Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Ron Paul Denies That The Bible Calls Homosexuality Sin!

Posted by Job on December 20, 2007

Ron Paul Flops on Question About Homosexuality.

Sorry, but I cannot support the fellow anymore. Hat tip: IndependentConservative, with whom I am very angry with right now for exposing this! 🙂 Also, if anyone chooses to challenge my negritude for being willing to cease to support Ron Paul over his denying that the Bible calls homosexuality sin and then strongly hinting that even if it did his medical training would nullify it but not over Ron Paul’s history of being connected to racist statements, well go ahead and fire away. I will not debate you.


57 Responses to “Ron Paul Denies That The Bible Calls Homosexuality Sin!”

  1. Chris said

    Good for Ron Paul. He’s the man.

  2. Eden Hadassah said

    Good for you Job!
    Happy searching. Will you end up being a non-voter too? I wonder…
    That was the problem that I had several years ago, and realized I couldn’t vote for anybody.
    On one hand you can have a person be a professing bible believing Christian that seems to go against all that the bible and the constitution says and on the other hand have someone that denies the bible, staying neutral and defending the constitution
    and the rights of all citizens.
    The Lord is my King, above the President, so I will always vote for Him. I can’t vote for a christian just because he says the bible told him so…otherwise I feel like it is just another “vicor of Christ.”

  3. Eden Hadassah said

    I just posted my comment, but an “oops” message just came up and I think the post was lost…I will do my best to remember what I just said and hopefully it won’t pop up as an “almost double.”

    Good for you Job!
    Happy searching. Will you become a non-voter too? I wonder…

    I had the same problem a few years ago.
    On the one hand you can have a bible believing Christian that ends up denying the bible and the constitution or on the other hand, have someone that denies the bible, stays neutral, defends the constitution and everyone’s rights in this country.
    The Lord is my King, above the President, and I have a hard time with a christian president because to me he just becomes another “vicor of Christ”, and we have seen where that leads.

  4. N. Spears said

    This not surprising at all. I mean come on these are politicians. They don’t care anything about God. Our vote doesn’t matter anyway. The next president is already chosen by cough..cough..the Vatican..cough… Hillary is a shoe in. Just watch.

  5. N. Spears, what makes you figure the Vatican prefers Hillary?

  6. Eden Hadassah said

    The vatican takes their orders from a different power…
    with that said, Hilary may be the pick of the litter! (She is jewish if you get my drift!)

  7. Yea I figured that, but was wondering if there was any evidence documenting them possibly favoring her. I mean scripture is our best guide, but perhaps something that was a hint in the media.

  8. Eden Hadassah said

    It’s about the beast in the middle east! So yeah, it’s in the media…her husband is their “golden boy”, and since she is a woman, what would infuriate male dominiated muslim sentiment? She would definately cause a “rift” in the peace process for sure.

  9. Chad said

    Yeah. This was one of his worst interviews. There are obviously people that have a homosexual tendency, but it is still sin to act on those tendencies.

    Ron Paul is still our greatest option.

  10. Treavor said

    Ron Paul is an intelligent man; I am much more bothered by the interviewer.

  11. Charles D. said

    Chad I don’t know where you’ve been or what you’ve been through, however, I saw Ron Paul this past Sunday in an interview and the subject had nothing to do with sex or gender preference. I assure you that I paid close attention to what he had to say and he is not an uneducated person. That being said:
    Ron Paul is one of the most ill-informed candidates in the Presidential race, would not and could not impliment any of the solutions to problems that he has stated to date, and is a dangerous man.

    I don’t know where he got his Dr. or his area of matriculation, however, this I do know: The proof of this pudding would be in the naming of a cabinet were he to be elceted; which will never, ever, never, happen. Check this out: I hope you are not depending on him winning in any emotional way. But mark my words, he could NEVER be elected irrespective of how much money he raises on the internet.

    I sure do not know where you get that “our” from but you take too much liberty in doing so. Also, I knew this well before the current thread was posted and I’m sorry to let you down abruptly, but, you shouldn’t book losers.


  12. Charles D. said

    Not Trevor, too!!

  13. Stuart said

    The commentator was saying barring people who have fornicated from the military? We really would be an army of one (literally one soldier) then.

  14. Eden Hadassah said

    Hi Chazman!
    I like Ron Paul! 🙂
    Sorry, dude.

  15. Charles D. said

    Hey Mah Sister,

    I know you do. I’mma gonna guess that Job does and the guy (you know who). We’re still family and that should remain inspite of it all.

    What you’re not going to be happy with is I can profile the average Paul supporter. No lie. Thing is…innately, the signature is not that difficult.
    We each have our reasons and I respect that.

    Later on, maybe next week or there after I will have more to say about Ron Paul, Esq. But listen closely if he ever reveal whom he would appoint in a cabinet post. I bet you a $$ to a doughnut that if the person is respectable, he will ommediately say he would not serve and those that remain silent, I bet you will know very little to nothing about their back grounds. If you do hear a name, then, drop it on me.

    Take care I will comment later tonight.

