tell all of us that we must carry our cross and die to sin. We are in the same boat though sins can differ. So the question is whether the Scriptures define homosexuality as sin.

                      How am I judging you if I declare that we are in the same boat. Judging people does not mean saying what action is wrong. Rather, judging people is putting them below you for the actions you focus on while ignoring your own sin. That is judging. Judging is not saying that adultery, theft, murder, or other acts listed in the Scriptures are sins.

                      BTW, I use Romans 2:1 to warn those who would regard homosexuals as inferiors. Romans 2:1 tells us that you and I are equals even if our sins are not the same. That is why we can’t regard anyone as an inferior. That is why salvation comes solely through faith in Christ, not through our works or any kind of authenticity. But with faith in Christ comes a changed, though definitely not, perfect heart.

                      The Scriptures are clear regarding God’s design for sex. Some would break that design through homosexual relations and others through heterosexual relations. And if we are apparently pure there, we have other vices that have ensnared us. And the person who believes in Christ is one who has received the Spirit and thus battles, though not always successfully, what the Scriptures call sin.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Actually, Romans 1:26-28 is what deals with homosexuality by concept.’

                      No, it does not. Don’t lie.

                      ” BTW, the context for Romans 1 is the indictment of those who don’t believe in God.”

                      No. But that does not excuse the fact that you committed deliberate and purposeful fraud.

                      ” But included in that discussion is a discussion about homosexuality.”

                      Absolutely not. What part of this went over your head:

                      “Here Paul writes again of ‘exchanging’ and ‘abandoning’, saying that people abandon or exchange their ‘physikos chresis’ – their innate nature, instinctive and inborn sexual use of – the opposite sex.

                      Even you should be able to see, if you are honest about it, that this cannot refer to homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have an inborn sexual use of the opposite sex. They cannot abandon or exchange what they do not have. And frankly, bisexuals have no need to abandon or exchange, since their innate nature is sexual attraction to both gender. Only heterosexuals can abandon heterosexuality, the physikos chresis toward the opposite sex.”

                      Paul absolutely cannot be talking about homosexuals, or homosexuality. He is talking about a circumstance in which heterosexuals abandon their innate sexual desires for ones that are not natural to them. The modern day equivalent is prison rape.

                      “And it may not be included in the Paul’s comments to the Jews in Romans 2″

                      The distinction you are making is fraud. As was pointed out to me just yesterday, the church in Rome, to whom Paul was writing, was composed of both gentile converts, and Jewish converts, and Paul is talking to both peoples.

                      Further, as a people, the Jews had a history of idolatry, Paul is invoking that commonality, that thing that both the Gentile Christians in Rome, and the Jewish Christians in Rome, shared – a history of “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles”.

                      “because of the strict Mosaic laws forbidding homosexuality.”

                      No such things exist. Before you even think about claiming they do – you must be able prove exactly where the mishkap ishshah is in the lives of every gay man on earth.

                      “Now for the personal attack,”

                      Again, your entire argument here is a personal attack on me, my spouse, many of our friends, and hundreds of millions of people. Falsely accusing me of personal attack does you no good at all.

                      “How am I judging you if I declare that we are in the same boat.”

                      You are declaring that my innate capacity for love and intimacy is sin, worthy of death and damnation, but yours is not. We are not ‘in the same boat’.

                      You are judging, and condemning to death since you invoked Mosaic law, seven hundred million human beings.

                      ” Rather, judging people is putting them below you for the actions you focus on while ignoring your own sin.”

                      As conveniently limited as your definition of judging is, you’ve just described your behavior here. You’ve just convicted yourself of judging GLBTQ people.

                      “BTW, I use Romans 2:1 to warn those who would regard homosexuals as inferiors.’

                      You should be applying it to yourself first, last, and every time in between.

                      “The Scriptures are clear regarding God’s design for sex.”

                      Not in the way you think.

                      “Some would break that design through homosexual relations”

                      Homosexual relations break your design for sex. Not God’s. You are not God, Curt. Homosexuals are designed by God for homosexual sexual intimacy. We are not designed for heterosexual sexual intimacy. We are not designed to serve you.

                      ” we have other vices that have ensnared us.’

                      And that is why you never, ever, ever had any business critiquing homosexuals in the first place.

                      And yet you did so anyways.

                    • WilmRoget

                      ” what deals with homosexuality by concept.”

                      Another nuance of this just struck me.

                      Romans 1:26-28 describes heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex acts with temple priestess and priestesses, against their nature.

                      But, let’s pretend that this condemnation of a specific instance of homosexual sex acts (by heterosexual idolaters), does create a universal condemnation of homosexual sex.

                      That means that the hundreds of verses that condemn specific instances of heterosexual sex acts create a hundreds of times stronger condemnation of heterosexuality.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,
                      Again, it talks about abandoning the natural use of the opposite gender. It isn’t talking about heterosexuals gone wild. There is no indication of that. For it talks about men in general and it talks about what is natural for men and women in general, it does not talk about specific groups of people. Here we can go back to Leviticus to see how homosexuality is viewed.

                      That take you have fails to account for the fact that our current state is a state of sin. And what is natural in our current state goes against God. And that is true regardless of our sexual orientation. We are all in the same boat there. That is why, in Galatians 5, Paul contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit.

                      Will respond more the specifics of the Scriptures when I regain access to my Greek-English lexicons. Until then, take care.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Again, it talks about abandoning the natural use of the opposite gender.’

                      Again, Curt, homosexuals do not have a ‘natural use of the opposite gender’. They have a natural use of their own gender.

                      But again, lets test your hypothesis. You are going against the natural use of your body, by using a keyboard to communicate, instead of your voice. Computers and the internet are not natural, they are not the way humans are designed to naturally communicate. If you ride in a car, you are going against the natural use of your body, we are not designed for it, we had to design cars to fit our bodies.

                      “For it talks about men in general and it talks about what is natural for men and women in general,”

                      No, Curt, it does not. The word ‘physikos’ does not mean universal nature, if it did, Paul would be a fraud, because homosexuality is natural. It means personal nature, instinctive, inborn, innate.

                      Your innate nature, presumably, is to be attracted to the opposite sex, and demonstrably, to revile other people for your gain. A homosexual’s innate nature is to be attracted to his or her own sex.

                      The sickness of your theology is that you use verbal abuse and threats to try to coerce homosexuals into doing the very thing Paul is railing against – engage in unnatural and shameful behavior – for us, heterosexual sex is extremely unnatural and extremely shameful – to please your false god of heterosexism and selfishness.

                      You are trying to make us into idolaters who worship you and your sexuality.

                      ‘Here we can go back to Leviticus to see how homosexuality is viewed.”

                      Leviticus does not talk about homosexuality. But you’ve bound yourself to all of the laws in Leviticus, yet again.

                      So before we can talk about it, you need to prove that you have fulfilled all of Levitical law. You need to prove that you have tithed faithfully ten percent of all you get, that there is a fence on your roof, that you don’t trim the corners of your beard, and so on.

                      And if, if, you manage to do so, you will only accomplish one thing: by citing Leviticus to judge homosexuals, you will show that you are a mass-murderer in thought and word. Of course, according to Luther, you are anyways.

                      See, when you invoke Lev 20:13, you are asserting that you, Curt Day, think it is moral, right and appropriate to execute homosexuals as sacrifices to your god. By simply accepting that verse as applicable to homosexuals, you are committing seven hundred millions counts of murder in your thoughts and in your heart. And remember, Curt, it is what is in the heart that defiles someone.

                      When you invoke Leviticus, Curt, you are saying that seven hundred million people are to be killed to make your god happy. That is twice the population of the U.S. You are telling me that you want me, my partner, many of our friends, and hundreds of millions of people killed.

                      I just cannot imagine having that much evil inside, to be obliviously willing to destroy so many lives, just so you can feel superior.

                      But you absolutely are invoking, exhorting human sacrifice on an unprecedented scale. You are a murderer in thought and word, Curt.

                      No wonder you won’t let yourself get this – you are a murderer in thought in word. If you let yourself see how evil ‘homosexuality is sin’ actually is, the burden of sin you’d have to recognize in your own life would be overwhelming. You’d feel so much shame you couldn’t bear it. And I doubt, seriously, if your faith is such that you could repent and feel Grace lift that burden from you.

                      You kept trying to separate your evil belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ from the violence inflicted on GLBTQ people, but the truth is revealed the moment you mention Leviticus – you embrace ‘death to gays’.

                      “That take you have fails to account for the fact that our current state is a state of sin.’

                      Absolutely not. I know from your posts that you are in a state of sin, for example, for you commit murder in your thoughts and in your heart.

                      “That is why, in Galatians 5, Paul contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit.”

                      And in the physical world, Curt, we find that you and your peers are consistently caught in the ‘works of the flesh’ as your revile, murder in thought, word and deed, slander, abuse, torture, bully, persecute, defame, bear false witness about, drive away from God real human beings

                      for the sake of your pride, your flesh. You are a murderer, seven hundred million times a murderer, in thought and word, just for invoking Leviticus against GLBTQ people.

                    • WilmRoget

                      One more thing. Life experience has taught me that people who are so adamant about condemning homosexuals, as you are, who invoke Leviticus in defense

                      have a personal history of harming GLBTQ people directly – with verbal or physical abuse. You are not just reviling us, Curt, you are trying to justify your own sin, and I suspect that your particular sins against go far beyond slandering us on the internet and thinking approvingly of murdering us.

                    • WilmRoget

                      The fundamental problem with your theology on this issue, Curt, is that it produces evil. Yet you refuse to factor that in.

                      You refuse to test the validity of your hypothesis against its actual consequences. It is as if you do the math problem 2+3+4 and come up with the answer 27. Some one else sets down 2 apples, and then three more, and then four more, and counts them “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9″ 2+3+4=9.

                      So you say, “no, it has to be 27. It isn’t natural to use the same function twice in a row, so the first plus sign just means to put the 2 next to the 3, like so “23″. Then you add the 4 with the 23, cuz that’s how its always been done, resulting in 27.” “But look at the fruit”, the other person says, “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9″ . . .

                      And you say “oh, the fruit doesn’t matter, that’s someone else’s fault and is entirely unrelated. 2+3+4=27, always has, always will.”

                      The answer you arrive at from Scripture destroys people, Curt, it cannot be correct.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,

                      I will try to address all of the concerns I have with your position in this one note.

                      It is clear in the I Cor 6:9 passage that homosexuality is included in the list of sins. The reference to heterosexual sins with the combination of the words malakoi and arsenokoitas together point to homosexuality. Malakos was used to denote homosexuality in Greek writing (see http://christianstudies.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/does-the-greek-word-malakos-refer-to-homosexual-acts/). That the word had other meanings but that does not take away from it being used to denote sexual sin.

                      Romans 1:24-26 is a clear description of homosexuality. Your saying that Paul was only condemning heterosexuals for going against their nature is not supported by the text. Such implies that God created those who were by nature heterosexuals and others who by nature were homosexuals. But please tell me where in the Scriptures it says that God created some to be naturally homosexuals. And it is important to point to the Scriptures here the person who wrote Romans, the Apostle Paul, was a student of the Old Testament who even used it to define what was natural–see his explanation of why women should not teach in church for example.

                      But now you want deduce that what I say is false because it brings evil. I’ve already acknowledged the horrific treatment that many Conservative Christians have practiced on homosexuals. And your reasoning here is more post-modern than anything else. Post-Modern reasoning states that if a premise can lead or has led to negative results, then it must be false. That is why Post-modernism rejects all of the meta-naratives of pre-modernism and modernism. They, like you, look at how those metanarratives have led to colonialism and domination and have concluded that they are false. The problem is that we constantly live by what has resulted from the scientific enterprise and we have the Scriptures to guide us in our living.

