HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Against Gay Christians

Gay Christians want to ignore the historical fact that it is part of the Christian faith to reject gay sex.  They are not the only revisionists out there so why should we pay any heed to them?  Their lies fool no one except those who pretend to be fooled for the sake of a political agenda.

 

Lies are no foundation for a gay person who wants rights in the Church. 

 

If “gay” Christians are so sure they are right to disobey the Bible or Church then why do they hide their “gayness” so much? Where is their trust? The hypocrite pays homage to the perceived rightness of the values he disparages.

 

And gay Christians harass and divide the Church over gay rights and their arguments are hollow when they are targeted at the Church and not the Christian God or the Christian Jesus.  Why should the Church be condemned for homophobia while Jesus gets a free pass and his role in it is ignored?  And Christianity holds that in some real teaching and spiritual sense Jesus IS the Church!  Why should living men and women be harassed over Jesus who is dead?

 

Oxymorons are common in the religious world.  Gay Christians are one such oxymoron.  The main argument they have is that God made them born gay.  Arguing you are born gay so you can have sex with somebody the same sex is irrational. Being born gay or straight does not compel you to have sex with anyone.  Gay Christians may help gay rights but they do not help the equally important right we have to get proper information instead of irrationality and half-truths.  Gay Christians do not and cannot change the fact that Christianity is not Christians so it is possible for Christianity to be anti-gay even if no Christian is.  It is their religion to follow not their religion to change.  To worship Jesus is to risk worshipping a homophobe.  To promote a homophobe unwittingly is still promoting a homophobe.

 

They turn to the Bible next.  Everything has to be twisted to fit the lies of gay theology.

 

The assertion by God that gay sex makes the practitioners an abomination is said to be a cultural thing.  No sane God would prescribe stoning to death if that is all it was!  The reason the Bible sees homosexuality as an abomination is because it threatens marriage between a man and woman so by implication same sex marriage is the biggest gay sexual sin.  Gay Christians argue that to assert homosexuals as lovable but homosexuality as an abomination is hate speech but even if it is hate you cannot prove it as long as the asserter says it is the sexual activity that is condemned not the doers.  Biblically homosexuality is an abomination and so are the gays who do it.  The biggest abomination would be homosexuality rather than homosexuals for without homosexuality there would be no homosexuals.

 

Incredibly, despite the Bible condemning sexual activity outside of marriage, gays who say they believe in Christ pretend that you can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian!  The Bible can only mean one thing by marriage - marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Some think Jesus mentioned homosexuality in Luke 17:


“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.  28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.  30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two men will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”  36 “Where, Lord?” they asked.  37 He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

If the text reads two men and not two people as many translators believe, then Jesus could be referring to the Jewish tradition of his time that said the sin of Sodom was men sleeping with men sexually.   He says those taken will not be going to a nice fate but will be like vultures about to feast on a body.  The vultures are taken away to be put together.  But what about the man left behind?  He is spared because he is not like Lot's wife and does not try to escape.  He spares himself.  There is no room for thinking he is judged or not judged.  The notion of gay Christians that Jesus is saying one gay man in a bed goes to Heaven and one lesbian grinding with another one as in lesbian sex is total rubbish.  Why would Jesus use such an image?  It would be too exclusive for the events he describes would affect heterosexuals who are 99% of the population!!!  The text talks about a cataclysm not about Heaven or Hell.


Jesus did not mention homosexuality directly but he did say marriage should be between one man and one woman for life. He said a man leaves his father and other and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh - a child. Gay Christians reply that he was not saying same sex marriages are forbidden. He was only speaking of context of the times in which the custom was for the opposite sex to marry. This is only an interpretation. It is only justified by what they want the Bible to say. But that is no justification. Nothing in the Bible indicates that same-sex marriages are acceptable. They make their speculations the word of God.  When Jesus goes back to the dawn of time to make a model out of how God made Adam and Eve and paired them sexually he makes it clear that the one man and one woman model is for all eternity.  He is not speaking in the context of his own time.
 

