I have had the privilege this past week of spending a few days with Dr. Paul Cameron and his wife as they have been sharing with the citizens of Moldova about the dangers of homosexuality, especially to our children. Based on the arguments shared by Mr. Cameron, I want to preach a sermon this Sunday morning at the church. I was not surprised to see the results of Mr. Cameron’s research. I would like to share the sermon here with you in article form. (check out his info at the Family Research Institute website)
I. Homosexuality promises financial prosperity. We live in a material world where people will literally sell their souls in order to gain the world. The motto of the day is “live for the here and now and do not worry about tomorrow”. The idea of accepting homosexuality is promoted left and right, but of course, the negative consequences are avoided and the “benefits” (usually in the financial form) are promoted. This is nothing new. This happened in the very beginning.
And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) Genesis 13:10
Did you notice what attracted Lot to Sodom? It was well watered, like the garden of the Lord. It was a prosperous place. He could find financial prosperity there (no matter what else he would have to put up with, morally speaking). The Bible is even more specific on the way that the people of Sodom were living, financially speaking.
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)
They were living in prosperous ease. Financially speaking, things were well. It was the place to be (even if morally speaking, it was a terrible place to be). Have you bought into the lie that accepting homosexuality is okay because it will bring financial prosperity to you or your country? Are you ready to sell your morality and peace of mind for financial prosperity?
II. Homosexuals and those who support them may prosper financially but there is a price to be paid in the form of their peace of mind and morality. The Bible has a lot to say about homosexuals and homosexuality. God is very frank and specific. Let’s take a look at the Truth.
Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD. (Genesis 13:13)
Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” (Genesis 18:20, 32)
According to these Scriptures, homosexuals are
- Great sinners
- Sin is very grave
- Not 10 righteous people in the entire society
- They are united and aggressive
- They cause others distress
- They practice sensual conduct
- They say lewd things
- They torture the people around them
- They indulge in defiling passions
A) Homosexuals are dangerous to children. They are predators. Here is some data on how homosexuals prey on children. Kinsey, a homosexual researcher, proclaims in a survey that “37% of homosexuals admitted to having sexual relations with boys under the age of 17 years old”. About 2% to 3% of the population is made up of homosexuals yet they are responsible for 40% of the child molestation cases in the country. (from Dr. Paul Cameron)In the Catholic church’s study on child molestation, it has been determined that the rate of homosexual molestation compared to heterosexual molestation is 13:1 (13 homosexual molestations for every 1 heterosexual molestation). I have written on the homosexual predator and how dangerous homosexuals are to minors. I would encourage you to read them.
B) Homosexuals are extremely violent. Here is a simple of list of serial killers who are also homosexual.
- Andrei Chikatilo, who was convicted in 1992 of raping, murdering and eating parts of at least 21 boys, 17 women and 14 girls
- Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts
- Donald Harvey claimed 37
- John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago
- Patrick Kearney accounted for 32
- Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys
- Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he sexually abused the bodies after murdering the victims)
III. Here is a biblical description of homosexuals. Let’s see if there are any similarities to the empirical evidence that we have about homosexuals living in society.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6)
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (I Timothy 1)
So, keeping in mind what we saw earlier about homosexual serial killers, how are they described here in the Bible?
- Murderers of fathers and mothers
- Perjurers (oath breakers, like the gay catholic priests who broke their vow of abstinence by molesting young boys)
Are these the type of people whom you want working with your children in public schools? What about as your child’s youth director? That is what homosexuals desire, the opportunity of working with children so that they can influence them with homosexual propaganda as well as have access to new victims of molestation.
IV. Finally, we want to see what God has to say about the sin of homosexuality.
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female ; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
God calls homosexuality an abomination. The word abomination means “shameful, evil, disgusting, repulsive, worthy of rejection, detestable”. Is this the view of homosexuality that you have been taught? Does the mass media present homosexuality in this way? Does that match up with their actions? Do they do detestable things? Do they do disgusting things? Do they do shameful things? As you can see, God correctly identifies homosexuals for what they are.
Pingback: Homosexuals and child molestation « Erik and Elena Brewer's Weblog – Kingdom of God Worship Blogs
Erik, the more I read this, the more I honestly feel that you are spreading PURE hatred. The bible also says:
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. Do you believe that this should be so?
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. What’s your take on that? There are several members of your own family that have been divorced/remarried. Are they going to burn in hell for breaking one rule in the bible?
In Leviticus, it forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. Think that should be enforced and followed?
In Mark, doesn’t it mention that If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. We should DEFINITELY strictly obey that one, right?
Since you want to believe, based on the bible, that gay people are “shameful, evil, disgusting, and worthy of rejection” among other choice words, you must SURELY believe all of these things above, right? You can’t pick and choose who you condemn, Erik. I think you have a LOT of hatred in your soul for a man of God.
Can you please explain to me how not agreeing with a person’s lifestyle choice is hatred? Do I not have the right to agree or disagree? Do you have the right to agree and disagree? I respect that right and I would hope that you would do the same.
Virginity is a matter of life and death. If you have sexual relations outside of the confines of marriage, then like it or not, agree with it or not, you put your life at risk (AIDS and other STD’s). The only 100% form of protection is abstinence until marriage and fidelity in marriage. God wants us to be faithful for our own good and for the good of society. When you have sex outside of marriage, not only do you put yourself at risk, but others as well. That is very egotistical if you ask me.
Divorce is allowed, I would study up on the subject a little better if I were you. I have articles on it if you would like to read them. Remarriage is also allowed.
Why would anyone want to have sex when a woman is having her period? Medically speaking, sex should be avoided during menstruation.
If a woman’s husband dies, and there is no heir to carry on the man’s name, then it is the duty of the man’s brother (if he is not yet married) to marry his brothers widow and the first child that she has will receive her first husbands inheritance (the younger brother is honoring his brother by having his name continue in the future generations). So you have a husband and a wife having a baby, I do not recall that being a sin.
So you brought half arguments based on insufficient knowledge of your subject. I am trying to be nice here but you need to help me out. Inform yourself a little better and then we can have some real debate.
Maybe this will get you in the Word of God. I hope so. His Word has the power to open your eyes to see reality as it is. God bless.
Christians tend to be judgmental and mean.
Homosexuals are at least nice.
Spoken like a true homosexual (or homosexual supporter).