                      The problem here is that negative results do not imply that the premise of homosexuality is sin is wrong. Why? Because there are multiple variables involved with why those who are labeled sinners are persecuted by those who claim to be more righteous. Multiple variables negates the desired implication here. For example, Christians use to burn heretics at the stake. Does that imply their what they corrected heretics on was wrong? Not at all. Certainly burning heretics at the stake is horrific and detestable. It is completely immoral. But the sinful response to the wrong theology of someone does not imply that the victimizer is wrong about what was declared to be heresy. The immoral actions do point to sins and other problems but they make no implication regarding the theological issue being debated.

                      You say that my theology produces evil. Is that my theology or someone else’s? From the mid ’90s, I have argued for marriage equality and I did that in a very conservative, fundamentalist Church. So why is my theology being judged by someone else’s actions? I’ve signed a petition, boycotted stores, challenged people in church, and have written to support equality for homosexuals in society on my own blog. So again, why is my theology being judged by someone else’s actions?

                      You wish to deduce my theology to be wrong rather than looking at the specifics mentioned in scriptures. And when you look at those specifics, it is always under the guidance of those who agree with you. But the specifics of the Scriptures do not support their interpretations.

                      There are times I wished that the Scriptures allowed for homosexuality. I wish for that because of my friends who are homosexuals. But I can’t change what the Scriptures say. And if the Scriptures are right, to deny their truth is like telling my friends to eat something that is really poisonous.

                      Finally, the person who has been doing the reviling is you. I’ve only said what the scriptures say. You are the one with the plethora of accusations for someone who simply disagrees with you. It seems that the purpose of your accusations is to silence debate. I know Christians who are on the other side of this debate who wish to silence the debate with their accusations too. Such is wrong. I’ve spoken to you as an equal. Regardless of our differences regarding sexual orientation, we are in the same boat. We are both sinners who need both a savior and to change. Our sins don’t have to be identical for us to be equals.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “It is clear in the I Cor 6:9 passage that homosexuality is included in the list of sins.”

                      No, it is not. I provided detailed rebuttal, and your provide your opinion, with no thought for the rebuttal I provided.

                      “. The reference to heterosexual sins with the combination of the words malakoi and arsenokoitas together point to homosexuality.”

                      Absolutely not. The reference to sexual sins, and to economic sins, points to traders in sex slaves. The fact that Paul did not use any of the greek words of his day that were used in his day to communicate the concept ‘homosexuals’ indicates that he was not talking about homosexuals.

                      ” Malakos was used to denote homosexuality in Greek writing”

                      No. And a source that returns ‘page not found’ is not helpful. In contrast:

                      http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html

                      “If Paul intended to condemn homosexuality, he could have used a word
                      from the following list to make his point. Instead of using these words
                      however, Paul coined a new Greek word, arsenokoitai or arsenokoites, from the arsenokoit stem. Thanks for taking time to educate yourself by exploring the textual links.

                      Some people believe that Paul coined the Greek word arsenokoitai, from the words arsenos koiten, found in Lev 20:13 in the Septuagint, (a Greek translation of the Old Testament), where the cultural, historical and religious context is temple prostitution.

                      Ancient Greek and Latin words
                      Paul could have used

                      arrenomanes – meaning mad after men or boy crazy

                      dihetaristriai – a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same thing as hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23.

                      erastes – a sometimes older man who loves a sometimes younger male

                      eromenos – a sometimes younger male who loves an older male

                      euryproktoi – men who dress as women, also a vulgar reference to anal penetration

                      frictrix
                      – Latin word referring to a lewd woman and sometimes used to refer to a
                      lesbian. Tertullian, 160-220 AD, translated tribas (a masculine woman)
                      as frictrix.

                      hetairistriai – women who are attracted to other women, used by Plato’s character Aristophanes, in The Symposium. May also refer to hyper-masculine women, from Lucian’s Dialogue of the Courtesans, cited by Brooten, p. 52.

                      kinaidos
                      – a word for effeminate, κίναιδος or kínaidoi (cinaedus in its
                      Latinized form), a man “whose most salient feature was a supposedly feminine love of being sexually penetrated by other men.” Winkler, John J., 1990, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece, New York: Routledge.

                      Although
                      some scholars, like Dr. Robert Gagnon, understand kinaidoi to mean the
                      passive partner in a male couple, Davidson argues that kinaidoi refers
                      to a man insatiable and unrestrained in his sexual appetites instead of
                      merely effeminate or passive. Davidson, J. 1997. Courtesans & Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens, New York, p. 167-182.

                      lakkoproktoi – a lewd and vulgar reference to anal penetration

                      lesbiai
                      – a synonym referencing lesbian sexuality, meaning essentially the same
                      thing as dihetaristriai, hetairistriai, tribad, tribades, from: Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, Brooton, Bernadette, p. 23.

                      paiderasste – sexual behavior between males

                      paiderastes or paiderastïs – παιδεραστής derived from the Greek word pais, παῖς a boy, meaning lover of boys

                      paidomanes – a male mad for boys or boy crazy

                      paidophthoros – a Greek word meaning corrupter of boys

                      pathikos – the passive penetrated partner in a male couple

                      tribades
                      – an ancient Latin word indicating the active female partner of a
                      lesbian pair, sometimes interpreted to mean a pseudo-male, referencing
                      genital contact between women. Rashi defines it as “rubbing in a sexual manner.”

                      tribas – the active partner in a lesbian relationship, who takes the male role
                      If
                      Paul had used one of these words in Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9
                      or 1 Timothy 1:10, we could be reasonably certain of his meaning.”

                      “That the word had other meanings but that does not take away from it being used to denote sexual sin.”

                      That the word has other meanings indicates that you assumption that it is being used to denote sexual sin is unfounded and based on your personal bias.

                      Curt, malakoi was used for traits that you have demonstrated here – like soft morals in the form of bearing false witness. If you avoided military service, or failed in business, you would have been considered malakoi. If you are physically soft – and your photo creates that impression, you’d have been considered malakoi.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Romans 1:24-26 is a clear description of homosexuality.’

                      No, it is not.

                      “Your saying that Paul was only condemning heterosexuals for going against their nature is not supported by the text.”

                      It absolutely is. Your empty dismissal accomplishes nothing.

                      “Such implies that God created those who were by nature heterosexuals and others who by nature were homosexuals.”

                      The evidence of the Creation itself confirms it.

                      “But please tell me where in the Scriptures it says that God created some to be naturally homosexuals.”

                      Where does it say in Scripture that God created some people to be naturally red heads? Or to naturally have the epicanthic fold seen in people of Asian descent? Where does it say that God created some people to have blue eyes, or blond hair? Your test is not Biblical, and it is not rational.

                      You are arguing that the absences of affirmation equals condemnation. The Bible does not affirm the name Curt, so by your reasoning, your own name is sin. It does not confirm computers or the internet either.

                      You are making up desperate and dishonest excuses for your sin. Paul’s text cannot be about homosexuals, they cannot exchange or abandon something they do not have.

                      “here the person who wrote Romans, the Apostle Paul, was a student of the Old Testament”

                      Which does not assist you at all.

                      “see his explanation of why women should not teach in church for example.”

                      One of Paul’s contradictions for Paul asserts that the distinction ‘male/female’ does not exist in Christ.

                      Further, homosexuality is natural. If you insist on making Paul call homosexuality unnatural, then you destroy Paul’s credibility, for he could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit and make so blatantly false a claim that humans could easily see is wrong.

                      Remember, the whole ‘unnatural = sin’ argument condemns you. Written language is not natural. Computers are not natural. The clothing you are wearing in your photo is not natural, even if the fibers are. That baseball cap contains unnatural materials.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,

                      Again, there is nothing that supports your view that the Scriptures declare that God made some to be homosexuals by nature. And to make your point, what you have to do is deny what happened after creation. What happened after creation? Adam and Eve sinned, each received a curse for having violated God’s command, and they were expelled from the Garden. Part of that curse was that they would now die. Spiritually speaking, Paul sums up our beginning state of each of us, including you and me, this way in Ephesians 2:1

                      As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

                      What follows in vs 2-5 depends on whether one comes to faith in Christ specifically for being lost in sin:

                      2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

                      See, the existence of a behavior or orientation is not implied especially when that behavior or orientation is prohibited. We all start off dead in transgressions and sins. This is why John says in John 1:12 that only those who are enabled by God will believe in Jesus. Jesus says the same thing in John 6:44.

                      From Romans 5 we understand that sin entered the world with man’s disobedience to God in the Garden. Because of that, existence of a trait does not imply it was part of nature before the fall. The only way your logic works is to deny the fall and that not only denies what the rest of the Creation story and the Bible says, it denies the pervasiveness of every person’s sin as well as its depth. Basically, selectivity is your defense especially when Romans 1:24-26 explicitly states that turning from those of the opposite sex to those of the same sex is against nature. It is against nature as God created. We see it in nature now because of the fall. How do we know that? It is because it is clearly described as sin and sin entered the world with that first disobedience.

                      Again, for some to have been created by God to be homosexual by nature as God intended is not in the Bible. Its existence in the world has been described by the Bible as being sin rather than its existence in the world implies that it was part of God’s creation of man.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Again, there is nothing that supports your view that the Scriptures declare that God made some to be homosexuals by nature.”

                      And again, not only is your test not in the Scripture, you have provided no evidence to support your claim, and you have not addressed the fact that many, many things are not explicitly made by God.

                      Where does it say in Scripture that God created some people to be naturally red heads? Or to naturally have the epicanthic fold seen in people of Asian descent? Where does it say that God created some people to have blue eyes, or blond hair? Your test is not Biblical, and it is
                      not rational.

                      Your avoidance of these tests of your hypothesis indicates that your use of it is a fraud. Your argument is pathetic and dishonest.

                      “Adam and Eve sinned, each received a curse for having violated God’s command,”

                      A heterosexual couple introduced sin into the world, and brought down upon humanity curse that specifically targets the fruit heterosexual intercourse. Their relationship produces the world’s first murderer, if Genesis is taken literally.

                      ” Spiritually speaking, Paul sums up our beginning state of each of us, including you and me, this way in Ephesians 2:1″

                      Your diversion does not help you. You use it to assume that homosexuality is innately sin, but it applies even more strongly to heterosexuality. The most you can accomplish is to demonstrate that heterosexuality is innately sin, a fallen state.

                      “Again, for some to have been created by God to be homosexual by nature as God intended is not in the Bible.”

                      Again, that requirement is not in the Bible. And again, for some to have been created with red hair, blue eyes, blond hair, the epicanthic eye folds found in the billions of people of Asian ethnicity, is not in the Bible either.

                      By your argument, being a red head, having blue eyes, being named Curt, or being Chinese, Japanese, etc – is intrinsically sin. If we examine your life closely enough, no doubt there is at least one trait you possess that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible.

                      Your argument is fraudulent. And once again, you have rudely, sinfully, and deceitfully failed to address the rebuttal I’ve presented. That is the sin of pride on your part, to go along with the sin of murder in thought and word, and the sin of slander.

                      Please repent.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,
                      Regarding Scripture, again note how you regard Leviticus. We should note how Jesus regarded the whole law when He said that not even the smallest part of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled.

                      And note how you interpret Romans 1:18ff. Because you think that the existence of homosexuals today implies that homosexuality was part of the creation story before the Fall, you see that part of Romans 1 about homosexuality as condemning heterosexuals who act against their nature. But note that Romans 1 is the passage that would address whether homosexuality was a part of God’s plan for nature and it clearly says no. So it is the implication you insert that covers your eyes from seeing what is written.