Paul condemns arsenokoitai which means homosexuals but pro-gay Christians lie that this is a religious term referring to male temple prostitutes. That is an utter fiction.  Arsenokoitai is simply a reference to male intercourse.  It is two Greek words, one for male and the other for sexual intercourse. It passes no comment on why they engage in it but only that they do.

 

Read Mark 7:21-23. It quotes Christ as saying , “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality [porneiai in the original Greek], theft, murder, adultery…all these evils come from inside and defile a person.” Porneiai was the word used by the Jews listening to Jesus to cover all the sins relating to sex listed by God through Moses in the first five books of the Bible, the Law. It means bestiality and incest and homosexuality etc.
 
They say that Jesus and the Bible never condemned homosexuality as it is understood today. They like to add that in those days it was not suspected that some people were born with a gay or lesbian sexuality. But the Bible certainly condemns homosexual activity. When it does that, it hardly matters if it understood homosexuality and lesbianism as they are understood today or not. It is like saying that in those days, God made the command not to steal for people were poorer then, but we can ignore this command today for as long as we steal from the rich it is fine. Also, then as now, a small number of people think that LGBT people have relationships. It is not true that anything has changed today.

 

LGBT activists more than just don't want the Bible or God to condemn gay men but they don't want gay acts condemned either.  Leviticus condemns the sex act between two men not the men.  It says the ACT is an abomination.  Their being sentenced to death is a separate condemnation and this time the men are condemned. So there are two separate condemnations.  The chapter in Leviticus is talking about sexual offences such as adultery and bestiality and is not concerned at all with cultic or religious homosexual prostitution yet we are asked to believe that this verse means only that kind of homosexuality!  Homosexual sex is condemned in the same breath as incest and adultery!   That puts it into context or do we want to say it is only temple adultery or temple incest that is banned?  There is no evidence that the kind of religion which involved the sexual use of male prostitutes was a problem in Israel at that time. It was centuries later - 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46.  Leviticus calls the sex an abomination -  a term which often appears in the book of Proverbs to describe solely moral violations.  Yet the activists want to read only religious abomination into it - so desperate are they to avoid the fact that Leviticus just condemns gay sex regardless of what context it happens in.

 

Paul the apostle wrote that long hair on men is unnatural.  That shows a strong sense that men should be men.  Nobody with that attitude could tolerate gay sex.
 
Romans chapter 1 has the apostle Paul declaring that men were sleeping with men and women were sleeping with women. He said this happened because they were so evil and idolatrous and God abandoned them to evil same sex desire. The Bible never teaches that homosexuality is not a choice. So that alone forbids Christians to say it is. It is the safe side to assume that God wants us to believe that gay people have made themselves gay. And if homosexuality is caused by defiance of God, nobody can take it for granted that when gay people say they think they were born gay that they are telling the truth.

 

Paul denied he was speaking only for his time for he made his gospel global.  He was expressing what he found in the Old Testament and his letter continually refers to it as its grounding and base.

 

It is argued that Paul only condemns lust here not sexual desire.  But Paul may think that all sex between people of the same sex is lust.  He is clear that the men want to have sex with men so the idea that he is speaking of men forcing themselves to have sex with men is out.  And if he were worried about that he would have more sympathy. 
 
Some try to make out without any evidence that Paul only condemned homosexuality when used in idolatrous worship or condemned straight people who go against their nature to have gay sex or that he meant men-boy sex or condemned only promiscuous homosexuality.  The variety of alternative (often bizarre) interpretations shows they are only guessing and lying.  Paul does not mention idolatrous worship through gay sex or man boy sex.  It is men having sex with men against nature.  Some claim it does not refer to homosexually born men but ones who are not gay but have gay sex!  Would Paul really have had such a modern idea in his head?  And the idea of somebody being naturally homosexual is only a theory.  And in any case what about bisexuals?  The interpretation would condemn them!  So are we to think that while Paul condemned bisexual men having sex with men he agreed with homosexuals doing it? 

 

How insane!