Sorry Erik, I am not going to agree with you in regards to your statement that homosexuality was what the saga of Sodom and Gomorrah are all about. It is interesting that you would use this regards as a reason to say homosexuality is wrong or otherwise. Don’t get me wrong here, I do not believe it is a productive act at all nor condoned by God. The animals that called themselves people who are described to inhabit Sodom during this time were more than just homosexuals. They were the perfect description of evil in all regards. The reason the place had to be destroyed was pretty apparent when angels could not just walk through the town without being attacked. While the Bible does state that this was in a sexual way, one must remember there is more to this than just the men who were on the street. ALL of the evil people of Sodom were after the angels who were sent to find any righteous. Of course as the story goes there was but one truly righteous man among the evil of both townships. He (Lot) and his family are given sanction to flee, however Lot’s unnamed wife turns to salt after looking back at “what was” after being given specific instructions to look forward to the future and into the will of God.
I have always thought of this story to have really specific meaning in that your faith in God and keeping His Commandments could lead you from the destruction caused by evil but only if you are willing to follow His Commandments as they are written.
There are plenty of other out right spoken commandments concerning homosexuality. Perfect example you bring up: “1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ” seriously though Leviticus 18 covers many of the “sins of the flesh” issues as well as incest and that sort. Therefore, being that God commanded these things not to be done, if done they are a sin.
This being said sins are forgiven through Christ if we repent. Let us not condemn those who are astray. Is it not yet wrong for us to judge those who are astray? Any of this sound familiar? These are instructions given to us as well. It is not our place to condemn homosexuals or any others to an given fate by our speech or actions, the Bible even mentions by our own thoughts as we are not to put ourselves in His light for such. I would just warn to be very careful brother. I share your convictions in this matter, but I would warn against railing against groups with things like statistics. Statistics can say anything you want them to stay depending on where you put the variables and controls for any set of data. The Bible gives us such clear cut explanations nearly down to the letter about these things that it is unnecessary to seek out data anyway.
I appreciate your insights. I would like to add, calling sin a sin and a sinner a sinner is not the same thing as judging. I am not judging homosexuals, just pointing out some facts about their lifestyle choice. God is the One who does the judging. I want to inform them of that. The cycle of sin that is the homosexual lifestyle is proof that God is judging them for their actions at the moment. If they do not repent then there will be an even worse judgment in the future. I do not want anyone to experience that wrath, therefore, I want to share a warning with them. I do not hate homosexuals. I hate the sinful lifestyle that they live. I hate that their lifestyle leaves many innocent victims in its wake. I pray that they will hear, understand, and believe the Gospel so that instead of working toward the destruction of society, they will work toward edifying it.
Please understand, I am just giving reflection as to what I read. Sometimes the passion of conviction gets away from us. It was a bit on the harsh side is all I am saying. I am not trying to be critical at all, even though it is impossible to speak on a subject with out giving critical insight. All I am offering is my thoughts and I will keep them with me as I would hope you keep them in mind.
As my wife always says “It is easier to catch flies with Honey than Vinegar…”
That is a good motto. The problem with the homosexual crowd is that they are out to deceive the rest of us. They want to suppress the rights of the many and increase the rights of the few (similar to the Soviet Union’s tactics). I have messages addresses specifically to homosexuals. This one was for people who have bought in to the lie of the homosexual propaganda machine.
“The homosexual propaganda machine.”
“I hate that their lifestyle leaves many innocent victims in its wake”
So many innocent victims in their wake? Is that the homosexual machine that does that? The homosexual lifestyle will apparently rape you and leave you for dead. And if you happen to swing that way, you’re a raving, murderous, child-molester.
Note: Did you ever consider the less extreme gays are afraid to attend these statistical gathering sessions because of people like you who’ll accuse them of raping little boys.
Also, I see a side note in here. If we get rid of preachers, do we get rid of female child molestation. 1 OUT OF EVERY 13 PREACHERS IS A CHILD MOLESTER. Surely it’s a dangerous road. Not that I’m judging you, I just want to warn you about the dangerous road you are on. Before the preacher propaganda machine steamrolls over many innocent victims.
You a fringe, extremist, nutjob lunatic. I’ve prescribed pills to people like you.
On the plus side, I’m glad to see other people who are inclined to believe religion and statistics does NOT give you the right to be Holier-Than-Thou, also recognize your ravings as nonsense.
May I site the Catholic priests again? Do I need to re-list the serial killers? Are those not victims.
Is every homosexual a child molester? No. Did I say that every single one was? No again. Is every homosexual a serial killer? No Did I say that they were? No again. Are child molesters at a higher proportion among homosexuals that heterosexuals? You bet they are. Can the same be said for serial killers? Yes again.
Is that kind of like “less extreme terrorists”?
If the preacher is homosexual, yes, please get rid of him. He should not be preaching anyway. (the 13 to 1 ratio was among Catholic priests, the 13 were Catholic priests who admitted being gay)
More name calling, I feel as if I am back in kindergarten.
Where have I written that I am holier than you? Please use my own words.
I’m pretty sure you just compared gays to terrorists. Absolutely ridiculous. That’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Actually, I did not say gays were terrorists (although, those who have been infected with the HIV virus by gays may have a different opinion). I set out some bait to see who would pounce on it instead of actually making an argument. Thanks for taking the leap.
That was a poor counterargument. Actually, it didn’t disprove my point. I did not say that you said “gays are terrorists.” You compared gays to terrorists. Truth. And you just tried to do it again with that snarky comment about HIV.
Elaborate. What exactly were you trying to bait me into? Pointing out your tragically flawed “slippery-slope?” Because I really feel like you’re getting backed into a corner, bubs.
Terrorists leave a lot of death and destruction in their wake. So do homosexuals. Check out the facts on the dangers of homosexuality.
Pingback: Speak out against the dangers of homosexuality and you get attacked « Erik and Elena Brewer's Weblog
Pingback: Free from the Stronghold of Homosexuality « Pola Muzyka's Blog
Erik, I’m just really disappointed in this article and the way you agree that homosexuals are bad people. That seems to be the general consensus of your post. I know many homosexuals and have a family member that is one and to read that they are “agressive, dangerous” and many more names, totally hurts my heart and breaks it at the same time that my family member and friends have to see things like this on a daily basis. As a Christian, it is not your “duty” to make them feel even more outcast as they already do on a day to day basis. It is ok to have strong morals about things, but this post is incredibly hurtful and it made me cry that a Christian like yourself would agree with these things. Maybe you should do an article on straight people as well and how horrible some of them are.
