Sorry, But We Won’t Rewrite the Bible for Gays and Lesbians

By Michael Brown Published on June 27, 2016

In response to my open letter to Isaac Archuleta, who describes himself as a bisexual Christian, Richard S. posted a lengthy comment on my personal Facebook page, including this statement: “The logical conclusion to your theology (gays can change and if they don’t it must be because they don’t have faith or are deceived) is extremely damaging to the souls of gay people. That was the point of Isaac’s letter. No amount of nice words will erase the damage. Only honest reconsideration of your theology will bring healing. Please don’t discount/deny the faith of your gay brothers and sisters. They have much to contribute to the church.”

Of course, Richard has completely misstated what conservative Christians believe (we don’t say or believe that if gays don’t change “it must be because they don’t have faith or are deceived”), just as other parts of his comment (not quoted here) were also based on serious misunderstandings.

But that is secondary to the bigger issue, and Richard is one of many who are telling serious Bible believers that, “Only honest reconsideration of your theology will bring healing.”

He could not be more wrong.

First, what Scripture says on homosexual practice is not negotiable, and no amount of new books or videos or personal stories will change that.

As I explained in my book Can You Be Gay and Christian?, “no new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological or philological discoveries have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently. Put another way, it is not that we have gained some new insights into what the biblical text means based on the study of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, people’s interaction with the LGBT community has caused them to understand the biblical text differently.”

Simply stated, if not for the sexual revolution, no one would be reexamining what the Scriptures state about God’s intention for His creation. No one would be wondering if two men or two women could “marry” or if a husband could also be a wife. No one would be doubting that the Lord made men for women and women for men and that any deviation from that pattern was contrary to His design and intent.

As one New Testament scholar was candid enough to admit, it was clear to him that the Bible forbade homosexual practice, but when his own daughter came out as a lesbian, he changed his opinion on the subject.

That’s why I’ve often stated that there is not a single argument that can be brought from God’s Word to defend homosexual practice, but there are powerful emotional arguments that can be brought. In that context, I’m often reminded of Jesus’ words that, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37).

The father of a “gay Christian” activist changed churches when his home congregation rejected his son’s views on homosexuality. When asked about these words of Jesus, he commented that there were other churches he could go to, but he had only one son. I could only wince when I heard his words, so loving in one way but so destructive in another.

Second, if there was something to reconsider in our theology we would gladly do it. The truth be told, as impossible as the “gay Christian” arguments struck me, I went to the Lord about them, buying the books that defended this new way of reading Scripture, reading the stories (and listening to the stories) of professing gay Christians, allowing my heart to be torn and my mind to be challenged.

At the end of the day, as a biblical scholar, a lover of Jesus, and a lover of people, it was impossible for me to accept their arguments. The Word is just too clear on this, and without some kind of emotional or social or other pressure to reconsider what Scripture states, no one would deny this.

Third, those who argue that Christians agree to disagree on lots of things without denying each other’s faith fail to realize that they do not agree to disagree on behaviors that Scripture strongly condemns — unless they themselves are living in some kind of moral compromise.

We’re not dealing here with a question of whether speaking in tongues is for today or whether Christians are required to tithe or whether Jesus is coming before the tribulation. We’re dealing with redefining the very meaning of marriage and claiming that a behavior that is plainly condemned in the Old and New Testaments — I’m talking about same-sex cohabitation — is now blessed by God.

And while God alone is the judge of every professing Christian, be that person gay or straight, we cannot embrace as fellow brothers and sisters those who are affirming, practicing, and even celebrating homosexuality.

We will put our arms around everyone who struggles with same-sex attraction, loving them and embracing them and encouraging them in their walk with the Lord, whether their walk entails transformation from homosexual to heterosexual or whether it entails celibacy. But we will not and cannot affirm and bless what the Lord Himself opposes. To do so is to do a disservice to those in the LGBT community.

Fourth, God’s message of grace and truth brings healing and wholeness and deliverance and freedom, as millions of people from every walk of life can attest, including large numbers of people who once identified as LGBT.

I’m quite aware that there are genuine homo-haters in the Church (I plan to address this yet again in the coming days; God is their judge as well), and I’m quite aware that Christians have often failed to demonstrate Christlike love and compassion to the LGBT community (to put it mildly).

But I’m also quite aware that when we speak the truth in love and people actually hear what we’re saying (not the interpretation they put on our words but the real message of our words), if that message is received it will bring life not death.

To all of you reading this article who say, “I’m gay, I’m Christian, I’m involved in a same-sex relationship, and we’re thriving in the Lord,” I invite you to call my radio show or to send me your story or, if you live in my city, to get together with me and some of your friends — not for the purpose of debate but for the purpose of honest, loving, heartfelt interaction.

And if you have time, would you watch my video, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” and tell me what I don’t understand and where I don’t display genuine empathy?

And if you’d like to read my book by the same title and you genuinely can’t afford it, email me your story, include your address, and I’ll send you a copy for free. You will not find a hateful word in the book, but you will find someone who cares.

In the end, though, your issue is with the Lord not with me. I can assure you that He understands and He will provide everything you need if you truly entrust your life to Him.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Cowboy

    God’s Word says add nothing and take nothing away. We cannot change God’s Word to fit our needs, we have to study and obey.

    • Boris

      “we have to study and obey.” Says who exactly?

      • Thisoldspouse

        You obey something. That you pretend not to know it just highlights your deceit.

  • Time Walker

    The very devine nature of the word forbids us from changing it and teaching falsehoods. I pray for those who would lower the test in order to gain a false sense of passing it for they will be met with harsh judgement from God.

  • Rusty Writer

    It’s as if the bible is a Rorschach ink blot in which anyone who looks at the bible can make any argument based on his own subconscious assumptions. The rapidly growing list of LGBT affirming churches finds a great deal in the bible to support their view. Matthew Vines, James Brownson, Kathy Baldock and many other authors write deep theological point by point explanations from the bible affirming LGBT Christians and get published by large evangelical publishing houses. Brown, on the other hand, has rewritten the bible by turning the entire book into one long anti-LGBT screed. He does not realize he is obsessed with homosexuality. The LSD to PhD testimonial Brown has up on Youtube says Jesus changed him from hard-core drug addict and drug dealer to young people to bible teacher. But Brown has never written a book about his relationship with Jesus or how his prayer life improved or even what the bible means to the average person. “Dr.” Brown has no medical training and no relevant education to discuss LGBT issues. His PhD is in languages, but the only language he speaks fluently is the language of demonization and dehumanization of the minority groups he hates.

    • Steven

      Dr.Brown has already debated Matthew Vines and knows about Kathy Baldock. I don’t she wants to debate him. she has something to hide.

  • RoundRocker

    God’s Word is unchanging, but human understanding of The Word has changed radically over thousands of years. If you had suggested a hundred years ago that the Bible did not permit and condone slavery and oppression of black people, or that women should be allowed to vote, they would have laughed you out of the church that used the Bible to support the oppression of black people and women. The Bible hasn’t changed, but now we understand and interpret it differently, and most people agree that treating black people and women equally is accepted and certainly Biblical (most- some people still oppress black people and women and think they are less worthy than white, Christian, middle-class men). A hundred years from now, your views about homosexuality will be seen in the same light and people will shake their heads in disbelief that anyone could have believed the way you do.
    The Bible has already been re-written many times. Otherwise, why are there so many different versions of it? Why can’t believers agree on one, single translation or interpretation? When the Bible was created, the men at the Councils didn’t agree 100% on what books should or shoudn’t be included. There are many texts that were left out. Why? How can we know? Were all the translators infallible or did they inject their own interpretation and bias into their translation? Men wrote the texts, men decided which texts should be included, men translated the texts- were all of them infallible and free from bias? Not possible.

    • Steven

      Where in the Bible has homosexuality ever been approved? find me a verse

      • RoundRocker

        I will answer when you give me the verse that condemns slavery.

        • Steven

          Show me the verse

          • RoundRocker

            I will answer when you give me the verse that condemns slavery.

          • Steven

            There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

          • RoundRocker

            You realize that is meant figuratively, right? Because there were most assuredly slaves for hundreds of years after that was written, there are still male and female, there are still Jews and Gentiles. It also doesn’t condemn slavery, just as it doesn’t condemn free people, male, female, Jew, or Gentile. It just means “It doesn’t matter who you are or what station you hold in life, everyone is the same in Christ Jesus.” It could easily include LGBT people in that statement.

          • Steven

            homosexuality is a sin though. being male and female is not. so it makes no sense to include homosexuality in this, people are equal in God’s eyes. sinful sexual lifestyles are not.

          • RoundRocker

            Jews considered Gentiles sinners, so sinners are definitely included in this. In fact, since everyone is a sinner, either everyone is included in this statement or no one is.

          • Rusty Writer

            Great points, roundrocker. PS “homosexuality” is a person’s sexual orientation, which is not a choice. Every medical assn. explained sexual orientation is not chosen. The evangelical ex-gay leaders admitted after 40 years of ‘change’ claims no Christian experienced a change of orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. No choice, no sin. Besides, sin simply means ‘to miss the mark’ and everyone does that, but bigots focus only on the one small minority group they hate and target them viciously, turning the bible into a weapon of bigotry and hate.

          • Steven

            Some homosexuals say that God created them the way they are. Therefore, it makes their behavior ok and God should not condemn them. But, their assertion is not correct. God does not “make” people in a way that contradicts what he teaches they should be. He does not condemn sin and then makes people into sinners and then blame them for their sin. He does not condemn murder and then makes people into murderers. Likewise with homosexuality. God declares it to be a sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). So, he does not create people as homosexuals and then condemn them for it.

            Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
            Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
            1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
            Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
            If, however, the pro-homosexual wishes to disagree, then let him or her find his teaching in Scripture. If he wants to speak for God but cannot find his position in the Bible, then he is being arrogant and foolish in seeking only to justify his rebellion against God. Let God speak for himself and if someone’s assertion cannot find the Scripture, then he ought not to make it.

            Unfortunately, people prefer their sin over their sanctification. They prefer to fulfill their fleshly desires and selfish expectations rather then submit to God. They try and make God fit their personal preferences and if they can’t do it, they mock him. They don’t want to submit to the word of God. They want to justify their sinful behavior. Such is the case with those who say that God made them as homosexuals. They are looking for a way to excuse their sin.

            The Fall
            Biblically speaking, God made Adam and Eve and they were good (Genesis 1:31). They rebelled and they fell into sin(Genesis 3:1-6). The effect of this sin was that their natures were changed from good to sinful. They were fallen and by nature were children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).This means that they were then susceptible to disease, to death, and to other such harmful effects of sin. When they had children, their sin nature was passed down to their children and within that sin nature is the manifestation of covetousness, selfishness, rebellion, lying, homosexuality, arrogance, pride, etc. So, it is not God who made them homosexuals. Their sinfulness is the result of being born in a fallen state.

          • RoundRocker

            Care to enumerate your sins for us?

          • Steven

            I sin too but I’m not asking people to tolerate and accept my sins or want people thrown in jail for disagreeing with me like homosexuals do

          • RoundRocker

            The hubris of believing you know the mind of God is astounding. Since you admit you are not without sin, I would suggest you quit throwing stones.

          • Steven

            What do you mean throwing stones? I’m not throwing stones. the mind of God is reveal to us in his word (the Bible) and homosexuality is a sin. are you saying that homosexuality is not a sin and that the Bible is not clear on this sin? the Bible is quite clear on this sin as it is on any other sin.

          • RoundRocker

            I must be mistaken then, that your comments seem to be throwing stones as if homosexuality is worse than any other sin. As for the Bible revealing the mind of God, I agree it tells us something about it, but what human can truly comprehend the breadth of it or really know the mind of God? As I said initially, The Word never changes, but our human understanding of it does. 150 years ago, people were absolutely convinced they knew the mind of God, revealed through the Bible, permitted and condoned slavery. Now we know better. So those people who thought they knew what God meant were proven wrong, as you will be.

          • Steven

            It’s the only sin in which there is a punishment for for those who disagree with it and the only sin which people throw a parade for, when you see fornicators punishing Christians for disagreeing with that sin and throwing parades for it, then we can talk

          • Steven

            If what we are saying about homosexuality and the Bible is wrong and what they are saying is right. than why do homosexuals want to shut us up? why do they want the Bible banned if the Bible supports homosexuality? why do they want to forbid pastor from preaching on this sin? why do homosexuals want the Bible to be rewritten to make it fit homosexuality if the Bible already affirms homosexuality? why did homosexuals write their own ”Queen James Bible” (a pro-homosexual bible) if the real Bible supports homosexuality? does it make sense for adulterers to write a bible affirming adultery if the Bible already affirms adultery? no but yet that is what the homosexuals did with their Queen James Bible. these people are admitting that the Bible does not support homosexuality.

          • Steven

            David and Jonathan weren’t homosexuals by the way nor were Ruth and Naomi

        • Steven

          The Bible does not support homosexuality otherwise homosexuals wouldn’t want it to be rewritten (I mean there is no reason to rewrite the Bible to make affirm homosexuality if it already affirms homosexuality, It wouldn’t make any sense) also, they wouldn’t want the Bible to banned.

        • Dean Bruckner

          Steven, here is the verse that overturned slavery throughout the world:

          “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28

          This was like an earthquake to the pagan world view, and still is. The ground is level at the foot of the cross, and every human has equal worth in God’s sight.

          Before you condemn the Bible for not condemning slavery in more explicit terms, think of how many times you yourself have condemned the Bible, and the Bible’s God, for doing the opposite when God put a quick end to the evils of mankind. The great flood, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah, the sacking of Jerusalem and many other cities and empires, and the liquidation of the Canaanites under Joshua all come to mind. Yet did any of those judgments put an end to the sins that were punished? No.

          Here’s the rub: if God chose to be patient with the evil of others by ridding the world of slavery in a slower but more sure and universal way, we should be glad, because he has been patient in bearing with the evil of you and me. The very moral ground you stand on in condemning slavery was provided to you by the Christian world view, and none other. Perhaps some humility and self-awareness would help you maintain a proper perspective toward God and man. You owe thanks and praise to God, and self-sacrificing love to man. How are you doing on those?

          • Rusty Writer

            Since the bible says “There is neither male nor female” that approves of same-sex marriage. Obviously.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Somewhere a Supreme Court is missing its Progressive theorist. Using the Constitution like toilet paper like your fellow Progressives do is bad enough, but are you willing to stake your eternal soul on such self-serving twisting of God’s word as you display here?

          • Ashley Bowen

            No, it doesn’t actually. Paul was referring to the Body of Christ when he said these words. We’re all the Bride of Christ, essentially, but that doesn’t mean that God Himself condones Gay “marriage”.