 

Paul condemned all homosexuality. The Bible needs to be understood in the context of its times as well. It was written by Jews and Paul still considered himself a Jew. "There is little doubt that Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality. Some in the Greco-Roman world defended and even celebrated homosexuality. But the Jewish tradition is unanimous in condemning it (cf. Gen 19:1-28; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Deut 23:17-18; Wis 14:26; T. Levi 17.11; T. Naph. 3:3-4; Sib. Or 3:596-600; Ag. Ap. 2.24, 37; Spec. Laws 3.7). No evidence exists to the contrary. The most natural way of interpreting Paul is to interpret him in continuity with his Jewish tradition...Then text contains a general condemnation, with no indication that some forms of homosexuality are acceptable. Paul does not limit himself to pederasty, for he specifically indicts sexual relations between women in Romans 1:26, even though there is no evidence that older women exploited and engaged in sexual relations with younger women...In Paul's description of the sin in Romans 1:27, the words men with men (arsenes en arsesin) occur. Instead of saying men with boys Paul directly refers to men with men. Any idea that only pederasty is condemned is an invention of modern exegetes" (page 318, 319, Paul Apostle of God's Glory in Christ, A Pauline Theology, Thomas R Schreiner, IVP Academic, Illinois, 2001).
 
The notion that Paul does not condemn those who are naturally homosexual is silly. For Paul, what feels natural to you is irrelevant. He bases his idea of natural on Genesis 1 and 2 which speaks of man being made for woman and vice versa (ibid. page 319). Paul condemned short hair for females and long hair for males as unnatural in 1 Corinthians 11. For that reason, some think his claim that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong is not to be taken seriously. But Paul had in mind the need for men and women to look different so that one sex can be differentiated from the other. If your culture makes them look the same, then it is unnatural. If your culture has short hair for women and long for men then it is unnatural for women to have long hair. It depends. It is not the hair as such that is unnatural but males trying to look female and vice versa. Again it is clear that Paul wants the sexes to be easily distinguished for it is simply wrong to encourage men to fancy men or women to fancy women.
 
Paul said that there is neither Jew or Gentile or male or female or slave or free in Christ Jesus. He only meant that you become part of Christ no matter what not that all are equal. His epistles affirm there there is differentiation among people. The Church regarded women as having less rights than men despite believing that Jesus lived in them and could make them saints.

 

The epistle of Jude condemns the homosexual sexual licence in Sodom.
 
Jesus said that we must treat others the way we like to be treated. Does this mean that straight people must treat gays as being as free to have relationships like they are? Judaism sternly forbade homosexuality and Jesus said that the Jewish Bible, which forbade homosexuality, was God's word. So Jesus would have agreed with it. Jesus would answer that homosexuality was caused by unrepented sin of some kind or was a choice.
 
Some Gay Christian organisations say that Jesus changed the laws of God given in the Old Testament. They then speculate that as Jesus changed so many of the laws and made the law of love paramount that this implies that homosexuality may not be forbidden any more as long as it is based on love. Christians believe the changes only came in when Jesus fulfilled the law of God by dying on the cross meaning that he kept it for us so we could be freed from some of its obligations. So that means that prior to then Jesus would have advocated the rightness of putting homosexuals to death by stoning. Even when Jesus saved the adulteress from stoning he agreed that she should be stoned to death but he argued that those condemning her were no better than her. He was not condemning the idea of executing her so much as the idea that her execution by a corrupt legal system or a mob would be wrong. He told her that nobody condemned her and he wouldn't condemn her to stoning. That was because the men who wished to stone her had gone away and had decided against stoning her.
 
Gay Christians claim that casual sex among gays is not a sin. They do not teach that sex should only take place in gay marriage. No - rather they endorse the sex without marriage. This is very far from Christian teaching.

 

Christian tradition is universal that homosexual sex is wrong.  "Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Augustine, Confessions 3:8:15).  For LBGT to cut off Christian tradition is to cut off the branch they are sitting on.  There would be no Bible or anything without tradition.
 
