Pride Month Calls for a Response of Joyful Truth from Christians

Many fundamentalist Christians fail to notice that in the Law of Moses of (Lev.18:22) follows the prohibition of serving the leading pagan God at that time and in that area...Molech. (Lev.18:21)
Leaving us with the knowledge that since this act was not mentioned with the other sexual prohibitions, that this act was directed at the pagan priests who incorporated it into their worship to their deities. Along with their inappropriate behavior with animals practices with their priestessess. (Lev.18:23)
The New Testament word arsenokoite is a reference back to (Lev.18:22). We know this because if the Apostle Paul were referencing 'homosexuality' he would have used some of the words that were extant at that time and in that place-

Arrenomanes: mad after men
Paiderasste: sexual behavior between males
Erastes: older male who loves a younger male

There is a theological school of thought, common among Catholics I know, that any use of sexuality outside of its ultimate/highest purpose (reproduction) is sinful. Now I'm not sure I would agree with that, although there is clearly a line there somewhere. But if you subscribe to that thinking, obviously it would automatically make any homosexual behavior sinful.

Therefore expecting the church to support a movement that promotes LGBTQ behavior would not be reasonable. Which is of course why so many "woke" people dislike religion. In large part, it's a freedom of religion question.

iarwain said:

There is a theological school of thought, common among Catholics I know, that any use of sexuality outside of its ultimate/highest purpose (reproduction) is sinful. Now I'm not sure I would agree with that, although there is clearly a line there somewhere. But if you subscribe to that thinking, obviously it would automatically make any homosexual behavior sinful.

Click to expand...

that same standard would make it sinful for any woman past menopause to remain married.

Quartermaine said:

that same standard would make it sinful for any woman past menopause to remain married.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

iarwain said:

Interesting.

Click to expand...

Not really. It's a non-sequitur, and purely provocative; it makes no sense at all.

Thigbee said:

Not really. It's a non-sequitur, and purely provocative; it makes no sense at all.

Click to expand...

Didn't say it was right, just that it was interesting.

iarwain said:

Didn't say it was right, just that it was interesting.

Click to expand...

I know bro - np.

CatsRule2020 said:

Many fundamentalist Christians fail to notice that in the Law of Moses of (Lev.18:22) follows the prohibition of serving the leading pagan God at that time and in that area...Molech. (Lev.18:21)

Leaving us with the knowledge that since this act was not mentioned with the other sexual prohibitions, that this act was directed at the pagan priests who incorporated it into their worship to their deities. Along with their inappropriate behavior with animals practices with their priestessess. (Lev.18:23)

The New Testament word arsenokoite is a reference back to (Lev.18:22). We know this because if the Apostle Paul were referencing 'homosexuality' he would have used some of the words that were extant at that time and in that place-

Arrenomanes: mad after men
Paiderasste: sexual behavior between males
Erastes: older male who loves a younger male

Click to expand...

Why single out "fundamentalist Christians?" Where's the point in that?

And do, as you assert in your last paragraph, do "we know this?" I don't think so. In fact, it looks like quite a stretch to assert anyone actually "knows this." (wants to believe it is another story)

I already posted a link to every English translation (including some paraphrases) of Paul's statement in I Cor 6 - to a team, they're all in agreement with the word Paul used - which either was, or referred to homosexuality.

And I did a check of the word in my Strong's (exhaustive concordance) too - same conclusion. Homosexuality. I simply don't see how this is that arcane or hard to understand.

It'd be very interesting to know who this "we" is that disagrees with what? 59 teams of scholars, bible translators? One would be hard-pressed to prove a virtual unanimity of teams of scholars wrong - and with such weak evidence as Leviticus 18 no less.


Any student of the bible - actually no, one doesn't even need to be a bible student to recognize this is just a list. And just because verse 22 follows verse 21 does not mean one can make the conclusion being asserted here. Moreover, just because the bible says one thing in one place and doesn't say it in another, does not negate its significance or truth in either place. There are literally scores of examples that prove otherwise.

And goodness, before I'd even become a Christian I learned about Molech from James Michener, in his book The Source (excellent read, btw - highly recommend it)*. Molech was an altar shaped like an animal in which the priests would build a fire and worshippers would roll their babies down a little ramp held up by the idol's arms into the fire. Despicable practice.

But Molech here, in Lev 18, has nothing to do with sexual intercourse with one's neighbor's wife (v20), or profaning God's name (v 21). And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality (v22) or inappropriate behavior with animals in the verse that follows.

To even a casual reader, Lev 18 is just a list - a list of things that defile. Nothing more.

The argument that Paul would've used one of those words instead of the one he did, and based no less on Leviticus 18 is, in my humble opinion, pure wishful thinking.

*This [purely anecdotal] reference is no doubt certain to draw disdain from some. Oh well, I'm an avid Michener reader.