    Be Blessed,


    P.S. Awwwwww Come on, you can discern, look closely into his eyes and tell me if you believe he’s even sane. 🙂

  16. Eden Hadassah said

    My brother from another mother…
    you do make an excellent point! And while profiling all the wacko’s that absolutely love him, of course, you have to take into consideration that that is exactly what the media would love to exploit! If they can’t assasinate his character, go after all the other wacko’s that support him…i.e. conspiracy theorists, white supremisists, and other all other disinfranchised folks. The point in all of that is to get those who may lean towards him, yet are undecided, to second guess themselves because they do not want to be also labeled a “wacko” or a “conspriracy theorist” or any of the other insane things that the media deems “news worthy!” If they can make people embarrassed to vote for him, and worry about what other people think…they have truly done their job.
    I have this great link by Liberty Maven that quotes the Media Czar…you gotta check out how the media has step by step gone through each one of the points on the list…right down to the king of supremacy, Glen Beck. I got a kick out of it, and then I watch everytime there is something said about him in the media. It is always true to form!
    I like Obama, he just doesn’t “have it” for me. It’s a good thing I don’t vote! 😉

  17. Eden Hadassah said

  18. Eden Hadassah said

    If you do happen to read it, make sure you scroll down and read the comments too. There just as funny! These are my crazie “homies!”

  19. Charles D. said

    Hey Babes:

    Now listen ya little fruitcake, first of all, for more years than I care to count the media, both print, broadcast and electronic have been on my
    -hit list. I absolutely disdain
    reporters/commentators that in most cases so dumb they couldn’t find “it” with both hands trying to influence the outcome of not only elections but any event that will get them a pay raise, larger contract, a book deal, etc.

    And this Glen Beck fellow is absolutely banned from my home, even on those occassions that I might stop on CNN or any of it’s sub-stations. I’m not one to hold past drug use, drinking, or most any vice but that creap is really a three time loser and a practicing sinner to boot.

    I say all of that to lead into: My analysis and subsequent comments about Ron Paul have absolutely not been shaped or enhanced by the media in anyway. My initial opinion was formed long before the interview mentioned in my earlier comments. I was this interview that I profiled, and watched almost totally without volume. It was afterwards, that I listened to verify baseline analytics. It is amazing what watching without volume will bring out in people.

    To be fair, Paul is not the only candidate that have mental problems. At least two of them I like VERY much, however, I would never VOTE for either. For example, Joe Biden. I like him but he’s mental and I am not using the term in a derogatory way, because all of us have some kinds of problems and one of two things follows {the problem(s) either have not been diagnosed yet, or they have and just haven’t been treated.} A number of years ago (don’t know if you remember) but he borrowed a few lines from a lil ole document and claimed authorship. The document was something like either the Gettysburg Address or like document. Shortly there after he had an aneurysm, stayed out of the public eye, later returned and all was forgiven.
    I am sure you are aware of the fact that in every national election (though the same happen on the state and municipal levels as well), after the obvious front-runners, these cronies KNOW they don’t have a snowball chance in hell of winning.

    Thing is, they have all found a way to accept contributions they can get away without reporting them, and they’re in it for the money, book deal, footnote in history books or all of the afore-mentioned. Sometimes this happens via a “bagman” as treasurer and sometimes a family member. Look at the Managers and treasurers of most campaigns and they are a world apart from the mostbase of the remaining org. You name it babes and I’ve been there.

    Love ya,


  20. Todd said

    Is it a mark against Paul that he will not call homosexuality sin? Of course. The man is a lifetime baptist- when is the last time you have known a baptist minister to preach- I mean really preach- on evolution vs. creation, homosexuality, government, etc.? While a few (very few) are beginning to preach on such subjects today, none did 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and especially 50 years ago. So, it is not too terribly surprising to find that a man like Ron Paul does not understand what scripture says about such a matter. While he certainly ought to spend sufficient time studying the Word of God, Paul spends an abundance of time studying Austrian economics, the Constitution, and other matters that fall under the realm of the proper God-given role of GOVERNMENT! The prevalence of homosexuality in our society today has absolutely nothing to do with government, nor can government FIX IT! This is what Ron Paul understands. Ron Paul may not be 100% perfect theologically (who is?), but he does at least understand that an oath to God MUST BE KEPT!!! When an oath is violated, it is always followed by cursing- when an oath is violated by a leader, it is always succeeded by a cursing of the people being led! That is why Ron Paul will not commit to legislation forbidding homosexuality- he understands that this is an issue for the CHURCH to deal with. Would I prefer him to pronounce publically that it is a sin? Sure! Would that do any good at all for your cause, mine, or this nations? It’s certainly doubtful. So, rather than allowing ourselves to be distracted by issues that really have no bearing on the subject at hand, we would be better served to focus on the real issues of real importance to the subject matter. Regarding homosexuality, the churches need to begin teaching agaiinst, fathers need to begin developing relationships with their sons so that their sons do not seek the companionship of males later on in life. Regarding the presidential election, Huckabee has openly blasphemed God, see the video here. Giuliani is pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-war, pro everything that is antiChrist. Romney is a mormon God hater. McCain loves the shedding of innocent blood, hates any restraint upon his desires. Thompson is pro-abortion, lacks leadership skills. The list for all of the men running could run on and on for pages! But Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate running who has kept the oath that he swore to God! Is he perfect? Not by a long shot. Is he the best, most Godly man running at this current time? By far! Should we neglect our families and our churches in order to get him elected in hopes of him restoring us to our foundations? Heaven forbid! That is our job- the restoration. Can we afford to wait a generation, or two, or three until we have enough families restored? I don’t believe so. We must start somewhere and Ron Paul is that starting point. The time is now. If we get Ron Paul elected, then we will have four to eight years to work on training and developing a leader for the next 4 to 8 years. At the same time, we can continue educating the American people as to the need for that type of leader in this country. If we wait until we have the perfect leader ready, and sit on our hands on a national level until then, then the degeneracy that we are seeing will become even more prevalent, more accepted, bringing down God’s wrath and judgment upon us ever quicker.