All people are born sinners (or bad people, if you will). That is the bad news. The good news is that people can be changed by the power of God. Murderers can be transformed. Liars can be as well. Even immoral people (homosexuality is a form of immorality) can be changed. I am just sharing the good news. In order to accept the good news, you need to see your need for it, i.e. the dangers of immorality (homosexuality).
I am sure you “know” someone who is homosexual and does not molest children. I am glad that he has not done it yet. I am not talking about isolated cases. I am talking about a trend. Look at the homosexual movement as a whole. If you try to compare isolated cases with the movement as a whole you end up trying to compare apples to oranges and you will “miss the forest because of the trees” so to speak.
I have seen the aggressive side of homosexuals. I have been threatened with death by them on more than one occasion. I have had them curse me and my family.
Calling sin a sin is not being hateful. Is it wrong to warn people of danger? I think it would be hateful not to warn people of danger.
Straight people are sinners too and they do very horrible things. There is hope and forgiveness for them as well. You are dodging the point and trying to shift the focus from the obvious.
” I am glad that he has not done it yet.” -You
That’s all I need to say. You are basically saying that every gay man and woman will eventually molest a child. It’s not the Dark Ages anymore.
Also, please, if you use the phrase, “apples to oranges” one more time, I’m going to have to bring you to a fruit orchard so you can actually see that they aren’t that different. They are both fruits which grow on tress.
Now you are putting words in my mouth, looking into what YOU think I said instead of what I actually wrote. Gay men have a higher rate of child molesters among them than do heterosexual men. That is what I said.
Apples to oranges is an expression but if you want to be anal about it (no pun intended) then go right ahead.
I put no words into your mouth. You said “yet.” “Yet” implies inevitability. As in, I haven’t eaten breakfast “yet.” It means that, eventually I will. There’s a chance I could never eat breakfast again. But in all eventuality, I will.
So please. Don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth. You have an easy enough time putting them there as it is.
Also, when you “assume” you make an “ass” out of “you” and “me.” There’s a trite phrase to add to your collection. So stop making assumptions that everyone who disagrees with you is gay. They might just think you’re flat out wrong.
Oh, BY THE BY, you don’t seem to understand statistics. Percentages are meaningless. If you get me the data, I can perform a Student’s t-test and tell you if there actually is any correlation at all. Because that’s what real science does.
I have not killed anyone, yet. I have the opportunity each and every day but I have not done it. I choose not to do it because murder is sin. But all of us have it in us to kill. I am not promoting killing, just proving a point. Just because it has not been done yet does not mean that it will never be done.
I never said that anyone who disagrees with me is gay. Again, you are putting words in my mouth and that is not good.
Unless they are in favor of homosexuals, right?
Isn’t this blog coined “an ENCOURAGING blog for Christians to express their ideas”? There is nothing encouraging about these posts
So if a doctor tells you that you have cancer and if not treated you will die, is that being hateful? Is that being discouraging?
YES! That is discouraging. Obviously you’ve never been to an oncology clinic. You aren’t even supposed to give them an estimated lifespan unless they insist. It decreases their will to live and most fall into a deep depression because they date themselves for death and label themselves as “Fatal.”
Oh but I have. I minister at one. But thanks for the tip. So in the end, the patient is told the gravity of his illness.
Oh man, you must be a pretty poor minister. Dispensing gravity instead of hope? Have you never seen Patch Adams? Truly, joy even in the face of death is far better than gravity. People do not want to die thinking about the afterlife or the inevitability. They want to die happy, content, safe.
It’s spiteful to remind a dying patient that they are dying. They know! It has become their identity. Imagine living life like that. Please stop that, for the sake of your people.
I give people hope, true hope, not some false hope that says come as you are and stay as you are. God calls us to come as we are and then He shows us all of our faults so that we will not depend upon ourselves but solely upon Him. Then He transforms us. That is hope. False hope would be to teach people that they are okay as they are. That is inhumane. It is like stitching a wound without cleaning it out first.
God makes us happy, content, and safe when we fully trust in Him and not in ourselves or some false feel good hope.
Pingback: Still don’t think homosexuality is dangerous? « Erik and Elena Brewer's Weblog
Pingback: Free from the Stronghold of Homosexuality » Pola Muzyka's Stronghold Smashers
You are aware that Paul Cameron’s conclusions have been disproven and his methodoloy debunked?
By whom? The pro gay crowd? Is that like “evolution” has been “proven” beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Find a link to an article by a Dr Herek at UC Davis.
Find also a link about Paul Cameron published by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Herewith their comments:
“…Paul Cameron is an infamous anti-gay propagandist whose one-man statistical chop shop, the Family Research Institute, churns out hate literature masquerading as legitimate science. Cameron dresses up his “studies” with copious footnotes, graphs and charts, and then pays to publish them in certain journals. Cameron’s work has been rejected by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association, yet his ludicrous statistics are frequently referenced in sermons, news broadcasts, politicians’ speeches and even court decisions….”
If you consider that a reliable source then that tells me all that I need to know about you.
Plus, the stats come from Kinsey’s research, not Dr. Cameron’s. Translation; you are attacking the wrong thing my friend.
Paul Cameron would not know how to do real research if it bit him, frankly, he could tell me the sun will rise tomorrow and I would not believe him. If you actually think that his figures / ‘facts’ come unaltered from Kinsey, I’d be willing to sell you the bridge my family own in Brooklyn.
As for the SPLC, your disdain for them tells me far more about you than you might like.
Kinsey’s “research” is available. Check it out for yourself instead of just taking other people’s opinions and running with them. We already know Kinsey was a pervert and he demonstrated his perversion and depravity in the “experiments” (sexual of course) that he performed on children.
Kinsey performed sex acts on kids? I thought “baring false witness against thy neighbor” was a sin?! As was lying?
Hmm, do you mean that the lady “Dr” Judith Reisman (who has no doctorates or any other qualifications in sexology, biology or any other discipline of science) said so? If so, I would not trust her, as frankly, her knowledge of some areas of biology make me laugh. I would rather trust the people who completed the research, rather than someone who made it their life goal to discredit someone, whilst using nothing but innuendo and exploiting the fact that laymen do not have alot of knowledge in alot of areas, ie sexology.