          • Steven

            No, it doesn’t. it just means God doesn’t view women as lesser beings than men or men lesser than beings than women. they are both equal in his eyes.

          • Steven

            no it does not. it means God doesn’t view women as lesser beings than men or men as lesser than women we’re all equal in his eyes. it has nothing to do with homosexuality

          • Rusty Writer

            All I wrote was “since the bible says “there is neither male nor female” that approves of same-sex marriage. Obviously”.

        • Thisoldspouse

          Show us where the Bible instituted slavery.

      • 1 Sam. 18:3 through 2 Sam 1. There is plenty there about the David-Jonathan marriage relationship.

        • Palamas

          The “David-Jonathan marriage relationship” is a figment of a prurient imagination and an ahistorical understanding of Old Testament Israel.

    • Juan Diaz

      You my friend is not a Christian by heart. I am pretty sure you never read the Bible seriously. It is not too late.

      • RoundRocker

        It is not your place to say whether I am a Christian or not. That is between me and God.

        • Juan Diaz

          You believe in God and yet you are trying to alter the only communication you have with Him and that is the Bible or the Qur’an if you’re a Muslim. If you feel that you’re a woman trapped inside a man’s body or vice versa, then act like a woman, dress like a woman and feel like a woman, but do not commit homosexual act. Refer to it as a disability. Accept it, live with it and absorb its burden, but be Christian enough to follow what’s right. That’s the only way you can earn universal respect and dignity. I hope I opened your heart my friend. God be with you.

    • m-nj

      you are incorrect. there is only 1 Bible in the original languages (Hebrew/Greek with a little Aramaic here and there). There are multiple TRANSLATIONS from those languages. However, in the original language, and across 99.9% of the translations (the 0.1% being the specific “gay” friendly or gender-neutral versions that specifically twist or remove the anti-gay verses), there is no leeway for saying homosexuality is OK, nor is homosexuality promoted or spoken of in a positive light.

      realize it was mostly Bible believing christians who started the abolition and women’s suffrage movements to change society which was not aligned with Biblical ideas about women and slavery… based on the value of women and all people the Bible clearly states. voting is a side issue specific to whether a nation has a democratic/republic form of government that the Bible really does not address.

      • RoundRocker

        That doesn’t change the fact that most Christians did, in fact, believe the Bible permitted and condoned slavery at one time. The fact that that view changed only proves my statement that our understanding of the Bible evolves and changes with time, while the Bible itself does not change.

        • Steven

          things in the Bible may change but sin never changes. sin always stays sin. homosexuality is still a sin today as it was thousands of years ago and will always remain a sin

        • Steven

          The Bible never condones slavery

          • RoundRocker

            So when Lev 25:44 says “Your male and female slaves are
            to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You
            may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
            members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
            property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and
            can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow
            Israelites ruthlessly.” that’s not condoning it? You still haven’t shown me a verse that condemns slavery. There are plenty of verses that say how to treat slaves, but none that say “don’t have slaves”.

          • m-nj

            well, the Bible does speak of a type of “slavery” that existed in OT and Roman times… basically indentured servitude. this kind of slavery was/is even used as a “type” of our relationship with God as our kind and loving Master… i know this rubs the western mindset the wrong way, especially in the US where we love our “freedom”… but it is pretty clear this type of slavery is not outright condemned by God. it was regulated, though, by the various laws Moses gave from God.

            but the type of forced slavery that comes to mind which was practiced in the USA and elsewhere was not looked on favorably

      • Boris

        “…Bible believing christians who started the abolition and women’s suffrage movements” Bible believing Christians also fought against abolition each side using the Bible to support their point of view. William Jennings Bryan didn’t care much for women but he figured if he got behind the suffrage movement he’d get all the female voters. But the women saw through this Bible thumper’s ruse.

  • Dean Bruckner

    “Compromise” is the key word in the evolution of Biblical views. Those whose family member(s) took part in an abortion often go astray on abortion. Same with those whose family member(s) embrace an alternate lifestyle. It is gut-wrenching, to be sure, to have such an experience. But this emotion can lead to compromising the truth.

    It really does come down to this saying of Jesus: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). It’s the only way to life. Will I obey it or not? The way that seems right to a man, that way ends in death.

  • BXVI

    Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. That has not and will not change. And, it is okay – not bigoted or hateful – for the thought of two men engaging in such acts to make one want to vomit. Because it makes God want to vomit. But, the same can be said of adultery.

    • RoundRocker

      So are women who wear pants. Deut 22:5.

      • suddenseer

        Yeah right. Back in ancient times it appears that bronze age people of both genders wore ROBES! The men of Palestine were known to wear a decorative sash around the waist to distinguish their gender from a distance. Robes are robes. Now if you are really a man, you will find that women’s slacks will not fit on you very well. Because they are made for a woman! Fundie logic can be hilarious!

        • Thisoldspouse

          Why do you incessantly belittle “Bronze Age” civilizations, as if they didn’t have anything to say or contribute. We stand on the shoulders of such civilizations, and their literature is among the most revered and relevant even today.

          But, ironically, I’ll bet you revere and defer to Native American cultures – STONE age people.

          • suddenseer

            I really don’t know how you can jump to the conclusion that a mention of bronze age people’s equals, belittling. Ah ha! You might be a fundie who finds intentions without documents. That would be a god like power wouldn’t it? I get it that your head is probably wired that way. Let me go off on a wild tangent like you did. You may be one of those fundies who think the planet Earth is only 10,000 years old because the bible tells you so. There is an ark museum that just opened in Kentucky that shows human coexistence with dinosaurs. Yes! The Flintstone’s videos should be filed under, ‘historical drama’.

    • Boris

      “Homosexual acts are an abomination to God.” God is an abomination, an insult to we thinkers.

    • Rudy R

      How do you know homosexual acts are an abomination to God? You do realize that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that they are a compilation of works by numerous unknown writers over an extended period of time. If the books were not written by Moses, then those words were not given by God through Moses and the inspiration of the five books of the Bible is uncertain.
      And it must be nice to know the mind of God and that he would vomit thinking about two men engaging in sexual acts. God vomiting would also refute the fact that he is omnipotent.

  • Juan Diaz

    Simply put it this way, the scripture doesn’t forbid man to dress and move like a woman, and the other way around. That’s what Pope Francis tells us. If you want to go out and dress like a woman, I’ll respect your choice, and it is still logical to some extent. What the scripture tells us is, it is an ABOMINATION to be homosexual. If you maintain your stand to commit homosexual act, you are commiting not only sin but crime in the eyes of God. The word of God is the supreme law of the universe. You can’t bend it, alter it, nor erase it, otherwise send your application letter to be a God yourself. I want my explanation to be as simple as it can get. We should not make any reasons or actions to justify illogical explanations. Both Science and Religion doesn’t agree with homosexuality.

    • RoundRocker

      How do you feel about women who wear pants- are they an abomination? Actually, scripture does forbid men to dress like women and women to
      dress like men. It’s called an abomination also. Deut 22:5. Do you still
      respect a person’s choice to do so?

      • Juan Diaz

        That verse from the Old Scripture actually pertains to Homosexuality in the sense that clothing references are parallel with homosexual acts at that time. Look for that verse in the New Testament. Look for any clothing references… None right? Simply because as civilization evolve so does fashion. Sounds funny but, the only way you can commit abomination is through homosexual acts and not how you dress. Sometimes we can better understand the scripture if we truly ask God to let us comprehend his words.

        • RoundRocker

          Actually, it refers to men lowering their status by dressing as women or women trying to elevate their status by masquerading as men. Women had no status of their own then, except as they related to a man. They were property, first of their father, then of their husband. The word “abomination” only comes up twice in the New Testament, neither time related to homosexuality.

          • William

            Women were never property. They were required to defer to their father’s authority if they lived under his roof or to their husband if they were married, but that isn’t the same thing as ownership. An adult single woman could own and inherit property, her oaths were considered binding upon her just as a man’s were, she could own and operate a business, she was held responsible for her own sins, and many other things. Women were called as prophets and judges of Israel even in the most ancient times. And as to the matter of cross-dressing, that’s forbidden because God doesn’t like it when we try to blur and erase the difference between male and female which He has ordained. It has nothing to do with status, and it also has nothing to do with homosexuality.

          • RoundRocker

            A distinction without a difference. Women could not leave their father’s or husband’s house without permission. Women could be given by their fathers to a man to marry without asking their consent, and the “bride price” or dowry was more or less payment to the father for the loss of her services. Genesis 3:16 states that Adam’s role is to rule over Eve. The Tenth Commandment says not to covet anything owned by one’s neighbor, including his wife. Exodus 21:7 says a man can sell his daughter as a slave, and she will be a slave forever where a male slave is to be set free after 6 years. Leviticus 27:6 says a child 1 month to 5 years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy, but 3 shekels if a girl. Numbers 30 says a man’s vow is binding, but a vow taken by a women can be nullified by her father or husband. Deut 24 says only a man can request a divorce, not a woman. Deut 25 says a widow is required to marry her husband’s brother. There are more examples, but all this goes to show that women had very lowly status. No self-respecting man should lower himself to dress as a woman. The women of the Bible who had any kind of status are the exception, not the rule.

          • Dean Bruckner

            You twist scripture like the Prince of Darkness himself. “He will rule over you ” was not God’s plan, but the consequence of their sin of rebelling against God. And here you are rebelling against God and denying his goodness and holiness and testing his patience. Have you learned nothing?

          • RoundRocker

            I twisted nothing. I may have paraphrased, but show me these verses do not say what I said.

          • Dean Bruckner

            I just did.

          • RoundRocker

            Not by a long shot, buddy.

          • Dean Bruckner

            The Lord rebuke you!

          • Juan Diaz

            Read what you write all over again, and you’ll realize you’re agreeing from what I’ve said.

          • RoundRocker

            I may agree in part, but the prohibition on cross-dressing was not parallel with homosexual acts as you said. It was about status.

    • Deacon Wilson

      Duet 22:5-the scriptures do forbid cross-dressing

      • Juan Diaz

        If you keep yourselves referring to Old Testament, might as well turn yourselves into Jews and not Christians. Christians exists because of the New Testament, nothing more, nothing less. Please understand the Scripture and its meanings. Pray before you read, and use your heart. Your mind and its logics will follow.

        • RoundRocker

          Deuteronomy is part of Scripture. Thus, Scripture forbids cross-dressing. We have merely pointed out your error in saying “Simply put it this way, the scripture doesn’t forbid man to dress and move like a woman, and the other way around.” You didn’t specify Old or New Testament.

        • Deacon Wilson

          The understanding of Scripture in its truth do not come from the bodily elements as you put it (heart and mind) but from God. But I will still consider what point your trying to make. The old testament was not negated by the new testament but as Jesus said it is the fulfillment of it. And the true people of God are Jews and not Christians. We are grafted in to family of Jews through the Holy Ghost as per scripture and Jesus never called us Christians.

        • Michael Gore

          The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament, you will have a very incomplete theology if you do not pay attention to it. Jesus affirmed that the OT was God’s Word and that he did not come to abolish the law but to fufill it. The God of Christianity is the God of the Old Testament more fully revealed.
          It is a mistake to lean too heavily on the Mosaic Law as we are not under it’s jurisdiction. The Mosaic Covenant was made to the nation of Israel for a specific time and purpose. While I am a spiritual decendant of Abraham by faith, I am not a member of the group who entered into that coventant. Paul talks about the purpose of the Mosaic covenant in Galatians “So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith”. Not enough space to give good context, but the general idea of this section is that the law was good, served it’s purpose, and now is no longer applicable to a follower of Christ.
          This does not give us liberty to sin, or mean that we can’t know what is good and true, but it does relieve us of the burden of the ceremonial laws and customs of ancient Israel.

      • Well, ask a bunch of Rabbis, and how they explain how it’s okay for men to dress up as Queen Esther for Purim. The idea of crossdressing being forbidden is not so much the crossdressing itself, but the purpose. If one read some of Boccaccio’s work in high school, it contains a lot of lewd stories that include the sort of crossdressing that would be sinful.

        BTW, transgender people aren’t crossdressing – that would take a bit more explanation.

    • Reflect – look at other examples of “abomination” in Leviticus. It means “unclean” – and that is it. And the Leviticus reference – it is an abomination for a macho man to force himself on another man in order to show that the macho is the he-man and the other man is “less than a woman.” That isn’t the same thing as, say, the kind of loving relationship you find between David and Jonathan in ! Sam. 18 ff. – they “become one soul” in the same way that a straight couple would “become one flesh.” (Gays are not procreative, thus the “one soul” instead of “one flesh” but the two still become one . .. )

      • Michael Gore

        This is textbook Eisegesis. You are just taking what you want to be true, and then trying to find ways to make it fit into the text, rather than asking what the text actually meant according to the author. The books of the Old Testament and New Testament have meaning and intent created by their authors. You have to read the passages in context in order to understand what the words mean, not just look at how it is used in other places, especially when many words have more than one meaning DEPENDING on the CONTEXT. Leviticus says “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”. You are completely reading into that passage these ideas of macho men and whether the relationship is loving or not. Leviticus does not consider these things, it merely condemns the act itself. You can just as easily claim using your reasoning that when the Mosaic Law prohibits adultery, God isn’t really against it as long as it’s loving and consensual. And sexual prohibitions, such as against homosexual acts, set up by God would fall under his Moral law, which were not tied specifically to the Mosaic covenant, they still apply to us today

        Your interpretations in the posts I have read have been very shaky ones that appear to be largely self-serving. I would hope you can be open minded enough to examine your own motivations more closely, but I at least write in the hope that others aren’t drawn in by your nonsense.

  • Boris

    “Both Science and Religion doesn’t agree with homosexuality.” Science doesn’t care what you believe. You don’t believe in science. Neuroscientists have used experiments and demonstrations to prove conclusively that the notion of free will for humans is an illusion. Are you going to accept that? It’s true, there truther guy. Every Christian college and university in the world that teaches life sciences teaches evolution exactly as it is taught in secular schools, even Wheaton College. So do you accept evolution? Do you accept that the universe did not have a beginning? Do you accept that there is no Law of Causation in Physics? Do you accept that we humans are contributing to climate change? I doubt you accept any of these facts because your religion has made you a fact denier. Science isn’t served ala carte. All of modern science runs completely contrary to the teachings in your supposedly infallible holy book and that just infuriates you Bible thumpers to no end. If you deny any part of science then you are disqualified from appealing to science to support you superstitions and your lies. Got it? Now pick up a science book and learn something. You won’t because you fear advancing science more than ANYTHING and we both know that.