  21. Eden Hadassah said

    Great post! Those are my sentiments exactly. If freedom of religion and freedom of speech is important to christians, then he is your man. You can choose the others who have constitutional amnesia, changing their minds about different issues depending on who they are in front of, but I would rather go with a person who has stood up to the washington crooks stealing our money, our freedoms and our rights.
    What will the religious community do when our religious freedoms are dictated to us about what we can say is a sin or speak the truth? We need to look at the bare boned basics…
    If you want to be able to say that homosexuality is a sin and not be thrown in jail or fined for it, who are you going to choose? I guess some christians would just rather complain about how satan is going to take over our country and that our country is “godless” and worldly, then to choose a candidate that can actually help protect the religious freedom and freedom of speech, so that we can do the job the Lord has set before us all. I have seen the christian guys that hem-n-haw about how pastors may have a problem in the future just talking about certain sins and be accused of “hate speech.” The thought police…funny how we can allow such things into law, and then turn right around and say “well, we have to obey the laws…that’s what God says.”
    How about when it becomes a crime to speak out against abortion, because it “offended” the sensibilities of a woman who may have had an abortion and now she feels emotionally damaged by christians speaking out against it. Or if a christian decides to speak out against divorce saying it is a sin, and others become “offended”. How about all those single family homes and mothers working two jobs becoming offended when a christian says that the root cause of crime and problems in this country is due to the rise of single parent families?
    The implications are wide and far reaching. Yet I feel that most christians are voting their “conscience?” Are they?
    Medicaid pays for abortions, and that comes from the good christians that pay their taxes right? How about the elected officials that christians elect, and it turns out they are committing lewd acts with a paige…yeah, we vote them in don’t we? The homosexual elected officials caught in public bathrooms…we write their paychecks.
    You know that if Bush provokes another country to war that we could have him in office for another term right?
    March is a majic month for him, so I guess we will see what he conjures up in mid-march. It is possible for him to go a third term, especially in a time of war.

  22. Charles D. said

    CEPT”N for the fact that Paul’s past has already betreyed him. What he says and what he is smart enough to do are different things altogether.

    If one looks very closely into his eyes, they would probably rightfully conclude that Paul is well….”challenged.” Paul’s background is in the physical sciences, and lathough the people of Jumpoff, Texas saw fit to elect, then, return him to congress several times has nothing to do with credentials, but rather, he was just smarter than all of them. Furthermore, just being around the bureacracy long enough; you learn buzz words, know what button to push, and using third grade civic lessons (the timing would conincide with his year group when America was for Americans) he certainly know how to say things that are hot-button concerns for most of us.

    The problem is we are now facing a whole new set of challengese rhar Paul has failed to address and he in deed cannot address because he doen’t have a clue, and I for one am not willing to allow him to screw-up my grand children’s future because he can turn a conservative phrase or two. Look in the man’s eyes for goodness sakes..he is not sane! Also, the fact that he does not speak out against homosexuality proves that he is not as conservative as he pretends to be. AND! Say he knows and fairly states his beliefs. A man that trys to be right for both is right for neither.

    Vote for Obama 🙂



  23. Eden Hadassah said

    Don’t let old eyes distract you. I would rather look at his record.
    If I wanted to go by what I see, I would choose Obama. Problem is that I already know who is going to president, (it aint Ronnie boy) but I can still give my opinion.
    Based on looks, demeanor and personality, Ron Paul wouldn’t be a blipp on my radar. I am just interested in getting people thinking for themselves…and I enjoy seeing people speak out about what is important to them. That includes those who oppose Ron Paul. We got bigger problems if the homosexuality issue is the mainstay of choosing a candidate.
    I am looking for the pulse, and interested in the response. I’m not voting for Paul or anyone, but in the coming years, we will see a rise in young people actually interested in doing what Ron has done, and they won’t go quietly into the night when it comes to politics! I am looking forward to that day.

    Fruit Cake

  24. Charles D. said

    It isn’t the “age” in the eyes that scare me, it is the “smile of the stare” when nothing comical has been said. Also, a challenged person thinking for himself, when he is not in one of those cute little jackets that button down the back, he’s not properly attired. Now, leave such a person in charge of the little “briefcase” trying to put the round pegs in the square holes, now that IS scarey! 🙂


  25. Eden Hadassah said

    LOL 🙂
    Give me an issue my love!

  26. Charles D. said

    First, I hope you have a very wonderful day and that we all are not inundated with all of the political hassh left over from yesterday. You know I am not one that like to provide unrelated links, however, when I saw the number of people that I personally know, being indicted for everything from bribery to selling votes for exploration of and drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve; I was tempted to add the link to either the Anchorage Daily News or the Juneau Empire. Now I see that Ted Steven (formerly of the Appropriations Committee), has been under intense investigation by the FBI. Also, there are 2 State Legislators in jail, 2 awaiting sentencing, and 4 on trial, I am agasp!