Did he say that babies experience orgasms. Yes. Biologically they do. They are merely responding to the stimuli given. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. As for the timings, some pedophiles are just that sick. They timed the child’s responses before the study was even conceived and merely related it to Kinsey when he asked. Whilst, I do not agree with everything he said, he was right about alot of things. Children explore sexuality. Sometimes very young. The information he received regarding abuse and sexual exploration came from pedophiles, teachers, parents and adults who experienced abuse or were, er, more sexual than some.
For the purposes of scientific study, he couldn’t out all the people he was studying. A lot of sexual acts were against the law, and he wanted truth from people. If he reported everyone who went against the law, ie homosexuals they would have been thrown in jail or some weird therapy program. He wanted to revisit the people, to see if they were telling the truth. They wouldn’t be so forthcoming from jail!
As for the allegations, where are these supposed victims. I have yet to see anyone honestly come forward. I encourage them to do so. So far, the majority of the scientific community, as far as I’m aware, disregard such notions as nothing more than slander. With evidence, actual evidence, they will change their stance.
Two things, there is the proof that molestation took place and the other, how scientific is “well that is what pedophiles who did what they did told me”?
Where is the proof that molestation occurred? I have yet to find some that is supported by someone in the actual field of Sexology or Psychology.
In fact “Dr” Reisman tried to sue the Kinsey Institute for libel (pot calling kettle) and was dismissed “with prejudice.” Guess why? No actual evidence.
Kinsey’s sample size was huge by the standards of his day. He returned to his subjects years later to confirm if what he was told was true. His job was to there problems? Yeah. But he laid the ground work, people just expanded on it.
And what about survivors of sexual abuse? You say pedophiles could have lied about their experiences, but what about childhood sexual abuse survivors? Many survivors report biologically responding to their abuse at very young ages. Some were even videotaped (poor people) whilst experiencing abuse, at very young ages. Some report seeking out the abuse, possibly due to neglect or perhaps they liked the biological response. Some survivors, which is now proven, act out sexually as a result of the abuse. (Now I need to take a shower, but these things need to be discussed.)
How scientific is “well that is what pedophiles who did what they did told me”?
Your beloved Dr Paul Cameron, who has multiple complaints against him for misrepresenting scientific data by many of his peers, listens to the people who answers his weird questionnaires. (And some of the questions are very strange.)
Even though they could very well be pulling his leg.
Speaking of his studies, what of the study which he used, what was it, 1000 obituaries of (assumed) gay people and compared them to those printed in “non gay” or papers whose target audience was not GLBTQI oriented to estimate the life expectancy of gay people? Or something along those lines, at least.
Seems flawed to me. You can’t just take a bunch of obituaries and compare them to something and say, “Hey these guys die a whole lot more.”
He ignored surviving gay people of the same generation, and ignored the fact that not all of the people in the obituaries in “normal” papers were heterosexual. Some might not want to broadcast their sexual orientation, so how did he get his numbers? Plus, the fact that any number of things could have contributed to their deaths. Pre existing genetic medical conditions, for example.
How about when he took 10000 obituaries of gay people and compared them to a CDC study called”AIDS Cases in Adolescents and Adults, by Age – United States, 1994-2000″ to “prove homosexuality was more dangerous than smoking, being overweight.”.
A spokesman of the CDC said this,
“[The CDC] does not collect statistics on the lifespan of gay men. While gay men continue to be severely impacted by HIV and AIDS, AIDS-related death data cannot be used to indicate that homosexual men live shorter lives than heterosexual men overall.”
Or the fact that whenever he reports on “Homosexual pedophiles” (which most professionals who work within organizations of sex offenders, are quick to point out, that there are many pedophiles with no adult sexual orientation or pedophiles whose victims do not correlate with their adult sexual orientation, eg a heterosexual man attacks only young boys) he writes off “heterosexual pedophiles” with a “bisexual correlation.” Come on, that’s just dishonest!
Time for another quote. Dr Herek. states,
“Cameron’s claims hinge on the incorrect assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron’s paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed. For example, he cited the Groth and
Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of “heterosexual” (i.e.,female victim) to “homosexual” (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that “54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners” (p. 1231).
However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The “54%” statistic reported by Cameron doesn’t appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.”
Dr Groth complains after Dr Cameron cites his study,
“(Cameron) misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views. I make a very clear distinction in my writing between pedophilia and homosexuality, noting that adult males who sexually victimize young boys are either pedophilic or heterosexual, and that in my research I have not found homosexual men turning away from adult partners to children. I consider this totally unprofessional behavior on the part of Dr. Cameron and I want to bring this to your attention. He disgraces his profession.”
Dr Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections,
“…(I)t is a faulty assumption that if an adult male selects a young boy as his victim, his sexual orientation is homosexual. We found that some (73, or 49%) offenders responded exclusively to children—boys, girls, or both—and showed no interest in adults or age- and showed no interest in adults or age-mates for sexual gratification. These men were pedophiles, in the true sense of the word.”
How many Institutes have kicked Dr Paul out, despite him saying they have re accepted him? I haven’t found any statements by these institutions to support this. Perhaps I’m looking in the wrong place?
Click to access Paul%20Cameron.pdf
The American Psychological Association. (Apparently does not allow members to resign if they are under investigation, despite Dr Paul’s claims.)
The Canadian Psychological Association
The American Sociological Association.
The Nebraska Psychological Association
They all also issued a statement which basically says,
“Dr Paul Cameron consistently misrepresents, misinterprets scientific data relating to sexuality, homosexuality and lesbianism.” Or something to that effect.
Dr Bell, a sociologist was “appalled” by Dr Paul’s abuse of his work,
Epidemiologists Morten Frisch and Henrik Brønnum-Hansen complained that Cameron is wrong to infer lower age expectancy of gay married couples in Denmark. According to their own study, they found that excess mortality in Danish same-sex marriages since 1995 was “restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage”.
I am sincerely glad you wrote this piece. Because this sort of thinking needs to be preserved for posterity so that our children and our children’s children can be forever reminded just how hard the struggle was for humanity to outgrow such fearful ignorance. This piece has precisely the same sickening tone of moral indignation and righteous certainty one can find reading editorials from the late 19th Century about “the scourge of the Negro.” We look back on the words of those unfortunate wretches with disgust and pity, asking how compassion and basic respect could be so absent. The descendants of today’s world will look upon your work in just the same way. Enjoy your well-deserved place in history.