                      And, again, your conclusion that God made some to be homosexual first, receives no support from the Creation account, runs counter to the timing of the Creation account, and denies the Fall where all of nature suffers extensively. BTW, your reference to redheads is simply illegitimate considering being a redhead does not include a behavior and is not condemned by parts of the Bible–again, see Leviticus, Romans, I Cor, and I Timothy.

                      And then there is your persistent personal attacks on me. Those attacks are designed to silence disagreement. For you, it isn’t enough to have equality for gays in society, something I fully support. You insist that the Church must agree with your interpretation of the Bible despite the faults in your biblical interpretation listed above.

                      Your argument simply carries more weight and shows a preference for opportunism rather than objectivity.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Regarding Scripture,”

                      Regarding your failure to honestly address the challenges made your your evil belief, it demonstrates malice on your part.

                      ‘ again note how you regard Leviticus.”

                      You don’t know how I regard Leviticus. You are trying to blame your sin of mass murder on me. When you invoked Leviticus Curt, you proclaimed that I should be killed, my husband should be killed, many of our friends should be killed, seven hundred million people alive today should be killed.

                      “He said that not even the smallest part of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled.”

                      “Because you think that the existence of homosexuals today implies that
                      homosexuality was part of the creation story before the Fall,

                      I hope you keep kosher then, and have tithed ten percent of all you make, every year. And have a fence on your roof, have not trimmed the corners of your beard, and avoid women when they are menstruating. On that last one – do you ask every woman you encounter whether or not she is ‘clean’ – i.e, not having her period?

                      “And note how you interpret Romans 1:18ff.”

                      “Because you think that the existence of homosexuals today implies that homosexuality was part of the creation story before the Fall,”

                      There is no evidence to the contrary. Bear in mind, you are calling Paul a liar. Paul does not say that the pre-fall Creation reveals God’s nature, he says the Creation even now makes God’s nature plain:

                      “19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For
                      since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

                      You are without excuse, Curt. The creation now, and in Paul’s day, includes homosexual humans, and homosexual lions, and homosexual chimps, geese, seagulls, elephants, giraffes, and more than a thousand other species. You are without excuse.

                      “you see that part of Romans 1 about homosexuality as condemning heterosexuals who act against their nature.’

                      Because only heterosexuals can abandon or exchange heterosexuality for homosexuality. What part of ‘homosexuals do not have physikos chresis toward the opposite sex’ is so impossible for you to believe? I bet I know – the part that convicts you for terrible sins you’ve committed not just with words.

                      “But note that Romans 1 is the passage that would address whether homosexuality was a part of God’s plan for nature and it clearly says no.”

                      No. Your conjecture is irrational and dishonest. Romans 1 is not about establishing the state of the Creation before the Fall, it is about idolatry. You, by the way, are an idolater. You have made your hatred of homosexuals your god. You place reviling us first in your life before God.

                      “So it is the implication you insert that covers your eyes from seeing what is written.”

                      With every such slander, you damn yourself.

                      “And, again, your conclusion that God made some to be homosexual first, receives no support from the Creation account,’

                      And again, nothing in the Bible imposes such a test. Nothing in the Bible asserts that homosexuality was not part of the pre-fall Creation. Once again, you completely ignore the test that proves your theory is fraud:

                      Where does it say in Scripture that God created some people to be naturally red heads? Or to naturally have the epicanthic fold seen in people of Asian descent? Where does it say that God created some people to have blue eyes, or blond hair? Your test is not Biblical, and it is
                      not rational. Your skin color is not affirmed the Bible.

                      Curt, do you get that? People with your pale skin, and mine, are not affirmed in the Bible. By your excuses here, your very existence as a pale skinned man is sin. Frankly, because you’ve used this test to sentence hundreds of millions of people to death and damnation, you are equally judged and condemned for every single trait you possess that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible.

                      Your arguments are desperate fraud. You don’t even attempt to address the rebuttal I present, and that proves beyond all doubt that you never intended to treat us as equals, that your entire argument is about stripping us of our humanity.

                      “your reference to redheads is simply illegitimate considering being a redhead does not include a behavior and is not condemned by parts of the Bible”

                      Your excuse is false. Your line of argument is evil and dishonest, obstinate in your sin of pride and arrogance.

                      “see Leviticus, Romans, I Cor, and I Timothy.”

                      Since none of these have anything to do with homosexuality, you have no foundation behind your fallacious circular logic. But note that once again, you have made a death threat, indirectly but real none the less, against hundreds of millions of people.

                      Curt – when you threaten my life, as you most certainly did by citing Leviticus, you make it impossible for you to ever convince me that you even know God. Do you get that? Threatening my life as you did discredits you entirely, permanently. The only thing you could do to fix it, is something you won’t – abjectly repent here, in public, and beg for forgiveness.

                      “And then there is your persistent personal attacks on me.’

                      You threaten me with death, and have the audacity and egotism to complain, falsely, that you have been personally attacked. Your hypocrisy is astounding. From the start, you have attacked the persons of hundreds of millions of people. You have slandered hundreds of millions of people. You have threatened us with death, telling us that we are to be human sacrifices to please your god.

                      “Those attacks are designed to silence disagreement.”

                      Well, that explains your constant verbal abuse of GLBTQ people here on this thread. You vilify us to silence us, so you won’t be held responsible for what surely be truly terrible crimes committed against us.

                      “Your argument simply carries more weight and shows a preference for opportunism rather than objectivity.’

                      Again, your slander is sin.

                      You teach evil. People are murdered and raped as the direct, purposeful enforcement of the belief you teach, one for which you have personally threatened my life and that of my husband, many of our friends, and hundreds of millions of other people.

                      You cannot be right, Curt. You cannot be right. People have burned – oh what is the use – I’m trying to appeal to compassion and empathy, and you clearly have none. You don’t give a damn how many gays and lesbians are killed because of your belief – do you? We could all be tortured to death before your very eyes, and you’d still insist on your way.

                      You bear evil fruit, Curt. That is the heart of it.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WimRoget

                      My sin of mass murder? BTW, I never proclaimed that you should be murdered.

                      Let me ask this, do you reject the verse below? And if so why? It comes from Leviticus 18:22.

                      “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable

                    • WilmRoget

                      I’ve been quite clear, and I am not investing a lot more energy in feeding your sadism.

                      And to be really precise, what you are doing is committing human sacrifice in thought and word, asserting that homosexuals are to be killed to make your deity happy.

                      Wouldn’t you be happier, really, worshipping Moloch, to whom children were sacrificed? Or you could worship Tohil, Avilix and Hacavitz, to whom the Maya offered human lives as sacrifices. That way you could be forthright.

                      When you cannot seem to understand that murdering people, even if only in your thoughts is wrong, how can you possibly ever hope to understand that gay men do not lie with a man as with a woman, even if that were what mishkap ishshah means – and it ain’t. Gay men lie with a man as with a man.

                      But I don’t expect someone who gloatingly approves of slaughtering hundreds of millions of people, per Leviticus 20:13, as good and god pleasing, to understand much of anything having to do with morality and ethics.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,

                      First, you’re slandering. I am not involved in murder here, even in thoughts, and if you understood how we apply the NT to understanding how the OT applies today, you would not call us murderers, even in thoughts.

                      Second, the question I asked is, do you reject the verse I listed above. The verse listed above does not call for the death penalty. Rather, it makes a simple statement about homosexuality. And the question is do you reject it? I’ll list Leviticus 18:22 again:

                      Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable

                    • WilmRoget

                      As I said before, you’ve convinced me that you are hopeless, sadistically tormenting GLBTQ people for your own amusement.

                      I address your arguments, you ignore it. Your accusation is meaningless and devoid of value, not only because you slander hundreds of millions of people, including me and my husband, but because you have convinced that there is no hope for you.

                      You don’t even grasp that the issue is not ‘reject’ Scripture, though you have made it clear that you reject Christ’s teachings. The issue is rejecting your use of it.

                      But again, you have convinced me that you are utterly beyond hope.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,
                      First of all, gays are not a monolith. Some are willing to discuss these issues and not feel offended. They view it as a difference of opinion. Others don’t want to discuss it. And some, like you, take severe offense when someone says that homosexuality is a sin. And there other variations as well.

                      You have somewhat addressed the issues but you have been more polemic than apologetic for your view. Your constant accusations despite the fact that I fully support equality for homosexuals in society puts your objectivity into question.

                      But here is the reason why I asked the last question. The passage from Leviticus I cited didn’t include any time and context determined sanctions. It simply says it is wrong. And the question is do you reject that. The implication is obvious. If you say yes, then you’ve shown that your first commitment is to your sexual orientation rather than looking to see what God’s Word says. That doesn’t put you below any Christian because we have our own sins. It does say that your polemics are more nonrationally based than rationally based. And it is clear that you mean to silence disagreement rather than to interact with it.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “First of all,”

                      You’ve convinced me that you are beyond hope. You are not interesting in the truth, or the Scripture, what any one or million word actually means.

                      Your insults mean nothing, because you’ve convinced me that you are beyond all hope. There’s no point in feeling anything about anything you write, Curt, you’ve convinced me that you are utterly beyond hope. If Jesus showed up on your front door with Matthew Shepherd and told you that you were wrong, you’ve convinced me that you’d slam the door in Christ’s face and call the police.

                      Yes, you pick one of the two verses from Leviticus, and though I explicitly include the second, you leave it out. Yes, that is dishonest on your part, but expected from someone who has convinced me that he is beyond hope. That behavior is how you convinced me that you are beyond hope.

                      There’s no point in even acknowledging your sinful false accusations, for there is no hope that you will ever repent of them, you’ve made that abundantly clear.

                      You convinced me that you are utterly and intentionally lost.

                      And the ironic thing is that you’ve proven, better than anyone could using analysis and reason, that your ‘third way’ is just the same old first ‘death to gays’ way, dressed up in lipstick and lingerie.

                    • http://www.fordswords.net/ Ford1968

                      Hi Curt –

                      I have to commend your patience in this thread. I really appreciate your willingness to engage despite some rather passionate responses.

                      I’d like to offer my unsolicited thoughts that might frame other’s points in a different way.

                      First, the traditional sexual ethic is demonstrably harmful. It causes distress to the fourteen year old gay kid in the front pew who, statistically, is likely to consider suicide. Traditionalist theology engenders self-loathing, detachment, and depression. The demand for celibacy creates untold suffering for those who attempt to pursue it. I wrote something about this a little while ago:

                      http://fordswords.net/2014/02/18/is-traditional-morality-moral/

                      The anti-gay belief is harmful, and traditionalists don’t get a moral pass for causing injury just because their belief is sincerely held.

                      Second, it’s not fair or accurate to suggest that revisionists are not submitting to the authority of scripture. We simply understand God’s commands differently than you do. It’s really uncharitable to dismiss as rebellious anyone who believes in the sanctity of gay relationships.

                      Further, to suggest that gay people are not intended by God to live as the relational beings He created us to be is to suggest that the human experience is different for people who are gay. Gay people are no more or less gifted with celibacy than straight people are. We are fully human – despite what your theology insists.

                      Finally, the traditionalist theology is causing some gay Christians to stay mired in a life that is far away from the cross. For many people, a life of celibacy is unholy – seperating them from God. Marriage can be a part of the redemptive work of the Holy Spirit.

                      I wrote the post for people who believe as you do:

                      http://fordswords.net/2014/08/28/to-traditionalists-who-believe-gay-christians-are-unfaithful/

                      All the best to you.
                      David

                    • WilmRoget

                      Now Curt, I’m going to say something to you that I rarely say: You’ve convinced me that you are a lost cause. There is nothing that will convince you of your sin. While I will likely reply if you respond further, my focus will be on your overt sadism here.