  • m-nj

    Mr. Brown wrote, “But I’m also quite aware that when we speak the truth in love and people actually hear what we’re saying (not the interpretation they put on our words but the real message of our words), if that message is received it will bring life not death.”

    I am not entirely in agreement with this. The outcome of Bible truth is determined by the Author of that truth… the oft quoted Isaiah 55 states in part “…My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” That means for some it will bring life, and for some it will bring judgement. To paraphrase 2 Cor 2:16 – to some, we (christians who speak the truth) are the fragrance of life; to others we is the aroma of death. Mr. Brown leans a little too far towards “free will”, so it might not sit well that the truth can bring life or death as God determines, not as man decides.

    • Steven

      There were many sins going on in S&G homosexuality was one of them.

      • m-nj

        did you respond to the wrong comment??

  • m-nj

    I also find it somewhat ironic that when christians cite Sodom as evidence that homosexuality is sinful, the pro-homosexual side will then cite Ezekiel 16 as saying the sin of Sodom was pride and injustice. OK, but at this very season we have the homosexuals not only having “pride” parades all over, but theiy are are also being unjust to a wide swath of people by denying them their religious and freedom of expression rights under the guise of “hate speech” and “anti-discrimination” laws. Heaping their inequity up the heavens, I’d say.

    • Steven

      God has not unsealed his wrath on upon the wicked because it is not time yet but there will be a day when will he will. the Bible says But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Matthew 24:36

    • Thisoldspouse

      Yep. Never expect consistency from the homosexual left.

  • Steven

    So many things I want to say but keep getting this ”Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by The Stream.” it’s kind of annoying.

  • Gary

    People who want the Bible to say something different than what it says don’t believe it now. If you could change what they complain most about, they would soon want something else changed. Anything in the Bible that will not endorse their sins, they will want to change.

  • Puddleglumm

    Excellent article.

  • Boris

    The article is not correct. The Bible has been getting rewritten for quite a while. I am about to prove it to you right here and right now. It’s been gradual, but the English translations are slowly being changed. I think exercise is really important for maintaining your weight as well as staying healthy and living longer. Does anybody disagree? Let’s see what the Bible says.
    “For bodily exercise profiteth little; but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.” – 1Tim 4:8 KJV
    So the King James Version of the Bible clearly says that exercise is of little profit especially when compared to godliness. This is an accurate rendering of the original Greek. I have the UBS Fourth Edition Greek New Testament and I read Koine Greek. My word for word wooden translation of this passage would be:
    “And for of body exercise towards little it is profitable…” Greek New Testament
    The King James Version of the Bible is a fairly accurate wooden rendering of the Greek New Testament. Now over the last century or so the Bible has undergone what we could call a “Hollywood makeover.” Unicorns became oxen, satyrs (a half-man, half-horse) are now called wild goats, dragons were renamed hyenas and this statement about exercise being of little value has been tampered with as well:
    “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” – NLJV
    Notice how the NKJV has retranslated the passage to say that exercise is now of “a little” value or profit. This is VERY important. The addition of the word “a” the indefinite article makes all the difference and makes it seem like the Bible now says exercise is of a little profit. For years Christians have complained that the Jehovah’s Witnesses incorrectly inserted the word “a” in the beginning of John’s Gospel in their Bible the New World Translation. So it says that Jesus is “a god” instead of God. However in Ancient Greek there is no indefinite article and we have to insert it where it goes when we translate Greek to English. The JW’s do this correctly; they have the right translation. But when the “a” is added to this NKJV passage of 1Timothy about exercise it doesn’t belong there. It’s part of the Bible’s “Hollywood makeover” which is being done to modernize the Bible and make it seem less absurd. Let’s see how the NIV translates this passage:
    “For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.” – NIV
    Now exercise according to the Bible is not just of “a little” profit but it is of “some value.” Look at this very carefully. Still don’t believe in evolution? The Bible is evolving right before your very eyes! God’s unchanging word is changing! It’s no wonder there are so many people who insist on sticking with the King James Version of the Bible. Look at how the New Living Translation translates this passage:
    “Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come. – NLT
    Now physical training is “good” according to the Bible! We’ve gone from of “little” profit to “a little profit” to “some value” to “good” in only about only forty years of this “Hollywood makeover” of the Bible. We all know physical exercise is good for us. Apparently whoever wrote 1Timothy was a bit unaware of the value of exercise. This might make it seem as though the Bible isn’t so divinely inspired especially when we read about other things like cockatrices, fiery serpents, satyrs, dragons, witches, etc. The passages of “scripture” that mention these things have been dishonestly removed, rewritten or edited beyond recognition from their original translation in the King James. So what do you think modern translations of the Bible will look like in the near future as translators try to get the Bible more in line with modern science? I can just see it now: “In the beginning, God set Darwinian Evolution in motion… and saw that it was good.” – New Universal Bible, 2020.

    • Ken Abbott

      The writer here shows little understanding of the process of translation. All translation is in some sense interpretation–languages rarely correlate on a one-to-one basis, especially when they come from different cultures and from different times. But the conscientious translator tries to render the text in a manner sufficient to convey as much as possible the original meaning to permit understanding on the part of the contemporary reader. Language and meaning shift over time. There are a number of archaisms preserved in the AV 1611 that are not understood by speakers of English in 2016. Furthermore, the quality and number of the texts available to modern translators of the Bible are greater than those that the translators of the AV 1611 had to work with.

      You are mistaken in your assertion that the NWT accurately translates John 1:1. If you really read Koine Greek as you claim, you do not read it very well. There is grammar to be had as well as vocabulary.

      Surely you recognize that the AV 1611 was not the “original translation” of the Bible into English? It was preceded by Wycliffe’s group translation from the Latin Vulgate and a series of English Bibles in the 16th century beginning with the efforts of William Tyndale. In fact, the most popular version of the Bible in existence at the time the AV 1611 project got off the ground was the Geneva Bible, which continued well into the 17th century to be the preferred translation of the English Puritans, some of whom brought it to these shores.

      • Boris

        I addressed your comments in a reply to Michael Gore. Like him you are nit-picking and ignoring the real issue, the Hollywood Makeover of the English Bible over the last 100 years or so.

        • Ken Abbott

          No, you didn’t. You simply displayed your unabashed ill-informed prejudices and penchant for ax-grinding. Until you become better acquainted with the realities of textual criticism, biblical translation, and church history, any further meaningful discussion is futile. Other readers here should be on notice that you are not to be trusted as a source of good information.

          • Boris

            I can read my Greek New Testament as well as anyone can, even Metzger. You only can read the distorted English translations and you talk down to me as if you know something I do not. I can be trusted simply because I am atheist. Truth is my authority. Authority is your truth. That no longer will fly in the modern world which is why your religion is disappearing faster than the glaciers in Glacier National Park. I’m sure you’re a climate change denialist, and evolution denialist, a cosmology denialist because in reality you are a TRUTH denialist. One way to make sure you’ll never find any truth is to assume you’ve already found all of it. It’s so easy to destroy theistic arguments. Truly low hanging fruit.

          • Ken Abbott

            Garden-variety Internet atheist troll garbage, refuted innumerable times as you would discover if you only had the intellectual integrity to do the required research. But you won’t–your atheism is a matter of the will, not the intellect. It gives you no credibility whatsoever, despite your vaunted (and badly mistaken) claims for objectivity. Again, other readers who come here should be alerted that for all your sound and fury your “arguments” signify nothing.

          • Boris

            “refuted innumerable times as you would discover if you only had the intellectual integrity to do the required research.” Exactly how was this refuted, by whom, when and where? Step up to the plate and I will demonstrate that your claims are as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet. So let’s see your” refutations” Ken. If you have the nerve to post anything because we both know you just made up what you said. Creationism and Intelligent Design Magic have been refuted and by your own Christian colleges and universities which all teach evolution just as it is taught in secular schools as you would discover if you only had the intellectual integrity to do the required research. But you won’t–your Christianity is a matter of the will, not the intellect. It gives you no credibility whatsoever, despite your vaunted (and badly mistaken) claims for objectivity. Again, other readers who come here should be alerted that for all your sound and fury your theistic “arguments” signify nothing. Touche. All your criticisms can easily be leveled at you. Your lack of self awareness would be astounding if you were not a Bible believer. Do you ever think at all?

          • Ken Abbott

            Well, I’ll give you this much–you do a marvelous imitation of a parrot. Or a mocking-bird.

          • Boris

            I knew you had no refutations Kenny Boy. When challenged Christians always back off and simply repeat their claims over and over and over and over as if they were not challenged and no objections were ever raised. These horrid debating ethics are a reflection of your Bronze Age ethics and morals which I already proved are subjective to the extreme. And go ahead a prove that morality is not objectively based on the value of human life itself. This is the only real system of morality and it’s one we’ve all used since there have been humans. POOF. Now if you don’t have anything to say, don’t waste my time with your religious drivel.

          • Ken Abbott

            How old are you, fourteen? Speaking of a waste of time…

            Enough. Despite all your huffing and puffing, you’re not a serious debate partner. My main reason for engaging was to pull back the curtain on the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oddity and warn people off your humbuggery.

          • Boris

            Yes thanks for doing that. I asked exactly how my position was refuted, by whom, when and where? You didn’t answer the question and I’m pretty sure people reading this will see you could not refute what you said you could. So you pulled back the curtain on yourself.

    • Michael Gore

      So… what you are saying is that because the KJV says ” bodily exercise profiteth little” and the NKJV says “bodily exercise profits a little”, ect. that people of that time had no understanding of the value of exercise and that the bible can’t be trusted?
      Can you tell me exactly how the meaning of that passage has even changed? All the versions tell you the same message, “bodily exercise only helps one aspect of your life, but a pursuit of godliness benefits all aspects of your life”. That’s what Paul is trying to say.
      It seems a little insane to say that during the first century, nobody noticed that doing more physical labor produced stronger bodies. In fact it probably would not be very hard to refute that. That’s like saying that people in that day didn’t know where babies came from because they didn’t have SCIENCE!!!!!
      And if you knew much about translations, you would know that the translator has to have give and take between word for word translation, and intelligibility. Translation is as much an Art as a Science. To claim that the reason for differences between translations is that they are trying to change the bible to make it more in line with Science is just bizarre, especially if this is your evidence… In fact, the more manuscripts we uncover, the closer we can get to the originals, and so any changes we would see actually tend to make it more accurate to what was originally written, not to make it more accurate to modern beliefs.

      • Boris

        I am talking about the Hollywood Makeover of the English Bible over the last 100 or so years. You’re nit-picking and trying to distract from the real issue a sign of the desperation of your position. The fanciful creatures mentioned in the earliest English translations have been dishonestly excised, rewritten or edited beyond recognition from the earlier translations. So “dragon” no longer means dragon, “cockatrice” no longer means cockatrice, “satyr” absolutely doesn’t mean satyr, “fiery serpent” wasn’t intended to mean a real fire breathing serpent, “witch” doesn’t actually mean witch, “unicorn” doesn’t mean unicorn and on and on and on trying to disguise the absurdities in the Bible from modern readers. And the most obvious case, the elephant in the room for you Great Pretenders is this nutty day-age “theory.” Oh “days” no longer means days anymore either! The article says you Christians are not willing to rewrite the Bible. I have proved conclusively that this is as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet. Christian translators have been dishonestly rewriting the English Bible for quite some time now. Now if you want to address the issues I have raised, go right ahead.

        • Michael Gore

          I’m not sure why you think things have changed so much in the last 100 years. It’s not as if we don’t have the original manuscripts, and many examples of bibles older than 100 years to look at. You don’t really have a good coherent point that I can directly address, so my answer does have to be a little more broad out of necessity.
          As to your claims about Unicorns and dragons, I think all of those references for the most part can be addressed reasonably. For the reference to Unicorns, it’s interesting to turn to an old dictionary to clear that up: The 1828 Websters dictionary (google it if you don’t believe me) lists the following for the word Unicorn:

          Unicorn
          U’NICORN, noun [Latin unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]
          1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
          2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.
          3. A fowl.
          fossil unicorn or fossil unicorn’s horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar.

          Now if this is the actual definition of the word from just under 200 years ago (notice not a single reference to a mythical horse-like creature), then maybe it’s not so bizarre that translators chose that particular word to use at that time. After all the KJV was written around 400 years ago. You are just not bothering to do a little bit of research here. We no longer use the word unicorn in modern translations because of the confusion that it would cause (you are kind of the case in point there). Not to mention the KJV translation of the bible is not the best translation as many more earlier manuscripts have been found and utilized since then. Some of these mythological beasts you reference are only listed in the KJV (like the cockatrice) and are probably there because the translators didn’t know what the word actually meant at the time and gave it a good guess.

          The problem is you are completely missing the big point here. There are no textual variances that affect any major point of Christian doctrine, and the vast majority of so called “changes” or differences are merely spelling or punctuation related, and do not interfere with our abililty to understand what the original text actually said. You are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel, as Jesus said.

          And even if I can’t always come up with an answer to every little wierd protest you have about the texts, they do absolutely nothing to harm the historical accounts we have of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Your arguments are a swing and a miss if that is the best you have.

          Thanks!

          • Boris

            “absolutely nothing to harm the historical accounts we have of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.” WHAT? What historical accounts? The name Jesus Christ is not mentioned anywhere in the historical record at any time, from anywhere or from any one. Neither any of the apostles including Paul. This just would not be possible because the Bible says both Jesus’ and Paul’s fame spread throughout the land. Except much like the famous kings David and Solomon no one ever heard of, no one ever heard or wrote about Jesus or Paul either. No contemporary writer mentions any of these personages.The authors of Matthew, Luke and even John plagiarized and embellished Mark’s Gospel to tell their stories, And the author of Mark was not an eyewitness by his own admission. The author tells us about events that happened when no one was around. He recounts conversations that occurred when no one was around to hear them. The author of Mark even tells us what a crowd was thinking and even that he was thinking wrong. How could he have known these things? I say he made them up. And the other gospel writers added the Virgin Birth and resurrection stories later. And these gospel writers were the churchmen themselves. The early Church quite obviously forged and faked the entire New Testament to compete with other religions for converts and their money as well as to claim divine authority over the entire world and to filch, wealth, power and young males to itself. We know Timothy and Titus are Fourth Century forgeries. Your religion was corrupt right from the start. The original deity is lost but it is a solar deity born to usher in the new Age of Pisces. So when you Bible thumpers put that fish sign on your cars that’s what you’re really worshiping.

