Consensus on Pianistimo

[soliloquy]

[Poll removed by admin]

In light of her statements calling homosexuals "evil", "sinners" and saying they should all be stricken with AIDS and die, I have decided I can't put up with her any more, and want to see what the other members think.


I personally feel that her incredibly disgusting statements about homosexuals are equatable to calling black people ni**ers and saying they should be segregated, using other racial epithets, saying Jews will burn in hell and they do not deserve to live etc.  Her assertions about gays are equal to the bigotry imposed by the Nazis in the 1930's and 1940's and the segregationalists and Klu Klux Klan in the 1900's to 1960's.  This, coupled with the fact that over and over and OVER she has disrupted other people's threads going on completely unrelated rants usually involving religion, which subsequently cause huge amounts of drama on the forum and annoy most members, not to mention the fact that this is far from the first time a request for her removal has been put up, should raise some eyebrows with the administration hopefully.  If she had ever relented in her quest to completely dominate the entire forum with religion it would be different, but she does it without stop, despite most of the forum telling her, nay pleading with her, to stop it.


She is a detriment to this forum and should be dealt with accordingly, as she has known for a long time her actions are not welcome.

[wotgoplunk]

What exactly is the point of this poll? It isn't going to achieve anything. You're trying to fight fire with fire. Why not implement a moderator into certain forums, or a rule restricting the things that can be said on the forum?

[soliloquy]

Because the problem has been addressed privately with no results.  Public accountability always seems to "inspire" decisive action more quickly and effectively.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

My personal feeling is that tolerating her is a test of my commitment to free speech (and at times it is really tested). I consider her views on homosexuality ignorant and bigoted (she appeared to equate homosexuality with paedophilia, which is so wide of the mark it doesn't deserve further comment).

I disagree absolutely fundamentally with a lot of her opinions, but I don't think I have the right to say that she shouldn't express them. I do have a lot of sympathy with what soliloquy is saying, because I can't imagine that someone coming to the forum and posting pro-Nazi antisemitic material would be treated so leniently.

[prometheus]

Without her religion she would be a nice person. Now she is both a nice and a mean person.

At least that is how it seems to me through this limited medium called internet.

[rc]

...Doesn't bother me.  I try to respect peoples ideas, though I may not agree with them.  The line for me is when an idea leads to action.  If she's trying to kill homos or promote it, then we have a problem.  I don't think that's the case, I think she's deeply religious and sees aids in the homosexual community as an act of god because it must say so somewhere in the good book.

I'll admit I haven't read the thread, they can get pretty tedious.  I don't imagine many people other than those involved actually read through them, hahah.

Again, I can understand her bringing religion up everywhere, like how my conversations tend to veer towards music all the time, or my Dad will always steer discussion to politics.  There's no fault there.

This case walks the line of being too offensive, but seems to me it's a problem because you're making it so.  What do you expect from religious arguement?  It's unfortunate when people hold bigoted views, but so long as they aren't acting on them, no harm.

[pianistimo]

i do not call homosexuals evil and have not said that.  i called homosexuality a sin.  also, i never said that i hope they get aids and die.  i said that aids is a 'natural consequence' that God has set into motion.  He doesn't bless sin.  that's all i'm saying.  everyone sins.  i am not better than anyone else.  but, when you know to do right - then you have to turn from sin and do right.

do i ask  people if they are or aren't - or exclude them if they are not?  no.  i don't personally care (but i care what happens to them - health-wise and spirituality-wise).  if a person ASKS me if homosexuality is or isn't a sin? - i give a reason for the faith that lies within me.  i believe that God is not interested in political correctness.  HE is God.  not us.  don't you want to be in His kingdom?

everyone has to give up something.  remember the scripture 'it is easier for a camel to go throught the eye of a needle than a rich man - etc etc '  so that indicates to me that whatever 'burdens' that keep you from entering the narrow gate  to the kingdom have to be put down.  if you are rich - you have to give to the poor.  if you haughty - you have to become humble.  if you are trusting your physical brain - you have to turn to faith.  to trust God.

[gilad]

I dont think it is right to start a thread and single her out.

Plain wrong. Not nice at all.

I wont share my opinion in here.

Just wrong.

I have no respect for a person that feels the need to settle a feud in this manner.

Arrogant and disrespectful.

You should seriously back refrain from your smear campaign.

At the end of the day in my eyes and many others im sure - you are the loser either way.

[rc]

Oh I see, so this is just the result of a misunderstanding.  Soliloquy took Pianistimo's comment more seriously and literally than she meant?

That's undestandable too, this must be something soliloquy feels strongly about...  But banning Pianistimo is definitely not necessary.

I would like to see if everybody could let this go, because it's not such a bit deal.  We should try and keep our disagreements in context.

[soliloquy]

Oh I see, so this is just the result of a misunderstanding.  Soliloquy took Pianistimo's comment more seriously and literally than she meant?

Hardly.  Go read her posts on the second page of the "Jesus has been found" thread.  You'll see there's no way to interpret them besides gay-bashing.