                      You have convinced me that nothing on earth or Heaven can reach you. Even Fred Phelps, apparently had doubts at the end, but you have convinced me, there is no hope for you. You will preach evil and murder and death until it is too late for you. You will proclaim that love is evil, no matter what the cost to anyone else.

                      No amount of logic or reason will sway you, nor will any tide of blood, no matter how deep, convince you. You’ve convinced me that you are utterly beyond hope of rescue from your sins against GLBTQ people. If the angel host appeared and rebuked you, you’d argue with them, you’ve convinced me of that.

                      If some loved one of yours is murdered for being gay, you would blame him or her, you’ve convinced me of that. You’ve made it clear, there is no thing, not even God, that could change your mind on this issue.

                    • Andy

                      That’s absolutely tragic.

                    • WilmRoget

                      In twenty years of debating, discussing, arguing about anti-gay theology online, I’ve only given up on 4 people. I’ll have to work on patience some more, so it doesn’t become 5.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “But now you want deduce that what I say is false because it brings evil.”

                      That is what Christ taught. Why are you rejecting Christ’s clear teaching in Matthew 7:15-23?

                      “And your reasoning here is more post-modern than anything else.”

                      Your dismissal is sin, and incompetent.

                      “The problem here is that negative results do not imply that the premise of homosexuality is sin is wrong.”

                      According to Jesus, they do. Again, in your need to revile homosexuals, you are openly rejecting Jesus Christ.

                      “Because there are multiple variables involved with why those who are labeled sinners are persecuted by those who claim to be more righteous. Multiple variables negates the desired implication here.”

                      No. The consistent and unifying factor – belief in ‘homosexuality is sin’ establishes causation. People who believe that commit violent acts, in thought, word and deed, against homosexuals for being homosexual. People who do not, though they share every other variable, do not.

                      “For example, Christians use to burn heretics at the stake. Does that imply their what they corrected heretics on was wrong? Not at all.”

                      According to Jesus, it does.

                      “But the sinful response to the wrong theology of someone does not imply that the victimizer is wrong about what was declared to be heresy.”

                      Again, according to Jesus, it does. You are openly rejecting the clear teaching of Jesus Christ. How can we recognize false teachers? Jesus says: “By their fruit”.

                      Your fruit is evil.

                      “You say that my theology produces evil.”

                      Your theology on this issue, which you have unambiguously articulated, produces evil. People are murdered and raped as the deliberate enforcement of the belief, ‘homosexuality is sin’, that you are promoting here. You produce evil fruit.

                      ” From the mid ’90s, I have argued for marriage equality and I did that in a very conservative, fundamentalist Church.”

                      There is no reason to believe you on that regard, you have lied many times here.

                      “You wish to deduce my theology to be wrong rather than looking at the specifics mentioned in scriptures.”

                      Your false accusation is sin, and it is because of such false and evil accusations, Curt, that I do not believe that you have ever supported civil equality for GLBTQ people. I personally think that you’ve probably committed acts of at least verbal abuse, if not physical violence, against GLBTQ people more than once. You’ve convinced me of that.

                      “And when you look at those specifics, it is always under the guidance of those who agree with you.’

                      And again, your derogatory and false fantasy proves that you rely on lies, Curt. The reality is that I have been exploring these verses for decades primarily in discussion with people like you. Your lies are sin.

                      “There are times I wished that the Scriptures allowed for homosexuality.”

                      Please stop lying. The egomaniacal condescending superiority complex it getting just too thick. If you had ever wished that, you’d have seen that the Scripture does not, cannot condemn homosexuality.

                      “But I can’t change what the Scriptures say.’

                      And yet for days now, all you’ve done is try to change what the Scripture actually says into what your pride demands of it.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Finally, the person who has been doing the reviling is you.”

                      No Curt. You are again sinning against me. You have, from the start, denigrated and defamed GLBTQ people, over and over and over again. You have lied to me about me, many, many times. You invoked the death penalty on seven hundred million human beings, and you equated their loving relationships with rape, murder, stealing, addiction, and so on.

                      “I’ve only said what the scriptures say. ”

                      No. Please stop the lies.

                      ” It seems that the purpose of your accusations is to silence debate.”

                      Ironically, that is the sole purpose of your accusation. Your hypocrisy and deceit are not helping you, and your ‘seems’ reveals your character and purpose, not mine.

                      “I’ve spoken to you as an equal.”

                      Please stop the lies. They are not convincing.

                      “regarding sexual orientation, we are in the same boat.”

                      No. Your sick theology allows you to express your sexuality, but denies expression of my sexuality. Your lies are simply more evil fruit from a very evil tree.

                      Curt, you committed seven hundred million counts of murder in your thoughts when you invoked Leviticus to condemn homosexuals.

                      Nothing you say about morality, Biblical or otherwise, is going to have any credibility after that. People are murdered and raped as the direct fruit of your belief. It is likely that you have personally harmed people with that belief.

                      So the burning question is: how many people have to die for the sake of your pride, Curt?

                    • WilmRoget

                      And to wrap up, Curt, this started because you hypothesized that there was a ‘third way’ – one that allegedly treated GLBTQ people with respect while still condemning their innate capacity for love and intimacy as worthy of death and damnation, sin.

                      You’ve proven yourself wrong. You invoked the death penalty on us, you equated our relationships with rape and murder and addiction, you presumed to know our lives better than we do, you reviled and slandered us for over a week.

                      You never did address the one question that would verify, or disprove your assertion:

                      Does denying church membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual deny their humanity?

                      And it is clear why – denying church membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual would be deeply dehumanizing and degrading and offensive. It would be great moral wrong, a serious and horrific sin. It would be favoritism, and James 2 is clear, those who show favoritism are lawbreakers.

                      You are a lawbreaker, Curt. You’ve slandered hundreds of millions of people, and murdered them in your heart and thoughts, offering us up as human sacrifices in your heart, by citing Leviticus to condemn us.

                      All that is left is find out how many of us have to die before you will recognize your sin and repent.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,

                      Your reaction is to something I didn’t write. I didn’t condemn any innate capacity for love and intimacy. I did say that just because certain sexual relations were against the Biblical norm, that doesn’t mean that we cannot treat people practicing those relations as equals in society. I said that in hopes of engaging in a respectful discussion where people fundamentally disagreed on an a very important, personal subject. And btw, stating that homosexuality is outside the Biblical norms comes, for many, from evaluating all of the Scriptures just as some who see no Biblical conflict in homosexuality have done.

                      And just as your reaction isn’t to something I wrote, I invoked no death penalty on anyone. The question for the debate is whether the Scriptures do.

                      And I will answer your last question here, the answer is no. Denying heterosexuals church membership for their heterosexuality does not deny their humanity. Denying church membership for those who are not repenting of serious sin is a warning, not a punishment. It is a warning that in the view of the Church, continued nonrepentance can be harmful to one’s soul and eternity.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Your reaction is to something I didn’t write.”

                      Nonsense.

                      ” I didn’t condemn any innate capacity for love and intimacy.”

                      Yes you have. Your entire argument is a condemnation of our innate capacity for love and intimacy.

                      “And btw, stating that homosexuality is outside the Biblical norms comes, for many, from evaluating all of the Scriptures”

                      Stop the lies. It does not come from ‘evaluating all of the Scriptures. It comes from cherry-picking a handful of passages, out of tens of thousands, and ignoring every thing that contradicts your conclusion.

                      Further, the defense of slavery was arrived at by the same process. Are you also going to defend slavery as God’s will?

                      “And just as your reaction isn’t to something I wrote, I invoked no death penalty on anyone.”

                      Stop lying. You absolutely did. You applied Levitical law, claiming that it condemns homosexuality, and one of those relevant passages demands the death penalty. You were not direct and honest, but you absolutely did invoke the death penalty on hundreds of millions of people.

                      And admit it, you did so knowingly. So the real message here, Curt, is that you don’t see homosexuals as a part of ‘anybody’, you don’t see us as human.

                      “And I will answer your last question here, the answer is no.”

                      You are not being honest.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,
                      I didn’t condemn any innate capacity for love and intimacy. For one thing, intimacy can occur outside of sex. Second, I fully support equality for gays in society including marriage equality.

                      But what I am saying is that the Scriptures clearly prohibit sexual intimacy between people of the same gender. And the real lie here is that you deny my views come from the Scriptures while condemning the passages in Leviticus, inserting an implication in the Creation narrative, and reading into what is clearly written in Romans 1 in order to contradict what it says.

                      Now we can play this game of yes and no forever if you want. The fact is is that your argument involving the Scriptures is not sound.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “The fact is is that your argument involving the Scriptures is not sound.”

                      The only fact here is your sadism. I’ve given up on you. You’ve convinced me – if every GLBTQ person on earth were slaughtered in front of you, you’d still insist that homosexuality is sin.

                      You are saying that we are to be murdered so you can feel good. That is sadistic. I’ve invested a week in dialogue with someone who would be content to see me murdered.

                      At least you have proven that your claim about a third way was a dishonest and wicked lie. There is no hope for you. None. We’ve come to the point that I must acknowledge that I’ve been dialoguing with someone who blithely commits murder in his thoughts and words, without a shred of empathy.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Here we can go back to Leviticus to see how homosexuality is viewed.”

                      Which brings us back to the question you still haven’t answered:

                      Does denying church membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual deny their humanity?

                      When all of the noise fails, you return to Leviticus, to the death penalty in Lev 20:13.

                      Please, explain how telling people that they are to be executed to make your god happy is not dehumanizing?

                    • WilmRoget

                      ” realize that you are reacting to what the Scriptures are saying.”

                      So no, I am reacting the vicious and evil fraud you are perpetuating here at the risk of the very lives of millions of people.

                      ‘I have friends who are homosexuals who disagree with me on this matter.”

                      So you really are not their friend, are you? After all, you revile and slander them.

                      ‘But reciting the Scriptures does not deny your humanity,”

                      It does when your use of those Scriptures communicates your obvious and extreme contempt for us. After all, you equate our loving relationships with murder and stealing, through your use of I Cor 6:9,10 and I Tim 9,10.

                      “And, as far as I can see”

                      But that is not evidence of anything your character.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      BTW, you, not Christ, declared that calling homosexuality sin is evil.

                    • WilmRoget

                      Wrong.

                      Jesus is quite clear in Matthew 7:15-23
                      5 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

                      Since the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ produces evil fruit, Christ says those who teach it, like those who teach any belief that produces evil fruit, are evil, false teachers, evildoers.

                      See, Curt, you are the tree in the metaphor, and you bear the evil fruit of reviling and slandering homosexuals. Your belief is also the tree in the metaphor, and it bears evil fruit. On both levels, you are condemned.

            • WilmRoget

              Still waiting for you to address my extensive rebuttal and rebuke of your sinful abuse of Scripture. You asked about Romans 1 and I Cor 6, I pointed out how these passages have no condemnation of homosexuals when translated accurately, read in context and with integrity.

              Yet you pursue this other issue, with deception, instead.

              Why?

        • WilmRoget

          Let’s look again at your false comparison, by examining some parallels.

          Is there a difference between being Black, and believing “Black people are inferior”? I ask, because people use the Bible to support the claim that Black people are intrinsically inferior, and that enslaving them is God’s will.

          Is there a difference between being female, and believing that “women have only half a soul”? I ask because people have used the Bible to argue that women are as far beneath men as humans are beneath God.

          Or we can muddy the waters a bit with something that is not innate. Is there a difference between being a retired college educator, and believing “college teachers are all incompetent crooks feeding from the public trough”?

          How is it, actually, that someone who allegedly taught in a college does not know the difference between an innate trait like sexual orientation and a constructed belief like ‘homosexuality is sin’?