          • Michael Gore

            You are defending a rather bizarre and lonely position to make the claim that “The name Jesus Christ is not mentioned anywhere in the historical record at any time, from anywhere or from any one”. Even most atheistic historical scholars would find that position indefensible. As for mentioning Jesus in the historical records, there are many that fall outside of the New Testament accounts, such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, just to name a few. None of these men were Christians, yet all affirm the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and even give insights to what the earliest followers believed.
            As for the claim that Mark was not an eye witness, I fully agree, neither was Luke. You see, we actually know who they were. Mark was also known in Acts as John Mark, and was a close associate of Peter. Likewise, Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and even states in his opening that “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” He is very up front that he has investigated and recieved the accounts from others, and compiled them into one account. To say that we cannot accept eyewitness testimony if they don’t put the pen to the paper themselves is not reasonable. Do you use these same standards for every aspect of your life or just apply them to the bible?

            When you say “We know Timothy and Titus are Fourth Century forgeries” what is your evidence for this, you are just asserting it. How did you come to that conclusion?

            You also claim that “The original deity is lost but it is a solar deity born to usher in the new Age of Pisces. Much like Moses represents the Ram which is why we Jews still blow the ram’s horn. So when you Bible thumpers put that fish sign on your cars that’s what you’re really worshiping. Astrology.”

            What do you mean by this, it doesn’t really make any sense. Help me understand what you actually believed happened? And what are your reasons for believing it. Can you tell me how the original message of Christianity was lost? When did it happen? At first glance your theory seems much harder to swallow than believing that the New Testament gives an accurate account. I’m having a hard time understanding where you are coming from on what you believe actually happened.

            Thanks!

          • Boris

            “Even most atheistic historical scholars would find that position indefensible.” Oh please you’re the one with the indefensible position. Trying to foist Second Century writers on me to prove something about the first part of the First Century. None of those writers were alive during the period Jesus supposedly existed and not even close. “None of these men were Christians, yet all affirm the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and even give insights to what the earliest followers believed.”
            Jesus of Nazareth (which did not exist in the First Century) is not mentioned in the historical record and you KNOW it. Crestus is a title given to a lot of different personages. Josephus claimed to have witnessed a 10 foot tall giant cast out demons. Do you believe Josephus? I don’t. Josephus claimed Hercules was a real person. Do you believe Josephus? I don’t. In college we read everything Josephus wrote. You Christians who haven’t read Josephus would not be so quick to use this liar as a witness if you ever bothered to read his propaganda. And the entry is a forgery done by Eusebius anyway which clearly demonstrates the sheer desperation of your position. “You see, we actually know who they were. Mark was also known in Acts as John Mark, and was a close associate of Peter.” That is not true. These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it and names were not attached to any of them until they were around for hundreds of years. So typical of a Christian you claim to know something you could not possibly know.
            “To say that we cannot accept eyewitness testimony if they don’t put the pen to the paper themselves is not reasonable. Do you use these same standards for every aspect of your life or just apply them to the bible?” I sure do. I’m willing to give testimonies the same weight they are given in a court of law. Like OJ’s testimony. I trust Christians to tell the truth as much as I would O.J. Simpson because my experience tells me neither can be trusted to tell the truth.
            “When you say “We know Timothy and Titus are Fourth Century forgeries” what is your evidence for this, you are just asserting it. How did you come to that conclusion?” This is taught in every seminary in the world except for places like Knox. Get any real Bible commentary and look it up for yourself. Greek students learn how to discern different writing styles and vocabulary and can tell the Pauline Epistles were not all written by the same person. This is common knowledge in the seminaries. The only reason you fundies still exist is that you are blissfully unaware of the results of modern scholarship.
            “What do you mean by this, it doesn’t really make any sense. Help me understand what you actually believed happened?” As late as the 5th Century Pope Leo issued an edict telling the Christians to stop worshiping the sun. Archaeological data have confirmed that the earliest known Christians were in small sects in and around Rome and on into Asia. When the early churchmen went looking for the Jerusalem Church described in the Bible, they were very disappointed because they could not find it and none of the residents had ever heard of it. They could not find any Christians in Palestine either because that is not where Christianity began. There’s an Episcopal minister who wrote about this but this information is in the libraries of most colleges and universities in the West. You can find it for yourself. Everything comes from something that preceded it. All the pictures of Jesus from antiquity picture him with a solar disc behind his head just as all the ancient solar deities or sun gods were pictured. So whether Jesus existed or not is beside the point I am making here. The early Christians came from sun worshiping cults. No one had magical conversions. The Acts of the Apostles is a fantasy novel and has nothing to do with the real history of the early church. This is a fun time to be studying this stuff because for the first time scholars are applying the scientific method to the study of the Bible. So we’re learning new stuff about how Christianity really did begin little by little every day now. I suggest you avail yourself to this information. Also we’ve done the same with the Koran in the West and even some Muslims helping out. Muhammad and his magical winged horse are complete fictions as well. So don’t feel bad about Jesus, the Muslim’s prophet didn’t exist either. Check it out. I had an Arabic professor and using ANET and other sources the students learned that Islam actually evolved from ancient Arabic moon worshiping cults. Look at the top of their Mosques. Dead giveaway huh? Now squint into the sun. See the cross? Again, dead giveaway. So anyway the Jews and Arabs have hated each other for so long now they have forgotten what the original disagreement was about. Was the sun the god or was the moon the god. It’s a simple as that. Really.

          • Michael Gore

            There is a lot there, so forgive me that I won’t cover the whole gambit of statements there. You keep talking about how everyone but Christians know these things to be true, but I have never even heard these positions being forwarded by major proponents of Christianity. Who exactly besides yourself is making the claim that Jesus did not exist and instead Christianity started as a sun worshiping cult?

          • Boris

            I am having trouble getting through. My posts are getting erased by the moderator. Imagine that. This lets us know what would happen to freedom of speech if people like the moderator ever got control of our government. Free exchange of ideas. Yeah sure.

          • Boris

            It really doesn’t matter to me who holds this position because it cannot change or influence what I already know. Gerald Massey (1828-1907), Tom Harpur, D.M. Murdock, Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963), Thomas Paine (1737-1809, Age of Reason), Zeitgeist Movie, Jesus never existed are a few that hold the sun worshiping view. Thomas Thompson (The Messiah Myth) Edward Carpenter, W.B Smith, Emilio Bossi, Arthur Drews, G.R.S. Mead, J.C. Stendel, Albert Kaltoff, Bruno Bauer, John M. Robertson, Emil Felden, Samuel Lublinski, Ryner Couchard, Georg Brandes, Charles Virolleaud, Elmer Barnes are writers who have contended that Jesus was not a historical person. Richard Carrier does very well defending the so-called mythicist position. So you could catch that on UTube or just check out Jesus never existed and get an idea of why we hold this position. My parents were Jewish and many of us believe the twelve tribes represent the twelve signs of the Zodiac. The golden calf actually represents the astrological age of Taurus (the Bull) and Moses represents the new age of Aries (the ram). These are all New Age religions and the people are supposed to rid themselves of the symbolism of the last age, which is why Moses was so angry. Moses and Joshua are solar deities as well. This explains the total lack of evidence for any of the Exodus events. Now personally I have never believed Jesus existed because even as a small child when I first heard one of the birth narratives it just sounded too much like a fairy tale. No one I knew believed it so I didn’t either. Unbelief is the natural position to take on any subject until something has been proved. The existence of God or Jesus has never been proved and at this late date it’s safe to assume it never will be.

          • Michael Gore

            I’m not sure why you start by say that it doesn’t matter who holds your position, then go on to list people that hold it, but to the point in question, I don’t want to go down a bunch of rabbit trails. Maybe it would be simpler to ask “How do you think Christianity originated” and what are your reasons for that belief?
            If Jesus didn’t exist, and Christianity was mythological in it’s basis, then how did the religion actually start? How do you deal with the 1 Cor 15:3-4 creed that Paul quotes that affirms the life/death/burial/resurrection of Jesus and his bodily appearances to many witnesses after this as being the earliest beliefs of the Christians. This is dated to be well within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, not a story that has evolved over hundreds of years. Not to mention we have many personal correspondences and sermons from the 1st and 2nd century church that affirm that these are the earliest beliefs and practices. There is actual real scholarship on these points that show that we can trust that we have what was believed and written in the 1st century.
            Now whether you believe that they were telling the truth is a different matter, but you have to actually be able to explain how these beliefs and practices came about contemporary to the events you say never occurred. So if Jesus never existed, why did so many people in a position to say they knew him come up with the idea and why would they die for it like the majority of Apostles did?

          • Boris

            “So if Jesus never existed, why did so many people in a position to say they knew him come up with the idea and why would they die for it like the majority of Apostles did?” Huh? Oh yeah that makes a lot of sense. What extrabiblical evidence do you have that anyone said they knew Jesus Christ? None. There’s not a mention of ANY of the apostles anywhere in the historical record. The apostles and Jesus are all part of the SAME FICTIONAL STORY. Jesus is an allegory for the sun and the disciples are the constellations. Duh. What you are doing is like trying to prove the existence of Superman by citing the actions and testimonies of Lois Lane, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen. It’s LUDICROUS! Would Perry, Lois and Jimmy have done what they did if Superman didn’t exist? Do you see how ridiculous you are being? Plus stories of Christian martyrdom are complete fabrications made up by the world’s largest fabrication factory, the Christian Church. Thankfully Candida Moss exposed this in her book “Myths of Persecution.” Religious persecution in a polytheistic Roman society that had more religious freedom than we do is just absurd. It’s impossible to get someone as brainwashed as you are to even try to think out of the box you put your brain in. Wow. I told you how archaeological data tells us Christianity started. Like all other religions it evolved from something that came before. Now with all the book and heretic burning Christians did a good job of disguising the truth about the religion’s origins. But we know the early Christians still worshiped the sun as late as the 5th Century. It’s a New Age religion which is why Jesus is supposedly born in the first year of the new age of Pisces, hence the fish sign. Do you understand where I am coming from now?

          • Michael Gore

            You continue to make all these claims about Christianity but provide absolutely no evidence for any of them. All you have been doing this whole time is asserting your opinion. I still have no reason to take any of these claims seriously. Its very easy to just say everything is some vast conspiracy but you have offered nothing of substance yet. You claim I am brainwashed but I’ve been offering reasons for my positions and you have not.

          • Boris

            Why don’t you just step up to the plate and prove me wrong? I told you my position and I have explained why I have this position. The Christians worshiped the sun and there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus or any of the apostles ever existed. Not a shred. My position explains these factors, yours does not. You have to claim that Second Century writers wrote about the early part of the First Century and we should accept these testimonies even though many Christian scholars have called entires about Crestus to be rank forgeries. I cannot deal with written testimonies as being reliable. You must or your religion unravels like a cheap sweater. So instead of attacking me, attack my ideas or admit you cannot.

          • Michael Gore

            You havn’t given a shred of evidence for the first Christians worshipping the sun, you haven’t given any evidence for Christianity being a copy of pagan practices, or any of the other claims you’ve made, you just keep asserting them and then saying “prove me wrong”. If you make a claim, you must bear the burden of proof to back that claim up. You have never explained why you hold these views, besides saying your parents believed it and other people believe it. But you don’t give any evidence that it’s a true belief, if you can’t see the difference, then this is pretty pointless.

          • Boris

            “You havn’t given a shred of evidence for the first Christians worshipping the sun,” Stop right there. You never proved that Jesus Christ or any of the apostles actually existed. You made an argument that Jesus’ followers would not have martyred themselves if Jesus didn’t exist. Then you tried to use characters in a story full of tales of sorcery and magical incantations as proof that another character in the story really existed. You can’t just ignore my objection like that and then demand I prove something. In a debate a moderator would make you respond to my objection for which I used the analogy of proving the existence of Superman by citing the testimonies of Lois Lane, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen. My objection is that there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus or any of the apostles actually existed. You cannot just ignore my objection, demand I prove something and then repeat the same stuff over and over and over as if no objection had ever been raised. A sure sign you cannot defend YOUR position. All the pictures of Jesus from Antiquity picture him with a solar disc behind his head just as other solar deities were pictured. Why should we assume that Jesus is any different when we have no more evidence for his existence than we do for Attis or Dionysus or Tammuz? Jesus starts his ministry in Aquarius with John the Water Bearer. Moves to Pisces to pick up the two FISHerman. I’ll tell you what you pick it up right there in Mark with a zodiac chart and you follow him around the constellations and prove it to yourself. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” Thomas Paine. I’m not positing any kind of new idea Michael. Just the one with most explanatory power.

          • Michael Gore

            So a quote from Thomas Paine is evidence that it is true? He lived 1700 years after the fact. Not to mention that your claim about the zodiac is just silly. This is the stuff of conspiracy theory. There has never been any association in early Christian sources or doctrine with zodiac symbolism. Can you show that a) The founders of Christianity lived contemporary to these beliefs and practices, b) that they had contact with these practices, and c) that there would have been any advantages to the cultural and religious Jews who founded Christianity to adopt these practices and beliefs? Otherwise I think it’s merely a just-so story worthy of the X-files.

            The reason you claim I have no evidence is that you seem to blanket dismiss all of the evidence out of hand without even examining it. There is good evidence to show the gospels were written in the first century, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses:

            The book of John, Luke, and Acts are full of incredibly accurate historical details such as precise geographical information, local customs unique to the time of the events, rulers of specific places, things that somebody writing a made up story 200 years later are not going to get correct. And why would such precision and detail be paid to the minor details while getting all of the major ones about who Jesus was and what he taught wrong?

            We can look at the writings of early chrisitan disciples, and follow a chain of custody from the Apostle John through these men into the 3rd century, and they believed about Jesus what John wrote in the first century. Ignatius(35-117AD), Papias(60-135AD) and Polycarp(69-155AD) were disciples of John. Irenaeus(120-202AD) Was a disciple of those three, and Hippolytus(170-236AD) was a disciple of Irenaeus. Their letters and sermons conform with the New Testament sources. At any rate, we can show that even in the first century, people believed Jesus was a real man, who had an earthly ministry, was persecuted by Jewish authorities, Killed on a roman cross, buried, on the 3rd day the tomb was empty, and afterwards his disciples believed that he had physically appeared to them. There is more detail than that of course but I’m trying to be as modest as possible with what there is. And you still have to deal with the writings of Paul, which New Testament historians firmly place in the 1st century, and deal with them in that context.

