Why Christians hate gays and love bacon?

[MahogonySnail]

If you read the Bible, read it whole, don't just quote little sections of it. They lose their context and meaning that way.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I will post some scriptures I know of for the following statements which I found a bit off:


Re:

The Bible is not a weapon. But a teaching tool and a message from God to mankind.

Not quite true, the sword is often used as a metaphor for God's Word aka the bible which contains God's Word, and used as a weapon too:

Heb 4:12 For the Word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,


Rev 2:16 Repent! But if not I will come to you quickly, and will fight with them by the sword of My mouth.

We have no right, and no business judging each others souls. That is God's privilege.

Actually we can judge, based upon what we already know God's judgement to be. For example if we know God will judge homosexuals and they won't enter heaven, then there is no use pretending that a homosexual is going to make it to heaven, or hoping that they will.

Also recognise that God will judge the unmarried fornicators (by the way this includes homosexuals who cannot fulfill Jesus's definition of marriage as per Mar 10:7, Eph 5:31).

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.


So even if practicing homosexuals are prevented from entering heaven based on their sexuality alone, they will be prevented based on their fornication.

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

So then, as I mentioned earlier God absolved Mankind of the purity laws set down in the OT. No one is unclean in the eyes of God, he said it himself.

I think you are over emphasize on the significance of the uncleanness spoken in the Vision to a degree that it does not imply. You say that "no one is unclean in the eyes of God." But that's not quite what it is talking about is it?

Acts 10:11-13 He saw the sky open, and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat them.” “No, Lord,” Peter declared. “I have never eaten anything that our Jewish laws have declared impure and unclean.” But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.” The same vision was repeated three times. Then the sheet was suddenly pulled up to heaven.

God purposely used food to speak to Peter on his own prejudices. Peter's response was obvious, he said he has not eaten anything the Jewish laws declared impure and unclean. God showed peter this vision to show him, not that everyone is unclean, that salvation was open to the gentiles as well as anyone who were ready to receive it. The point here is not to claim that "everyone is unclean" but that everyone is welcomed into the Kingdom of God regardless of your background (unclean/impure). Peter clearly understood this vision later on when he said to the guests "You know it is against our laws for a Jewish man to enter a Gentile home like this or to associate with you. But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean. So I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. Now tell me why you sent for me.”

Had God not shown peter the vision, he would have concluded that these gentiles were unclean and impure and salvation was not for them.

Later on in verse 34, Peter testified that he sees"very clearly that God shows no favoritism. In every nation he accepts those who fear him and do what is right. This is the message of Good News for the people of Israel—that there is peace with God through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all."

The point, as I said above, is not that everyone is unclean now in the eyes of God because you do not have Jesus Christ in your life, you are indeed unclean because you have not been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. However, anyone who decides to accept Christ into his life will be received without favoritism. The key here is that "he accepts those who fear him and do what is right."

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

Then we are left with the NT. Ok, yeah. Hmm... that's a little tougher. But I did some looking up and digging up. Those books of mine tend to pile up and bury themselves in dust and junk it seems, after a few years of non-use.

The Old Testament still stands. First, let me remind you that the issue of homosexual acts and God's anger towards it was prior to the Levitical and the Moses Laws. It's existence is found in God's decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, we can conclude that God has a history of showing extreme anger toward the homosexual acts. He was against it through His promise covenant with Abraham, the law of moses, and still against it under grace through Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

But I can say that I have a valid argument to counter the verse in Romans 1:26-27. The issue in Romans 1:26-27 is not orientation but use. That is made clear in every translation I know of (as well as the Greek text itself). The NIV says “in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women.”

I agree with you that the issue in Romans 1:26-27 is not of orientation but of use. Let me clarify what I mean by this. It's not an issue of orientation in the sense of identity because there is no such thing. The bible never condemns homosexuals as identity because that does not exist. The bible condemns homosexual acts. This is why Leviticus does not read "anyone who is gay deserve to die." It reads anyone who lies with a man like he does with a woman deserve to die (paraphrasing). It's speaking of the acts of homosexuality.

Homosexuality as a sexual orientation, or identity, is an invention of the 19-20th century. It was not until this period of time when Psychiatrists started labeling people who commit these acts as "homosexuals." People then began to claim that's who they are. But it was never like this before. It used to be something that people did, just like adultery.

Having that said, when the bible speaks in Romans about the homosexual acts, it is referring to just that.

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

The point is that any sexual act which is purely about the act itself, and not about bonding and love is deemed unnatural and contrary to God's commandment. This would be true regardless of whether someone’s orientation was heterosexual or homosexual.