    Out of that bunch, I really feel sorry for one because I know he started out innocent and he has 3 young children, but, politics tend to corrupt. So, what else is new?

    I’m no political expert, but I do know the fundamentals, and I maintain, that if more people knew the inner workings of gov’t; what a person can do and what they cannot, then, our choices would be different than they appear to be now. All it takes is a congressman to award a block grant here or there, a straight line earmark to a non-profit, and doesn’t matter how terrible that person has been, comes election time, he/she is forgiven, almost, always. 😦



    P.S. You’ll find out later on. 🙂

  27. Eden Hadassah said

    YABSTM? That’s a new one.

    I can only imagine what that one means! 😉

  28. Eden Hadassah said

    Got it… 🙂

  29. sgsnow said

    Jesus said nothing, not one word, about homosexuals. For those of you who insist that this does not matter, that the Bible is somehow clear elsewhere about the evilness of homosexuality, here are some questions.

    Why didn’t Jesus say that He was abolishing all the rules in the Old Testament EXCEPT the rule against homosexual intercourse?

    Why didn’t He distinguish between His forgiving the woman brought to him in adultery ( ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ ) and His wanting to continue to hold homosexuality against people?

    Why didn’t He say anything about how homosexual marriage would defile the sanctity of the relationship of man and woman?

    Why didn’t He say anything?

    Did He just keep forgetting to mention it?

    If homosexuality truly is a sin worthy of eternal damnation, as some believe it is, then why didn’t Jesus discuss it? He certainly preached at length concerning every other sin listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Timothy 1:9-10. Why would He leave this one out?

    As for the Old Testament, Genesis 19 describes the destruction of Sodom, which has been attributed to the homosexuality of its citizens; the men may have wanted to rape the (male) angels. Actually, the text at this point is ambiguous; the original Hebrew word sometimes referred to sexual activity although it usually meant “to know” in a literal sense. But a careful reading of Genesis and Ezekiel reveals that inhospitality, pride, idol worship, and lack of consideration for the poor were their prime sins. If homosexuality was involved, it was obviously not consensual sexual activity; it was rape. So we can safely conclude that Sodom was destroyed because of the sins of its citizens which included their habit of raping visitors. Judges 19 seems to be a duplicate of the Genesis story.

    Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 appears to condemn male homosexual behavior, but in fact only refers to temple prostitution. Even if it did refer to lesbian and gay relationships, it would not be applicable to Christians today, any more than are the other 613 laws which make up the Jewish Holiness Code. It is less than genuine for a Christian to imply that these verses are still valid for the beliefs and conduct of Christians, while stating that the remaining laws of the Holiness Code are not applicable.

    Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24 and 15:12 are mistranslated in some versions of the Bible as referring to homosexual behavior. “Temple prostitute” would be an accurate translation.

    We can conclude that the Hebrew Scriptures condemn homosexual rape and temple prostitution, but do not disapprove of gay and lesbian relationships. One can be confident that centuries of fire and brimstone sermons on homosexuality based on verses from the Old Testament are misinterpretations of the Bible.

  30. Sgsnow – Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY means to salvation for anyone?

    Jesus made it clear that homosexual relationships are sin.

    Matthew 19:4-6 (New American Standard Bible)

    4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,


    6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    Jesus made it clear that only one man to one woman was acceptable for anyone claiming to be a Christian.

    You’ve got some serious errors in your view of scripture, but we cannot go any further until you answer my question to you.

  31. sgsnow said


    I certainly may have some errors in my view of Scripture (who can be certain?) but with all due respect I think you must have cited the wrong Biblical verse. Is that the only thing you can offer from the NT that (you think) condemns homosexuality? Perhaps you meant Romans?

    In the passage you have offered (Matt: 19), the Pharisees have asked Jesus “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife…?”
    Jesus answers in the passage you have cited. Then He says

    “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you
    that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    So you really must have meant some other passage. (Or, perhaps, you are just completely ignorant of the context. So few read Bible for themselves these days.)

    You see, this verse can (and should be!) cited as indicating that Jesus condemned divorce; but to say that it makes “clear that homosexual relationships are sin” is simply a laughable non sequitur. In fact, it indicates the complete ignorance most people have about Jesus’ teachings: he condemned divorce (which people ignore), and did not even mention homosexuality (a fact of which most are completely ignorant).

    You think homosexuality is a sin. Fine. So does the Nation of Islam. But you are clearly unable to show anything from the NT that might agree with you on this point. (Of course, the OT condemned all sorts of things, including eating shellfish and mixing fabrics.)

    So let’s try this one more time. Tell us all, IC: is there any scriptural basis at all behind your deep conviction that the NT labels homosexuality a sin? Or did you just hear it somewhere?

  32. Sgsnow – Again you are terribly wrong. But as I already said to you, I need you to answer my question to you FIRST, before any further discourse might take place.

    Here is the question for you again:

    Sgsnow – Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY means to salvation for anyone?

  33. sgsnow said

    Hey again IC,

    You are committing the “ad hominem” fallacy. Let me define it for you.

    “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

    People commit this fallacy when they have no intelligent response, because they have been refuted.