I like how you try and compare sexual sins with racial sins. You are dodging and shifting. No one is against a person’s race because that is not a choice and it has nothing to do with morality while homosexuality is a choice, and it deals with a moral issue. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, which is a typical tactic.
Same old blood libel. I mean honestly, go check the FBI database and you will find out the majority of male on male child molestation is done by white, heterosexual men, most of whom tend to be married to a woman.
A male who molests another male commits the sin of homosexuality, hence we have homosexuals committing molestation, using boys. Plus, the % of homosexuals (openly admitting to be homosexuals) who also have sexual relations with minors is much greater than heterosexual men. Both groups are wrong, no one is denying that. Sin is sin no matter who does it. This just points out the greater tendency of homosexuals to molest children.
Thats so sad its funny. You actually believe this stuff.
Above Anon said everything that needed to be said, except mentioning that most of the people talked about are also “good, god fearing christians” like you.
Though I would like to note that your imaginary god is a tyrant, people who try to enforce his rules are disgusting, and that I also personally support:
Heavy taxing of the rich
limits on corporate power worldwide
the UN having more power
a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion
polyamory (multiple loving partners in a relationship, but NOT a marriage, that would be too confusing in terms of tax laws and such)
proper sex ed that teaches kids how to be responsible (Abstinence only education doesn’t work. look at the teen pregnancy rates in places with it and tell me it does)
having an entire unit of history courses in schools dedicated to all the things religion has done to the world good AND BAD
and above all, I support the idea that humans are not inherently good or evil, and that it is our freedom, hard won and fought for, not just given to us by an invisible man, that is our greatest treasure. Freedom to live lives based on COOPERATION AND HAPPINESS
none of the above is a troll or exageration. But rest assured when I realized my beliefs were the complete antithesis to standard fundy dogma, I was very pleased. Label me evil all you want. All I want is freedom.
So, in your humble opinion, we should not enforce “do not murder”, is that how you feel?
Sine you support heavy taxing of the rich, I will assume that you are not rich. That is how they did things back in the good ole USSR, take what is not yours and give it to others (who did not earn it). We all know how that worked out.
Who is going to pay for all of that “free healthcare”?
What about the child’s right to life?
Who is going to pay for all of the “healthcare” to treat all the STD’s that come as a result of immorality?
Abstinence education works very well when it is taught properly. Plus, separating abstinence from faith in Jesus Christ is a recipe for disaster. The two have to be taught together.
Which evolution, the fairytale of macro evolution or the science of micro evolution?
Teach all the bad parts of religion that you want because religion without a relationship with God through Jesus Christ is bad anyway.
Do you have to teach children to steal or not to steal? Do you have to teach them to lie or not to lie? Do you have to teach them to be selfish or not to be selfish? Answering those questions will quickly reveal if we are born good or bad.
You have the freedom to believe what you want, even if it is wrong and dangerous. Just know that your beliefs lead to actions and actions have consequences. You choose the action but God deals out the consequences.
From what I’ve read of the article most of those things apply to Christians . . .
Sorry, I guess you do not know too many Christians because true Christians do not practice sexual immorality. You really should open the Bible and see how God describes a true Christian.
Eric the brewer wrote “Sorry, I guess you do not know too many Christians because true Christians do not practice sexual immorality.”
I love the no true scotsman fallacy too.
Please read Jesus’ description of a true Christian. I guess His opinion is the most important since He did bring about the movement.
There are some specific criteria for being a true believer and they are mentioned in the passage.
– walk the narrow path
– produce good actions
– do not practice lawlessness (sin, like molestation)
– they are not hypocrites
– they hear the Words of Jesus Christ and act upon them
I am sure you already knew all of that though.
In case Eric, as many fundies do, either denies that his statement is an example of the no true scotsman fallacy or he merely redefines the term in order to deny his statement meets the criteria here’s the definition:
“No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as “all members of X have desirable trait Y” then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X. “
See the answer to the previous accusation to find the rebuttal to this one too.
Eric the Brewer wrote “Please read Jesus’ description of a true Christian. I guess His opinion is the most important since He did bring about the movement.”
Let me get this straight. You try to prove yourself write by directing me to another article by you? Ego worshipper or what?
Let’s check out the worth of your opinion shall we? Do you have a degree in Aramaic so you can read the text untranslated? No?
How about a degree in history so you can put the text into its historical context? No?
Well at least you have a degree in philosophy so you can deconstruct the text? No? Then all you have is an uninformed opinion don’t you you little ego worshipper you?
Eric then blathered “There are some specific criteria for being a true believer and they are mentioned in the passage.” [according to Eric’s ego]
– walk the narrow path [according to eric’s ego]
– produce good actions [according to eric’s ego]
– do not practice lawlessness (sin, like molestation) [or lying and betrayal of Christ like Peter? you little ego worshipper you. All you’re doing is giving your own interpretation to a text and declaring that’s what it teaches]
– they are not hypocrites [you mean like you Eric? You little ego worshipper you.
Cameron has a pathological hatred of homosexuals. There is no lie so shameful, no depth to which he will not sink as long as it harms homosexuals. Such hatred is evil. And you are helping in its promotion which would make you evil too.
Will you repent of your evil? Of course not! ’cause you’re a “true” christian. Your ego tells you so. So you’ll just direct me to another quote of yours or to some corrupt authority who is as ignorant as yourself but with whom you agree.
– they hear the Words of Jesus Christ and act upon them [that would mean that you are excluded since Christ did not support evil and you do. But you won’t repent of your evil because your ego tells you that you have done no wrong doesn’t it little ego worshipper?]
Did you even open the link? It was to the Bible, to the passage that I was explaining to you. It seems to me that you do not even attempt to read the arguments. You already have your mind made up and latch on to the wind to try and prove your point (what you “assumed” I was going to write etc.) Bad move my friend. This is a typical move from people who really do not know how to sustain a logical discussion.
So, according to you, in order to speak to anything you must have a degree in that field? Do you have a degree in Biblical studies? Do you have a degree in science? If not then I guess you cannot speak on the Bible or religion or evolution etc. Just for your info, Jesus more than likely spoke Aramaic but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek so if I wanted to read an untranslated text I would have to know Koine Greek instead of Aramaic. Plus, have you heard of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance? You can study the passages in the original languages without being an expert in either Greek or Hebrew. Although I do not have a degree in History, I have had several upper level college courses in History (especially Greek and Roman history, focusing on the times of Christ, so you failed if you are trying to call me “uneducated”). The same with world religions and philosophy.