            You can’t really make the claim that Christianity was a form of Solar Paganism when it Originated in the middle of 1st century 2nd temple Judaism, was founded by the followers of a distinctly Jewish man named Jesus, and who’s first generation of core followers consisted of a large number of faithful Jews. What reason would they have to throw away their fiercely monotheistic Jewish tradition and embrace the pagan worshiping of the sun (which would lead to their loss of salvation according to Judaism) in order to follow a man that apparently never existed and do it at the time that he was supposed to have existed. Unless you just ignore the first 2 centuries of Christianity and act like this all started up in the 3rd century, your theory can’t hold any water.

            As far as the New Testament goes, with the wealth of manuscripts we have allow us to reconstruct the books of the new testament with great accuracy. You should read less Thomas Paine and read more from Bart Ehrman. He doesn’t believe Jesus was God, but thouroughly refutes the “Jesus Myther” position you hold in his book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. And while I obviously don’t agree with him on all his thoughts on the subject, he is no slouch on these matters. We literally have thousands of copies of partial or full new testament manuscripts in multiple languages, from a widespread geographical area within the first few centuries. They didn’t just appear there by magic, and if the church was going to “change” them at the time of Nicaea or Constantine, how would they possibly round them all up? Not to mention the number of surviving copies puts any other ancient historical documents to shame by far.

            As to why we should dismiss the historical mentions of Jesus by people such as Josephus or Tacitus, you never really gave a good answer. Josephus is a trusted Jewish historian of the late 1st and early 2nd century, and Tacitus is a trusted Roman source as well, why would we accept what they say about other issues then make excuses as to why we can’t trust them when they merely acknowledge the existence of Jesus as a man and talk about what the early followers believe. I’m not making any other claim besides that they just provide some corroboration.

            The historical Christian case is built circumstantially on a huge amount of different evidences (like any good case should be) that can’t just be knocked down by poking out one piece. If you would like a better look at some of these issues, I’d suggest some good books like Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. They can do a much better job of laying things out than I can in a post. But if you think there is no evidence for Christianity, you are just fooling yourself. You don’t have to agree with it, but you should stop with such extreme claims that are obviously false. I would just hope that you would drop your presuppositions and honestly look at the arguments from a neutral perspective, but that is ultimately up to you.

          • Boris

            You did exactly what I knew you would do. You completely ignored my demand that you supply contemporary extra biblical evidence that Jesus and the apostles actually existed. Then you marched forward making claims about these personages. Bad debating ethics. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have supplied no evidence that Jesus or the apostles actually existed so you have no basis whatsoever on which to make these kinds of bald assertions: “and follow a chain of custody from the Apostle John: a distinctly Jewish man named Jesus” You must first prove they existed before you make anymore claims about them. That is how it works in a debate. A moderator would make you respond to my objection or forfeit. So step up to the plate with contemporary extra biblical evidence that these people existed or stop making unsubstantiated claims about them.
            “There is good evidence to show the gospels were written in the first century, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses:”
            Name it and claim it. What eyewitnesses? You never proved there were any eyewitnesses.

            “And you still have to deal with the writings of Paul, which New Testament historians firmly place in the 1st century, and deal with them in that context.” Based on what exactly? Based on wish-thinking and nothing else.
            “(which would lead to their loss of salvation according to Judaism)” Oh please. My parents were Jewish. Salvation doesn’t mean flying off to a magic happyland after death in Judaism. There is no belief in life after death in Judaism which is proof that the connection between Judaism and Christianity is completely contrived by the Christian religion. I’ve never met a Jew that thinks there is even the tiniest connection between these two religions. It was contrived by Catholicism’s founder Constantine to try to get those pesky Jews on board with his new universal religion. It failed because the Jews understood their scriptures as allegory and the Christians literalized stories the Jews knew were not even remotely historical.

            “Bart Ehrman. He doesn’t believe Jesus was God, but thoroughly refutes the “Jesus Myther” position” No dice. He did not. In a debate with Robert Price, Ehrman tried to use the same intellectually dishonest argument you tried to foist on me, using fictional characters in a story to prove another fictional character in the SAME STORY actually existed. And Price use the analogy that Ehrman was essentially trying to prove the existence of Batman by citing the testimony of Robin the Boy Wonder. Ehrman panicked and his voice rose higher and higher in pitch as he claimed, “But scholars believe, they really really believe!” I’m not buying that argument from you or Bart Ehrman.
            “Josephus is a trusted Jewish historian of the late 1st and early 2nd century, and Tacitus is a trusted Roman source as well,” Trusted by who? Not me I read his stuff, all of it. The entries in the works of these men are forgeries, the ones in Josephus done by Eusebius. Origen was very familiar with Josephus and had those mentions of Chestus existed when Origen was alive he surely would have mentioned them. Eusebius produced the first known copy of Josephus with any mention of Crestus in it. Eusebius was not a truthful man to say the least. The Tacitus entry was not discovered until the 15th Century and again, just one copy in the hands of the Christian Church. Imagine that! What a coincidence! I studied everything Josephus wrote in college and it is apparent you’ve never read anything by this paid propagandist. Josephus said he saw a ten-foot tall giant cast out demons. Do you believe that? I don’t. Josephus wrote that Hercules was a real person. Do you believe that? I don’t. You Christians would not be so quick to cite this liar if you had ever actually read what he wrote.

          • Michael Gore

            This is completely pointless. You don’t even consider any viewpoint but your own, and have yet to give me any good reason to believe you have any credibility. I’m sorry but im moving on from this one. Thanks!

          • Boris

            No credibility? I have been on Christian radio as an invited guest. I even did Michael Brown’s show in September of 2008. I had to Email my credentials to Michaels’s assistant Eric before the show. I paid my dues. I read the books that you said were your best arguments and I was pretty detailed in telling you exactly why I cannot accept those arguments. You’re frustrated because I cut the legs off your arguments before they could walk and you could not establish an opening premise to base any arguments on, or after those failed, threats of eternal damnation for not accepting your point of view. Let’s just both be honest about what happened here. Peter supposedly went to Rome and caused a ruckus and Paul the same in Athens. These events or people do not appear anywhere in the historical record. I rest my case.

          • Michael Gore

            You lack credibility with me because you act with intellectual dishonesty. You make overly broad sweeping claims and assert your point of view as universal fact without giving any justification, then insist that I prove you wrong on unsubstantiated claims that you put forth. In this and another conversation there have been multiple points I have directly addressed and shown a problem with your position, and you merely move on or change the subject. I’ve shown in another conversation we have had that you are clearly pulling things out of context and using them invalidly, and seem to be clearly unable to even realize that you are doing it. You invite me to critique your rather weak exegesis on Romans 7 and then when issues are pointed out, you made the claim that you know what Paul meant better than he himself did. You are unwilling to even listen to another’s argument, but instead just do a lot of hand-waving and unreasonably throw out any evidence that can be brought in against your point of view without providing adequate reason for doing so. You haven’t cut the legs off my argument, you have been completely un-compelling in every way. This is the point where it just not seem that this discussion has any more productive value, even to bystanders who may be reading it (and I hope they do), so I will bring it to a close. Have a great day! Thanks for your time! I do hope that some day you will see God as he really is, because it really matters, but in the end, that’s not up to me! I’m sure we will “cross swords” again on this site at another time. Until then!

          • Boris

            I see God as he really is. Imaginary.

          • Boris

            I write for people observing my conversations. You helped me demonstrate how incredibly weak the case for a historical Jesus and his apostles really is. Thanks for playing. I know the people who try to make connections between Jesus and other godmen are stretching the facts. You accused me of doing that and I am not one of those who tries to make that case, the Dec 25 birth, crucifixions, resurrections, ascensions, 12 disciples, claiming to be the truth and the light. Sorry I did not make my position more clear. I think that stuff comes from a book, The Christ Conspiracy which is full of unsourced claims. I would suggest, Was Jesus a Myth? written in 1909 long before the modern day mythicists muddied the waters with intellectually dishonest claims and comparisons. A much more sensible treatment of the issue.

          • Boris

            “Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona.” What makes you think I haven’t read this garbage? These books do nothing but confirm unbelief. Warner Wallace banned me from his blog and erased all my posts after I crushed him in a debate, after reading his book. This ex-cop does not take criticism kindly, he’s nasty and mean spirited, nor does he believe in free speech. Had he won the debate my posts would not have been erased. McDowell is a prophecy hoaxer who often repeats himself, I guess to make it seem he has lot of “evidence.” Each of the prophecies listed by McDowell is confirmed on no other place but the Bible. We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described, especially the ones happening in heaven. I would not be too far off in noting that Jesus sitting at the right hand of God has not been verified scientifically. LOL. Before making the extraordinary claim that something magical happened, simple common sense tells us that we must first rule out the ordinary, far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to biblical prophecies. You Christians ignore the real reason prophetic literature was written in the first place. In Antiquity nobody knew when something may have been written. So when a letter or book comes around predicting what people were already experiencing they figured hey, this is a prophecy from the past. Now this fooled the ancients and did what it was supposed to do to placate them, gave them hope that everything would work itself out in the end because their particular God was in control. But you people, thousands of years later have no excuse for being so gullible. Can you prove the Book of Daniel is not a 2nd Century forgery written by two different authors in two different languages like most Bible commentaries say it is? Yeah prophecy shmophecy McDowell is as naive as can be. Habermas lost his wife and clings to his beliefs because he can’t stand the reality that he’s never going to see her again. Mike Licona uses the same flawed reasoning you and the rest of them do. He’s trying to prove the existence of Superman by citing the testimonies of Lois Lane, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen just like you all do. Christian apologetics are meant to deceive. The apologists give you these arguments knowing that people fearing for salvation can be made to believe just about anything and will accept any argument, no matter how spurious. But when you try to float these absurd arguments to critics you end up getting hammered with questions you cannot answer, demands for evidence you cannot deliver and counter arguments you cannot respond to. That is the position you are in right now. I would not want to be you. Ever.

          • Boris

            My posts are being hung up and erased by the people in charge of this blog. Obviously they have a lot to fear from someone like me, someone willing to speak the truth. I suggest we take this to one of Mike Licona’s Utube videos where my thoughts will not be censored by frightened religious fanatics. You pick it and I will follow you there.

          • Boris

            Sorry, Michael, for being curt. I forget who I am talking to when people butt into a conversation and I end up being called ignorant, a liar and a few other things. Plus I’m watching baseball when I do this. We atheists get frustrated when believers make bald assertions and then when called on them just ignore the critic they picked the fight with in the first place. Like hurling a rock a somebody and then running away before you get pounded. I appreciate the conversation and if it continues I’ll try to remember who I am talking to.

          • Boris

            By the way, what I am saying has been common knowledge outside of your religion for centuries. It’s nothing new. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.” -Thomas Paine

          • AndRebecca

            You are a Biblical scholar along the lines of the Puritans? You do know all of the schools in the Western World (all of the schools) were started for religious reasons, and to read and interpret the Bible in the original languages. Even the scientific subjects, such as archeology were started in order to investigate what is in the Bible.

          • Boris

            How do explain the fact that every Christian college and university in the world that teaches life sciences teaches evolution exactly as it is taught is secular schools? 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. Comment on that why don’t you?

          • AndRebecca

            Universities and colleges have been using Marxist approved textbooks for at least twenty-five years now, including all of the Christian ones who get money from the government. The students get a pretty good brainwashing in the schools today. And it doesn’t start in college. Hearing Darwin’s theory does not cause Christians to give up their faith. Children don’t have a mature faith in the first place, and before the Marxists took over, they weren’t presented with adult ideas because they are too immature to handle them. Part of what you think is Darwin’s theory is general science, and you are not including his racial theories which the Marxists really like. What do you think of the idea that something from nothing is something? Christians believe God created the world and everything in it. Many Christian scientists believe the creation mentioned in the Bible is accurate for a non-scientific work. The problem with Darwinism is that it is being used to get rid of Christianity by some very evil people. What do you like about atheistic totalitarian dictatorships?

          • Boris

            “Universities and colleges have been using Marxist approved textbooks for at least twenty-five years now, including all of the Christian ones who get money from the government.” Who is approving them? Karl Marx is dead. “The students get a pretty good brainwashing in the schools today.” Oh and home schooling is not about religious brainwashing? Give me a break. “And it doesn’t start in college. Hearing Darwin’s theory does not cause Christians to give up their faith.” No it doesn’t. Hearing Ken Ham’s, Kirk Cameron’s, Ray Comfort’s, Kent Hovind’s, Hank Hanegraaff’s, Frank Turek’s, Lee Strobel’s dishonest and ignorant claims about evolution is what makes 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. It’s the constant lying about science by creationists is what lets us all know Christianity is founded on and supported by nothing but lies, lies, lies and more lies. “Part of what you think is Darwin’s theory is general science, and you are not including his racial theories which the Marxists really like.” You’re a liar too because Darwin was an abolitionist. But that’s beside the point. What Darwin believed has nothing to do with what he discovered. Had Andrew Wallace gotten his book published first we would be talking about Wallace’s Theory of Evolution and most people would not even know who Charles Darwin was. Several scientists discovered natural selection pretty much simultaneously using different strands of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. “What do you think of the idea that something from nothing is something?” That is your belief that something came from nothing. That is NOT the scientific consensus. Read the scientific literature on cosmology before you expose your ignorance of the subject.
            “Christians believe God created the world and everything in it.’ Christians also believe a 600 year old goat herder built a ship the size of the Titanic and got 2 billion species on it. So Christians are wrong. Don’t be one if you don;t want to be wrong the rest of your life. Yikes! “The problem with Darwinism is that it is being used to get rid of Christianity by some very evil people.” The biological sciences have done more for the world in the last 100 years than Christianity did in the last 2000 by far. You are an ingrate because you would likely have died already from a disease we could not have cured if we hadn’t discovered how nature structures itself by natural selection. The Bible says God decides when people die. Then how come most of us are living a lot longer since evolution gave us all these new medicines and cures for diseases. Your holy book says sin causes death. Well science has germ theory to explain why people die. No intelligent person on this planet thinks Bible is wright and science is wrong about that. even you. “What do you like about atheistic totalitarian dictatorships?” Name one that exists anywhere.

          • AndRebecca

            I’m sorry you don’t know anything about what goes on in the schools. Didn’t you attend school? You are in a state of denial about the post-Christian world of today. And, you haven’t read Darwin’s “Descent of Man.” So, basically you don’t know what you are talking about. But, you sure get upset over this stuff. Any idea of what has happened in your past to cause this subject to be so traumatic? Christians started the modern world and modern science and don’t have a problem with it. Where did you get the idea that Christians don’t like science? Christians like truth in all forms. Science today is being misused for political purposes and that is plain to see, and yet you are missing it. Why? All of the socialist and communist countries are atheistic totalitarian dictatorships. They exist all over the world. They are very good at deception.