Nowhere in this passage that it make any reference to love. To insert that there is to do an ixegetical analysis of the text and not properly exegete. That is to have an opinion and try to have the text support that opinion which is contrary to having your opinion come out of the text.

Additionally, the fact that the text says "even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other," concludes that any type of sexual relations that is not between a man and a woman is unnatural. So, if indeed the text shows same sex sexual relations is unnatural, then love has no relevance here. The text goes on to say that these sexual relations are the result of lust [So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired"]

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

But I can say that I have a valid argument to counter the verse in Romans 1:26-27

I am sorry, but I don't see it.

[BLC]

To FireDragonArmy,

The premise has been set and established in the beginning when God made man in His image (Gen 1:26) and the woman He made from the rib of man, as a help meet (Gen 2:18). God brought the woman to the man (Gen 2:22). The first man Adam made a proclamation, 'This in now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, and she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man (Gen 2:23). The first man Adam called her Woman because she came from Man. God called their name Adam (Gen 5:2). The woman was made for man and man was made for the woman. The man is to cleave to his wife and the two shall be one flesh (Gen 2:24). That has never changed (Eph 5:31) and is supported in (1Cor 7:1-4). This one flesh can only happen between a man and a women, when the man cleaves to his wife. Consummation of the marriage must take place for them to be one flesh. Two men or two women can not become one flesh, because it was not that way from the beginning. Neither can they be fruitful and multiply according to their own seed. They are not designed in any way to be one flesh. One flesh is only possible between a man and a woman and God will join them together (Matt 19:5,6). God will only recognize one flesh between a man and a woman, anything else would be against nature (Rom 1:26) or be considered strange flesh (Jude 7). Notice that (Gen 2) does not talk about love or caring for one another, nor does God give any commandment other then cleaving. Cleaving was the first act between a man and a women so that He could join them together. There has never been a single relationship between men or between women that God has joined together.


In (Lev 11) there is a classification of things clean and things unclean. This classification is made for man to protect man from becoming unclean and defiled (v/43). The words for abomination used in this chapter is shegets – meaning the unclean or detestable thing, and shagats – meaning to make unclean or defiled by eating what is unclean. These abominations were unto the people (v/10,11,12,20,23). The purpose of this classification was to define what was clean and what was unclean for eating (v/46,47).


In (Lev 18) there is a classification of (22) sexual sins and (1) profane sin (v/21) that are unclean and to be abstained from. Of these sexual sins, (20) are considered dishonorable and (1) is confusion (v/23) and (1) is specifically labeled abomination (v/22). Then all are considered abominations (v/26) and must be cut off (v/29). The only sexual sin that has a double connotation of being an abomination in this chapter is in (v/22) dealing with 'Thou shalt no lie with mankind as with womankind' (v/22&26). These verses are also inspiredof God.


In (Lev 19) there is a call to holiness (v/2). This relates to the difference that God put between the Egyptians and Israel that started in (Exodus 11:7). These various laws promoted living a holy life and dealt with motives, actions an lifestyle.


In (Lev 20) there is pronounced and declared all the judgments upon those that violate the sins of (Lev 18 & 19) and not (Lev 11). You find in (Lev 20: 25,26), a clarification and separation of those things mentioned in (Lev 11). Notice, again in (v/13), we have men lying with men committing an abomination. In the entire chapter, it is only mentioned in connection with this specific sexual sin no other. (I think it would be justified to attach some significance to this) The penalty was death and their blood was upon them as it was upon other sexual sins.


If you do not have the right understanding of the premise set in (Gen 2) concerning the man and the woman, then you will not understand what is set forth in (Leviticus chapters 11,18,19,20). The word for abomination in (Lev 11 – which is unto people) is not the one used in (Lev 18 & 20 – which is unto God). In (ch 11) if they ate what was unclean, they became unclean unto themselves. In (ch 18) if they engaged in the act, they were unclean and defiled before God. In (ch 11) if they became unclean they were not cut off or put to death as they were for violating the sins of (ch 18). The abominations of (Lev 11 & 18) can not be compared or associated as being the same in origin or in penal consequences.