I will give you a second to figure out your flaw here . . . Okay, time is up, Peter denied Jesus and lied pre Pentecost. Do you know what happened on the Day of Pentecost? Peter received the Holy Spirit which he did not have up until that point. The Holy Spirit reminds the true believer of what is right and wrong and gives him the power to say no to sin (such as lying and molestation, as well as all of the rest of them). BTW, there is no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your interpretation”. There is correct interpretation based on the context. It sounds to me like you believe in the lie of relativism.
Could you please point our how I am a hypocrite. Here is what a hypocrite is in the original Greek. A hypocrite is one who says one thing and does another or says not to do something and then does that very thing.
I do not hate homosexuals. I do hate the sin of homosexuality because of how it degrades people.
Christ also condemned the sin of homosexuality, as well as all other sin.
Eric ranted “Did you even open the link? It was to the Bible, to the passage that I was explaining to you.”
Yes Eric I did open the link. To put this clearly you used your interpretation of the bible to prove another one of your interpretations of the bible. This is merely a circular argument. But then you believe that your god “otherwise known as your ego” is illogical & you must follow your god musn’t you?
Eric then waffled on about qualifications and then argued that asked if I was saying that if you didn’t have a qualification you couldn’t speak about any particular subject? Actually my argument was very different. I argued that if you didn’t have qualifications in the relevant fields all you would be able to do is spout illogical, ignorant opinion. Sorta like what you’re doing now.
Eric then asked if I have a degree in biblical studies. No eric I have a degree in theology, a second in philosophy and a third in classical history [with a minor in archaeology]. Satisfied?
Eric then spouts another logical fallacy “Peter denied Jesus and lied pre Pentecost. Do you know what happened on the Day of Pentecost? Peter received the Holy Spirit which he did not have up until that point. The Holy Spirit reminds the true believer of what is right and wrong and gives him the power to say no to sin (such as lying and molestation, as well as all of the rest of them).”
I’ll give you a second to work out why that’s a logical fallacy…time’s up. What you wrote is the fallacy known as moving the goal posts. A Christian is someone who follows Christ. That’s what the word means. You claimed that anyone who does the wrong thing is not a “true” Christian. Now you’re adding another requirement to being a “true” Christian. Not only doing the right thing but also receive the Holy Spirit. Adding new criteria to your argument and claiming it’s the same argument is known as moving the goal posts. You would have already known this if you’d studied philosophy as you claimed. What did your “study” consist of? Reading some books with a couple of quotes?
You then lied by claiming ” BTW, there is no such thing as “my interpretation” and “your interpretation”.
Incorrect oh ignorant one. Everyone develops an interpretation of a text the moment they attempt to understand what they’ve read. I agree with you that it’s the correct interpretation of a text that’s important but the ONLY way to ensure that would be to talk to the author. Since the authors are long dead all we can do is to check our interpreation against reality – in this case the original languages the text was written in to see if it supports the interpretation, and the archaeological evidence. You do neither. You worship your own ego and assume that any fundie nonsense must be true.
Eric then went on to flat out lie by writing “Could you please point our how I am a hypocrite. A hypocrite is one who says one thing and does another or says not to do something and then does that very thing.”
Very true Eric. Now let’s look at what you’ve done. You quoted Cameron who has a pathological hatred for homosexuals. He is evil. By propogating his evil you are supporting evil. Now Christ – you know the Guy you’re supposed to be following – condemned evil. You support evil and claim others should follow Christ who condemned evil. Sounds like it matches the definition you gave of hypocrisy.
But then in a technical sense you are correct. You see you don’t worship Jesus at all…you worship your own ego. That’s why you can’t accept that you can ever be wrong. Why you, the great, infallible Eric are always right. So lie to me and the others Eric. It doesn’t matter what the lie is so long as you can prove you are correct. Isn’t that the whole point?
“I do not hate homosexuals. Christ also condemned the sin of homosexuality, as well as all other sin.” Now both of those assertions are a lie and you know it Eric. Why do you tell such lies Eric? Is it because you’re a compulsive liar? Or is it because of your father the Prince of Lies?
Eric waffled “See the answer to the previous accusation to find the rebuttal to this one too.”
Tell me eric do you even know what a no true scotsman fallacy is?
Let’s clear that up before we continue shall we? In addition please explain how your opinion of Jesus’ requirements for being a Christian show that you weren’t using a no true scotsman fallacy? Or are you asserting that Jesus is as illogical as yourself?
Allow me to simply the argument.
Use of a logical fallacy makes an argument illogical.
You used a logical fallacy in your argument.
Your argument is illogical.
Now you assert that Jesus [in your opinion] used logical fallacies as well.
That would mean that Jesus arguments were illogical [or that eric the brewer is wrong]. I’m betting that you’d rather that Jesus was illogical than you be mistaken.
Why yes I do. I do not see how that applies here. Just because a person “claims” to be a Christian does not make him one. A Christian is known by his fruit (back to that Matthew passage that you did not want to take a look at, you know, you really should read up on the info before commenting).
As for the other circular talk that you wrote, there is not need in getting into that until you are ready to read the text from Matthew and see what Jesus actually had to say.
Eric wrote “Why yes I do. I do not see how that applies here.”
The no true scotsman fallacy applies anytime you use your interpretation of a text to talk about “true” christians. Such a phrase meets the definition of a no true scotsman fallacy. You used the definition. You’re guilty of the no true scotsman fallacy.
Eric then produced a red herring fallacy and waffled “As for the other circular talk that you wrote, there is not need in getting into that until you are ready to read the text from Matthew and see what Jesus actually had to say.”
I’ve read the text eric but what has that got to do with your illogical arguments & your claims that Jesus was just as illogical as you are?
Erik, you will find it very hard to contest that many animals display homosexual behaviour, especially mammals and herd animals.
There are many more articles of this kind on google scholar, and experiments are currently being done involving genetics and hormones influencing sexual orientation. Although as far as I know it is inconclusive as to what causes homosexuality, the current evidence certainly does not point in the direction of a personal lifestyle choice, or that it is un-natural (going against trends observed in nature). I hope that you are not offended by the fact that humans are mammals too (having mammary glands), and being mammals, display patterns of bisexuality and homosexuality just as expected.