          • Boris

            “Where did you get the idea that Christians don’t like science?” From comments like this: “Science today is being misused for political purposes and that is plain to see, and yet you are missing it. Why?” Open mouth insert foot. ROFL! Your lack of self awareness would be astounding if you weren’t a Christian! Christians are the only people lying about science as you just did. Thanks for showing everyone reading this juts how much you hate and fear science. “All of the socialist and communist countries are atheistic totalitarian dictatorships. They exist all over the world. They are very good at deception.” How come you can’t name any then? You’re not so good at deception however. How come you could not name even one atheistic totalitarian dictatorships? Atheists have never had any political power. Stalin was a deist and an evolution denier too. His rejection of evolution as a bourgeoisie western philosophy and adoption of Lysenkoism a faith based pseudoscience like Intelligent Design Magic caused 20 million Russians to starve to death. So step up to plate and name ’em and claim ’em. The atheistic totalitarian dictatorships you claim exist.

          • AndRebecca

            You really need to get out and about. I haven’t lied about anything here. You are reading something I didn’t say. As to atheistic communist dictatorships how about Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, China, and North Korea and South Africa for starters. Russia is still a communist dictatorship, even though they have opened the door a little to the Christians…that’s part of their deception. WWI and WWII were caused by atheists and atheists killed more people in six decades than the entire religious population of the entire world killed in more than five thousand years.

          • AndRebecca

            P.S. as one PHD biology teacher told our class, biology is about sexual reproduction. And, the Bible is concerned with that also. Science and the Bible agree on just about everything.

          • Boris

            How you thumpers can just lie like that is amazing! All scientific findings are completely contrary to all the teachings in your supposedly infallible holy book. And you KNOW it or you would not be an evolution denialist, a climate change denialist and you would know that the universe did not come from nothing the way the Bible says. The Bible also says the earth is flat.

          • AndRebecca

            Your ignorance and hatred shows. You are a Christianophobe. The Western European world developed modern civilization and everything in it. The Western World was populated with Christians. So it follows scientifically that Christians created modern science. No one else did. They also started all of the modern schools where science is being taught.

          • Boris

            Scientific method states that no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision and even outright rebuttal. You Bible thumpers cannot accept the scientific method because you want there to be a final word that is never questioned and you demand that your religion gets that final word. Am I wrong about that? I didn’t think so. You Christers are not only not getting the final word you’re going to be ignored by the scientific community. And that just infuriates you and it’s the reason you hate and fear science. Got it? Not a phobe. Love the Christian hate the Christianity. Ouch. That HAD to hurt. Didn’t it now?

          • AndRebecca

            So, if there is no final word, why do you state that Darwinism is the final word? I don’t have any problem with the scientific method and neither do other Christians. Where are you getting these ideas? Why don’t you step outside and get a breath of fresh air. You might want to breathe into a paper bag for a time and then relax.

          • Boris

            “So, if there is no final word, why do you state that Darwinism is the final word?” When did I do that? There is no such thing as Darwinism. It’s a silly creationist invention to try to bring biology down to the level of the creationism. Evolution by Natural Selection is not static at all and you’d know that if you had ever read any of the scientific literature on the subject. But it’s obvious to me you only read the garbage creationist loons publish through Zondervan, the Bible publisher. ROFL! Okay I have had enough dishonesty and dishonest, tricky, unethical debating tactics from you. You couldn’t name one atheist totalitarian government and you ignored repeated demands that you prove what you said. So thanks for proving to everyone reading this you’re dishonest and have some really horrid debating ethics reflecting your awful morals. Not surprising because the Bible gives no basis for morality whatsoever. If anyone obeyed the Bible they’d be on death row and we all know that. So bug off. Don’t waste my time with your Christian lies, Christian bad ethics, Christian nonsense and your Christian ignorance and let’s throw dishonesty in there again.

          • AndRebecca

            Well, you’re going to have to argue with my dictionary which states Darwinism “A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.” Here’s a bunch of atheistic communist countries: China, North Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and Cuba and Venezuela. There are more. The Bible is all about good and bad and being able to develop one’s ability to distinguish between the two. Being able to do that is morality. Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. Wisdom: Understanding what is true, right or lasting. Wisdom is also common sense and good judgment.

          • Boris

            Although insect evolution is bad news for farmers, let’s consider for a moment the insect’s point of view. Suppose that you are among the tenth generation of grasshoppers to live in a farmer’s field. You have inherited an almost total immunity to the farmer’s brand of poison. Knowing nothing of your species’ recent evolution, nor of the near extermination of your forefathers, you marvel that the complex chemistry of your body is perfectly suited to resist insecticide. You ponder the unlikelihood that “random accident” designed your chemistry so precisely and efficaciously. You conclude that the only reasonable explanation for your highly developed state is the existence of a supernatural Creator. You scoff at, or even despise, your fellow grasshoppers that propose evolutionary theories explaining your immunity to insecticide. You consider the evolutionists to be immoral, lacking any basis for a system of ethics or grasshopper family values. You may even quote Scripture, “The foolish grasshopper hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”

          • AndRebecca

            After all your quest for scientific knowledge, you’ve come to the conclusion that insects can think on the same level of humans…Most children are more advanced in their thinking than you. You almost sound like Al Gore with your anthropomorphizing.

          • Boris

            You are too literal minded. The grasshopper story is an allegory that makes fun of YOU and other science denialists.

          • AndRebecca

            I’m not too literal minded. Your story is silly and childish.

          • Boris

            Exactly what is silly and childish about it? You’re just mad because the story mocks the stupidity of science denialists like you.

          • AndRebecca

            I suppose this is a parody of the Humanist Manifesto. It sure comes off that way. I don’t think that was your intention.

          • Boris

            No, the grasshopper represents evolution denialists like you. He thinks he was designed to be immune to the farmer’s poisons when actually his immunity is the result of evolution by natural selection, something he does not accept. Why do you not accept that you are the result of 4 billion years of evolution? I’ll tell you why. Evolution cancelled your one way ticket to the Christian magic happyland. You’re going to die and then you will not exist. Grim and I’m sorry you’re not mature enough to accept reality.

          • AndRebecca

            You are really out of the loop. I thought you kinda-mighta had some knowledge of what you are talking about and were trying to couch it in a childlike story, but I was wrong. You have probably never heard of the Humanist Manifesto, and you probably believe you are some kind of genius for thinking it up.

          • Boris

            Right I have never read the Humanist Manifesto. I have never even read about it. I’m interested in science and sports. Philosophy, ideologies, metaphysics, religion, – it’s all like restaurant with a 20,000 item menu and no food. You can have it. My story mocks people who think they are smarter than scientists. Like you. That’s why you don’t like the story.

          • AndRebecca

            I don’t know how old you are, but within the last twenty-five years the Marxists have taken over the publishing part of textbooks for all the schools. They approve of what anyone read in science and this makes science unscientific. You aren’t reading unbiased textbooks and so your science is as polluted as you think religion is. Actually, religion has been polluted by Marxists as well. There are all sorts of “churches” today where they don’t teach anything near what the Bible says. And, if science is so scientific, how come it causes you to hate? That’s not rational. Christians in the Western world started science. Darwin was born into a Christian family. He was surrounded by Christians. They did not harm him in any way. So, why the hate, bro?

          • Boris

            “Christians in the Western world started science” That is absolutely NOT true. When Marco Polo visited China in 1271, he found a place far more technologically advanced than anywhere in Western Europe. The Chinese were 200 years ahead of the Christians in Europe. They had already invented the abacus, canals and locks, gunpowder and fireworks, kites, paper money, the spinning wheel, printing presses, roads and hotels, suspension bridges, porcelain, movable sails and rudders, the crossbow, the compass, stirrups, the umbrella, metal clocks, alcohol and on and on. Marco Polo and the Europeans had never seen or even dreamed of these things. Not only that the Chinese were centuries ahead of the Christians in astronomy, physics, chemistry, meteorology, seismology, technology, engineering and mathematics ALL of which trace their origins to China and NOT Europe. Also the Chinese invented the concept of zero which was banned in Europe by the Church because of its obvious connotations. You really should research the propaganda your Christian apologists crank out before you repeat and get humiliated by an atheist. Sorry you even mentioned that huh? Yeah.

          • AndRebecca

            Boris, there’s ancient science and modern science. You’re spewing Marxist Revisionist history. The Chinese were very backward and had no modern civilization in the year 1800 and even in up to Nixon’s day when we started to trade with them. We sent people over there to build up their economy. You have an irrational, unscientific hatred of Christianity which you feed with garbage you get off of atheist/Leftist websites. You’ve been brainwashed.

          • Boris

            “You’re spewing Marxist Revisionist history.” So Marco Polo lied about what he found in China and the things he brought back he didn’t really bring back because he was spewing Marxist revisionist history. That is what you are saying and it’s as loony as the rest of your claims. Where and who are these Marxists? I don’t know anyone claiming to be a Marxist. You hurling that title indiscriminately at unnamed people who don’t hold your point of view proves nothing but how misguided and brainwashed YOU are. “you feed with garbage you get off of atheist/Leftist websites.” I thought I made it clear that I DO NOT READ ANYTHING ON ANY WEBSITES. No philosophy, no metaphysics, no ideology, no politics, none of it. I read about science and sports because scientists and sportscasters are the world’s last truth tellers. Now just leave me alone. You lied about Christians inventing science. Go AWAY.

          • AndRebecca

            Have you ever heard of the cradles of civilization? The cradles were not advanced. Ancient China did not have an advanced civilization or science as compared to modern civilization and science. As for Marxism and atheism, your ideas are coming from somewhere. They certainly aren’t your own.

          • AndRebecca

            I should have stated Christians started “Modern” science. There was science in Ancient China. They did not invent Modern Science. Why the hate, bro?

          • Boris

            You shouldn’t have stated anything. You don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t post anything else directed at me. I’m not wasting my time with your nonsense.

          • AndRebecca

            God loves you.

    • AndRebecca

      The “exercise” quote you mention in the two versions has the same idea behind it in both. And, by your problem with this subject, you show you’ve totally missed the point.

  • Gary

    Isn’t there already a “gay bible”.

    • Getreal

      Yes, its called the Queen James Bible which came out in 2012. They have conveniently revised all the offensive texts to justify their debauchery.

  • My Mothers Daughter

    Are you all kidding me… are your descendents of Isreal, cause you all aught to look at where your own history is and stay out of Judgement, so many comments on what you believe He says or He will do, thru a bbbbook, mind you, a book to justify your Judgement. Wake up, wake up!

  • Ross Pomroy

    Being homosexual is no different than others sins. We are all sinners. It’s about being repentant for those sins and using self control to avoid sin in the future. Are any of us perfect? No. We need God’s grace and that alone to be a saved Christian.

    • brothergc

      I agree but it seems that the LBGT wants to single out this one sin , oh how hard they fight to protect that sin

    • This is perhaps the only “sin” that is based on the way people are made by God. God does not make junk – and God does not make mistakes. (No, there are transgender people who are also made different by God) Those who deny God the right to create human beings who are diverse and different might wonder when the Day of Judgment comes and they find themselves numbered among the goats.

      Though, it would certainly be sinful for a person God created to be *straight* to act against their nature.

      • Thisoldspouse

        So, by your “logic,” any proclivity found in people is made by God? Pedophiles rejoice!!!

        • Are you suggesting that God makes mistakes? It may be argued that pedophilia is not innate, but is the result of having been abused as a child. I was in seminary with Dino Cinel in the 1960’s.. At the time, I did not know he had pedophilic tendencies. I did later follow the news about him, because he was someone I knew. Apparently, he had been abused as a teenager, and the psychological scars from that led him to have similar desires. His method of coping was to find young men who were of legal age but “looked younger” and videotape his activities with them. The result is that he was never prosecuted. I also note from the news coverage that Dino is heterosexual – by 1993 after being defrocked as a priest, he married a woman. It appears that most pedophiles are heterosexually oriented, even if they are men who abuse boys.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Wrong again. Pedophilia has been declared a “sexual orientation,” just like same-sex attraction. Either God made people that way, or he didn’t.

          • The only people who think of pedophilia as a sexual orientation, see “sexual orientation” as also including animals, trees and other plants, inanimate objects and the recently deceased. Fetishes and paraphilias are not sexual orientations – yet it it possible that causation is hardwired in the brain of those with these fetishes and paraphilias – if that is the case, and this is the way God made them, that is something you might want to take up with the Creator. (It may well be that science may at some point prove that “free will” does not actually exist – in which case there ought to be a discussion as to appropriate societal remedies against people who cannot help acting in a manner that harms other people. That is more of a social science one than a religious one, though appropriate religious belief should lead one to believe that society should treat such people compassionately.)

          • Carl I

            Cow

          • Thisoldspouse

            He’s a cross-dressing man.

          • Thisoldspouse

            You are sorely behind the current science. The APA has already deemed pedophilia a sexual orientation.

          • I responded more fully to another comment you made on this – the short answer is that the APA made a mistake and it has been corrected – so they did, briefly, classify it that way. However it was an error and has been corrected.

            I also note that the APA indicates that at least some cases of pedophilic sexual interest are not innate.

      • Ross Pomroy

        Actually we are all born sinners and have to show restraint in not stealing,murdering or any other sinful behavior. So your argument is not. It’s an excuse for participating in sin.

  • Next, let’s look at Sodom and Gomorrah. It isn’t gay. Yes, I know that before he became Pope, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that “everyone knows” what the sin of Sodom was. But it isn’t a gay thing – it’s violent inhospitality by macho men who planned to treat Lot’s visitoprs as “less than women.”

    • brothergc

      again you err not knowing the scriptures , don,t know why your posting but their are a lot of people here who Know the Word and can see how much you are in error

      • RoundRocker

        Ezekiel 16:49.

        • brothergc

          she was in reference to the nation , just like we reference our inanimate objects as “her ” or “she is a good car ” We have even called the USA “she”
          again You err

          • RoundRocker

            I know “she” refers to Sodom. How much clearer can it be when Ezekiel says “This was the sin of your sister Sodom…”?

          • brothergc

            sodom was the name of the nation read the whole chapter and quit cherry picking verses to fit your view

    • Jim Walker

      From what you post, I can confirm that you believe everyone else who have their own opinions of the Bible, than the Bible itself.
      Why can’t you simply pray to God to open your eyes and mind before you read the Bible, as God will be your teacher instead of fools.

    • Thisoldspouse

      Not that lie again. Wrong, as usual. Peter wrote that Lot, a resident, walked through the streets daily and witnesses the depravity that was practiced there. (2 Peter 2:7-8) It wasn’t mere “inhospitality.”