[soliloquy]

...Doesn't bother me.  


It's unfortunate when people hold bigoted views, but so long as they aren't acting on them, no harm.

Let's pretend you're Jewish.  I call you a big-nosed God-hater who will burn in hell and that you guys got what was coming to you in WWII; the gas chamber.  Do you think you would take it lightly? 

Let's pretend you're black.  I call you a smelly n*gger and tell you I wish the KKK would just finish off the lot.  Do you think you would take it lightly?

Let's pretend you're Italian and I call you a wh*p, or you're Irish and I call you a m*ck, or you're puerto rican and I call you a sp*c.  Would you take these things lightly?

Let's pretend you're gay and I tell you that you're disgusting, and you are ruining yourself and going against god by loving those of the same sex, and spreading HIV all over the world through your twisted, perverted, wicked ways and that you're comparable to rapists and murderers, and that all gays should die from AIDS because god wants to punish them with the most horrible disease in existence.  Would you take this lightly?


Because pianistimo literally said all those things, and much more that is even more offensive to a homosexual.

[cziffra]

I really don't understand why she hasn't ben banned yet.  She is just as off topic and offensive and any of the multitude of SDC members who have been offed, yet still she remains.  It's probably because she's a 30-40 year old woman, who we all no can do no harm, while the others who have been bannerd were 16-22 year old dudes, societies greatest bane.

[thalbergmad]

i do not call homosexuals evil and have not said that.  i called homosexuality a sin. 

You did and here is the thread to prove it.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22297.0.html

Post of 17/12/06 at 11.07pm

Thal

[ahinton]

I wonder what Pierre Boulez...

No, sorry. Let me start that again.

Free speech is free speech. Those who believe in it - and who accordingly believe also in a universal application of a right thereto - have to accept the consequences of it, good, bad and indifferent. "Soliloquy" has taken very considerable offence to "pianistimo"'s remarks about homosexuality and she has tried to respond to his heated but perfectly understandable tirade against her observations by backtracking along the lines that she never meant to impute that homosexuals are by definition "evil" but that homosexuality is nevertheless a "sinful" practice; I am not at all accustomed to reading weaselly political answers of the damage limitation variety from "pianistimo", whose Christian fundamentalism is far too monochrome to encourage anyone to assume that she might possibly consider moving sideways by as much as a centimetre from her often intransigent stances on certain matters, but she has left me pondering how she manages to perceive that people who deliberately indulge in "sinful" practices are not "evil" by nature, so help me God.

I do not at all propose that "pianistimo" be banned from this forum, but I do urge her (for what it may or may not be worth) to consider for a moment what Jesus Christ himself might have thought of her flagrant anti-homosexual attitudinising, particularly since it is so plainly couched in terms that cite a Christian God as purported justification for such a stance; I am not setting myself up as an authority on how Jesus Christ might have reacted to the "pianistimic" variety of inflexible intolerance - after all, I am not a Christian, so how could I? - but since my best understanding of a vital part of the teachings of Jesus has to do with human compassion and understanding, I can almost imagine Him taking "pianistimo" to one side and giving her an admonitory lecture on the greatness of human tolerance and human love.

I would like to see the overheated parts of this debate cooled down on all sides and "pianistimo" at least trying to understand that there are not just other points of view but other lifestyles quite different to the one that she has presumably chosen for herself which are nevertheless not by definition anti-Christian or otherwise anti-religious; frankly, I shudder to think how offended some of the homosexual Christians that I know would be were they to read "pianistimo" on the "sin" that she believes homosexuality to be.

As I have stated before, not only am I a non-Christian, I am also a non-homosexual so, even though I am most certainly not anti-homosexual or anti-Christian, I do accept that there may well be Christian heterosexuals, atheist homosexuals and Christian homosexuals that would rather I just shut the hell up and leave this to people who are more directly involved in some kind of participatory sense; I would, however, argue in all humility that it is the very fact that I am not directly a part of these issues but still feel for people when they are roundly and peremptorily dismissed as "sinners" purely because of their natural proclivities that lends at least some contribution from me abit of credibility and justification.

"Pianistimo" at least understands the concept of "repentance"; perhaps she might give it some due consideration following some of her damning remarks on the practice of homosexuality by both men and women in the light of the manner in which she has undermined entire swathes of people whose sexual proclivities just happen to be different froms her own and componded this by using God as her justification for so doing.

Please, dear Susan - and I am addressing you personally now - give this some very serious thought - and as soon as possible - for it is a subject that demands no less than that, especially after your remarks which are potentially or actually profoundly offensive to homosexuals and non-homosexuals of both sexes the world over and which, worse still, seem to show a sickeningly, gut-wrenchingly wilful abandonment of any sense of Christian compassion, kindness and understanding with which I would be horrified to have to credit you.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

I was so hopeful, that this unfortunate debate was now part of he past. I can't see, that there is any actual event, that makes it  necessary to renew the old and senseless fight.