As for your statement: “I pray that they will hear, understand, and believe the Gospel so that instead of working toward the destruction of society, they will work toward edifying it”, I would just like you to know that on page 293-294 in the conclusion of the study below, researchers determine that “the influence of religion upon suicide and homosexuality appears indirect, if it exists at all.” An attempt to convert homosexuals to Christianity would therefore statistically be a waste of time.
Note that I can come up with a list of several Christians who have committed horrific crimes, or site statistics on incarceration rates of Christians, but that would not prove that Christianity is a sin, any more than your lists and statistics prove that homosexuality is a sin.
I would like to see more compelling evidence that homosexual behaviour is in fact “an abomination”, other than because it says so in the Bible.
Before I answer the rest of what you have written I would like to point you to a post where I have explained the irrational argument that pro-homosexuality supporters have being that there is homosexuality among the animals. Please take time actually to read the article. People are not animals (that is what supporters of immorality want people to believe, to debase themselves, so that they can live in debauchery and not feel guilty, that is explained in Romans 1)
As far as homosexuals being converted, it is very possible. I personally know many former homosexuals. Also, there is a passage in the Bible that speaks of a church formed from former prostitutes, homosexuals, murderers etc.
Some among this church were former fornicators (practicing sex outside of marriage in many perverse forms), adulterers (cheating on their spouses), effeminate (young male homosexual prostitutes), homosexuals (the ones who were going to see those young male prostitutes), drunkards, swindlers (taking advantage of others) etc. All of them were transformed by the power of Jesus Christ. They were radically transformed. They were no longer fornicators, swindlers, effeminate, homosexuals, and adulterers. You may not believe it because you have never experienced it but that does not make it any less true.
Homo sapiens is a member of the kindgom Animalia. This certainly does not mean that we should eat our young or throw poop at each other. We are a unique species in terms of our cognitive abilities. My point is that there is likely a biochemical or hormonal pathway that determines sexual orientation. If two homosexuals consent to having a relationship with one-another, and neither has an STI, this is not equivalent to eating your child or murdering. It is not harmful to either individual nor does it endanger anyone around them. Again, you are justifying your beliefs by quoting scripture, which is not satisfactory grounds in the scientific world. Religious institutions like yours used to think that left-handedness was somehow working for the devil. Now you just “interpret the bible differently” and being left-handed is okay. Same with trimming facial hair. Someone left an earlier post with lots of silly rules in the Bible, and you dismissed them by saying that they need to read up and have insufficient knowledge on the subject. I think it is less than modest for you to say that your interpretation is in fact the correct one. Even if it is, you still have yet to prove why this book is an any better source for morality than any other religious text.
Thanks for the science lesson. So on one hand, behavior can and should be controlled (eating young and throwing poop) yet when it comes to acting out one’s sexuality (you cannot deny the action aspect) then there is no restraint. It seems to me that there is a double standard. You seem to be picking and choosing what fits along with your worldview and dismissing what does not. You are making a judgment. You are discerning between actions (which is what I have been saying all along). We must discern between helpful and harmful actions because they both have consequences.
One may have a biological tendency toward homosexuality or monogamy or polygamy etc. but feelings and actions are two different things. Murderers may have a hormonal imbalance that inclines them to murder but they are not judged on the imbalance, they are judged on their actions.
If homosexuals would just leave their relationship in their bedrooms that would be one thing but they take it public through pride (shame) parades, laws, curriculum in schools, tv sitcom shows, hollywood etc.
Scripture makes the claim and science can now back it up.
Plus, macro evolution makes many claims that cannot be backed up scientifically.
No where in the Bible is it taught that being left handed is a sin. Maybe you are confusing the traditions of men in religious organizations with the Bible. Jesus faced the same problem during His day.
There is proper interpretation of the Bible and improper interpretation. Scripture is literature and one must apply the rules of interpreting literature to the Bible if he wants to get the accurate interpretation. There are tools available for the common man to do that these days.
If you would take time to read these so called “silly” rules in their proper context (knowing the context of the day would be a start) then you would see that there is nothing “silly” about what is being taught in the Bible. Instead, it is just easier for you to give a quick smug answer with little thought. I explained the “silly” rules in the light of their original context. Maybe you missed that part.
Again, it is not about “your” interpretation or “my” interpretation. As long as you are influenced by the doctrine of “relativism” you will keep making claims like that.
Let’s deconstruct Eric’s reply shall we?
“Before I answer the rest of what you have written I would like to point you to a post where I have explained the irrational argument that pro-homosexuality supporters have being that there is homosexuality among the animals.”
1) Homosexuality is found in animals all over the world. This fact is acknowledged by zoologists in many, many countries & has been known for decades.
“People are not animals”
Answer: Yes they are Eric as Megan has shown. Why don’t you just admit you were wrong on this point Eric?
“(that is what supporters of immorality want people to believe, to debase themselves, so that they can live in debauchery and not feel guilty, …)”
Answer: Eric you do NOT know the motivation of anyone unless you can read minds. Can you read minds Eric? No? Then I guess you lied.
“As far as homosexuals being converted, it is very possible. I personally know many former homosexuals. ”
Answer: Why do you tell these lies Eric? You don’t know any former homosexuals. You may know either homosexuals who are now no longer active or bisexuals who are now conforming to your rules and being active only when they are attracted to the opposite sex. What to prove me wrong? Fine. Cite a peer-reviewed study of “former” homosexuals. Otherwise you are lying through your teeth.
“Also, there is a passage in the Bible that speaks of a church formed from former prostitutes, homosexuals, murderers etc.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6)
Some among this church were former fornicators (practicing sex outside of marriage in many perverse forms), adulterers (cheating on their spouses), effeminate (young male homosexual prostitutes), homosexuals (the ones who were going to see those young male prostitutes), drunkards, swindlers (taking advantage of others) etc. All of them were transformed by the power of Jesus Christ. They were radically transformed. They were no longer fornicators, swindlers, effeminate, homosexuals, and adulterers. You may not believe it because you have never experienced it but that does not make it any less true.”