    • Jeff Preuss

      I guess it could be rephrased a bit this way, your modern conceit stemming from a fairly modern societal understanding that orienatation appears to be innate, depending not on a personal choice, rather on whatever factors make one be attracted to a specific sex.

      Sin takes us away from God, yes? We are to be created in His image from the beginning, and sin takes us further and further from reflecting that holy presence. For gay people who honestly believe they have been gay from the getgo, we are repeatedly told how sinful it is, which does sometimes give us the impression the opposition thinks we were created NOT in His image. Because, from the very beginning, we are already short of His perfect nature, even though it is not of our choosing, it is not based off a sin we commit.

      So, while everyone who is born (for the sake of this argument, going with born, since it’s not clear to any side when orientation really “sets” itself) straight is still a perfect reflection of God until they sin and fall away from Him, I was born “broken.” Maybe it IS a modern conceit, but it can certainly make me feel like I am considered less than human. (Well, it doesn’t any more, but It did when I was a teen.)

      As for centuries past, it’s too difficult to really say if gay people were considered less than human, because historically there’s not a whole lot of coverage of it. And, up until recently (in the grand scheme of history as a whole) homosexuality was chalked up to being straight people who just decided to try something different from their norm instead of people having a preset orientation that directed their attraction.

      So, if it IS a modern conceit, it may just be because the notion of a person BEING gay as opposed to ACTING gay is also a fairly modern conceit. Considering being gay is apparently an inherent part of our nature (just like I assume being straight is apparently part of yours) it is an affront to our concept of our humanity when a component part of that humanity is derided as lacking and immoral.

      (As a side note, I HAVE been called an animal and a demon for being gay and been “rebuked” and “shunned.” So, although it’s not necessarily systemic, there are definitely instances when we are explicitly called less than human, and it’s allegedly done “in God’s name.”)

      Heck, I dunno. I’m probably rambling.

      • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

        “So, while everyone who is born (for the sake of this argument, going with born, since it’s not clear to any side when orientation really “sets” itself) straight is still a perfect reflection of God until they sin and fall away from Him, I was born “broken.””

        This kind of statement always astonishes me, possibly because (I assume) I am older than you and grew up with forms of Christianity that, though divided, shared certain assumptions across differences–the one relevant here being that all humanity is fallen, that every single human being is born “broken” in some way. Sin was always widely understood to be the universal inheritance of humanity, not the unique possession of some defined class of “sinners.”

        (As a side note, sexual sins were traditionally held considerably less grave than others. The most deadly sin, of course, was pride.)

        There is a widespread contemporary distaste for this idea (which, in the West, has been typically called “original sin”). But the result of this denial of a deep root of sin in each and every one of us can indeed lead to delusional thinking that I am not a sinner, or that I am able to avoid being a sinner, so that those who do sin must lack that basic capacity that I astonishingly have, to avoid sin. That will make them, if true, in some fundamental sense, different from “sin-free me.” But that attitude is, ultimately, a denial of the universal need for redemption.

        I knew that when I asked, “Who has said this?”, that, given the crazy extremes that appear on the internet, and even face to face, someone out there could be identified asserting that the mere commission of a sexual sin puts one outside of humanity. But I assure you, it could not be asserted by anyone with any real acquaintance with the Orthodox, Catholic, or mainstream Protestant traditions.

        “I HAVE been called an animal and a demon for being gay”

        I am heartily sorry to hear it. But I doubt that whoever said it has ever given any thought to what an animal is, or what a demon is.

        Just rambling back to you, I’m afraid.

        • Jeff Preuss

          Oh, I never gave indication that I think myself without sin, yet I do not believe that homosexuality is sinful, and I guess I was just reflecting the fairly old (and IMHO erroneous) belief that everyone who does gay things is actually straight and acts gay from being “broken.” I do believe that man is inherently sinful, as it is our nature, but based on contextual study of the Scriptures and the historical appreciation for the time in which they were written, along with our modern assumed understanding of human sexuality, I do not think that homosexuality is a symptom of that broken nature. I think it is the natural flip side of the majority heterosexuality in the scheme of human sexuality.

          Oh, and I’m 42 and grew up in a very conservative Southern Baptist Church, if that helps give you perspective on my faith.

          I guess the point I was trying to make was NOT that we are born sinless, but by comparison, those who are born straight still have choices about whether to sin, and those of us who are born gay do not get to choose not to be gay. It’s simply not how sexuality works, and it sometimes can feel like the decks are stacked against us from birth.

          Being called broken like every other human isn’t so bad until the other broken people belabor that what they see in you that is neither “fixable” or needing fixing, is broken and wicked.

          • http://quijotefelix.blogspot.com/ rick allen

            And FWIW, I didn’t mean to imply that you fell into the category of those who might see themselves as less sinful than others. It’s hard for me not to talk myself into a pretzel in these things.

            • Jeff Preuss

              Oh, me, too! It can get confusing, especially since Disqus orders conversations in the most wacky way sometimes.

        • Jeff Preuss

          Also, sorry if that last one didn’t make as much sense as it should have. I was on the elliptical and typing on my phone. It doesn’t allow much in the way of formatting or, um, spelling correctly.

        • WilmRoget

          “This kind of statement always astonishes me,”

          Yet it is one of the intrinsic claims of anti-gay theology. Heterosexuals, as far as sexuality goes, are born unbroken, but homosexuals are born intrinsically broken.

          ” But the result of this denial of a deep root of sin in each and every one of us can indeed lead to delusional thinking” like the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’. That belief is delusional thinking.

          ” But I assure you, it could not be asserted by anyone with any real acquaintance with the Orthodox, Catholic, or mainstream Protestant traditions.”

          Your denial of reality accomplishes nothing. The RCC asserts that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and that statement does set homosexuals outside of humanity.

          ” But I doubt that whoever said it has ever given any thought to what an animal is, or what a demon is.”

          Again, your dismissal accomplish nothing. Applied to reality, you are judging many leading conservative clergy and politicians.

          Instead of denying the reality of anti-gay theology and how it is expressed, why not show some integrity and be honest about it? Acknowledge and recognize what your peers are saying about GLBTQ people – and then explain how your theology is not evil.

  • WilmRoget

    “Wilson claims to have discovered a new, third way on this issue, a way
    between affirming gays and excluding them. I find Wilson’s thesis
    appealing.”

    The third way is a sham, a dishonest repackaging of the old way ‘homosexuality is sin’. It still demands lifelong celibacy from GLBTQ people, still invokes the same derogatory and abusive comparisons, and still ultimately leans on a Levitical death penalty.

    It still promotes a distinct two class system for Christians, with one set of freedoms for heterosexuals, and a much restricted set for homosexuals. It still demonstrates favoritism and injustice, it just does so ever so slightly less viciously than the anti-gay theology we’ve heard for the last 50 years or so.

    And the message to gays and lesbians is the same one we’ve heard for generations “you are intrinsically disordered, but you can give your money and fealty to our institutions, as long as you don’t expect to be treated as equals or ask to be treated with respect”.

    The third way is still dehumanizing and degrading, and it still “others” GLBTQ people, setting them and their relationships aside as inferior. By doing so, the ‘third way’ is still a manifestation of pride on the part of those heterosexuals who believe and promote it.

  • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

    Just as in politics, we have multiple third parties, here, we can have multiple third ways. Wilson’s approach sounds much like the PCUSA’s decision on gays–please correct me if I am wrong.

    Another third approach is for Christians to say no to gays for church membership but fully recognize them as equals in society by granting them all of the rights and protections the rest of us have. Of course, everybody is welcome church. We might consider that the failure to take this particular way might be significantly responsible for why some churches are now affirming homosexuality in the Church. These churches recognize the moral necessity to defend those who are being oppressed but can only see declaring homosexuality as being scripturally clean as being the means to there. This is the fault of the conservative church for equating saying homosexuality is sin with denying gays equal rights and pushing them to the margins of society.

    It is clear in the NT that not only is promiscuity prohibited, but so is being in a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. And thus the desire to help those who are being treated unfairly by conservative Christians has required, in the eyes of some, exegetical either gymnastics or apathy in declaring that God’s Word condones such homosexuality. At the same time, it is just as clear in the NT that none of us are righteous and so we cannot cleanse ourselves by focusing on the sins of others. At least that is what Romans 3:9 says.

    • WilmRoget

      “we can have multiple third ways.”

      No, we really cannot.

      “Another third approach is for Christians to say no to gays for church
      membership but fully recognize them as equals in society by granting
      them all of the rights and protections the rest of us have.”

      But that is not really a third way either, because the reality is that denying us church membership dehumanizes us, sets us apart as less than human, and will inevitably lead to denying us the rights and protections you have. History has already demonstrated this through the actions of the RCC.

      “but can only see declaring homosexuality as being scripturally clean as being the means to there.”

      There is no other means. Anti-gay theology intrinsically produces violence. The moment one preaches that ‘those people’ are “abominations”, you’ve set the state for injustice and violence.

      “but so is being in a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender.”

      Absolutely not. It is clear from Matthew 7:15-23, that the evil fruit produced by ‘homosexuality is sin’ means that belief is evil, and those who teach it are false teachers.

      “At the same time, it is just as clear in the NT that none of us are
      righteous and so we cannot cleanse ourselves by focusing on the sins of
      others.”

      Which is another reason why your false theology, ‘homosexuality is sin’, is itself sin, and why there is no third way, for no matter how polite they seem on the surface, they intrinsically invoke judging and condemning the innate capacity for love given to some people, and that is the sin of pride.

      You have to choose between ‘homosexuality is sin’, and ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, “whatever you do for the least of these you do for Me’, and ‘love one another’.

      I could not help but notice that you invoked by implication Romans 1, and skipped to Romans 3, but clearly have ignored Romans 2:

      “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

      5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
      storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.”

      Those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ produce violence, discrimination, murder and rape, they will be judged by what they have done. And they do this to create the illusion that God favors heterosexuals.

      God does not show favoritism. God does not give you, the heterosexual, any freedom, any blessing, any grace, that God does not also give to homosexuals.

      • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

        WilmRoget,
        Does denying church membership to someone who actively lives in an adulterous relationship deny their humanity? Must you be automatically be included in every volunteer organization to be fully human?

        What dehumanizes is to be denied equality in society. I would fully agree to that. But denying membership to an organization that holds a code of conduct as being extremely important to the organization itself doesn’t imply that you are less than human. Just as denying church membership to those who would deny that Jesus is God’s Son or who live in adultery does not dehumanize them, so denying church membership to those who actively break a conduct code does not dehumanize gays.

        What I see as one of the differences between us is that you are conflating all opposition to homosexuality. It’s as if you cannot accept that some opposition to homosexuality can be made while respecting the homosexual as being fully human.

        Is there some opposition to homosexuality that does dehumanize? Certainly. THose how use the scriptural verses against homosexuality as an excuse not to treat homosexuals as equals in society do just that. And unfortunately, there are a plethora of my fellow theologically conservative Christians who oppose equality for gays in society and some even excuse violence.

        But aren’t you saying to Conservative Christians that they are all alike if they say homosexuality is sinful? Aren’t you saying that all who say who say homosexuality is sinful are trying to incite violence against gays? And can you explain how that is true?

        Finally, for Christians, it is not for us to tell God what we can do sexuallly. Rather, it is for God to tell us how we can act sexually and He has in the Scriptures.

        • WilmRoget

          “Does denying church membership to someone who actively lives in an adulterous relationship deny their humanity?’