    Look at it this way: the Bible is what is important, not who I am, or what I am.

    Do you want to try again? Yes, you went really wrong with Matthew, but give it another shot. Maybe you can discuss Romans? Anything from the NT at all regarding homosexuality?

    Or are your views just the sum of your prejudices, and totally unrelated to Scripture?

    Enjoy the summer.

  34. Sgsnow – Why is it such a difficult question for you who come here as if you have knowledge of scripture?

    Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the ONLY means to salvation for anyone?

    I have only asked a single question of you and would appreciate your answer.

  35. djenk23 said


    Sgsnow must have made his way over here from GCM Watch after Pastor Foster and others shut him down..he’s been pretty much banned over there…as you can already tell his mission is making homosexuality acceptable in the church…ah well…carry on..

  36. Thanks for the heads up Djenk23. Sgsnow has the A-Typical MCC playbook. But I start at square one, the true Lordship of Jesus Christ, because as you can see, if we can’t get past square one, what’s the point of going further?

    Sgsnow does not know we’ve seen and rebuked their type many times over. But I saw no need in getting into how to rightly divide scriptures with someone who can’t openly claim Jesus is Lord, that can’t get the basics. What’s the point of talking about anything “Jesus said” if one can’t proclaim His full Lordship as the ONLY means to salvation? To me, it appears that Sgsnow has a much greater problem than their unlearned handle of scripture. They can’t handle a question based on the lightest of milk, so getting into any heavier milk (we can’t even begin to consider meat in such a case) is pointless. Sgsnow is in need of true repentance.

  37. Kyle said


    DJenk23 is right. BTW Steve why didn’t you respond top my list of questions over at GCMWatch? However, now that I see you deny Jesus as the only way I understand why. I’ll give Pastor Foster the heads up.


  38. sgsnow said

    Hey everybody,

    Kyle, I tried to “man-up”, as you put it, to respond to your questions at GCMW, but my posts were deleted. Sorry about that, but if you want to discuss it here, let me know. But Kyle, no offense, but you seem more interested than I in discussing genitalia. Do you mind discussing Christianity, instead? I just don’t want you to think I am ignoring you.

    IC, honest, I won’t make fun of your abysmal ignorance of Scripture anymore. Give it another shot. Don’t be afraid. Give me one reference from the NT. Just one? Can’t do it? Hmm. Here is a thought. Just go to your friends, and ask them to help you. No need to even read the Bible!

  39. Kyle said


    Since you were banned from GCMWatch then here you go.

    Re-posted from GCM Watch


    Lets get right down to brass tacks shall we. Your body parts are conducive to sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Any other sexual acts are clearly not designed for each other. It shouldn’t be a big surprise why Homosexuals are more likely to contract diseases. Real simple! Fissures within the colon are created making small pools of blood and opening up the body to all forms of diseases and microbial’s within the once “sealed” lining. Why wouldn’t God created a system conducive to this behavior if it is so right in your eyes?

    Next lets look at purpose and design. A woman produces a menstrual cycle each month for the purpose of what? So a new egg and uterine lining is available for the possibility of conception.

    #1. Look at your body parts
    #2. Go read a 10th grade biology book
    #3. Report back once you understand the functions of your parts.

    Next I want to dispel some counter points of the Homosexual agenda.

    Many argue that it’s obvious by our design that sexual intercourse, albeit pleasurable was clearly designed for producing children.

    Homosexual response: Well, many straight couples can’t have children nor do elderly straight couples therefore what’s wrong with homosexuality?

    Answer: Older couples “understand” that there beyond their “once” capable reproductive years and probably reproduced at one time and created a family with a Mom, Dad, and children. Also, heterosexual couples usually are shocked, dismayed, and saddened by the fact they can not have children. Homosexuals pretty much understand that what they do will NEVER produce children. No shock there.

    Another point regarding your false pretense regarding the woman by the well. You failed to follow up with the next verse that said, “Go and sin no more”. Hey Steve what did our Lord mean by that?

    Steve shall I go on. Here is another lie from the homosexual movement.

    Why should you care whom I love? It has no bearing on you.

    Oh really! I’m a Gen xer and I can tell you what the homosexual movement has produced in my generation and the subsequent Gen Y. Homosexual experimentation running rampant. But to you it’s not a choice but being born that way. If that were true then why so much sexual experimentation since the 1990s to present. Oh believe me Steve I graduated college in 2001 and I can tell you first hand what your whole movement has brought to this and the younger generation.

    You see Steve you keep trying to throw up these softball responses which lack any real hard core facts. Why don’t you man up and address my questions.


    Hope to hear from you soon!

  40. Kyle, you are dealing with a 1 Corinthians 2:14 case in Sgsnow. Which is why I asked him one simple question and have no need to take it any further. He’s in need of repentance and trying to discuss things of God with someone who hacks scripture to their own destruction 2 Peter 3:14-18 and can’t affirm the truth of Christ is like running in a circle. Sgsnow is not a part of the church, not trying to act like he is and not receptive to the gospel.

    Sgsnow is focused on red letters (although even the red letters refute him and affirm Jesus Christ is the ONLY WAY to salvation) and has no clue why every word in scripture is of equal weight.