[ahinton]

I was so hopeful, that this unfortunate debate was now part of he past. I can't see, that there is any actual event, that makes it  necessary to renew the old and senseless fight.

I'm not fighting, personally. I have made my views plain and, whilst they are not mealy-mouthed, neither are they belligerent.

I think that, at this stage, it is really up to "pianistimo" to consider her position rather than for the rest of us who have already aired our views to seek to do this for her.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

thal, i said 'everyone is evil in some way' - to your direct question 'are gays evil.'  i do not consider myself above anyone.  not gays.  in fact, i think that many who do not know God yet - will be better christians than myself when they see and know God.

the thing is - the bible is more specific than people tell you.  you have to read it for yourself.  i cannot be the sole interpreter of the bible.  just go read it. you'll see what it says.  it says the same about other sins.  the bible tells you what 'sin' is. 

[counterpoint]

I'm not fighting, personally. I have made my views plain and, whilst they are not mealy-mouthed, neither are they belligerent.

My reservations were not thought as a reaction to your considered arguments, Alistair, but to the reason, why this discussion was reopened by soliloquy. I can't see any.

[thalbergmad]

thal, i said 'everyone is evil in some way'

yes - homosexuality is evil

That is what YOU said. Look at YOUR post 17/12/06 at 11.07pm on the link i gave.

Thal

[pianistimo]

yes. homosexuality - not homosexuals.  there is a difference.  i am not a judge of persons - but i can distinguish a sin.

God can be merciful to any sinner he chooses.  why would He discriminate.  then, He would be unjust.  but, according to His words He will judge us.  unless we accept Jesus Christ's sacrifice for sin in our stead - we have no part in the kingdom.  when we do accept Jesus - then it is much easier to turn from sin because we are thankful that He is quick to forgive and full of mercy.  sin grieves Him.

[thalbergmad]

i'll be ressurrected before you know it.  and guess who wins.  me.


Why did you remove this from your previous post?

So you don't think you are better than anyone else.

Thal

[soliloquy]

the thing is - the bible is more specific than people tell you.  you have to read it for yourself.  i cannot be the sole interpreter of the bible.

The thing is- many of us have read the bible, and most people disagree with you on your interpretation.  You have yet to address the fact that even most christians would disagree with you.

do i think that rape = two men who choose to live together.  no.  it's not equivalent at all.

Then I find it interesting that you would say this:

homosexuality is no different than some other sins where people abuse their bodies or others bodies (for instance many young boys are seduced intot he act and not willing participants in the beginning).

Do you want to try and tell me you didn't say that?

[pianistimo]

i was making a point that i am not looking for gays to murder.  and, when i speak about the bible - people become very hateful.  why?  because it is not my Words but God's.

dear soliloquy,

some say that i am uneducated in terms of knowing about homosexuality - but i have read articles and i do understand how some become homosexual.  some are born with more 'feminine' looking features - but they have the 'tools.'  i once saw a show where a man was born with both genitalia and breasts.  so, later in life when he could afford it - he went to a plastic surgeon and had the breasts removed.  i understand that this type of thing could be a very difficult situation - and some choose to deal with it by simply becoming a woman.  i think they should not because our chromosomes tell us what we are.  if XY - then a man.  God has reasons why some have difficult lives and trial that test patience.

just as when a woman has too much progesterone and builds muscle mass and looks more masculine.  she may take hormone replacement or something. but the thing is - she is still a woman.  why should she try to be a man?

what God creates good - we should not recreate.

most homosexual choose to be homosexuals.  it is easier.  it has been established in their childhoods by a dominant mother - or a combination of friends that introduced them and they decided it was something they liked.  perhaps some don't really think of the consequences.  or, mental choice they are making.  it's really a choice against God's law.

if God says a man and woman are blessed - and that two men lying together as with a woman is sin (as it says in leviticus) then the people who read this otherwise are lying to you.

[thalbergmad]

yes. homosexuality - not homosexuals.  there is a difference. 

What is the difference?

Explain please, this is fascinating.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

why?  because it is not my Words but God's.

Horrific.

[soliloquy]

i was making a point that i am not looking for gays to murder.  and, when i speak about the bible - people become very hateful.  why?  because it is not my Words but God's.

How in the world do you get, paraphrasing, "Homosexuality is no different to statutory rape" to "I don't want to kill gays"?


You are rapidly spiralling further and further towards insanity as this situation progresses.

[pianistimo]

i did not say 'homosexuality is = to statutory rape.'  but, this is usually how young boys are introduced, is it not? 

homosexuality can be a choice among consenting adults - but often it is not because adults have a degree of control over their lives and may not be as flexible with their schedules as a younger person (without as much money).  also, it is much easier to gain a 'victim' which will be able to 'perform' for a period of years with guilt rather than an adult who would change their mind and say no.

*when my son was young i would stand by the bathroom and really worry when he went int and came out.  it is a definate fear among christian mothers to even let their sons go int he bathroom.

if an adult chooses a lifestyle that is different than mine - am i going to do anything to, or talk about the person?  no.  in fact, i don't think i would treat them any different than anyone else. 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

i did not say 'homosexuality is = to statutory rape.'  but, this is usually how young boys are introduced, is it not? 

*shakes head in amazement*

Pianistimo, since when were you such an expert on same-sex relationships? You don't even appear to understand how women can have sex with each other.

As a heterosexual, I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert on same-sex relationships either, but I do know enough to realize that you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

[soliloquy]

dear soliloquy,

some say that i am uneducated in terms of knowing about homosexuality - but i have read articles and i do understand how some become homosexual.  some are born with more 'feminine' looking features - but they have the 'tools.'  i once saw a show where a man was born with both genitalia and breasts.  so, later in life when he could afford it - he went to a plastic surgeon and had the breasts removed.  i understand that this type of thing could be a very difficult situation - and some choose to deal with it by simply becoming a woman.  i think they should not because our chromosomes tell us what we are.  if XY - then a man.  God has reasons why some have difficult lives and trial that test patience.

just as when a woman has too much progesterone and builds muscle mass and looks more masculine.  she may take hormone replacement or something. but the thing is - she is still a woman.  why should she try to be a man?

what God creates good - we should not recreate.

most homosexual choose to be homosexuals.  it is easier.  it has been established in their childhoods by a dominant mother - or a combination of friends that introduced them and they decided it was something they liked.  perhaps some don't really think of the consequences.  or, mental choice they are making.  it's really a choice against God's law.

if God says a man and woman are blessed - and that two men lying together as with a woman is sin (as it says in leviticus) then the people who read this otherwise are lying to you.

Pianistimo you are absolutely psychotic.  Why are you trying to lie?  Haven't I made it abundantly clear that any of the bull you try to spout as facts I will instantly refute?  Nowhere in Leviticus does it read, ver batim, that "two men lying together is a sin".  Also, you refer to EXTREME cases such as hermaphodites and transgender birth defects, but genetics plays a role in sexuality to a much more refined and less-obvious degree.  If you ask any gay person, they will usually tell you they knew they were gay before they knew what the word "gay" meant.  You then go on to self-contradict as you say that a child's upbringing is what causes their sexuality, but then say that it is their choice and they are choosing a life against God's when that is simply OUTRAGEOUS and COMPLETELY FALSE.  Both the hard and soft sciences have unilaterally agreed, and next-to-proven that is almost never within the person's control.  Would you prefer gay people just pretend to be straight and live in misery for their entire, love-devoid lives?  Is that what you'd honestly prefer?  They'd still be gay, just sad and lonely too.


You, Susan, as possibly the single most insensitive person I have ever spoken to.

i did not say 'homosexuality is = to statutory rape.'  but, this is usually how young boys are introduced, is it not?

Yes you did say that, and *** YOU.  That is not how "most" gay people become gay.  How dare you insinuate all gays are raping little kids.



You have serious mental problems.

[pianistimo]

leviticus 18:22  check it out for yourself.  'you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.'

[prometheus]

And heterosexual woman are raping little boys as well?

Are you heterosexual?

[ada]

There's no doubt that people who say homosexuality is a sin are homophobic, narrow minded, offensive and in many cases uneducated.

Above all, they are extremely ignorant. Most bigotry is born of ignorance rather than ill-intent. However, this doesn't excuse such an attitude.

Anyone who is or has been involved in a same sex relationship has every right to be angry at these uninformed and discriminatory comments, and anyone who makes them is fully deserving of condemnation.

The whole idea of free speech however, is that it provides a forum for thoughts, ideologies and positions that are ignorant, dangerous or just wrong. The theory is, as far as I can see it, that it enables these positions and ideologies to be rationally debated and shown up for the bullshit they are.

This way, even if it's not possible to change the person making them, it becomes possible to educate those who may otherwise be swayed by them.

It is important to know that these sorts of people and these sorts of opinions exist. This is why the internet is valuable. There may be many people who take same sex relationships for granted and may never know the depth of bible-borne bigotry that exists out there. Well here it is in black and white.

It is better to know and to counter than to suppress and deny. It's only by bringing these attitudes out in the open that we can hope to move forwards.

[pianistimo]

i'm saying that your sex and my sex are nobody's business.  but, when it comes to voting - i don't want to vote gay marriage in.  is that ok. to have a freedom to vote or do you think we be socialistic and let anything go.  let gays teach our young boys - as they do on so many tv shows for young children - 'we're going to the closet' 

i'd like to see a young boy turn into a man.

do you know why i think  homosexuality is more open today and more accepted.  because father figures don't exist that much anymore.  i mean genetic fathers.  how many of you on this forum have a close relationship (not sexual - but just a close father to son) with your Dad's?  one where you can talk about anything and you do stuff together a lot?

[gonzalo]

Look pianistimo, if you decide to believe in a religion that discriminates homosexuals, then you're discriminating them too.