Michie said:

In case you failed to notice literally every major corporation changing its logo to a rainbow hue, June is now upon us, and that means 30 days of religious-like devotion to the gods of sexuality and identity politics – what our cultural powerbrokers refer to as “Pride” month.

If you’re anything like me, the ironies are too much not to note. A supposedly oppressed minority with every organ of cultural power at its disposal insists on its powerlessness. Meanwhile, just within the last week, a teacher in Virginia was suspended from his job for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns. “Inclusion,” we’re coming to see, stands for the very opposite when confronted with even respectful difference.

What might the response be to “Pride Month” for those who believe that Scripture is not only true, but good when it depicts true sexual freedom as the union of one man and one woman in marriage?

First, we should understand that Christianity has always held a distinct sexual ethic, especially in the days of the early church in Roman culture. The distinction is not the result of absurdity or irrationality, but a contrast of values when the Christian faith calls forth a higher vision for human sexuality than merely living according to one’s nerve endings and endorphins.

Continued below.
Pride Month Calls for a Response of Joyful Truth from Christians - Ethics & Public Policy Center

Click to expand...

I have no response at all towards pride month. Believers will feel conviction of their sin. They will know right from wrong. Unbelievers will not feel conviction no matter what and unless they have “ears to hear” it is useless to preach to them. In either case there’s nothing we can do to persuade them if the Holy Spirit cannot.

“For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭6:4-8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Toynbee said:

Worshipping the gods of gross self indulgence, sexual promiscuity, indecency, perversion, and abomination. It's not enough they've given themselves over to all this, but they want - indeed, they need everyone else around them to agree with them. And those who won't, they'll viciously attack, seek to silence, and persecute in every way they possibly can.

...and they're proud of it.

Click to expand...

““Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:11-12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

BNR32FAN said:

““Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:11-12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Click to expand...

Amen

Toynbee said:

Why single out "fundamentalist Christians?" Where's the point in that?

And do, as you assert in your last paragraph, do "we know this?" I don't think so. In fact, it looks like quite a stretch to assert anyone actually "knows this." (wants to believe it is another story)

I already posted a link to every English translation (including some paraphrases) of Paul's statement in I Cor 6 - to a team, they're all in agreement with the word Paul used - which either was, or referred to homosexuality.

And I did a check of the word in my Strong's (exhaustive concordance) too - same conclusion. Homosexuality. I simply don't see how this is that arcane or hard to understand.

It'd be very interesting to know who this "we" is that disagrees with what? 59 teams of scholars, bible translators? One would be hard-pressed to prove a virtual unanimity of teams of scholars wrong - and with such weak evidence as Leviticus 18 no less.

(NASB) Leviticus 18:
20 And you shall not have sexual intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her.
21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.
22 You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination.
23 Also you shall not have sexual intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these things the nations which I am driving out from you have become defiled.​

Any student of the bible - actually no, one doesn't even need to be a bible student to recognize this is just a list. And just because verse 22 follows verse 21 does not mean one can make the conclusion being asserted here. Moreover, just because the bible says one thing in one place and doesn't say it in another, does not negate its significance or truth in either place. There are literally scores of examples that prove otherwise.

And goodness, before I'd even become a Christian I learned about Molech from James Michener, in his book The Source (excellent read, btw - highly recommend it)*. Molech was an altar shaped like an animal in which the priests would build a fire and worshippers would roll their babies down a little ramp held up by the idol's arms into the fire. Despicable practice.

But Molech here, in Lev 18, has nothing to do with sexual intercourse with one's neighbor's wife (v20), or profaning God's name (v 21). And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality (v22) or inappropriate behavior with animals in the verse that follows.

To even a casual reader, Lev 18 is just a list - a list of things that defile. Nothing more.

The argument that Paul would've used one of those words instead of the one he did, and based no less on Leviticus 18 is, in my humble opinion, pure wishful thinking.

*This [purely anecdotal] reference is no doubt certain to draw disdain from some. Oh well, I'm an avid Michener reader.

Click to expand...

Even the most astute scholars notice how Moses used verse 21 to separate the class of prohibitions of relational from pagan worship. KEIL-DELITZSCH Commentary on the Old Testament on Lev.18:21-23

If we are all true Christian posters here we must be honest and not deceitful.

miamited said:

Listen, God tried beating Israel over the head with the law and that didn't work for Him either.

God bless,
Ted

Click to expand...