    With those who don’t understand JESUS IS LORD, the only message they need from us is to be told JESUS ALONE IS YOUR ONLY HOPE, THE ONLY HOPE FOR ANYONE TO BE SAVED and if that truth is ever acknowledged, there might be hope for discussing other matters with them.

  41. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well.

    Why would anybody argue from the Bible but reject the fundamental tenant that Jesus is Lord?!?

    Clearly the man is not coming in humility to the Word of God. Instead he is trying to promote his belief by distorting the Word of God. I love to confess that “Jesus is Lord”.

    Don’t cast your pearls before swine brother.



  42. Hi John, I am well and congratulations on your sale. If the Lord wills, may you have many more.

    Thank you for the advice.

  43. sgsnow said

    Hi again Kyle,

    You write, in a representative phrase: “Your body parts are conducive to sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Any other sexual acts are clearly not designed for each other.”

    Again, that’s fascinating stuff, really it is. And I am sure you are a bright kid, on some level. But your views–as well those of Independent Conservative–have nothing to do with the Bible, which is what I am interested in discussing. No offense, but you could probably find someone else with whom to discuss your keen interest in gay sex.

    Please, feel free to put forward whatever views on homosexuality you wish–I don’t argue with those who have such, uh, imaginative critiques. What I argue with is the attempt to distort the teachings of Jesus. But seriously, if you do want to discuss the Bible, just let me know.

    Best wishes.

  44. sgsnow said

    Independent Conservative, I am genuinely disappointed.

    I was hoping for more hopelessly inappropriate Scriptural citations from you, to be frank. I mean, that quote from Matthew–that was great.

    You are so easy to make fun of, because you know so little about the Bible! But once I revealed you as a fool for thinking the passage from Matthew was about homosexuality, you seem to have chickened out. I understand.

    But hey, don’t give up hope. Maybe the next time, with someone else, you can make it look like you know what Christianity is all about. Just keep faking it!

  45. sgsnow said

    Hi John Kaniecki,

    Welcome to the discussion.

    Care to give it a shot? In case you came in late, the topic is: Where are the NT passages that condemn homosexuality?

    It seems to have stumped everybody else.


  46. sgsnow said

    Djenk23, sorry I didn’t mean to ignore you. I didn’t see your comment, at first.

    Sure, I don’t mind if you term my aim as “making homosexuality acceptable within the Church.” That’s pretty much true!

    As for Pastor Steven, yes, he shut me down on GCMW. I think he was wrong to do so–and I think that his website is totally misguided– but he wrote me a very gracious, scriptural email, in spite of the fact that I was rude to him. I really appreciated that. But those of you who contribute to his site could often use a little rebuking!

  47. David L. Williams said

    Regarding homosaexual behavior:
    Let’s try lining up some verses. First, we see in Lev 20:13 that a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination to God. So there in the OT, homosexuality is an obvious sin. The question then is did that status change in the NT? Let’s first look at whether we are to do away with the law and the prophets in Mat5:18. Jesus said He did not come to do away with those, but to fulfil them, and not one jot nor tittle would be done away with.

    Then how does this get treated by Paul? In Gal 3:24 we find him explaining that the law was a schoolmaster (custodian) until faith would be revealed as our justification. So, does this mean that since we are now justified, that we have licence to go on doing what was shown us under the law was sin? Paul says, “God forbid!” in Rom 6: 1-8. He also tells us in Rom 1:18-32 that those who give themselves to this lust will be given up to due penalty for their error. (We see many sick and dying of this penalty these days.)

    So while we are not under the law as saved people, it certainly is there for the Holy spirit to bring conviction on us so we can know if what we do is sin or not. I guess then the question is, “Do we want to sin and spurn the work of the cross?” DavWms

  48. sgsnow said

    Oh my goodness, let’s start with the basics.

    David, do you eat bacon? Shellfish? Do you sometimes wear mixed fabrics? Does your wife or girlfriend have to undergo ritual cleansing after her period? What about the six hundred other Levitical laws?

    Lurkers, note that those who argue that the NT condemns homosexuality– somewhere, by someone, somehow–invariably come back to Leviticus (which, for those of you keeping score at home, is in the OT). Really, this is extremely basic stuff.

    David writes:

    “Jesus said He did not come to do away with those, but to fulfil them, and not one jot nor tittle would be done away with.”

    Does this mean that all Christians who don’t obey the laws I mention above (as well as the six hundred others) are committing abominations?

    Really, David, no fair treating Leviticus as some sort of cafeteria: “Just the one law for me, thanks. Hold the others.”

    This concludes our 7th grade Bible study for this morning.

  49. Kyle said


    These levitical laws were for sanitary and health situations. Trichinosis worm is the most common parasite within pork products. Shellfish are scavengers and can contain harmful substances. God was merely trying to maintain the health of the nation as a whole.

    However, Homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery are deviant sexual sins akin to the deviant sexual sins of the angels in Genesis when they left their first estate and copulated with the daughters of men.

    Sexual deviation whether by angels or man, whether heterosexual or homosexual deviance has consequences beyond eating shellfish or bacon Steve.

    Also, you failed to answer my previous questions regarding our physical body. Of course you can’t answer them because if you did you would imply that God (Creator) A: Knowingly designed incompatible parts. B: Willfully designed them with the intent of incompatible behavior. C: Willfully designed sex organs with pleasure trumping reproduction.