There's no sense in saying: " God says that , not me"

[pianistimo]

but, you do not realize that this choice affects you - not me.  it is your future.  why should i care?  maybe because God tells us to care about others and their future in the kingdom of God?  do you want to believe there is no God. that is your choice.  but, when i am asked what the bible says - it is different than what people often SAY it says.  for instance - in several places in the New Testament (hebrews 4:12) that make it plain that we are judged by God's words and the words which we speak.  'for the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword (why?  because it causes controversy), and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow (it is detailed.  the law is specific), and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.'

i am not judging - but God will in the future.  very shortly.  may as well get the accounts in order.  otherwise (myself included) we will miss out on the wonderful things that God planned from the beginning for us to share with Him.  I Peter 4:18 'and if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved,what will become of the godless man and the sinner?  therefore, let those also who suffer (give up something) according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right.'

something else i find interesting is that I Peter mentions the idea that the righteous will be reviled for the name of Christ.  I peter 4:14 'for if you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.'  now, i'm not saying i'm full of the Spirit - but when i tell people what the bible says - i find it interesting that these words ring true.

[ada]

Look I hate to get into a biblical argument but if you're going to take the bible literally does it not condone incest?

Does that mean you think homosexuality is bad but incest is ok? Cos god let eve f**ck her son and have his babies?

Tell us all that incest is ok pianistimo.

You biblical literalists have an uncanny way of picking and choosing what suits you.

[pianistimo]

eve did not need to have sex with her sons to procreate.  she had her husband - adam - and they had daughters as well as sons.  before God's law was in effect for this type of thing.  before there were any other 'daughter's of men' for her sons to marry.  you should read the bible literally, ada.

genesis5:4 'then the days of adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had OTHER sons and daughters.'

now, people laugh when they hear 800 years.  but, hey - we were originally made pretty sturdy.  i believe God can do pretty much with his creations as He likes.  whatever we are not familiar with (case study) we tend to disbelieve.  God is outside of His own formulas and laws and can change them at whim.

[ada]

I acknowledge that I have not read the bible from cover to cover.

But I do believe Adam and eve had three sons called cain able and seth, did they not?

I also believe the bible the was a little light-on in explaining where their partners came from.
 
Unfortunately I do not have a bible immediately handy.

And it is a cop-out to say 'oh it all happened before god's law'.

Puhlease.

[pianistimo]

you are right, ada, that the bible doesn't say specifically that they married their sisters.  nor does it say they had sex with their mother.  i tend to believe that it was their sisters - because other people in the bible did marry within family occasionally (half-sisters/cousins).  like abraham.  he married his half-sister. 

but, when the law of moses was given -there was a statute given about NOT marrying sisters.  God already knew how many lines of generations of people would accomodate it before it started breaking down genetically and causing genetic damage to future children.leviticus 18:9 'the nakedness of your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover.'  in some bibles - the word nakedness is also a euphemism for having sexual relations with.  it was translated carefully so that even seeing their nakedness (which might cause one or the other to lust for the other) was forbidden.

moses was quite a few years past the time of original creation and also after the flood.  genetically, all are probably traced through seth's line - because noah was his descendant (and the wives which came - may have been other nationalities).  it is said that shem was lighter skinned, ham was darker, and japheth was of the mid-range skin.  i don't know if this was or wasn't the case - but if you follow names of their progeny - the similarity of names to nationalities is striking. 

the sons of ham included 'cush' - which it even says that he became the father of nimrod and was a mighty hunter - and the beginning of his kingdom was babel and erech and accad and calneh, in the land of shinar.  other sons of cush included raamah - whose sons were sheba and dedan. 

the bible actually follows the migrations of all people from the table of nations in genesis 10.  what i find interesting is that nimrod also went to resen between nineveh and calah; (and began the first dynasty of the pharoahs) EGYPT.'  genesis 10:12 (that is the great city).  people wonder - 'why the similarities between babylon and egypt?'  astronomical knowledge.  mathematical knowlege.  pyramid building.  well, this nimrod was a pyramid builder of sorts - because shinar was where the tower of babel was built.  a ziggurrat.  well, that's it in a nutshell.  ok. i'm done.  excepting of course the true builder of the first 'step pyramid' which i believe was joseph because he used it to store grain.  ok. done.

[ada]

ah ok so they f**cked their sisters,  the existence of whom is not mentioned in the bible but whom you appear to have made up because it suits you.  And how is that any more palatable than f**cking your mother?

Can we therefore make up other things that aren't mentioned in the bible because it fits into our particular brand of fundamentalist christianity?

I will take it then that a literal interpretation of the bible means adhering blindly to some bits while randomly filling in the blanks when the questions start getting a bit tricky.

Not a credible approach to religion, IMHO.

[pianistimo]

better than nothing.  the bible fills a lot more gaps than you realize.

[ada]

Apparently. Hence its appeal eh.