          That’s a very sinful question on your part. Equating homosexuality with adultery is itself abusive and dehumanizing. It also indicates that either you do not understand the difference between harmful and harmless, non-consensual and consensual. Or, you simply disregard them when they are inconvenient for you. Either way, it means you are not qualified to make judgments about morality.

          The purpose, of course, in equating homosexuality, our innate capacity for love and intimacy, with someone’s choice to betray their spouse, violate their promise of fidelity, is to denigrate our relationships and dehumanize us.

          “What dehumanizes is to be denied equality in society.”

          And asserting that homosexuality is like adultery – harmful, a violation of consent, a form of deception and faithlessness, while heterosexuality is not – denies the equality of gays and lesbians. You dehumanize us by asserting that our relationships, no matter how unitive, faithful, committed, beneficial, are the equivalent of you cheating on your wife.

          “What I see as one of the differences between us is that you are conflating all opposition to homosexuality.”

          While I see you trivializing the overt, systemic oppression of millions of human beings by making false distinctions.

          “It’s as if you cannot accept that some opposition to homosexuality can
          be made while respecting the homosexual as being fully human.”

          Since neither you, nor anyone who preaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ has ever demonstrated that it is possible to respect homosexuals at all while opposing our innate capacity for intimacy, your attempt to disparage me is pointless.

          It is like rebuking me for not accepting that whales can fly to the moon and back on the first Thursday in Lent.

          And of course, I did challenge you to prove that it is possible to revile this intrinsic part of our lives with out reviling us, and you choose to try to make that into a character flaw on my part.

          “Is there some opposition to homosexuality that does dehumanize? Certainly.”

          All opposition to homosexuality dehumanizes. All of it, intrinsically, attacks the fundamental component of huma life.

          What is noticeably missing from your reply, is any evidence at all, of any opposition to homosexuality that is not dehumanizing, degrading, abusive. You’ve spent a lot of words trying to claim that it is possible, but provided no tangible example of your “flying whale” – respectful condemnation of homosexuality.

          “But aren’t you saying to Conservative Christians that they are all alike if they say homosexuality is sinful?”

          No. I am saying that they all share the same false belief. But when I say that they are all humans, I announce that they have a great deal more in common. Your argument is empty, and rather hypocritical as well, since you declare that all homosexuals and all homosexual relationships are alike, when you equate homosexuality with adultery.

          “Aren’t you saying that all who say who say homosexuality is sinful are trying to incite violence against gays?”

          They absolutely are. Only a few are honest about it. You object, but you provide no evidence to the contrary. Just your noise dismissal that in itself, trivializes and dehumanizes GLBTQ people.

          “And can you explain how that is true?”

          Yes, I can. But the real question is, can you explain that it is not? You’ve avoided all opportunities to do so, and chose to shift the burden to me, which indicates that no, you cannot explain that anti-gay theology is not intrinsically violent, degrading, harmful.

          But I can explain. You see, at the heart of anti-gay theology is a pair of passages from Leviticus, and the Sodom story, and even defenders of ‘homosexuality is sin’ who are canny enough to avoid directly quoting those passages, by using only New Testament passages for their condemnation of homosexuals, when pressed use the OT passages to back up the NT passages.

          And one of thousand foundational passages demands the death penalty, and the Sodom story asserts that an entire city was destroyed because of ‘it’. When you and your peers assert that ‘it’ was homosexuality, you absolutely are calling for violence against GLBTQ people.

          By Christ’s teaching, if you use Lev 20:13 to judge homosexuals, you commit murder in thought and word, seven hundred million counts of murder. Thinking that we are to be killed for having sex is murder in your thoughts, that is violence against us, and it is sin.

          • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

            WilmRoget,
            What I am saying is that the Scriptures tell us what is harmful and not harmful consensual sex and that the Church, formally speaking, is committed to making the Scriptures their norm in judging behavior. It isn’t the Church’s job to apply humanistic standards. If humanism is your standard, then your disagree is with the Scriptures and that is your right to do.

            Saying that homosexuality is like adultery is right depending on the basis of comparison. You have a point in terms of saying it is unfair to compare unfaithfulness with homosexuality. At the same time, the Scriptures list them together in terms of behaviors that are condemned by God. So what comparing them implies depends on the basis of comparison used. In terms of its acceptability before God, both are consider to be violations of God’s revealed intentions regarding sex. In terms of faithfulness, other comparisons could be used such as homosexuality and pre-marital sex.

            Finally I never thought that gays are to be killed for their sexual orientation or practices. Rather, I’ve gotten a lot of verbal abuse for insisting on marriage equality. So please don’t jump to conclusions regarding or stereotype those who believe that the Scriptures say that homosexuality is sin. Equally, look at all of the Scriptures regarding sexual behavior.

            • WilmRoget

              “What I am saying is that the Scriptures tell us what is harmful and not
              harmful consensual sex and that the Church, formally speaking, is
              committed to making the Scriptures their norm in judging behavior.”

              You are dodging with a huge generality there.

              “It isn’t the Church’s job to apply humanistic standards.”

              Your false characterization is dishonest, but also, self-defeating. Jesus’ law of love is, on certain level, humanistic – it says that we can determine right and wrong by our own feelings, i.e., would we be hurt if treated in the way we are about to treat someone else?

              “If humanism is your standard, then your disagree is with the Scriptures and that is your right to do.”

              In other words, you cannot refute what I presented. But if you think you have a license to harm people, Curt, as you appear to do, then you reject the Scripture and Christ.

              “Saying that homosexuality is like adultery is right depending on the basis of comparison.”

              That’s a useless argument. If the basis is ‘words that have vowels in them’, you have a basis for comparison. On a moral basis, it is evil to equate homosexuality with adultery.

              “At the same time, the Scriptures list them together in terms of behaviors that are condemned by God.”

              No, it does not. I know, you are invoking, without honestly citing, I Cor 6:9,10 and I Timothy 9,10. But the core problem there is that neither of the words that are rendered ‘homosexual’ or some variant, mean any such thing. Greek had seventeen words for homosexuals and variations on that theme, none of which Paul used.

              So you are setting aside the rational test ‘is homosexuality like everything else on the list’ in favor of a false translation that just happens to exalt you at the expense of others.

              The moral failure here is yours. A truly moral being would look at these two passages and realize – homosexuality, and homosexual sex, have nothing in common with murdering one’s parents, or murder in general, or stealing, or adultery, or anything else on the lists, so there is a huge problem. Either Paul was wrong, or the translation is wrong.

              You simply accept the erroneous translation as fact, and then forge a false and irrational morality to support that.

              “So what comparing them implies depends on the basis of comparison used. ”

              If you use fraud, rather than moral sense, in other words.

              “In terms of its acceptability before God, both are consider to be violations of God’s revealed intentions regarding sex.”

              Wrong. In terms of its acceptability before you. But you clearly lack the moral ability to recognize that adultery causes harm and violates consent, while homosexuality does not. You have chosen your contempt and malice over moral sense.

              “Finally I never thought that gays are to be killed for their sexual orientation or practices.”

              I suspect that you meant ‘taught’, but I’m going to address the suspected freudian slip of “I never thought”. Yes, clearly, you’ve never really thought about the violent fruit produced by ‘homosexuality is sin’. If you had, you would not dare risk anyone’s life by asserting that belief in public.

              And as for taught, sorry, but every time you proclaim ‘homosexuality is sin’, you teach violence against GLBTQ people. Your empty denial of that accomplishes nothing. Denying the reality does not change it. People are murdered and raped because of the belief you teach,

              and you are responsible.

              “So please don’t jump to conclusions regarding or stereotype those who
              believe that the Scriptures say that homosexuality is sin.”

              Your false and hypocritical accusation is sin. Please repent. You are bearing false witness against me. Further, as a denial of reality, you are also denying Christ’s own words. Christ was clear – evil tree, evil fruit. The fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is entirely evil, from your amoral defense of slandering us – which you did by equating our loving relationships to adultery, to the murder and rape inflicted on us by people who believe as you do.

              You slandered GLBTQ people by equating homosexuality with adultery, Curt, and the passages you falsely claim equate homosexuality with adultery, state that slanderers such as yourself do not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

              “Equally, look at all of the Scriptures regarding sexual behavior.’

              Like Genesis 3, in which the first curse on humans directly targets the fruit of heterosexual intercourse? Or Genesis 6, where we are told that because angels had heterosexual sex with human women, the world was so corrupted God sent the flood? How about the need for so many passages telling heterosexuals not to have sex with their mother or father, not to cheat on their spouses – more than 300 passages explicitly couched in terms of heterosexual relationships telling heterosexuals what not to do. And Jude 1:7 has become amusing, as conservative translators render ‘heteros sarx’ different flesh, heterosexuality in a nutshell, as ‘sexual immorality’.

              • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                WilmRoget,

                It isn’t all clear whether you want to have a respectful discussion between two people who disagree since you accuse everyone who says homosexuality is sin as being a murderer and call me a slanderer because I associated homosexuality with adultery. And then you seem to want to prove something by saying I made Freudian slip when I didn’t. So I will leave the Scriptures from which I made my point for you to read. And if you want, we can discuss the Scriptures you mentioned to.

                I Cor 6:9:

                Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a

                Rom 1:26-28

                Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                • WilmRoget

                  “It isn’t all clear whether you want to have a respectful discussion”

                  You have made it clear that you are not willing to have, or interested in having, a respectful discussion about this subject – when you equating my loving, 17 year, unitive, monogamous relationship with adultery. So you don’t get to even question my desire for a respectful discussion. You started by slandering me, my spouse, many of our friends, and hundreds of millions of people.

                  “since you accuse everyone who says homosexuality is sin as being a
                  murderer and call me a slanderer because I associated homosexuality with
                  adultery.”

                  Your denial of the truth demonstrates disrespect for me, and contempt for GLBTQ people.

                  “So I will leave the Scriptures from which I made my point for you to read.”

                  Such arrogance on your part, presuming that I’ve never seen the passages you’ve raped.

                  So let’s look at the evil you have done:

                  I Cor 6:9:

                  First, fraud, leaving off verse 10, since not only includes the punishment, but the reference to slanderers such as yourself.

                  The phrase ‘men who have sex with men’ simply does not occur in Paul’s text. It is a gross and deliberate mistranslation of two distinct terms that Paul uses, malakoi, and arsenokoite. Neither were used in Paul’s culture to refer to homosexuals. Greek of Paul’s day had seventeen words that referred to homosexuals:

                  http://www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html

                  none of which Paul used. That is a huge problem right at the start.

                  Malakoi means ‘soft, fine’. Not male prostitute (porn-oi) or catamite or sodomite. It was used as a euphemism for effeminate – and effeminate in that culture included avoiding military service, failing in business, even trying to hard to be attractive to women. By Paul’s standard, G.W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and Rick Warren would all be mocked as malakoi.

                  Arsenokoite Paul apparently made up. He did not define it, and it is irrational to presume that Paul would be so prideful and arrogant that he would invent yet another word for homosexuals in a language that already had seventeen terms. It’s most likely meaning is traders in sex slaves.

                  Now, there are two versions of the list, as I pointed out. The second version, in I Timothy, includes murder, patricide and matricide. And the thing about lists is that they intrinsically establish a comparison, a relationship between everything on the list.

                  So when you translate malakoi and arsenokoite as ‘men who have sex with men’, or accept such a translation, you are asserting that homosexuality is comparable to murder, addiction, stealing, adultery, matricide, and so on.

                  And that is slander on your part. Everything else on Paul’s lists cause harm and violate consent, homosexuality does not. By equating our innate capacity for love and intimacy with these things, including extreme acts of violence like murder, you slander us, and you show that you have no moral sense, or just turn it out when it suits you.

                  You accuse me of being disrespectful, but you should be abjectly and sincerely apologize and repenting of your sin against me, and against my spouse, and many our friends, and hundreds of millions of people.