    Steve, the anus is not a viable sexual orifice. It is part of the digestive system Steve. Plain and simple. Your sin desires trump God’s design therefore your blindness to the obvious.


  50. David L. Williams said


    This reminds me of when I became an atheist back in the early 60s. Many tried to reconvert me, but I knew the Bible better than they and was able to refute what they said from it. I “won” those battles of words, but that only lasted until I met the real Jesus and experienced His grace.

    Likewise, when the Scribes and Pharisees managed to put Jesus on the cross, they “won” their point…to their own demise. They taunted and ridiculed Jesus when they could not find facts to bring against Him. (Sound familiar?) They had an agenda that when Messiah comes, they would be the chosen ones to rule in power with Him. This agenda kept them from seeing truth in the Torah, even when what they saw with physical eyes confirmed it.

    Jesus often told parables. One reason was so those with an wicked inner agenda could not understand the truth. Even His disciples could not understand them when He explained the parables to them, until their Spiritual eyes were opened later. Then they were able to understand that the visible speaks of the invisible. They became able to see what was hidden before, as their Spiritual eyes were opened.

    It is hard to explain to someone that he does not know what he does not know. It is especially so if the person has an agenda that is more important to them than truth. As with those examples above, the agenda blinds them to truth. They will only accept the jesus that conforms to their agenda. Having eyes, they see not. Having ears, they hear not.

    Also as kids, when we were caught in wrong, we used the excuse that “I didn’t know.” That won’t stand when you are at judgment, for it will be obvious to you then that your agenda to change Jesus to your liking was a ploy.

    So like those others on this post have done, I shake the dust from my feet in this matter. But I pray your Spiritual eyes will be opened that you see your own heart’s wickedness and bow to our King Jesus. May you find His grace and understand it. DavWms

  51. sgsnow said

    Hi again Kyle,

    “These levitical laws were for sanitary and health situations. Trichinosis worm is the most common parasite within pork products. Shellfish are scavengers and can contain harmful substances. God was merely trying to maintain the health of the nation as a whole.”

    Dude, this is bad. You are claiming to know God’s intent? Wow. I would stop saying stuff like that, if I were you.

    “However, Homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery are deviant sexual sins akin to the deviant sexual sins of the angels in Genesis when they left their first estate and copulated with the daughters of men.”

    I realize that this is your view. What does it have to do with the Bible?

    “Also, you failed to answer my previous questions regarding our physical body. Of course you can’t answer them because if you did you would imply that God (Creator) A: Knowingly designed incompatible parts. B: Willfully designed them with the intent of incompatible behavior. C: Willfully designed sex organs with pleasure trumping reproduction. Steve, the anus is not a viable sexual orifice. It is part of the digestive system Steve. Plain and simple. Your sin desires trump God’s design therefore your blindness to the obvious.”

    Not really. I did not answer your questions because your fascination with sex makes me a bit uncomfortable.

    It’s pretty awkward, to be frank, and I am sure many out there agree with me. Can we please stick to the Bible?

    Thanks for your understanding.

  52. sgsnow said

    Hi David,

    “This reminds me of when I became an atheist back in the early 60s. Many tried to reconvert me, but I knew the Bible better than they and was able to refute what they said from it. I “won” those battles of words, but that only lasted until I met the real Jesus and experienced His grace.”

    Cool story, and I am glad it worked out for you.

    […] “That won’t stand when you are at judgment, for it will be obvious to you then that your agenda to change Jesus to your liking was a ploy.”

    Wait, I missed the part where above you showed that I am changing Jesus, or His Word.

    “So like those others on this post have done, I shake the dust from my feet in this matter. But I pray your Spiritual eyes will be opened that you see your own heart’s wickedness and bow to our King Jesus. May you find His grace and understand it.”

    Thank you for your prayers.

  53. Kyle said


    Your really showing a great deal of ignorance. Swine have been known to carry parasites for a very long time. They didn’t “know” what parasites were back then but that does not change the facts.

    As for what does these various forms of sex have to do with the Bible is pretty clear. There are consequences to these actions plain and simple. Also, by you saying that I’m startng to scare you by pointing out the obvious physical incompatibilities of gay sex should alarm everyone here that YOU are avoiding the obvious.

    My friend, God wouldn’t design a colon for the purpose of penetration unless he was as sick and deviant as you.


  54. Kyle said


    If this were so normal and God didn’t have a problem with it then why is the AIDs epidemic still prevelant in Homosexuals relative too Heterosexuals?


  55. sgsnow said

    Hi everybody,

    On the question of homosexuality and the Bible, I obviously must grant you that Leviticus declares homosexual sex to be punishable by death, and that the some passages in the NT also condemn homosexuality.

    Jesus was silent on this issue, as we have seen.

    Here I present a short list of sexual behaviors (mostly from the OT), and what the Bible says about them. They ignored, while the condemnation of homosexuality is not. Why?

    As Walter Wink says, “These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?”

    Do you suggest we follow the injunctions below? Which ones? Why or why not?

    Crime: Adultery. Penalty: Death.
    Lev. 20
    10 ” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
    Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

    Crime: homosexual sex. Penalty: Death.
    Lev. 20: 13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    Crime: sex with menstruating woman. Penalty: expulsion from the community of believers
    Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”

    Crime: Bride marries while not a virgin. Penalty: Death.
    Deut. 22
    13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

    In another category of behaviors, there are actions we would strongly disapprove of today—if not totally condemn—which are allowed by the Bible: polygamy/levirate marriage, sexual slavery, concubinage, prostitution.