[penguinlover]

So, if I read these posts correctly, you are considered psychotic if you believe the Bible.  Is that correct?  Did I read that right?  Then, let me be psychotic with pianistimo.  The Bible speaks much of sins of all kinds, homosexuality is just one of them.  But, the Bible addresses the subject of homosexuality  in several places, so it is not really up for interpretation.  The Bible is very clear on God's view of it. You either believe the Bible, or you don't.  Don't call people names just because they choose to believe it.  We don't call you names because you don't believe.  
 
And by the way, I think that Jesus would hold God's view of homosexuality, since He is God.  And I don't think He would bother being on the internet.  He would be out with the people of the land, telling them of God.

[pianistimo]

you have a point there, penguinlover!  i think Jesus was a healthy sort and probably couldn't take sitting hours at a computer.  he enjoyed getting out and staying fit.  probably why he was effective at communicating, too.  he didn't really attempt to be 'scholarly' in that sense - otherwise he would have gone to the local schools.  his education was hands-on (pardon the pun).  he touched a person.  they were well.  he talked to a person about a problem and prayed with them - and the problem was gone.  this is beyond scholarly.

[ada]

Well you are in good company. Hitler and the Taliban hated faggots too.

Hate is bad. Bigotry is bad. Discrimination is bad. Ignorance is bad.

If you want to be homophobic, fine, there are plenty of people just like you. Just don't expect not to have your views challenged if you choose to air them.

Now, more than enough on this very tired topic.

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Ada, your later replies have concurred my suspicions of you being a "da SDC," fan, partly because of your predilection for their lingo and because I have seen numerable posts of "da SDC" members claiming that you are indeed a member of that forum.

[soliloquy]

First, on Leviticus 18:22, which is unarguably the SINGLE nonsymbolist reference to homosexuality in the bible.

LEVITICUS 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination." (KJV)

It appears quite clearly stated. Now, let's put this verse in context with the whole Bible. We don't want to pull one verse out of context like the one I used in the introduction to "prove" that Jesus preached hate. This verse is a part of a group of hundreds of rules and regulations called the Law. It is important to note that this group of rules is always referred to in the singular form such as: the Law of Moses, the Law of the Lord, the Law of God, the Book of the Law or simply the Law. This Law is contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Jesus said: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (Luke 16:17) These rules were to be taken as one Law. It's all or nothing.

Let's look at some of the rules of the Law found in Leviticus. Chapters 1-7 has rules about the different kinds of offerings and sacrifices that were to be made in preparation for worship. Chapters 8-10 has rules for the priests regarding offerings, sacrifices, and other priestly duties. Chapter 11 has rules about clean and unclean foods. For example you will find that pork and shrimp are abomination but it's OK to eat beetles, locusts and grasshoppers. Chapter 12 has rules about purification of a woman after childbirth and the circumcision of males is a must. Chapters 13-14 has rules related to skin disorders from leprosy to scabby stuff like dandruff, eczema and zits. Chapter 15 has rules about purification of women after their period and for men with seminal discharges. Chapter 16 has more priestly rules Chapter 17 has rules about not consuming blood. Chapter 18 has rules about sex. Chapter 19 has rules about dealing fairly with others, crossbreeding of animals and crops is not allowed (No tangelos allowed and Tropicana twisters are a synthetic sin). Mixed fabrics are a no-no! (no polyester or cotton blends), no cutting of sideburns or trimming of beards, when you plant a tree you are to avoid eating its fruit for three years. Chapter 20 has more rules about sex...if a man has sex with a woman on her period they are both to be cut off from the people and that if a couple commits adultery they are both to be put to death. Chapter 25 has rules about not lending money to a country man with interest, and we are not to sell food at a profit. My favorite law is in Deuteronomy 15:1 "At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts."

We can go on and on. These laws have to do with being clean or unclean and about keeping yourself from being cut off from the people. Clean or unclean for what? Cut off from the congregation? Why?

                    Exodus 19:1-6

        In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt-- on the very day-- they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." (NIV)

Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. The function of a priest is to lead in worship and offer sacrifices to God on behalf of sinners. So, this was the function of the Israelites. This was the reason they were called by God. They had to be set apart from the other nations or consecrated in order to be purified for worshiping and serving a Holy God. In Leviticus 20:7,8 He said to them, "'Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. (NIV)

When you read the Law you will find that the only way to really be purified for worship was by the blood of a lamb, sheep, goat or bull. In Hebrews 9:22 we read: In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Once they were purified for worship they worshiped at a special place in the center of their community called the Tabernacle. The heart of the Tabernacle was a room called the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy Place. The heart of the Holy of Holies was the Ark of the Covenant. The lid of the Ark of the covenant was the Mercy Seat. The plans for this tabernacle were given by God in great detail.

                    Exodus 25:8-9

        I want the people of Israel to build me a sacred residence where I can live among them. You must make this Tabernacle and its furnishings exactly according to the plans I will show you. (NLT)

They were to follow these details with accuracy. This accuracy was very important because the tabernacle was an earthly copy of the Tabernacle in heaven.

                    Hebrews 8:5

        Their work is connected with a mere earthly model of the real tabernacle in heaven; for when Moses was getting ready to build the tabernacle, God warned him to follow exactly the pattern of the heavenly tabernacle as shown to him on Mount Sinai. (TLB)

The Tabernacle was a model of the throne room of God and the Mercy Seat was His throne! The only person that was allowed to enter the Most Holy Place was the High Priest. All of these laws and all of the ritualistic cleaning and all of the sacrificial blood had a purpose. It was so that the High Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies where more blood was sprinkled so that God would forgive the people of sin and accept their worship.

To enter the Most Holy Place the High Priest had to go through a curtain or veil. While Jesus was on earth the Law was still in effect. However, the moment he died the Law was fulfilled. Upon His death, the curtain that symbolized the separation between us and God was ripped open from top to bottom.

                    Matthew 27:50, 51

        And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. (NIV)

These curtains were over 40 feet high and they were thick. They were torn by God from top to bottom. From that moment on the Holy of Holies, symbolic of God's throne room, was no longer closed off to us. Now, we can approach God with confidence and without fear of being "unclean" because the blood of Jesus was shed for us. No longer do we need the blood of goats, sheep or bulls to be right with God. The blood of Jesus is the only lasting sacrifice required. There is no longer a need for "the Law of Moses" as it has been fulfilled in Jesus. We say that Jesus fulfilled the Law because the purpose of the Law was to gain forgiveness for the people.

                    Hebrews 10:19-23

        Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. (NIV)

Now, when we believe in this blood of Jesus Christ, we are made clean or righteous by this faith and NOT by observing the Law. If observing the Law made us right with God or righteous, then Jesus would have died for nothing.

                    Galatians 2:21

        I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (NIV)

Since we are righteous or right with God we can freely and with confidence go into His very throne room and He is also free to walk among us.

                    Ephesians 3:10-12

        God's purpose was to show his wisdom in all its rich variety to all the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. They will see this when Jews and Gentiles are joined together in his church. This was his plan from all eternity, and it has now been carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord. because of Christ and our faith in him, we can now come fearlessly into God's presence, assured of his glad welcome. (NLT)

                    Hebrews 4:16

        Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (NIV)

                    2 Corinthians 6:16

        What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (NIV)

Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexuality and we are no longer under the "Law of sin and death". Accept the grace of God. Accept the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus and let your consciences be cleaned. Allow Him to walk in your life. He wants to do that. And He knows you are gay!

                    Galatians 3:19-29

        What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV)

You can't believe that Jesus died for you if you are bound by the Law and believe that you are an abomination worthy of death. If you abide by the Law then you are saying that the death of Christ means nothing to you and that is exactly what Satan wants you to believe!!! But we know that "Satan is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)

Romans 6:14 says that we "are no longer under the law but under grace." The concept of grace is very simple. It has nothing to do with what you did or do or will do. The concept of grace has to do with what God has already done and why He did it! You see, God so loved the world (that's you and me) that He gave His one and only Son, Jesus, so that "whosoever" (you and me, again) shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Now, if someone judges you by the Law, including Leviticus 18:22, show them the following scripture:

                    James 2:10

        For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (NIV)

Anyone who judges you by Leviticus 18:22 better stop pointing fingers at you and start making all those sacrifices, worshiping at a tabernacle, and eating beetles and grasshoppers instead of shrimp, pork and lobster. But as for us "Christ is the end of the Law" and the beginning of a great love relationship between God and us!

                    Romans 10:4

        Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (NIV)

                    2 Corinthians 5:17-21

        Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV)

I can supply many, many more essays on the subject of Leviticus and that particular passage.


[continued]

[soliloquy]

Like this one:

Overview of Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 8

This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general. In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
bullet   The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
bullet   The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
bullet   On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden."
bullet   The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:

   1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
   2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

   1. The Net Bible® translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
   2. An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.

horizontal rule
Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:
bullet   All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
bullet   All sexual behavior between two men, or
bullet   Only anal sex between two men, or
bullet   Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
bullet   Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.

horizontal rule
English translations of this verse:

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian and Jewish liberals.

Some translations are:
bullet   ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
bullet   KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
bullet   LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
bullet   Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
bullet   NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
bullet   NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
bullet   RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:
bullet   The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
bullet   The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
bullet   The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

horizontal rule
Click below to visit one of our sponsors:

horizontal rule
Various groups' interpretations of this verse:
bullet   The most comm on conservative Christian Interpretation: This verse condemns homosexual behavior of all types including consensual sex between two adults and  monogamous sexual activity within a committed relationship. Its meaning is clear and unambiguous. This verse is often quoted in Evangelical churches and on religious radio and TV programs. "Abomination" is defined in Webster's New World dictionary as "nasty and disgusting; vile, loathsome." It is a strong word indeed!

Mark Howerter writes: "The American Heritage Dictionary says this is what abominate means: 'To detest thoroughly; abhor.' A thesaurus uses : a. hate b. despise c. loathe d. detest and e. execrate as synonyms for abominate. Lest we should ever forget how God feels about homosexuality, i.e., sodomy, the whole story of Lot in Sodom as found in Genesis chapters 18-19 should be read by every person in America at least once a year." 2
bullet   Some liberal Christian Interpretations:
bullet   Some English translations of this passage condemn  both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. This is a mistranslation. It refers only to male-male sexual behavior.
bullet   This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice. 3
bullet   The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.
bullet   Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."
bullet   This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.
bullet   Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches: This is a conservative Christian denomination with a special outreach to gays and lesbians. They enlarged on the condemnation of the ritual uncleanness of homosexual sexual behavior in Pagan temples: "The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were [considered] property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of God. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation." 3
bullet   National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 4 In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

[soliloquy]

An argument against this interpretation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable.
bullet   Author Jacob Milgrom suggests that the two passages do not prohibit homosexual behavior generally, but only:
bullet   for ancient Israelites, or to inhabitants of Israel, and
bullet   who are engaging in anal intercourse, and
bullet   who are men, not lesbians, and
bullet   (perhaps) who are of the same kinship connections that would prohibit heterosexual relations. 5
bullet   Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi, points out that: "The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman." 6 In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man. Also, because woman were considered to play such an inferior role in society, sex between two lesbians are not condemned in the Old Testament. All women were of low status and thus neither would be seen as adopting a dominant or a subservient role during sexual encounters

    Waskow cites two alternative meanings to the passage:
    bullet   "Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."
    bullet   "Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness. 6

    He concludes that if this passage condemns some forms of homosexual behavior, it may refer only to the ancient Israelites, not to North America today. Perhaps: "at one time of human and Jewish history the path avoided gay male sexuality, and at a later time this avoidance might be null and void? Can the circle of the beloved community widen as we mature?"

    Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of  the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.

bullet   A second Jewish writer, Rabbi Gershon Caudill, is: "not convinced that the biblical passages (here in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13) refer to homosexual activity that is within a monogamous, stable, and loving relationship." He suggests that the passages refer to sexual promiscuity, not to homosexual activity within a committed relationship: 7
bullet   He notes that Leviticus 18:22 is located in a section of Leviticus that deals with incest and bestiality.
bullet   It is not usual for a gay man to have sex with another man as if he the latter were a woman. If he were to do so, then he would be pretending that he was with a woman and not with another man. Thus, he would not be in a homosexual relationship at all. The passage actually refers to a heterosexual male who is forcing himself to fantasize that he is having sex with a woman in order to be able to complete the act. In modern terms, this would be considered as a male heterosexual violating his own sexual orientation.
bullet   At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.

There is a myriad of ways that has been interpreted, and a myriad of reasons why it is being more commonly dismissed by religious figures.

So, if I read these posts correctly, you are considered psychotic if you believe the Bible.  Is that correct?  Did I read that right?

That is not correct; you have misread everything apparently; I assume you have cherry-picked the things you find the most offensive.

Then, let me be psychotic with pianistimo.

You may wish to reconsider.

The Bible speaks much of sins of all kinds, homosexuality is just one of them.  But, the Bible addresses the subject of homosexuality  in several places, so it is not really up for interpretation.  The Bible is very clear on God's view of it.

Theology professors disagree entirely with you.  Many priests disagree with you.  But you know best.  The bible references homosexuality only a couple times; I refer to times that people other than super fundamentalists concur the passage is about homosexuality.  Also, remember, the bible is written by MEN, during a time in which slavery, genocide and the oppression of women is entirely fine.  The two instances that are probably the only ones that are direct, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, are not as iron-clad as you'd probably like to believe.  In the context of both the entire book of leviticus and the entire bible, the evidence sways hard to the idea that it is referring to rituals involving male-male sex.  Also, there is a large amount of evidence (more than the straight-forward) due to the context that it does not involve homosexuality but what is a called a "ceremonial uncleanliness", but you obviously know more about the bible than I do so I guess you know all about that

Don't call people names just because they choose to believe it.  We don't call you names because you don't believe.

I am not making broad slanderisms towards Christians, I am making a direct attack on pianistimo for her bigotry.  Nowhere will you see me group all God-believers into her group; as I said, you are cherry-picking my words to suit your strawman argument.  And yes, of course you don't call us names.  Oh wait, you said "we".  Let's see what pianistimo called us.  "Evil".  "Abominations".  "Pedophiles".  "Rapists".  "Equivalent to murderers and child rapists".  "Disease carriers".  "Sinners".  I.  Can.  Go.  On.



Choose your words more wisely if you plan on arguing with me more on the subject.

[ada]

Greetings.

Ada, your later replies have concurred my suspicions of you being a "da SDC," fan, partly because of your predilection for their lingo and because I have seen numerable posts of "da SDC" members claiming that you are indeed a member of that forum.

seriously debussy, as if I would have anything to do with that rabble.

Anything you have read suggesting otherwise is pure slander of my good name.