Concerning the vision that God gave to Peter and his statement in (Acts 10:28) had to do with the Gentiles being called common or unclean, who did not observe (Lev 11) and ate those things that Israel considered to be unclean. That was one reason why the Jews did not associate themselves with the Gentiles. It had nothing to do with their heart or their standing before God but rather with their relationship to unclean food. To apply this statement to those that engage in sexual sins as not being unclean is error that needs to be corrected. If all men are unclean then why did Jesus Christ come and shed His blood? And what do we do with these verses (Matt 23:26, Eph 5:5, Heb 9:13, 1John 1:7-9, James 4:8, John 13:10,11, Prov 16:2, Psalm 51:7,10, Is 53:8, 64:6)?


Remember, Abraham and his brother Lot came from Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 11:28,31) and were of the Gentile stock. Issac was the promised child and was the first of the Jewish stock. Before Abraham, God considered everything He had made good and for food (Gen 1:29-31). That which came after the flood may have had some problems, in terms of being good for food but there is nothing to suggest that after Christ came and went to His Father that we, as Gentiles or even Jews, should be concerned with (Lev 11), other then for our learning (Rom 15:4). We don't judge those that live by (Lev 11) or do not live by it's restrictions. Whatever we do eat, we receive it with thanksgiving that it may be sanctified by the word of God and prayer (1Tim 1:4,5). Make sure you always do good preparations.

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

Though I have to say one thing to MahohonySnail. If you're gonna quote the Bible, then at least do it right. The word used in 1Co 6:9 is effeminate, not homosexual. that word isn't used once in the entire Bible. Don't go changing the word to suit your own purposes. And effeminate, well, the meaning of that is a little loose for interpretation. It could mean anything from crybabies (male or female) to gay crossdressers. I'm not sure what it means. I'll have to read up on that verse. I'll get back to you all on that.

By the way, this is the definition of effeminate (Greek word Malacos)

1. soft, soft to the touch
2. metaph. in a bad sense

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Romans 1:26-27

It certainly isn't for us to judge or to hate... I fall short of the glory every day, who am I to judge. But the Word says so, not only in the OT, but right here in the NT too. We cannot hate the sinner, only the sin. But homosexuality is definitely a sin.

As far as unclean, clean food, that was a Jewish/ Hebrew law and according to Paul we are set free from the law

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:2

If Paul was inspired then these words matter, and they seem pretty clear to me.

Mark 7:14-23: “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.
I'm pretty sure Jesus was inspired, and I'd take His word over anybody elses...
Just saying

[SethSethSeth]

Dude, I would not worry about the short-comings of others and focus on the fact that Without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ you are not entering eternal paradise.

People don't have the power over your spirit and it's eternal resting place God does.

FireDragonArmy, I know where you're coming from. I count myself amoung those who love the sinner but hate the sin. I do, however, think that there are Christians that are complicating this issue by behaving as though they hate the sinners. Or, let me rephrase that, behaving as though homosexuality is like the worst sexual sin there is. I've said it once and I'll say it again. John McCain left his wife for one who wasn't in a wheelchair, and look how many Christians voted for him (of course you're not American and neither am I, but lots of Chrisitans voted for him). If he was gay, would as many Christians have voted for him just because he wants abortion to be illegal? Christians oppose gay marriage being legal while it doesn't seem to bother them that it's perfectly legal for one to leave their spouse for someone else and marry them. That seems like a contradiction to me.

Anyway, what no one else has brought up and I'm surprised is that in that same chapter in Leviticus there are the verses that say incest is wrong. Do we not still believe that incest is wrong? I referenced that chapter a year and a half ago, when I was home for Christmas and my four year old nephew told me he was going to marry me when he grew up. Now once was cute but he kept saying it and I didn't want to go around saying it, if you know what I mean. So, I had to explain to him why I couldn't marry him without hurting his feeligns. I paraphrased saying that the Bible says that a man can't marry his aunt.

So, what I'm saying is that if one starts saying that we should throw out the Old Testament rules about who can have sex with whom, then we run into the problem of still saying that incest is wrong.

Originally Posted by Thaddaeus

it is quotes like this ( why do christians hate gays) that puts larger wedges into the world of hate. Christians are commanded to even love our enemy, so if you hate gays then you are just as wrong as they are , and you need to get the beam out of your own eye before you try to get the splinter out of the gays eye,


Ro 5:8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I agree with you!

We are to Love (1Cor.13)

We are to lay our own judgments down and Love our neighbor as ourselves!
What happens when your neighbor is Gay?

Will you choose to do what God says, and Love your neighbor as yourself!
Love never demands it's own way!
When we choose to love, it never fails!

Sometimes love is knowing when to keep your mouth shut when you want to speak judgment against another, for what ever is in a mans heart He speaks!
And if you choose to speak judgment against another you place yourself under that Law you judged by.
You become a pharisee! A clanging symbol! A judge!
Making the cross of no effect, not only for you but for the person you judged!

We sow seeds by our words!
You can sow to the flesh or to the spirit!

It up to God to reveal Jesus to a persons heart!
How can we look at anybody as unworthy of the salvation we were given for free!
We didn't earn it,
Why should we make them!
Are any of us without sin Yet?
If a Gay person is seeking God, why hinder it by attacking them, we don't know a persons Heart or what God might be doing in them!
We will all be judged by if we believe and trust in Jesus!

We are to Love!

[loveschild]

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

Hey, I am like so not interested in your "opinions" of gay people.

I'm asking what you think of my Biblical argument here. What do you guys have to say about that? I can't help but notice your silence on the argument here.

You guys are like so missing the whole point here. Yes, I support gay rights, yes, I believe that the Bible doesn't condemn it. Fine, I admit to it all freely. But that besides the point.

I am asking if you guys have ever read these parts of the Bible? Am I wrong in their meaning? Or should I just go out and start preaching sin next to the frozen shellfish section in my local supermarket?

Try to stay on topic.

Your a sinner just like anyone else. The word says to love. Says to not hate. Says to not judge. A christian is to pray for the gay person so the evil spirit can be lifted of the person. And you are to love the person and try to help them to know God. That is commanded by God. We all fall short.

[Thaddaeus]

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

This is a bit of a long text but I suggest everyone read it whole to understand my message here. Its worth the read, and it'll give you all something to think about. And probably give you incentive to go and reread your Bible.

Well, why do Christians like bacon and hate gays? Same reason that they don’t hate shellfish eaters but do hate gay people?

Why so many Christians hate gays all boils down to the source of hatred.

Religion is not the cause of it, it’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “The Bible says it’s an abomination”.

.

we hang on to this abomination because it was also confirm as wrong before God in the new testament as well as the Old. Romans 1

[watchmen]

Here is what the Bible really says on the subject.
1st Cor 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God

No homosexual will enter the Kingdom of God.

[Grimaldus]

And, apparently, alot of other people

[Slepsog4]

We are to love the homosexual and other fornicators enough to preach repentance to them so that they will forsake their way and turn to the Lord for salvation FROM their sins, not IN their sins.

We are called to judge righteous judgment. The measure we use will be used on us. Their sin is not from some kind of possession (ie, evil spirit). It is a work of their own flesh.

Originally Posted by FireDragonArmy

This is a bit of a long text but I suggest everyone read it whole to understand my message here. Its worth the read, and it'll give you all something to think about. And probably give you incentive to go and reread your Bible.

Well, why do Christians like bacon and hate gays? Same reason that they don’t hate shellfish eaters but do hate gay people?

Why so many Christians hate gays all boils down to the source of hatred.

Religion is not the cause of it, it’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: “The Bible says it’s an abomination”.

This off course refers to the Book of Leviticus, the third book of the Bible. Specifically Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version), "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

Don’t get me wrong. Leviticus has many wonderful truly inspiring passages. Like the Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."

The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is similarly neglected.

Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering and binding.

The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Yes, indeed people. Leviticus states very clearly that eating shellfish is an abomination. Many, if not most Christians today eat shrimp or other shellfish. Yet, there has never ever been any persecution of shellfish-eaters. Why is that? Why is one sentence taken as “God’s law”, and another just as “ancient dietary laws”, when they’re both forbidden in the same book, and the condemnation for both (”abomination”) is the same?

The answer, of course, is that people are already bigots (though an important source of that bigotry may well be church sermons). Saying “It’s God’s command” instead of admitting to their prejudice makes them feel better.

The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem eating at Red Lobster. What gives?

Since many observers have noted this apparent inconsistency I figured I would wade in to try to explain why it is that so many contemporary Christians reject gays while embracing shellfish and bacon.

To understand why God is no longer considered a hater of shrimp or bacon eaters you have to flip ahead to the Acts of the Apostles, the good doctor's account of the early days of the Christian church.

Acts chapter 10 finds the apostle Peter on a rooftop in Joppa, praying at noon before heading down to lunch.

The impulsive former fisherman has grown into a genuine leader in the early church. At Pentecost, he preached the gospel to people from every corner of the Roman Empire and he is slowly appreciating that this new community is supposed to transcend any ethnic or cultural boundaries. But the goyim still seem to bug him a bit. Especially the Romans.

So God gives him a vision. Peter falls into a trance and sees a vision of a giant tablecloth descending from heaven. The tablecloth is covered with honeybaked hams, cheesesteaks, crab cakes, calamari and lobster.

"Eat up, Peter," a voice tells him

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter says. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

"Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean," the voice says. "And try the angels on
horseback, they're like butter."

This happens three times.

This is generally regarded as an instance in which a New Testament passage seems to set aside a prohibition from the Old Testament. And that's why our friends on the religious right do not feel compelled to eat kosher and do not consider shellfish to be "an abomination."

Fair enough, but there's something else going on in this story. The main point of Peter's rooftop epiphany has nothing to do with diet. The main point of this vision had to do with the people who were about to knock on Peter's door.

Peter is about to meet Cornelius. Cornelius is a gentile. Worse than that, he is a Roman. Worse than that, he is a Roman centurion. Cornelius is about as kosher as a bacon double cheeseburger.

But give Peter credit -- he understood the vision. "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean." Don't call anyone unclean that God has made clean.

Peter does not treat Cornelius as an unclean outsider. He travels to the centurion's house, where he says, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."

Peter gets it. In this new community that God is building, this church, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. No one is excluded as unclean.

This is the unsubtle point that Luke is hammering home for his gentile friend Theophilus. The surrounding chapters of Acts read like a hyper-P.C. after-school special on celebrating diversity. The church embraces Jews and gentiles, Roman soldiers and slaves, men and women, Africans, Greeks and even a token white European.

In our fondness for Easter ham, we Christians have fervently clung to the surface-level meaning of Peter's vision. But we haven't been as enthusiastic about embracing the larger, more important lesson God was teaching him there on the rooftop. When the "unclean" outsiders knock on our doors, we don't like inviting them in.

That, in a nutshell, is why some Christians happily dismiss one "abomination" while still behaving abominably out of allegiance to another.

(Oh, and what about Leviticus' Jubilee laws? Those were never set aside by anything in the New Testament, but Christians no longer treat them as authoritative because, um ... well, because money is pretty and shiny and let's us buy nice things.)

If biblical prohibition were the real source of condemnation, we would find ourselves in a society where shellfish eaters and bankers would be prohibited from participating in youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. Those who insist on such a ban would argue that those who so flagrantly violate God’s law cannot possibly be moral, and clearly cannot be considered good role models for our children.

What type of message does it give our children to be a member of a troop whose troop leader is known to be a practicing shellfish or bacon eater or banker – when the Bible so clearly identifies these acts as a violation of His law? These children will no doubt come to think that all of God’s law are open to question. This type of moral relativism is the last thing that we need to be teaching impressionable young minds.

When the church was in its early days God, and I mean God himself said onto Peter himself that the old ways had to put aside. God was giving mankind a new fresh start. God sacrificed his own son to give us this grand gift. No longer was mankind allowed to view his fellow man as unclean and unworthy.

God was reminding Peter that no person was unclean in His eyes. God wasn’t just talking about people who eat shellfish or bacon. He was talking about all the people that Leviticus and other books in the Bible called unclean. That includes gay people. They are not unclean. They are also the children of God. God does not view them as sinners, just as much as he doesn’t view bacon and shellfish eaters as sinners.

Look at why He, in his infinite wisdom, gave us this great gift. So we wouldn’t end up in the society Jesus had to live in. Full of hypocrites, shunned innocents, and people treating their brothers and sisters as unworthy unclean people that had no rights in life. Jesus died to help teach us this lesson. Jesus taught it all his life. He embraced the so called unclean people in the world. The bankers, the tax collectors, the Romans, the gentiles, the prostitutes, the lepers, the blind and lame…. That is what Jesus died for. For our sins. And God clearly instructed Peter what those sins where. One of them was the sin of mistreating each other. Leviticus calls shellfish and bacon people unclean people. Yet God himself said onto Peter not to see them as such. Not to treat them as such.

God absolved us all of viewing each other as unclean.

So, there you have it. Isn't this clear and unquestionable proof that homosexuality is not a sin in the eyes of God. God told of to put bigotry behind us. Jesus himself died professing this message. If you think it a sin to be gay then perhaps it is you who is sinning in the eyes of our Lord.

If you read the Bible, read it whole, don't just quote little sections of it. They lose their context and meaning that way. The Bible is not a weapon. But a teaching tool and a message from God to mankind. God never ever supports hate, it teaches love and acceptance. We have no right, and no business judging each others souls. That is God's privilege.

Feel free to share your thoughts on this topic. What do you think of these parts of the Bible, that are unfortunately, very much under read, and very poorly understood parts of the Bible.

I hope this gives people something to think about. Remember what God said to Peter in the Acts of the Apostles.

What YH was refering to with Peter was the gentiles, the gentiles were conisdered unclean by the Jewish people due to their non kosher habits.

All of the disciples of Christ including Christ Himself were kosher all of their lives. Jesus never ever
said for the Jewish people to eat non kosher.

I pracice the kosher laws as YH said to, but I do not impose them on others.

As far as homosexuality, Gods Word is those who praitice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
He hates the pratice of homosexuality, but wants the homosexual to come to Christ and be saved.
He will punish those who do not repent of that sin

Eating kosher or the Kosher diet has no bering on what YH says on morality, nice try.


I dont hate gay people, just the lifestyle.

[MaggieMye]

In answer to the title of the thread: No Bible-believing, follow of Christ hates people that are caught in the trap of homosexuality. They hate the sin, but not the person. A Mature Christian understands that their are scheems of the devil at play in these people lives set up to destroy them and keep them from the destinies in the kingdom of Heaven...the Kingdom is at hand! AND because the Kingdom is at hand, there is freedom for ALL; all the captives can be see free!

1. Isaiah 61:1
   [ Exaltation of the Afflicted ] The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,Because the LORD has anointed meTo bring good news to the afflicted;He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,To proclaim liberty to captivesAnd freedom to prisoners;
   Isaiah 61:1-3 (in Context) Isaiah 61 (Whole Chapter)
2. Luke 4:18
   " THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,

[kujo313]

I don't really hate anybody.
I can understand how homosexuals want "rights" in America. However, then those "rights" are demanded in the Church, then I have a problem with that.
The United States Constitution is flexible by amendments. The Bible is not flexible. A sin is a sin. You cannot enter Heaven with sin. Homosexuality is a sin. You can't make the Church say "well, ok. Homosexuals can get into Heaven now." It's not up to the Church. It's written in the Bible. It can't be changed.

I think it is safe to say God created man AND woman to be mates and procreate.No question in my mind.As far as bacon,read the NT where Paul or Peter has a dream where a cloth is sent down from Heaven with unclean food on it.God tells the person these foods are no longer unclean and you can eat it.
We as Christians are being bombarded with hundreds of people preaching hundreds of ways to interpret His word.The Bible says in the last days there will be a falling away of the church,and that is what is happening.I pray everyone on this site keep their eyes and ears open and know that "you can tell a person by his fruits".

[NoahsMom]

I have a kind of testimony as far as churches in general accepting or showin love to gay ppl. My mother in law who is a nurse, came to be friends with a man whom professed to be gay, he was basically shunned from all his family, had very few friends, and was showing a true desire to want to know God and what was right and wrong as far as the lifestyle he was living. He had made comments that any church he attended or once ppl found out he was gay ( they shunned him and basically told him he was hell bound). While I agree with what the bible states, these souls, deserve love, compassion, kindness. So basically we invited to a church we were attending at this time, we fed him with the word, and what God does say, he was delivered ( as this is what he was seeking to begin with ). This poor man had major psychological and mental issues, with childhood, he was diagnosed with HIV, which basically made him a paranah, or however you spell that, in this town, and it was sad to see someone reaching out , alone, and showing a desire to know God. I know its our duty to tell ppl what the word says, I know its our duty to try and show ppl where they err and its also out duty to help fix it if we point it out, with love.

Wonderful post NM......hits the nail right on the head

[carpetmanswife]

Originally Posted by NoahsMom

I have a kind of testimony as far as churches in general accepting or showin love to gay ppl. My mother in law who is a nurse, came to be friends with a man whom professed to be gay, he was basically shunned from all his family, had very few friends, and was showing a true desire to want to know God and what was right and wrong as far as the lifestyle he was living. He had made comments that any church he attended or once ppl found out he was gay ( they shunned him and basically told him he was hell bound). While I agree with what the bible states, these souls, deserve love, compassion, kindness. So basically we invited to a church we were attending at this time, we fed him with the word, and what God does say, he was delivered ( as this is what he was seeking to begin with ). This poor man had major psychological and mental issues, with childhood, he was diagnosed with HIV, which basically made him a paranah, or however you spell that, in this town, and it was sad to see someone reaching out , alone, and showing a desire to know God. I know its our duty to tell ppl what the word says, I know its our duty to try and show ppl where they err and its also out duty to help fix it if we point it out, with love.

now that i like