    Should we follow the Bible’s teachings on these matters below? Why or why not?

    Polygamy/ “levirate”marriage. A woman is obliged, after her husband’s death, to marry one of her husband’s brothers-–if there were no children-–in order to continue the line of the dead husband.

    Deuteronomy 25:5
    If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27).

    Prostitution was considered natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). Note, however, that while a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul attacks prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); but he places it in a separate–and apparently lesser– category than adultery (vs. 9).

    Slavery. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal.
    Eph. 6
    5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

    Sexual slavery. Likely flows from the justification of slavery in general, and which 2 Sam. 5:13 permitted. (American slave owners who raped their female slaves used this verse as justification.)
    Num. 31:18
    7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Exodus 21
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners…

    Deut. 21
    10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money.

    Concubinage (in general, the state of a woman in a quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status. Involuntary, or servile, concubinage sometimes involves sexual slavery.) This is specifically allowed in 2 Sam. 5:13. This was a favorite verse of slave holders in the American south who wanted to rape their slaves.

    Abraham took a slave girl as a concubine (Genesis 16). King Solomon “had 700 official wives and 300 concubines….” (1 Kings 11:1-3).

    See also the story in Judges 19-21, in which a rape of a male guest is avoided in the following way:

    23 Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly.
    24 “Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.”

    Should we treat the Bible as something we can pick and choose from, as it suits us? It’s hardly fair to condemn homosexual sexual behavior, and then ignore the other Biblical injunctions above, don’t you think?

    • Adam said

      So, i know im a bit late to this convo, and im choosing to stay out of the argument, but i must say you make very compelling arguments and gives me things to think about, i will do my own studying and research on the topic. I have always thought about how “Christians” enjoy picking and choosing what laws they want to follow from the OT and which they dont. I am a faithful follower of Christ, i denounce ties to “religion” and “Christianity”. I feel “Christianity” today is very skewed as seen from the recent presidential debate in SC where the golden rule was booed, and as far as “religion” its such an odd term bc people like to say they are “religious” but yet they are clearly not Faithful, does that make sense? this is why when people ask about my religion I say i have none, I am a Faithful follower of Christ. Having said that, I feel that “chistians” are the main reason for Atheism in the world today “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable”-Brennan Manning. I fully believe that, too many “Christians” do this and dont think twice about it. Again you raised some interesting points and i appreciate it as i feel the best thing for people to do is question things bc in the end the Bible was written by man, it is the inspired word of God, and we all know man is flawed…I feel that is why it is called the stumbling block of life. Thanks again for the interesting conversation and cant wait to do my own research on the topic! God bless!

      • Job said


        “I have always thought about how “Christians” enjoy picking and choosing what laws they want to follow from the OT and which they dont.”

        That is a common falsehood, and the people who originated this falsehood know it to be a lie. Bible-based Christianity follows the New Testament. The Old Testament provides the foundation for the New Testament. And please know that the New Testament specifically forbids homosexuality also. The idea that opposition to homosexuality is found only in the Old Testament and not in the New Testament is a lie, and spread by those who know that it is a lie.

        You are not a faithful follower of Jesus Christ if you are not keeping His commandments. And if you are a faithful follower of Jesus Christ, you are a Christian, because Christian means “Christ-like.” You mention the golden rule: what meaning does the golden rule have if you do not know and obey what Jesus Christ taught? And if you obey only the things that Jesus Christ taught while neglecting others, that puts even the things that you do obey out of context. The reason is that you are following yourself, not Jesus Christ. If you only obey the teachings of Jesus Christ that you personally agree with while rejecting the others, then you are the authority, not Jesus Christ. So, you keep the golden rule, love thy neighbor, judge not, turn the other cheek etc. because they are your own opinions, not because they are Christ’s laws.

        The single biggest cause of atheism today is a lack of faith. Christianity is between you and God, not you and other people. So, even if every other person on the planet was an unbeliever or a hypocrite, your own personal faith in God and adherence to His commandments makes you a Christian. Consider the old proverb: if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? If everyone else went and stole something or killed somebody, would you do it to? That illustrates the foolishness of blaming other people for your own unbelief.

        In the end, the Bible was not written by man. In the end, the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit who used humans to write it, though not in a “channeling” or “auto-writing” style. That is what “inspired” means. And if the Bible is inspired by God, then it cannot have any flaws. Otherwise, God is flawed, which means that there is no God at all, because an entity that contains flaws by definition is not God.

        Politics? Just another excuse. Christianity is 2000 years old, and was born in an imperial monarchy. Electoral democracy as it exists in America is less than 250 years old. Also, you can easily ignore politics if you choose. Many people do. What you must do is cease having excuses for your lack of faith in God. You yourself state that man is imperfect, so why do you focus on man? Stop focusing on man – including yourself – and start focusing on God. On judgment day, you won’t be judged by man. You will be judged by God. And God will ask “Why didn’t you believe in me?” And you won’t have an answer, because the idea that you didn’t believe in a perfect God because of flawed man is ridiculous. It is the same as saying that you would only believe in God if men were gods also.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: