I love how it's the pro-homosexual when in fact it is the pro humanity attempts.
This is just empty rhetoric. In fact, it's not "pro-humanity" to call what God calls evil and contrary to nature "good." That doesn't help humanity, that hurts humanity. Sin is always damaging and harmful and when we try to cover up sin and sugarcoat it and make it acceptable we are essentially trying to switch labels on a bottle of poison and make it look safe when it is deadly.
Is that pro-humanity? No, that's anti-humanity. In fact, it's worse than that because it's not openly anti-humanity. It's not like a nihilist who is openly anti-humanity, at least he is open and up front about it. Everyone knows what they are getting when they buy his product. But you're giving false advertising too.
With the Sodomites they wanted to rape the angles not have consenting sex. There is a big difference between the two things. If you don't see that, that's on you not me. That's why Lot didn't want them raped because they were guest in his home.
This is an old canard. Let's look at the text:
Genesis 19:4–7 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Now if you want to say that rape is the issue, notice that the men don't simply burst down the door of the house nor do they rape the men when they first came into the city. No, they approach the house and ask. Is that something rapists do? Do rapists knock on doors and say "Um, hi, sorry to disturb you. But can you come out so we can rape you?" No. Before forcible sex is suggested, Lot understands for it to be a wicked thing.
Furthermore, your understanding of the narrative is historically unprecedented. As Gagnon notes: "Philo of Alexandria (Abraham 135-37 and Questions on Genesis 4.37) and Josephus (Antiquities 1.200-201), among other early Jewish texts (e.g., the Testament of Naphtali 3:4; Jubilee 16:5-6; 20:5-6; 2 Enoch 10:4; 34:1-2)" understood the narrative to be a condemnation homosexuality as such. Why did it take all but until about 50 years ago for people to finally understand the Bible narrative?
And as Gagnon also points out, it's not as though this was the only place in Scripture that mentions homosexual practice. We can look at other explicit, across-the-board condemnations not only in Scripture but in other Ancient Near Eastern societies and see that it was condemned. So when we read the Sodom narrative in its cultural milieu it's painfully obvious that rape wasn't the only crime. So Gagnon: "If someone told [us] a story about a really bad town where adults raped their parents, would [we] conclude that the storyteller was condemning only forcible incest? If not, why [should we] conclude that the story of Sodom in a broader cultural environment that is aware of (but still critical of) non-coercive forms of male-male intercourse, is indicting only forcible male-male intercourse?" (cf.
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasonsCritique.pdf).
The suggestion is ridiculous and only shows to what great lengths people are willing to go in order to justify their sin.
Using Gods word to justify your bigotry is disgusting.
More empty rhetoric. Do you consider yourself a bigot against pedophiles? Are you bigoted against rape? Now, I know how these things go because, as I've pointed out before, I've had these conversations a million times. And, without fail, your response will be something to the effect of "Rape isn't equivalent to pedophilia!" and "It's consenting and loving." But that merely misses the point because it *begs the question* (or assumes what needs to be proven) that homosexuality is not itself in the *same category* of *a perverse sexual practice.*
If the only reason you are with someone is to have kids then you are nothing more then an animal.
Straw-man. I never said this.
When I am with someone it's because I love them with all my heart, and I wish to do whatever I can to help them because I care.
But I don't (and Scripture doesn't) accept homosexual practice as legitimate expressions of love. Calling homosexual practice "love" is just as misguided as pedophile organizations calling their position "man/boy love."
Being hateful is purely Satan.
Psalm 5:4–6: “You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
you hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors.”
Psalm 11:5–7: “The Lord examines the righteous [and acquits them], but
the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot. For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face.”
Psalm 7:11: “God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.”
Hosea 9:15 Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there
I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels.
Does your theology have room in it for these Bible verses? Is the God of the Bible "purely Satan" by your measuring stick?
It's because we truly love who we love. If you make it just about sex then your cheapening something that is meant to be special.
You calling a perverse lust "love" is cheapening something that is meant to be special.
Also some of the laws back then were meant to get people to act right since morality wasn't fully developed. Have you ever wore wool and linen together? I can't because I'm allergic to wool however if you take the bible that way for gays and bisexuals then you also have to take it literally for everything else. Also do you work on the Sabbath? If not are you willing to kill anyone who does?...Yes the bible is suppose to be followed however now that humanity is more morally evolved..
Category fallacy. You're trying to lump cultic laws together with moral laws and say that since we no longer practice one (i.e., the cultic or ceremonial) we can dismiss the other (i.e., the moral). But this is another demonstration of how ridiculous people are willing to get in order to justify their sin. By this same argument, I can justify any sort of sexual perversion I want simply by calling it "morally evolved." So, those condemnations of beastiality? Simple a product of a less morally evolved society. I trust that one day we will evolve enough to recognize man/beast love. Condemnations of pederasty? Product of an inferior society. Eventually we will recognize man/boy love. This is the twisted logic of the pro-homosexual. What's amazing is how many people have swallowed such ridiculous lines of reasoning.
...like we don't own slaves there are some things that need to be more evolved as well.
There is a difference between laws of permission and statements of condemnation. A law can permit something that is itself immoral. In this case, it makes sense to move beyond the law to abstaining from the immoral act altogether. But if something is condemned as being immoral, I don't see how anyone could say it will someday move into the category of moral. These are two totally different things. The Bible nowhere says that non-slavery is sin, such that we have to maintain slavery in order to maintain a moral state. Rather, the Bible permits certain forms of slavery. Yet the Bible clearly doesn't permit homosexuality; rather, it condemns it. So there is no parity in your analogy.
In fact, William Webb has written a book that argues for the disanalogy of these issues. See: "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis." In, the book, he concludes:
"The comparative outcome is this: the homosexual texts are in a different category than the women and slavery texts. The former are almost entirely transcultural in nature, while the latter are heavily bound by culture. [The argument presented throughout the book] brings into clearer focus issues that people often confuse and blur together... If this work has demonstrated anything, however, it has shown the fundamental difference between the women's issue and the homosexuality issue. Regardless of perspective, it is necessary to ask the obvious question, 'If we are able to take slavery and women texts as culturally bound (within much of their non-abstracted formulation), then why not the homosexuality texts?' This book provides the 'why not' to that question" (252-253; emphasis original).
Of course you'll have to read the book to get the argument.
God has given us the ability to think and to be able to use good judgment for a reason and for that reason we must also make the earth like heaven where there is love not hate. That is the thing that God has put in my heart the ability to love and I just can't waste it.
But apparently you can twist it.