Gay and lesbian Christians claim that God made them gay or lesbian so it is not a sin for them to have sex with the same sex. But how a Christian can say this is bizarre considering that according to most Christians God set up the laws that babies would be born in original sin and with defects that need to be fixed by turning to Jesus Christ in baptism. The Church says that some people feel only love for somebody else's wife or husband and such desires must not be willingly nourished or tolerated. The Church says that this is a form of heterosexual orientation that is sinful. It will not listen if those people say, "I was born this way with the need for that person. I know I can only love once in my life." The Church will say it condemns such orientations just as it condemns the gay orientation.
 
Gay Christians who believe in original sin are only setting up their support for LGBT rights for a fall. And those who pretend to understand Church teaching better than the Church does are doing the same thing. For Catholicism, it is vital that the Church avoids the suspicion of being influenced by fashion and of being a man-made religion that can reinvent itself.
 
Gay Christians betray gay rights. By claiming they follow Christ, they are saying Christ was an authority that knew what he was talking about even if we on earth don't. God can allow and forbid things for a mysterious purpose. He sees the complete picture so we see only a part of it. So they are saying that if they are wrong to think God condoned gay sex and he did forbid it then we should obey him and forbid it too. By supporting Christianity, they are opposing gay rights though they pretend they are not.
 
Gay and lesbian Christians are supporting a harmful faith. If they don't want to be harmed or harassed for being gay or lesbian, then they should jettison that faith. There are plenty of other faiths that are more suited.
 
Nobody doubts that most religion gets its followers not through reason or discussion but by conditioning. People are often lazy in relation to thinking. We get the habit of assuming what the people around us assume in childhood and it stays with us. There are so many religions and most of them are absurd beyond belief - they are stranger than fiction. Their followers do not listen to reason and don't want to. Only one religion can be right meaning the odds of being right are very very slim. Christians despite all this have the bigotry and effrontery to support a faith that teaches that if your loved one commits suicide they could have gone to Hell to suffer forever for it. Vicious religion like that shows how powerful conditioning is and how religion warps people. To support religion is to support the worst form of conditioning. And it is the most obvious form of conditioning. Gay Christians by condoning Christian conditioning and intimidation of people have no right to complain about Christians who are conditioned to oppose homosexuality and who condition others to oppose it too.
 
Gay and lesbian Christians will need to say that sex without love is an abuse. In that way they are homophobic towards gays and lesbians who wish to have sex casually and who don't like being involved in relationships.
 
Could they believe that sex without love isn't always intended to be the using of another person and letting them use you? No. They say there is no excuse for a rich employer who pays an employee slave wages. They say that even if he says he does it to toughen the employee up, it is still abuse.
 
Christianity says that the whole Bible is the word of God despite God having commanded that homosexuals and adulterers be stoned to death. The Christians absurdly claim the right to revere and adore an evil book as God's word. They exclude any Christian who comes up with a better list of books that she or she thinks is the word of God. When they do that, they have no business complaining if some people interpret the Bible as a justification for doing harm.
 
Pro-gay interpretations of the Bible are forced and fanciful. The fact that gay and lesbian Christians advocate such a book as the word of God certainly proves that they cannot complain if somebody comes up with an anti-gay interpretation. Interpretation is a free world.
 
The Bible never actually states that falling in love is to be recommended ever. The love it advocates between wife and husband is love that is freely given. It is self-sacrifice. Falling in love is having an addiction for another person. In so far as it is addictive, it is harmful. The LGBT community cannot say that the Bible honours their love.
 
The doctrine of Jesus Christ that we must love God with all our hearts and love our neighbour as ourselves is harmful. It is silly to imagine that if a doctrine is harmful it should be changed or abandoned and to claim to be a follower of Jesus.
 
The idea that we must love God alone or first of all is arbitrary. It is discriminatory. Thus the most important teaching of the Bible advocates discrimination. Gay and lesbian Christians should embrace and bless the persecution they get for being gay or lesbian when they implicitly endorse obnoxious Christian doctrine. If they don't want the discrimination, then it is time to slam the Church exit door behind them forever.
 
As Christianity teaches the love of sinners and the hatred of sin it is a religion based on lies. Gay people should not trust such a faith. A faith that is capable of hate and covering up that hate would be happy to turn on the most harassed members of society.
 
For gay people to expect Christianity to change its teaching that homosexuality is wrong is for them to say that the religion is man-made and can be changed. It can hardly be from God if it needs correction. And they are repudiating the New Testament teaching that the final revelation came through Jesus Christ and he completed the truth. He said he came not to do away with God's law in the Bible but to perfect it. So when the gays indicate by their approach that Christianity is human not divine and has revelations that are simply wrong they say a lot about themselves when they campaign for change. They want to fit in with a man-made faith. They want to declare that man has the right to write books and give revelations and claim without proof that they are the musings of God. That is actually disgusting. They should abandon Christianity or start their own version and write a new Bible. If they want equality, then acting as if the dogma makers of Christianity have the right to invent religion and they don't is hardly a good way to go about it! They deny the equality they seek.
 
Even if a gay and lesbian person could support the Church by using its sacraments and attending worship, they certainly cannot justify giving the Church money. The money is being used to promote a message, a message that includes the belief that homosexuality is a sin. The money will not be used to promote any gay interests - rather it will be used to scare young people into thinking that if they have gay relationships they can go to Hell forever or will go if they do not repent. The Church thinks that they should go to Hell forever. It will hypocritically answer, "We don't want anybody to go to Hell." But what good is that? The point is that they say a person under certain circumstances should be sent to Hell and belongs there. To say such a thing is an act of hate. Hate is not necessarily a feeling that you want somebody to suffer. It is the will to see somebody suffer. Suppose a person feels great hatred for you but does not act on it and can't help it. Then suppose that person does good for you then that person loves you in spite of feeling the hate. The person who hurts you is hating you in the real sense: hate is trying to bring pain on another. Real hate is not a feeling. It is not hate to feel a great dislike or a vindictive dislike. It is hate to foment it or to do nothing good to weaken it. It is hate to neglect to try to get rid of it.
 
Gays and lesbians would agree that it is wrong to support a charity that engages in even in a small level of racist activity. And then they go and support the Church with money! That is worse for the Church is not a true charity. It cares more about holy buildings and giving material comforts to men in funny collars than hospitals etc. The Church says its job is not to build hospitals but to preach a message. Its job is not to help people but to help people believe what it believes. The gay and lesbian activist who pays money for the upkeep of the Christian religion is a hypocrite.
 
Christians who believe in evolution often argue that God through evolution has put a built in revulsion for same sex love and love-making into us. They say that this is natures away of deterring us from unnatural sex and puts a limit on what should be acceptable sexually. They will say that homophobia, distaste for the homosexual because of his or her sexual practices, is natural. They will say that gay people are opposed to the right of heterosexual people to be repelled. They will say that being repelled is a part of normal sexuality and accuse gay people of being opposed to heterosexual rights. They may say that evolution pushes us towards reproduction and so gay sex is unnatural and it is unnatural for a straight person to feel no revulsion. The revulsion is natures away of protecting us from becoming gay.
 
Gays and lesbians should accept exclusion from the Church. They must not complain about this for it is as much a compliment to be expelled from the Church as it is the BNP. Every organisation and business has to do some excluding. You cannot complain if you are part of a Gay Liberation Movement and you start saying all gays and lesbians should be celibate for its a sin to express their sexuality and if you are expelled. Gays and lesbians should welcome exclusion from the narrow and bigoted Church instead of paying it the compliment of valuing it so much that such exclusion distresses them.
 
Gay and lesbians who support Christianity need to open their eyes. They need to reject that faith instead of having a far-fetched "interpretation" of the numerous Bible texts that condemn gay sex.  Their case is thin. Don't claim affiliation with Christianity when you tailor its doctrines to suit you! You are not Christian then! You are a religion of your own!