Brother, I've been thinking about this comment, and my response to it - which was rather negative (that it was calling God a failure) - for which I was perhaps a bit harsh, but hear me through. Several things occurred to me. First, God was doing a lot for Israel during that period. He gave them the Law, which Paul discusses at length in Romans 2 and on; but He also did that after extracting them from their captivity as slaves in Egypt. He saw them safely across the Red Sea, He guided them by night and day in rather illustrious fashion, He fed them, He clothed them (or didn't allow their clothes to wear out), He kept them safe for over 40 years. He gave them the Promised Land. He went ahead of them, fighting their battles. When then sinned and repented, He forgave them. Yes, He gave them His Law - but His Law was unlike any other law of any other nation in the world. It was righteous and holy and good. But at virtually every step, they rebelled against Him, they grumbled and complained, they accused Him of hating them, they turned back in their hearts to their captivity in Egypt. And when they did, He punished them. But when they repented, He forgave them and restored them. Their repentance however usually hinged on someone having to remind them of God and His law, typically His prophets whom He sent to remind them of their relationship with Him, a relationship purely from His grace and mercy. It was these reminders of the law than always preceded them turning back to Him. So I don't see God "beating them over the head" with His law as much as I do Him reminding them of it, and Him, and His kindness and grace. For whenever they sinned, life became difficult at best, to the point of being utterly unbearable - the consequences of sin. And their example, from slavery in Egypt, to crossing the desert, to entering the promised land, to living in the perennial cycle of salvation, affluence, sin, and then repentance - as a metaphor for us.

Second, I'm mindful of Jesus - specifically on His last day, after having fed, and healed, and performed miracles, and preached (the gospel) for 3 solid years - to a people that largely rejected Him and which would ultimately actually kill Him. It could be said Jesus failed to reach the majority of Israelites. He certainly failed with the religious rulers, but also the general populace who shouted for His crucifixion. His "woes" of Matthew 23 are sobering and powerful. And His "woes" of Luke 6 are even more sobering; to the rich, the well-fed, the entertained, and the popular. He pulled no punches with these people and was explicit and to the point, "Woe!" He would say to the self-righteous and falsely religious, whose hearts were hard and uncircumcised. And to those who merely feigned allegience He would query "Why do you call me Lord, Lord but do not do what I say?" Yet, standing before the religious council, He remained largely silent to their questions and accusations. I've always wondered about that - perhaps the answer is this - He did everything in His power to appeal and convince these people of ultimately one thing, one truth - eternity, eternity in heaven, or eternity in hell. In a sense, I suppose it could be argued He did fail with the many. In another sense however, it could also be argued His failure with those resulted in success for all the rest of us. Moreover, His silence before His accusers (and murderers), would only be temporary. In the end He would have the last word - and it would be judgment; and it would be final.

So appeals to the truth can, and do have an impact. To those who are sick of their slavery and captivity in sin, who seek release, freedom, the truth is a very very powerful thing. But to those who are content with their captivity to sin, the truth is a very very painful thing, a threat - something to be denied, despised, and destroyed.

God doesn't fail; neither does Jesus. If anyone fails, it's those who refuse to listen to the truth.

God bless...

CatsRule2020 said:

Even the most astute scholars notice how Moses used verse 21 to separate the class of prohibitions of relational from pagan worship. KEIL-DELITZSCH Commentary on the Old Testament on Lev.18:21-23

If we are all true Christian posters here we must be honest and not deceitful.

Click to expand...

Since you're questioning my Christianity as well as my honesty and integrity, can I ask you something?

Do you think homosexuality is right or wrong? Natural or unnatural?

Do you think God intentionally created some as male and female and created others intentionally as homosexual?

Michie said:

This is what happens when people do not know Catholic teaching. The Church does not disallow sex in post-menopausal women, infertile couples, or women who have had a hysterectomy for cancer, etc.

Did the Church Ever Teach Sex Was Only for Procreation?

Click to expand...

and your response is what happens when people comment without reading the posts. A hypothetical based on what you just cut down was presented. On the surface a ridiculous statement. The response to it was to point out the absurd outcome of accepting the premise as true.

Toynbee said:

Why single out "fundamentalist Christians?" Where's the point in that?

And do, as you assert in your last paragraph, do "we know this?" I don't think so. In fact, it looks like quite a stretch to assert anyone actually "knows this." (wants to believe it is another story)

I already posted a link to every English translation (including some paraphrases) of Paul's statement in I Cor 6 - to a team, they're all in agreement with the word Paul used - which either was, or referred to homosexuality.

Click to expand...

a translation based on nothing. NO evidence, no documentation no record....nothing.

CatsRule2020 said:

Even the most astute scholars notice how Moses used verse 21 to separate the class of prohibitions of relational from pagan worship. KEIL-DELITZSCH Commentary on the Old Testament on Lev.18:21-23

If we are all true Christian posters here we must be honest and not deceitful.

Click to expand...

And btw -

Keil-Delitzsch on
Leviticus 18:21
Leviticus 18:22-23
Therefore note that NEITHER of these comments permits the conclusion you ascribe to "even the most astute scholars." Your conclusion is quite mistaken.

In fact, the Keil-Delitzsch comments on Lev 18:21 are spot on in reference to... yes... HOMOSEXUALITY