      • Depravity is a *very* broad term. Hostility toward strangers is one aspect, particularly if that is coupled with an indifference to human life. Treating women as less than human, exemplified by the fact that the citizens wanted to use the visitors the way they used women, does not imply any sort of loving relationship. One might legitimately see a promiscuous so-called “gay lifestyle” (or promiscuity in general, with straight people, too), where there is no love, just people using other people for self gratification, as being “depraved.” But when two are in love and become one, like David and Jonathan, becoming one soul, that is not depravity – love is an antithesis to depravity.

        The Bible also calls Lot a just man – but he offered his daughters as a replacement for the visitors – luckily the visitors pulled him back and slammed the door. The daughters, held in so little regard by their father, got even later when they thought they were the last people on earth. (Yes, I am aware that some people think that the citizens of Sodom would not have wanted the girls – but that is not a warranted assumption.)

        • Thisoldspouse

          God, through his chosen prophets, declared Lot a righteous man, and yet you contradict God.

          You have no credibility whatsoever in this discussion.

          • If you have daughters, I truly pity them. I never contradicted God at all, just observed that Lot did not regard his daughters as having intrinsic worth. If that is righteous and just *today,* one can draw one’s own conclusions as to how you might treat a girl-child.

            Keep in mind that Lot’s righteousness can be seen as relative to the Men of Sodom – a *very* low standard.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Read the verse again in 2 Peter. If you discard scripture so easily, you have no regard for it, God’s word.

  • Moving on, how about 1 Samuel 18 – traditional interpretations of the “becoming one soul” in 1 Sam 18:3 is that David and Jonathan were merely best buddies. But it could have been a same-sex marriage, this “becoming one soul.” The more literal Bible translations of a later verse in the chapter see David becoming Saul;’s son-in-law “a second time” when David also marries Saul’s daughter (meaning David might have been bisexual in a culture that accepted polygamy). There is more evidence later in 1 Samuel and in 2 Samuel 1 that might confirm that God approves of same-sex marriage.

    • RoundRocker

      Also David speaking of Jonathan after his death the verse that says “Greatly beloved were you to me;

      your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.””

      • Palamas

        Which of course means it must be sexual love. What is it about modern liberals that they are unable to conceive of a same-sex love that does not express itself sexually?

        • Yes, but it *could* also have been a sexual love. True, it could be that David and Jonathan were merely best buddies, but how about that part where they are kissing each other – the way it is described is doesn’t seem like a formal greeting kiss and hug.

          • AndRebecca

            It could mean sexual love if God hadn’t condemned sexual love between men and even between women throughout the Bible. What else have you gotten out of the Bible besides a misinterpretation of some of the verses?

          • The thing is, the interpretations that use the Bible to condemn same-sex relationships, instead of understanding that the “clobber verses” were condemnations of worship practices among certain orgiastic religions common at the time, the macho inhospitality of Sodom, and pedophilia as practiced among the Greeks, create a Christianity that causes harm to people who are different.
            Any religion that does not respect human beings who are created by God to be different, whether it be race, sexual orientation or other immutable characteristics, cannot be a valid religion. By continuing to misuse the Bible to demean and discriminate against LGBTQ people, some adherents of Christianity make their religion one that does great harm.

          • AndRebecca

            It is clear in the Bible that God doesn’t want His People to do anything like the surrounding tribes. He want them to be pure and clean according to His standards. The Unitarians are behind the idea that a person can sin and still be clean. The Unitarians are behind getting rid of Christianity. The Unitarians a behind NPR and PBS and so control what you see on TV and hear on the radio. Like them, you don’t believe in religious freedom. You are willing to do whatever it takes to have no religious freedom… So many,many evils are coming out of this LGBT movement.

      • Jim Walker

        hahahaaaa…. you ought to worry of your father’s love if that is what you believe in.

      • That is the 2 Sam. 1 reference to which I alluded! Thanks.

    • Gary

      You are a liar. There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that God approves of either homosexuality or ssm. God also hates liars.

    • AndRebecca

      Don’t you think you can love a person in some other way besides sexual?

  • The Leviticus references may be to what the men of Sodom were planning – perhaps executing the victim as well as the perpetrator was more a mercy killing.

  • The “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” in Timothy? Not gay. More like pedophiles.

    • Palamas

      Like all your other posts on this thread this is nothing more than assertion of personal opinion. If you need to keep repeating this stuff so that you’ll remain convinced of what you want to believe, feel free. Comments like this persuade no one.

      • brothergc

        isn,t that the truth ! 😀 I do not understand why they even bother , what they think that they are going to change what I can read In my bible ? Or maybe they think that they can convert someone ? The more That they post the more they show their ignorance

        • Mt. 7:6

          • Thisoldspouse

            You’re not even a woman, although you pretend to be one. How much credibility do you warrant?

          • Ad hominem arguments lack merit. Your assumptions are in disagreement with the prevailing scientific wisdom. Should I in turn assume that you reject other scientce and believe that the earth is flat like a saucer, and is covered by the inverted dome of the firmament that separates the “waters above” from the “waters below?” (If so, Ken Ham has a new exhibit you might be excited to visit!)

          • Thisoldspouse

            Ah! So you are a cross-dressing man. You freaks can’t hide the truth, fake “science” notwithstanding.

          • Texas must be hot, this time of year, I guess that will prepare you for the Day of Judgment. Mt. 25:38-46

  • According to some sources, early Christianity had blessings for David-and-Jonathin style couples. (example Boswell’s book)

    • brothergc

      You should also consider
      rev 22

      18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

      19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

    • Palamas

      Nothing like depending on pseudo-scholarship to make one’s case. Even Boswell was forced to admit before he died that many if not most of his re-interpretations of ancient texts was driven by politics and self-justification rather than history or the texts themselves.

  • One did not have to “change” the story in Genesis about the descendants of Ham to stop justifying the enslavement of people taken from sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants. Though the Southern Baptist Convention only relatively recently abandoned that interpretation.

    • AndRebecca

      Actually, not all of the Southern Baptist Convention ever went along with enslavement. And, after the Civil War, they got busy doing their best for the ex-slaves.

  • One can look at the Old Testament carefully, and find in it an evolution of the understanding of God, from the traces of polytheism of the plural Elohim (interpreted by many Christians as a reference to the persons of the Trinity), through the angry genocidal tribal God who is stronger than the tribal gods of other nations, to the loving God we find In Isaiah. Then in the New Testament, we go further – to a God of Love who is a Father. Not just Jesus’ father, but ours as well.

    Islam takes a step backward and restores the angry tribal god-concept.

    But for some Christians, that angry genocidal tribal god still resonates. When I was in high school, the sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, was required reading – evoking a very early OT god-concept – the sort of thing popular among those of a more Calvinist bent.

    In some ways, it’s more that we create our understanding of God by creating God in *our* image and likeness, instead of the other way around (Gen. 1:27) – and the image of God we “create” may well be more reflective of our own natures than we may think.

    Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Not at all. Do some Christians interpret the Bible in such a way? Yes they do. How does their understanding of God reflect on them?

    • brothergc

      nice try but I can read just fine

      1st cor 6
      “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

      Romans 1 26
      “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

      Leviticus 18

      You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination

      how you get anything esle out of this ? Guess You had to have help

    • Jim Walker

      Read the Bible and you will find God’s character in full spectrum. God is Love and that encompasses all.
      Jehovah Jireh – Our Provider
      Jehovah Nissi – Our Banner of Victory
      Jehovah Rapha – Our Healer
      Jehovah Rohi – Our Shepherd
      Jehovah Shalom – Our Peace
      Jehovah Shammah – Always with us
      Jehovah Tsidkenu – Our Righteousness
      Jehovah M’Kaddesh – Our Sanctifier

    • AndRebecca

      I’m happy to hear you read Jonathan Edwards in High School and not just diversity texts. I didn’t know they still used actual classics in any of the schools anymore. Jonathan Edwards was brilliant and the leading intellectual in New England. His education was way beyond what they offer in schools today. You might want to reread him. The Bible can be looked at by non-Christians as a decent way to live. If you are going to do that, you will see it not only states what not to do, but what to do. Starting in Genesis it says for one man and one woman to get married and it goes on from there about this particular relationship. There are references to the one man one woman relationship throughout the Bible. And, anyone familiar with the “sexual revolution,” would know the idea is to get rid of Christian thought on the subject, and to even get rid of Christian marriage altogether.

      • Buck Hondo

        The sexual revolution wasn’t an attempt to get rid of Christian thought or Christian marriage altogether. It’s not zero-sum. Recognizing same-sex marriages doesn’t diminish Christian marriages. Being inclusive of all doesn’t mean “getting rid of” the others. Telling people that they don’t have to abide by Christian teaching on the subject isn’t the same as telling people they need to work to get rid of Christian marriage or abolish Christian thoughts (as if that were even possible). This is the essence of pluralism. It’s also settled, so Christian energy could probably be better spent in some area other than your neighbor’s bedroom. You do you and don’t worry so much about everybody else’s eternal soul. I don’t think the gods will judge you by voting district or media market.

        • AndRebecca

          You’re wrong. The sexual revolution is about more than what homosexuals do in public. But, you are semi-right about it having to do with pluralism. Recognizing different views as having equal value is a big part of it. The atheist Karl Marx was for homosexuality and that is what homosexual marriage is all about. Marxism is a radical reaction against Christianity. Christianity is keeping the Marxists from controlling the whole world.

          • Buck Hondo

            I didn’t mean to imply that the SR was only about homosexuality in public. I don’t think that. I disagree with you on every other point you made. Cheers!

          • AndRebecca

            So you don’t think marriages, recognition by the government, trans-genders in the military, gay pride parades, teaching homosexuality in the schools is public? What world do you live in?

          • Buck Hondo

            I live in this world. You’re just putting words in my mouth. Go away.

          • AndRebecca

            I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but thoughts in your head. Obviously I’ve attempted the impossible.

          • Buck Hondo

            Okay, thank you.

  • brothergc

    a superb article Dr Brown but I suspect their are those who refuse to see , will fight to protect their sin , and insist on changing the written word to accommodate their sin . But what they do not understand once You do that ( and We will not ) then where do you draw the line ? All sins become fair play in that case scenario and the bible becomes meaningless Religion

    • Buck Hondo

      You’re exactly right. The bible becomes meaningless. Squad goals!

  • davidrev17

    Would someone please demonstrate, Dr. Brown included, where the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (both OT/NT) teach – plainly or otherwise – just WHY it is that heterose@ual (straight) individuals, either male or female, must remain celibate until marrying someone of the opposite se$ – this means NO [fornication = Greek “porneia”] whatsoever, and sexual purity is the biblical norm in thought, word & deed; yet, same-se#-related [“porneia”] between males or females, somehow receive the proverbial “pass” from either the “Holy One of Israel,” or the Lord Yeshua/Jesus??

  • DMCasey

    As with any sin the Lord clearly defines in Scripture, there simply are no ‘loopholes’ for making exceptions for our particular propensity. Jesus bore the sin of those he calls to himself. The preciousness of the price He paid cannot be fathomed by any of us. To compromise just because a person struggling with homosexuality is a dear family member is basically telling the Lord His dying didn’t mean that much to us. God forbid!

  • davidrev17

    Would someone please demonstrate, Dr. Brown included, where the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (both OT/NT) teach – plainly or otherwise – just WHY it is that heterose☆ual/”straight” individuals, either male or female, must remain celibate until marrying someone of the opposite se☆ – and this means NO fornication [Greek = “porneia”] is to be practiced, so se☆ual purity is the biblical norm in thought, word & deed; yet, same-se☆-related [“porneia”] between males & females, somehow receives (for some reason?) the proverbial “pass,” from either the “Holy One of Israel,” or the Lord Yeshua/Jesus?? Where is this taught in Scripture?”

    And I ask this highly relevant question – to this unnecessarily tiresome debate – simply because the Holy Bible clearly teaches that heterose☆ual individuals MUST indeed remain celibate, until marrying someone of the opposite se☆, i.e., meaning no “porneia” is to become the practicing norm whatsoever, in thought, word, or deed.

  • Gregory Peterson

    Oh good grief. Nothing like resurrecting pro-slavery rhetoric against yet another minority group.

  • Gregory Peterson

    “no new textual, archeological (sic), sociological, anthropological or philological discoveries have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently.”

    Right…as if you’re in any way an expert in archaeology, sociology, anthropology (unlike with my colleagues and members of my family. I even have more credentials in sociology, having picked up a Bachelors in that discipline from back when I was studying art.)

  • suddenseer

    To be brief, i just want to address the twisted logic of the scripture cherry picking theists. You use Leviticus “mankind shall not lay down with mankind, it is an abomination” (my paraphrase sorry) You refuse to scroll down a few verses while you munch on your shellfish lunch. Eating shellfish is ok in this dispensation, but mankind laying with mankind isn’t.

    Go read the red letters in the 4 gospels you will find the second member of the triune godhead interestingly mute on the subject. If it was such a big sin (abomination) 5th grade logic would tell us it must not be on his mind since he did not bother to mention it even once! He sure seemed concerned about many other sins mentioned in the old testament.
    The apostle Paul mentioned several times, but Peter was quite. Peter, and Paul both filled with the same holy ghost argued in public over what god really meant about doctrine.

    In the apocalypse, John mentions, “effeminate” not going to heaven. The ancient, and modern usages of that word are not in agreement. In fact, there is not an ancient Hebrew word for, “homosexual”.

    Paul, Peter, and probably John apparently did not agree on much. Paul seems to think he knows Jesus better, but he wasn’t with him. The authors of the 4 gospels were supposed to be eyewitnesses, yet sometimes they have 4 differing opinions of the same events.

    You folks keep cherry picking your bible verses to justify your hatred. You never know, you may end up baking in the lake!

    • Jim Walker

      Eating shellfish and wearing linen mixed with wool ?
      This are Mosaic laws for the Jews to be sanctified, to make a distinctive separation from the Gentiles, not to be the same as they do.
      But Lord Jesus has broken that with his death on the cross and salvation is for Jews and Gentiles.

    • The prohibition against shellfish was a ritual prohibition, which is why Christianity feels that it can ignore it. But, as you note, the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality are also ritual.

      • suddenseer

        My point exactly. I hear my fundie family quoting LEV 18 to justify their hatred of LGBT folks. They seem to not understand that an abomination is not a sin. It means you are ritually unpure.

        The synoptic gospels, and John do not record Jesus mentioning homosexual acts, not even once. Yet he called a woman a bit cheaper (dog)

        The danger I see in making too strong a theology from the epistles is because it is like listening to a person having a conversation on their phone. One can onlyhear one side of the dialog.

        • brothergc

          no homosexuality is a sin and I proved it in the Word , Just like fornicators, idolatery, adultery, stealing. lying and so on

          God does not “hate ” You He loves all sinners and saints for God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son.

          ” record Jesus mentioning homosexual acts”
          realy their is a lot of sins Jesus did not call out by name so what are You trying to say ?
          If I used that Logic then Jesus must be Pro sin ? God forbid

      • brothergc

        “Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality are also ritual.”

        realy ? Well here is a few more that will prove you Wong
        1st cor

        “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

        romans 1-26

        “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

        and lev 18
        “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

        lev 20
        “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act

    • brothergc

      You confuse hate with love , is it hate if I tell you You have a big growth on you back ? Would you want to know the truth or a lie ?
      Sin Seperates Us From God no matter what the sin that is why Jesus came to the Cross

      • suddenseer

        Try again. That, and other words for homosexual are modern. There are modern hebrew words for,”nuclear missles” . Those words did not exist in ancient times. The word “homosexual” did not appear in the English lexicon until the late 19th century. Homosexual did not appear in an English bible until the RSV 1946.

        • brothergc

          so your trying to say that gays did not exist back then ? andif they did then Your just nit picking about modern language vs old language and what is the point . Does not change what My bible says or will it change what the majority of Christians believe no matter what BS you post

          • Kepha Hor

            You miss the point. “Abusers of themselves with men” existed in Paul’s discourse. Names we give, including neologisms coined by 19th century German psychologists, describe things that people in other times described by different terms. Brothergc, you’re very witty, but also very poorly educated.

      • suddenseer

        A strawman argument at best. Those are MODERN Hebrew words. There is a word for,”nuclear missle” in modern Hebrew. I’m referring to bronze age OT hebrew. I apologize for not being more precise.

        The word ,”homosexual” did not appear in the English lexicon until the late 19th century. The word was not translated into a bible until the 1946 RSV.

        A “sodomite” simply means one from Sodom, just as a , “canannite” is one from Canaan.

        • brothergc

          A “sodomite” simply means one from Sodom
          really , well I can remember when sodomy was a crime In the United states , so what were they being prosucuted for ? Being from Sodom ?

    • brothergc

      You folks keep cherry picking your bible verses to justify your hatred.

      The vast majority of Christians do not “Hate” as You claim But I have seen them teed off when when people try to rewrite the Bible ( Queen james bible comes to mind) Put up advertising campaign that sexualized images of the Virgin Mary.

      Make death threats To Dr Brown , Take Christian bakes to court because they will not bake a wedding cake ( need I go on ?)
      And You can’t figure out why That might make some Christians mad as a hornet ?

    • Kepha Hor

      Good. Now, when I read in Leviticus, “Love thy neighbor as myself”, I can reject it as a superstition of Bronze Age Semitic nomads and hate anyone I wish to hate. Yummy!

    • Tabitha Joy

      I think you are trying to say that God,Jesus and the Holy spirit do not agree on some things which is not true.All parts of the bible are inspired by God and when Paul addresses homosexuality it is inspired by God .Peter goes ahead to validate Paul’s writings as being given to him by spiritual insight – 2 Peter 3:15. peter remains silent about it because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write on different matters. When Paul gives his own opinion he clearly states it as so-1 Corinthians 7:12. What he says is therefore not his opinion.The real question is do we believe that the bible is true and the word of God or not.

  • Homosexuals can be right with your interpretation of God if they’re just celibate? OK, show us how it’s done. Show us that it’s doable. Live a celibate life.

    What’s that? Oh, you don’t have to do so because you happened to have been born with the correct sexual preference. Ah, how convenient. I love it when someone demands a burden for someone else which is no burden to him.

    • brothergc

      please , can the attitude, it can be done . I am a Straight Christian , single and clibate , Been that way over 10 years and it is by choice

      • Thanks for sharing. Yes, I’m sure it can be done. What I have a hard time with is demanding that others take that hard road. You want to do it and find value in that suffering? That’s great. But why impose that on others who have no desire for the suffering?

        • brothergc

          uhh , “suffering ” ?? no I do not suffer as You put it . No ones “imposing anything” You have a choice . BUT if You want to live By the Bible then this scripture comes to mind

          James 1-22 NKJ
          But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.
          You are free to accept or reject Jesus it is realy that simple

          • You’re saying that homosexuals would experience no discomfort by being celibate? I’d need some evidence of that.

            And just to be clear, you’re only asking for homosexuals to be celibate if they want to be good Christians, right? You don’t think that this is necessary for others.

          • brothergc

            “And just to be clear, you’re only asking for homosexuals to be celibate if they want to be good Christians, right? You don’t think that this is necessary for others”

            For a non believer that would be a true statment . for the beliver You can not be a , shall we say “intimate relationship ” ( if you get my drift) outside of holy matrimony

            . That holy matrimony would consist of one biological male and one biological female

            This is what We believe acording to Genesis

            26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

            27 So God created mankind in his own image,
            in the image of God he created them;
            male and female he created them.

            28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it

          • Believe whatever you want to believe. I’m more concerned with any demands you might make on non-Christians (taking away rights to abortions, same-sex marriages, and that sort of thing).

            That holy matrimony would consist of one biological male and one biological female

            If you imagine that God is against polygamy, you’re reading your own beliefs into the Bible.

          • brothergc

            I do not “demand ” anything of anyone . That would violate My faith .God gave Us ALL free will to choose .

            Please do not confuse What I say when I say “That holy matrimony would consist of one biological male and one biological female” I am refering to with in the contex of Christian faith and The Word. Which is why I posted scripture to express that faith .

          • The Old Testament case in favor of polygamy is quite clear. God has no problem with it. You twist it if you imagine that it argues against it (except in specific cases).

            Abraham had two wives. Jacob also had two (or four, depending on how you count them). Solomon had 700.

            God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Sam. 12:8). God has his complaints about David, but polygamy isn’t one of them.

          • brothergc

            no sir that is not what God ORIGNALY intended

            When God created the universe, He did things in a very specific manner. Those descriptions are provided for us in Genesis 1–2. At the end of His creative activity, God pronounced the things He had made as being “very good”

            In Genesis 2 we learn the details of the creation of mankind. After creating Adam from the dust of the ground, God presented the beasts of the field and the birds of the air to Adam to name. When Adam found no suitable helper, God formed the first woman from Adam’s side

            And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

            And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man

            And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
            Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

            Let’s look closely at this passage and note several key phrases that indicate God’s intent for marriage to be monogamous—one man for one woman. First, God intended to make “a helper” for Adam, not several helpers. Second, from one rib God made one woman for Adam. Second, from one rib God made one woman for Adam reveals the pattern of a man leaving his family to “be joined to his wife,” not wives. This union is then described as becoming “one flesh.”

            Jesus confirmed this understanding of marriage when he was asked about divorce by the Pharisees
            In His response Jesus quoted from Genesis 2, confirming that His understanding of marriage was one man for one woman. Confirming the covenantal nature of marriage, Jesus said that divorce was only allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of man. God intended, from the beginning, for marriages to consist of one man and one woman for the duration of their lives. Divorce and polygamy were regulated in the laws given to Moses, but polygamy was recorded long before then.

            Before the Flood, we have a clear distortion of what God had intended for marriage. To compound Lamech’s sin, he brags of his murderous deeds. The Flood was brought upon the earth to judge the sinfulness of mankind, including the sins committed by Lamech.

            After the Flood, there are many mentions of polygamous relationships—including among the patriarchs of Israel. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives. It is interesting to note that there are no passages in Scripture that clearly state, “No man should have more than one wife.” However, polygamous relationships are never mentioned in a positive light, and, indeed, the problems of such relationships are presented.

            Consider the consequences revealed in Scripture in each of the following cases: Abraham—led to bitterness between Sarah and her maid, Hagar, and the eventual dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael; Jacob—led to Rachel’s jealousy of Leah and to Joseph being betrayed and sold by his half-brothers; David—led to the rape of one of his daughters (Tamar) by one of his sons (Tamar’s half-brother Amnon) and Amnon’s subsequent murder by Tamar’s brother Absalom; Solomon—his many wives “turned away his heart” from the Lord and to the worship of false gods

            Just because the Bible records polygamous relationships does not mean that God approves of such things.

          • no sir that is not what God ORIGNALY intended

            You don’t care what God intended; you just care what you want. There are plenty of prohibitions in the Old Testament, but polygamy wasn’t one of them. Let the Bible speak for itself.

            Keep in mind that polygamy is one man + one woman … just repeated. Your finding verses supporting one man + one woman does nothing to reject polygamy.

            Just because the Bible records polygamous relationships does not mean that God approves of such things.

            But it sure does look like it!

          • brothergc

            well disagree all you want but I proved it your willfull ignorance proves nothing back up what you say with the word or it is nothing but Your opinion in my view sir

          • I did quote the Bible: 2 Sam. 12:8. But why should I have to? Don’t you understand the Bible enough to understand the points I’m making?

            well disagree all you want but I proved it !

            Proved it? Well, I guess I missed that. Please show me in the Bible where God says that polygamy is bad.

            Willful ignorance? Unfounded accusations? Is this argument getting a little too close to home? God has time to give us “no coveting” in the Ten Commandments, but he doesn’t have time to tell us “don’t enslave” or “no genocide” or “no polygamy”? This book is just the blog of an ancient Iron Age tribe and reflects the morality of that people–hardly worth following today.

          • brothergc

            You don’t care what God intended are YOUR words that IS unfounded

            Please show me in the Bible where God says that polygamy is bad.
            I just did try rereading what i posted or should I post it again ? Gen 1 was the orignal intent pure and simple . Your trying to deflect and it will not work ,

          • Your critiquing your own position is clearly impossible.

            So, for anyone else who’s reading this, ask yourself what it means that the Old Testament looks precisely like the worldview of a small Iron Age tribe, not that of the omniscient creator of the universe.

          • brothergc

            Again that is your opinion and your welcome to it 😀

            But you are on a christian website so what did you expect ? I do respect Your opinion even if I disagree with it , but bear in mind I live By the Word , The Word saved me , turned Me from a self destructive lifestyle that almost literally took my very Life , changed me from a promiscuous lyfestyle to what I am today , freed me from tobacco as well . Sin seperates us from God and Jesus calles for repentance.
            You have a plesent 4th of July !

          • But you are on a christian website so what did you expect ?

            I expected you to use your God-given brain. Too much to expect?

          • brothergc

            And I expected you to use common courtesy
            tryed to be nice and what does it get you ? Troll

            You are the prime example of what Dr Brown talks about You try to silence Christians that do not alighn with your left views . What do You get Your jollies poking fun at the Christians .

            Typical LGBT BS to try and put out disinformation , I made My case buddy and won and showed why.

          • brothergc

            well I could go into the why even further but I can almost bet You are not going to like it

          • And I expected you to use common courtesy

            A reasonable expectation. And I did so.

            You are the prime example of what Dr Brown talks about You try to silence Christians that do not alighn with your left views .

            “Silence Christians”? No, I’m not trying to silence anyone.

            I realize that I’m a guest here. This is a Christian blog. I’m simply pointing out the other side of the argument. I’m helping you, whether you want to realize that or not. A bland, “God luvs everyonez!!!” won’t cut it. You need to face the other side of the argument.

          • Rudy R

            Christians always counter that God doesn’t approve of some immorality in the Bible, but they can never quote what God says in the Bible that demonstrates his rebuke. I guess Christians have a unique skill for knowing the mind of god.

          • God demands accurate weights and measures for commerce, but this isn’t a condemnation for commerce.

            God gives the rules for how slavery should and shouldn’t be done, and this is a condemnation of slavery.

            God works in mysterious ways!

          • brothergc

            the problem with many is that they do not read the whole Bible , just pick out parts that support their views . when you dont fully read any book , you can not know whats is inside

  • Buck Hondo

    The graveyard of the gods is full of deities with names that have long been forgotten because their followers were unwilling to admit when they were wrong. There is no reason to suspect that the God of Abraham will escape this fate. Enjoy your intractability!

    • brothergc

      your sure about that ? The “God of Abraham ” as you put it , has been going strong for well over 2000 years , the evidence does not support Your view , willing to bet Your soul ?

  • Rhiannon

    Interesting article. I am sure you mean well, but I would encourage you and everyone who shares your view to consider one thing: Scripture never condemns homosexuality as a state-of-being. It only condemns homosexuality as an ACT…along with adultery and fornication, drunkenness, etc., etc., etc. If you look it up in the concordance, the number of times adultery, adulterers, fornication, fornicating, etc. is mentioned in the Bible, you will find that it is far more frequently mentioned than homosexuality, and yet it is homosexuality that gets the articles, such as this one. Most Christians deny homosexuality can be a state-of-being at all, insisting, instead, that it is a choice. (Regardless of the fact that various scientific studies have proven that gays, transgenders, etc., are BORN that way.) If Christians were as concerned about keeping God’s word as they claim, they would focus on those things mentioned more frequently in Scripture, removing the plank out of their own eye, before attempting to remove the mote from their brothers’ eyes.

    • Jim Walker

      Rhiannon, you don’t even need to ACT out the homosexuality, Jesus say, all it takes is to have thoughts of homosex you have already sinned.

      If you are a true disciple of Jesus, you will trust that God make a Man and a Woman, born as they are from their mother’s womb. Now we have 60 different genders and counting, soon you will have to add those Pedophiles and animal-shaggers and those who think they are a goat, cat, dog etc,in it as well, since you believe in “Born that way”.

      Yes, adultery, fornicators, murderers, etc are also mentioned in the bible and Christians also condemn these.

      • a disapointed customer

        No, Jesus did not ever say that. But bearing false witness like you are doing is very clearly a sin and no matter what you’ve been tricked into believing, you can never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

        • Jim Walker

          What about these verses that Jesus said in :
          Matthew 5:27~28
          “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

  • Thisoldspouse

    I always find it bizarre that homosexual advocates will always defer to what they think Jesus implied by silence, when they refuse to believe much of what He explicitly spoke.

  • Kepha Hor

    Speaking as a fundamentally bad-tempered and uncharitable person, I find that traditional [honest, maybe?] interpretations of the Bible wounds my soul, too. The moral of the story is that I must repent and change, not the Book.

  • Thisoldspouse

    It’s not at all difficult to counter the fallacious, deceitful biblical revisionism of the homosexual movement. All you need is a good concordance, or on-line Bible resource.

    “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.”
    — Jude 1:7-8

  • Eric Breaux

    Lesbians are gay. There’s no point in using a word specific to females when the other already refers to both.

Inspiration
Don’t Let a Pit Become a Grave
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us