                • WilmRoget

                  Now, Romans. Rom 1:26-28

                  First off, you have raped this out of context, that is fraud, and it shows that you have no respect for the Bible. Verse 26 even starts with a concept that points back to the prior verses: “Because of this”, or in other translations “for this cause”.

                  So why the fraud? Why did you skip those prior verses? Well, they create a very specific context, they explicitly describe idolatry:

                  18 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

                  21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

                  24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this,”

                  People exchanged the truth of God, for idols. The archeological record shows that there existed fertility religions that used “images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” and combined sex with worship. People had sex with priestesses and priests to earn the blessings of their god/goddess. In Rome, the dominant such religion was the worship of Cybele/the Great Mother, and her consort Attis, who castrated himself. Priests of that religion castrated themselves to be like their deity, dressed like Cybele to “channel” her, and had sex with worshipers.

                  This is what Paul is reminding his readers of, in Romans 1, this is what he is writing about. Not homosexuals.

                  Which brings us to the bit your raped out of context. Here Paul writes again of ‘exchanging’ and ‘abandoning’, saying that people abandon or exchange their ‘physikos chresis’ – their innate nature, instinctive and inborn sexual use of – the opposite sex.

                  Even you should be able to see, if you are honest about it, that this cannot refer to homosexuals. Homosexuals do not have an inborn sexual use of the opposite sex. They cannot abandon or exchange what they do not have. And frankly, bisexuals have no need to abandon or exchange, since their innate nature is sexual attraction to both gender.

                  Only heterosexuals can abandon heterosexuality, the physikos chresis toward the opposite sex. Paul is writing about heterosexual idolaters being lead by that idolatry into sexual behavior they find shameful because it is against their innate nature. The point is not to condemn same-sex sexuality, but to show how the abandonment of one’s innate spiritual orientation to God leads to abandoning other innate orientations, like sexual orientation.

                  The really sick thing about your theology, Curt, is that you try to coerce homosexuals into abandoning our innate sexual orientation, and our innate spiritual orientation to God, to engage in what for us is shameful and disgusting, heterosexual sex, and to put you and your peers in God’s place.

                  Which is why the last half of Romans 1 describes people like you, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Martin SSempa, Jesse Helms, and so many more, much more than it ever fits GLBTQ people:

                  29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

                  Sure, you deny it, but you have demonstrated many of these traits in your posts here. And the reality is people who believe as you do purposefully and intentionally persecute other human beings.

                  And then, there’s your biggest mistake of all. See, you never even respect Paul enough to even get to his actual point in all of this. You’ve raped a very subordinate detail into an excuse to persecute other human beings, and never got to Paul’s point:

                  You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (and so on) Romans 2.

            • WilmRoget

              What is really dishonest about your reply, Curt, is the way you completely ignore the heart of my argument, to chase after excuses for your sin against GLBTQ people.

              You make the obscene excuse: ‘depending on the basis of comparison” and then utterly fail to address the basis I provided, which proves that you are completely wrong on this.
              ” It also indicates that either you do not understand the difference
              between harmful and harmless, non-consensual and consensual. Or, you
              simply disregard them when they are inconvenient for you. Either way,
              it means you are not qualified to make judgments about morality.”

              Adultery intrinsically causes harm, and it intrinsically is a violation of consent. Homosexuality does not intrinsically cause harm, and it is not intrinsically a violation of consent.

              Harm and consent are the foundation of morality, they are at the very heart of ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, since none of us want to be coerced or harmed.

              So when you argue that your interpretation of Bible passages you are not even honest enough to cite equates homosexuality with adultery, you are choosing your guess about the words in those passages over Jesus Christ and the law He established.

              And you failed to address the sole purpose of your evil comparison:

              “The purpose, of course, in equating homosexuality, our innate capacity for love and intimacy, with someone’s choice to betray their spouse, violate their promise of fidelity, is to denigrate our relationships and dehumanize us.”

              And since we started off on the subject of dehumanizing people, that avoidance is, frankly, an admission of guilt and failure on your part.

              And you did not even attempt a reply to this crucial element:

              “Since neither you, nor anyone who preaches ‘homosexuality is sin’ has ever demonstrated that it is possible to respect homosexuals at all while opposing our innate capacity for intimacy, your attempt to disparage me is pointless.

              It is like rebuking me for not accepting that whales can fly to the moon and back on the first Thursday in Lent.

              And of course, I did challenge you to prove that it is possible to revile this intrinsic part of our lives with out reviling us, and you choose to try to make that into a character flaw on my part.”

              You have argued that it is possible to condemn homosexuality without being dehumanizing, and have yet to provide even one real example to substantiate that claim.

              • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                WimRoget,
                Actually, when you compare the notes, you’re the one doing all of the slandering and showing the antagonism. BTW, I was making a mathematical point. And the mathematical point is that comparisons rely on the basis of comparison being made. In mathematics, we need to be precise in how we make comparisons. But, for whatever reason, you respond with accusation after accusation against me simply because I said that, according to the Scriptures, homosexuality is sin and listed with other sins. And from that, you have characterized me as being slanderous and hateful. Again, was it hateful of me to take verbal abuse for defending marriage equality in society?

                Actually, your comments make it difficult to tell whether the past treatment of gays by some of my fellow Christians has made it impossible for you to make distinctions between people or you’re just trying to cause trouble in a discussion.

                • WilmRoget

                  “Actually, when you compare the notes, you’re the one doing all of the slandering and showing the antagonism.’

                  Nice lie. Bear in mind, I quote you to point out your sins against GLBTQ people, you make accusations without a shred of evidence.

                  “BTW, I was making a mathematical point.”

                  No. And you are dodging.

                  ” In mathematics, we need to be precise in how we make comparisons.”

                  You also have to make accurate comparisons. Your comparison of homosexuals to adultery was neither precise, nor accurate. Your argument was sinful fraud.

                  “simply because”

                  Again, your misrepresentation of the conversation, and your dismissive and degrading guess about my motive, is sin. And Curt, when you refuse to be honest about these little things

                  it tells me

                  you absolutely cannot be honest, or right, about the issue at hand.

                  ‘And from that, you have characterized me as being slanderous and hateful.”

                  Wrong again. Your slanders and your hateful comparisons have characterized you in that way. You are responsible for your chosen behaviors, Curt. You choose to slander me, my spouse, many of our friends, and seven hundred million people. You cannot get out of that by trying to make me the bad guy for rebuking your sin.

                  ” defending marriage equality in society?’

                  There is no evidence that you have ever defended marriage equality. You’ve lied to me, about me, I cannot believe anything you say. So your question is a worthless diversionary tactic.

                  Your last paragraph is another sinful attempt to smear my character, rather than address any of the issues brought up. Let me remind you:

                  “You have argued that it is possible to condemn homosexuality without being dehumanizing, and have yet to provide even one real example to substantiate that claim.”

                  I’ve asked you several times for concrete evidence of any way to condemn homosexuality without being dehumanizing, and you have yet to provide any. Instead, you’ve engaged in dehumanizing behavior yourself, reviling and denigrating me, attacking my character.

                  You imagine that you are somehow different from other people who preach ‘homosexuality is sin’, but you are not. You are walking with Fred Phelps, and with Martin “kill the gays” Ssempa, and that child who was screaming ‘death to gays’ on the steps of a church last Easter. You are no different, you teach evil.

        • WilmRoget

          This last point deserves to stand alone:

          Your “Finally” is predicated on the false assumption that your understanding on this issue, as it pertains to our lives, is God’s will. That is false.

          It is not your place, Curt, to tell us what we can do sexually.

          It is your place, Curt, to assume that God has told us, and we are doing what God says to do.

          It is not your place to conclude that because we are not doing what you want us to do, we are not doing what God wants us to do.

          It is not your place to decide what is God’s will in my life. Especially since I did not ask you to. You are not God, Curt.

          And Curt, your failure to address most of my points, and to rely on dismissal and redirection for the few you did, further erodes your credibility on this issue.

        • WilmRoget

          “Does denying church membership to someone who actively lives in an adulterous relationship”

          The other flaw in your false comparison and diversionary tactic, is that church’s do not deny membership to adulterers. Yes, you used a falsely limited ‘in an adulterous relationship’, and that was fraud on your part. Jesus, after all, made it clear that if one even looks at someone lustfully, they’ve committed adultery.

          And if you are honest, you’ll admit that this teaching from Christ means that adultery is a nearly universal human failing. If you notice the sexual attractiveness of the waitperson serving you in a restaurant, and don’t even notice her or his name, you’ve reduced her or him to a sexual object, and that’s adultery.

          Jesus is, and some people who are extremely innately asexual may be, the only person(s) who have never committed adultery in thought or word.

          So if church’s withheld membership from adulterers, they’d be empty, or full of chronic liars. Your comparison was worthless even as a diversion.

        • Jeff Preuss

          I think the rub is in the application of that denial of church membership. It’s all too easy for many churches to deny gay people membership since they are “obviously” unrepentant sinners, yet those same churches wouldn’t dare to shun someone who is a repeated drunk, or perhaps an unwed mother, a habitual shoplifter, or other assorted things that are “obviously” sinful choices. More often, the church’s official position is those folks need God the most, so why deny them the chance to hear Him?

          There is theological debate about what exactly is clear about sexuality in the Scriptures, with many people on the side that there simply isn’t a crystal direction in the myriad translations and interpretations of the Bible in regards to homosexuals. And, unless the Church starts getting real consistent with prohibiting ALL sinners who may sin again and may not meet the “standard” for what constitutes repentance, then the Church has no business telling anyone it cannot belong.

          Now, when you take it down to an individual church house level, a stricter entrance standard can be more readily enforced. But, if the rigid standard is universally applied, those bodies won’t grow because they will too quickly find themselves in the position of determining who is not good enough for Christ, and find almost everyone wanting. And the pews will be very empty indeed.

          • WilmRoget

            Great points Jeff. I addressed adultery, because Curt made that false comparison. But there many other kinds of sin, and if a church is going to deny membership to people for being homosexual, what about people who are gluttons and have far more possessions than they need?

            Or people who cheat their boss by fooling around at work instead of working – that’s a form of stealing.

            Or people who lie and deceive, even a white lie like inflating the numbers on the church budget report to include offerings coming next week – is sin.

            If church’s denied membership based on sin – no human on earth could be a member of any church.

            • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

              WilmRoget,
              There are many other kinds of sins for sure. There is Romans 2:1 that tells the religious not to judge the unbeliever described in Romans 1:18ff because we all sin and, as Romans 3:9 says, no one is better.

              But Church membership isn’t about who is better. It is about saving faith and what follows that. And denying church membership isn’t about who is better but it is about a message to the person denied membership that the inconsistency between the scriptures and their lives is too great to be counted as a member in good standing.

              • WilmRoget

                “There are many other kinds of sins for sure.”

                And you have committed a great many here.

                ‘because we all sin and, as Romans 3:9 says, no one is better.”

                And yet you judge people (and the distinction you made religious v unbeliever is not in the text) anyway. Clearly, you don’t take the Bible seriously.

                “But Church membership isn’t about who is better.”

                Yet you, and your peers, try very hard to prove that you are better than GLBTQ people.

                Further, you are trying to get out of the flaw in your own argument. You want to deny church membership to people who engage in something you think it a sin, something that conveniently, is not on the list of sins you commit.

                But by your own argument, you should be denied church membership, you are a sinner. You’ve sinned against me for one thing, and against hundreds of millions of GLBTQ people.

                So answer this direct question, Curt: as a slanderer, because you have slandered GLBTQ people, should you be denied church membership?

          • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

            Jeff,
            Your point is taken but on a church by church basis. My church would have no problem with disciplining a repeated drunk, a habitual shoplifter, or someone who persisted in sexual sins. But denying membership is not the same as kicking them out the door.

            • Jeff Preuss

              Ah, but it is.

              One follows the tenets of the faith, specifically following that Christ is the Son of God, and one follows Him and His examples to gain entry to Heaven upon leaving this earth, but one differs with you that being gay and accepting it is a sin.

              So, they’re a Christian, living the best life possible as mandated by following the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures, but you determine they are not following the way you think they should? So, you don’t allow them communion with you in worshipping the Lord we have in common?

              Or are you saying they could come in and worship, but not be accepted as an explicit part of the church proper until they straighten up? [Pun firmly intended.]

              • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                Jeff,
                Living the best life possible is not what it means to be a Christian. Rather, faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins because we refuse to lead the best life possible is the Christian faith.

                We also have to consider that the New Testament has more than just the Gospels. It has the writings of the Apostles whom Jesus chose to represent Him after he ascended into heaven.

                So in short, this isn’t about whether gays have lived the best life I think is possible. Rather, it is about the Scriptures defining what is required of us by God. It is about the Scriptures being our ultimate reference rather than our own hearts.

                BTW, I like the pun. But it isn’t exactly precise considering all of the straight sex sins which are also condemned. See, this is about all of us being in the same boat together. If you look at Romans 3:9, you’ll see that it is the culmination of Romans 1, which talks about the sins of those who deny God, and Romans 2, which talks about the sins of those who claim to believe in God. There is no group that is better. And thus the rest of Romans 3 tells us the remedy for that.

                • Jeff Preuss

                  Oh, come on, Curt, I didn’t even imply the exclusion of the rest of the Scriptures. And, leading the best life possible by following the mandates of the Scriptures is part and parcel of having faith in Christ and following Him.

                  “So in short, this isn’t about whether gays have lived the best life I
                  think is possible. Rather, it is about the Scriptures defining what is
                  required of us by God.” Gay Christians do this, too. Gay Christians use the Scriptures to define what is required of them by God. YOU think they are wrong in their interpretation. So you ARE saying it’s not the best life YOU think possible.

                  You declare that the Scriptures are clear on this issue, yet there are many who disagree with your theological stance. Your insistence that your angle on the issue is the clearest simply doesn’t grant you the moral authority to deny church membership to anyone. Because, there are people on the other side of the issue who are just as insistent that it is NOT clear. People who also follow Christ and God’s Word in the Scripture. People who also discern meaning from the Bible through sincere and faithful studies of the texts.

                  You didn’t answer my questions. Would you allow gay people to worship, yet not allow them to declare themselves full explicitly-defined members of your church, even after professing a belief in Christ and repentance of sins, but not repenting for being gay because they don’t believe it to be a sin?

                  • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                    Jeff,

                    But what you said earlier did:

                    So, they’re a Christian, living the best life possible as mandated by following the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures, but you determine they are not following the way you think they should?

                    See, the hallmark of Christianity is that we don’t live by our efforts, we live by a faith that declares our efforts to be a inadequate. Think of John 1:12 where those who would believe in Jesus do so solely because God enabled them (also see John 6:44). In Galatians 3, Paul talks about growing by continuing in faith rather than by our works or, in this case, our efforts. He goes on to give Abraham’s faith as an example for us. Abraham believed that God would himself fulfill the promise given because Abraham understood that his body was dead with regard to having children. And so we realize that as we are more than unable to live good enough lives, we, like Abraham, count ourselves as dead so that our faith is placed solely in Christ. in Colossians, Paul tells us to continue in the Christian life just as we began, that is by faith.

                    Now you insist that because many disagree with me about the clarity of the Scriptures, I am assuming a moral authority. Then please explain the following Scriptures:

                    I Cor 6:9:

                    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

                    Rom 1:26-28

                    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                    See, the Scriptures aren’t there for us to make of them what we will. If that was the case, then we would be doing what was described in Judges 21:25:

                    In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

                    Finally, I thought I answered your question, yes I would allow gays to attend worship services. I would encourage them to. But can’t be a member in good standing and persist in sexual sins– of course there are other sins too one can’t persist in but this the issue of the thread. And the Scriptures are clear on whether homosexuality is a sexual sin. But we should all note that we are in the same boat. Not being homosexual does not make you any less a sinner. It is that coming to faith results in changes lest we do what is said in the verse below:

                    What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

                    • Jeff Preuss

                      Curt, I still never said anything to exclude the rest of the Scripture as being important. In fact, I referred to following Scriptures.

                      Although I am not so quick to jump to this conclusion as some of my fellows here, you’re not being completely honest with your intentions or your purpose here. It’s not your place to determine who is worthy of church membership, Curt. Every Christian has the right and the calling to be able to follow the Scriptures as best they can, and it is not your place to say it’s not good enough and determine if they can truly belong to the Church.

                      All God’s blessings to you, Curt. I do mean it. We’re not going to agree. (My offer of a blessing likely means little to you, since I’m not a full member of the Church in your eyes.)

                      Peace out.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      Jeff,
                      It isn’t my place to determine the individuals who are in good standing with the church. The scriptures are. They tell us. And it isn’t a matter of who is worthy. Some of my fellow conservative Christians think that way and so look down on people who have been found not in good standing. For as long as you say that belonging to the church is a matter of worth, you are moving farther away from defining being a Christian as having faith in Christ to save one from their sins.

                      If you can, I would like to read your comments on the passage from Romans which I quoted.

                      BTW, I have no doubts regarding your well wishes. I’ve enjoyed our conversation. Yes, will not agree, at least at this time. But I appreciate your comments and have respect for how you communicated things. And your wishes do mean something important because you’re a person, you are made in the image of God. I don’t look at non Church members as being inferior to Church members. My activism and Leftist political views tell me that many of my fellow Church members have much to learn from those outside the Church.

                      Please take care.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “See, the hallmark of Christianity is that we don’t live by our efforts,’

                      And yet the theology you are arguing, ‘homosexuality is sin’, or ‘gay sex is sin’ is entirely about one’s efforts. Essentially, as you cited I Cor 6:9.10 – you are telling GLBTQ people that they cannot go to Heaven, cannot ‘inherit the kingdom of God’, unless they

                      1) are celibate or
                      2) change into heterosexuals or
                      3) have heterosexual sex

                      depending on how one defines terms. Anti-gay theology is a works=salvation theology.

                      I’ve address those passages, and frankly, they’ve been addressed across the internet, so your use of them was not only lazy and dishonest, pretending that they have not been addressed,

                      it was gratuitous verbal abuse on your part.

                    • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

                      WilmRoget,
                      Do you know why we don’t live by our efforts? Whereas Romans 1 talks about the sins of those who don’t believe in God, Romans 2 talks about the sins of those who do. It culminates in Romans 3:9 where Paul asserts that there is no person or group who is better than the other. We’ve all failed God’s law and thus to live by our efforts is subject oneself to failure.

                      So the remedy is belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins knowing that the forgiveness granted isn’t there to free us to what we want but so that we bear the fruit of the Spirit rather than show the works of the flesh (Romans 6:1 and Galatians 5). And Galatians 5 is very specific in listing what is the result of having the Spirit in one’s life and what is the result of relying on the works of the flesh.

                      If we ask for the forgiveness of sins and the scriptures have defined sex outside of a monogamous, heterosexual relationship as being sin, then asking for the forgiveness of sexual sins with not interest or inclination in refraining from such sin points to a disregard for sin and the forgiveness asked for. Forgiveness is there merely as a after-life insurance rather than something than a live-changing factor.

                      What you would call the opposite of works=salvation is more related to antinomianism, rather than grace. And I only wanted to write this note because this point here isn’t primarily about homosexuality and heterosexual sins, it is about the Gospel and how it changes us.

                      Finally, you might want to consult the parable of the two men praying. Whereas the Christian position is to call sin sin while acknowledging that one is a sinner and thus is equal to nonChristians, the works-oriented nonChristian view is to point out the sins of the other only.

                    • WilmRoget

                      “Do you know why we don’t live by our efforts?”

                      I understand that you are unable, or unwilling, to address what has been presented. Additionally, Curt, I notice that while I carefully refuted your false use of Romans 1, you have not addressed your errors. Like so many of your peers, you simply move on to another false attempt to justify sinning against hundreds of millions of human beings.

                      “Finally, you might want to consult the parable of the two men praying.”

                      Considering that you are here to exalt yourself over GLBTQ people, to tell God, “I thank you that I am not like those gay people” – the irony of your presumptuous assumption that I am unfamiliar with that passage is remarkable.

                      The Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but Jesus’ own words provide a test that proves that all who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ are false teachers. After all, Curt, the belief you teach produces murder and rape, and you are accountable.

                      The only remaining question, Curt, is if you will repent of your sins against God and GLBTQ people – yes, or no?

                • WilmRoget

                  “Living the best life possible”

                  Your false characterization of Jeff’s argument is dishonest. He was quite explicit:

                  “living the best life possible as mandated by following the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures,”

                  and you misrepresented that entirely.

                  “Rather, it is about the Scriptures defining what is required of us by God.”

                  God requires of us to treat everyone as we want to be treated ourselves. Yet you treat homosexuals with contempt and injustice.

            • WilmRoget

              “But denying membership is not the same as kicking them out the door.”

              Kicking them out the door would be more honest. You propose to use people, to tell GLBTQ folks ‘you can worship, and of course, we’re going to ask you for money every week, and have a stewardship drive every year and cajole you into making a pledge to support our ministry, and you can volunteer to sweep the social hall and put away folding chairs, and weed the landscaping and do all of the other grunt work around church

              but you cannot be a member, you cannot have a say in the running of the church, teach, lead, vote.

              The point is that your suggestion was a fraud.

              So be honest, Curt. The reason that conservative, traditionalist churches don’t go after real sins the way they go after homosexuality, is they would drive everyone away. If your home church went after the sin in your life in the way you go after homosexuals, you’d storm out.

        • WilmRoget

          And so, finally, to answer your question – with a question that shows how wrong you are:

          Does denying church membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual deny their humanity?

          Now, I don’t expect an honest answer from you, your posts have made that unlikely. But I do believe that other people reading here will be able to honestly answer that question and see that denying membership to people based on their sexual orientation is intrinsically dehumanizing, no matter what sexual orientation is targeted for exclusion.

          • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

            WimRoget,
            I will continue my conversation with you with quit with the personal judgments. Because your personal judgments of me is your entire argument. You don’t want to discuss the issue, you want to vent.

            • WilmRoget

              First, your second two sentences prove that the first one is a lie.

              Second, your second two sentences are lies about me. You are bearing false witness, that is sin. Please repent.

              Third, in your lies, you completely failed to answer the question.

              Does denying church membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual deny their humanity?

              Now, I think you chose to lie to me and about me, because if you did answer the question I asked honestly, you’d have to admit that denying membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual does deny their humanity. And then you’d either have to acknowledge that your prior justification for denying membership to homosexuals was sinful and unjust, or, that you just don’t see us as human anyways.

        • Lamont Cranston

          Can you point to an example of a church denying membership to an adulterer? Obviously, it won’t be the Catholic church, which allows adulterers (but not gay people) to sing in choirs.

          • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

            Most of the conservative Presbyterian Churches (non-PCUSA Presbyterian Churches) will do that. In fact, I know of instances where married church members have been disciplined for non-adulterous relationships with those from the opposite sex because the relationships were deemed to be too close.

            • WilmRoget

              Your claim without citation is worthless.

              And Curt,

              Does denying church membership to heterosexuals for being heterosexual deny their humanity?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X