“The two Greek words translated “male prostitutes” and “sodomites” in v. 9 of the NRSV are malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi means “effeminate,” “weak,” or “soft” and is the word used of “call-boys” whom older men (arsenokoitai) took to bed. (The latter term is also the one used in 1 Tim. 1:10, which appears in another list of vices.) The context here in 1 Cor. is one of heterosexual immorality; homosexuality as such is not the topic at hand. Paul simply mentions the sort of abusive, exploitative homosexuality that goes on between young “call-boys” and their customers as one example of the sort of immorality Christians in Corinth should avoid. “This is what some of you used to be” implies only that some of the Corinthians were guilty of some of the vices Paul mentioned. Not much more can be made of this.”
Why didn’t you know this stuff Eric? Could it be that you did know and deliberately lied? Or could it be that you are just plain ignorant? Which is it Eric? Quick Eric…point to another one of your articles that shows without a doubt that the great God Eric’s Ego got it right and everyone else got it wrong unless they agree with you of course. 🙂
Okay, let me clarify and be more specific. When I say that humans are not animals, Megan understood what I meant when she wrote:
Our reasoning skills sets us apart. Our moral code sets us apart from the animals.
Have your read “The Overhauling of Straight America”? I would advise you to do so in order to see what homosexuals think and why they act the way that they do in a systematical way.
Wow, you sure do seem to think that you know about me even though you really do not even know me. I have a good Christian friend who lived the homosexual lifestyle for 15 years. He got sucked in and could not get out (even though he wanted to). He contracted AIDS and because of this disease, he was open to hearing the Gospel and he repented (to turn away, a change of mind). Now, he know longer lives the gay lifestyle and is not a homosexual. You cannot deny that. You cannot say what this man is or is not. He, himself, admits that he is a former homosexual. He was changed just like the homosexuals who lived in Corinth some 2,000 years ago.
The word translated “homosexual” is sodomite in the original. This article explains what a Sodomite is. The effeminate were the call boys for the “sodomites”. This text must also be interpreted in the light of all Scripture. The Bible speaks very clearly on homosexuality and what it is and why it is punished. Homosexuality is wrong in every situation, whether in prostitution or pagan ritualistic orgies, and even homosexuals in “committed” relationships. See the previous link to the article on how Jesus condemns homosexuality and homosexuals.
Here’s the reason that may be behind the opposition to homosexuals:
The article [published by pubmed] provides evidence that those who oppose homosexuals the most have homosexual desires themselves.
Eric however has proven himself unable to follow rational argument. For example here is a short list of the logical fallacies which Eric has used in this thread alone:
1) No True Scotsman fallacy.
2) Red Herring fallacy.
3) Shifting the Goalpost
4) Circular argument
One may only conclude that if he ever did study philosophy it was either from some 3rd rate uni or he failed the course. 🙂
To everyone who may find this interesting here are some quotes which rip apart Eric’s biblical arguments.
From an actual theologian:
[Jesus said nothing about gays, lesbians, or homosexuality as such.]
“Either Jesus implicitly approved of homosexual relationships, but later church tradition did not know this or suppressed that memory, or he did not consider the issue as important as some other issues, such as the role of money in people’s lives. In any case, one cannot “argue from silence” to suggest that Jesus condemned homosexuality.”
Concerning Matthew 19
“Jesus’ quotation of the “one flesh” statement from Genesis shows that the significance of marriage in God’s plan has more to do with love and the lasting nature of the marriage covenant itself than it does with sexual fulfillment or the “natural” biological “fit” of heterosexual intercourse.
Jesus emphasizes that “not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given” by stating it twice, in vv. 11 and v. 12d. Why this emphasis? What is the significance of this repetition? Is Jesus saying that sexual self-expression is a deeply personal and spiritual issue and that although God’s will may be that gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals ideally remain celibate, the church should freely accept those who cannot themselves accept that sort of “imposed” celibacy?
Protestants emphasize that the main purpose of sexual intercourse within marriage is the expression of mutual love, regardless of actual or potential procreation. Consistent with this emphasis is the use of birth control and the approval of homosexual intercourse (within a covenanted relationship) as an expression of love untied to procreation. Thus, the traditional Protestant acceptance of birth control fits with the argument that sexuality is blessed by God totally apart from whether it results in — or could result in — offspring.
A possible paraphrase of v. 12: “Some people have no choice about expressing their sexuality genitally; for some that choice has been taken away by other people; and still others have chosen to refrain from such ‘fulfillment’ for the sake of God’s reign.”
Concerning Romans 1
Paul’s main concern here is the proper relationship between Creator and creature. The use and abuse of sexuality is one of the symptoms of such a confusion. Although it may appear to the heterosexual world that homosexual sex is the prime example of depravity, both homosexual and heterosexual sex can reflect such a confusion. What Paul condemns here is “pederasty,” the (homosexual) domination of one person over another — specifically, that of an older man over a younger boy. This is why Paul associates such ungodliness with insatiable lust and immorality, not because he is making a statement about the abusive or exploitative nature of homosexuality as such. Paul assumes here that homosexual behavior is something freely chosen, a purposeful violation of the created order. It appears, therefore, that he is simply unaware of the distinction between homosexuality as an orientation and as a behavior. In context, Paul is not condemning the Romans for tolerating homosexuals in their midst, but rather is using a typical Jewish stereotype about Gentile sexual promiscuity to make his central point: that all people — Jew and Gentile alike — are in desperate need of God. Paul treats homosexual intercourse not as one of the “sins” of the Gentiles, but one of the consequences of their root sin: refusing to let the one true God be their God. Paul apparently knew nothing about the complexity of homosexuality and the multiple causes of it and nowhere does Paul show awareness of a loving mutual homosexual relationship that is not exploitative or abusive. We should refrain from imposing Paul’s statements about homosexuality directly on our situation today without taking this into account. Nevertheless, Paul’s fundamental concerns about homosexuality are as valid today as ever: whenever homo- or hetero- sexuality expresses itself as (a) a surrender to one’s own lusts; (b) an ungrateful misappropriation of God’s creation; or (c) exploitation of another person — such sexual activity is morally wrong.
And finally another popular quote from the Homosexual haters – 1 Corinthians 6
The two Greek words translated “male prostitutes” and “sodomites” in v. 9 of the NRSV are malakoi and arsenokoitai. Malakoi means “effeminate,” “weak,” or “soft” and is the word used of “call-boys” whom older men (arsenokoitai) took to bed. (The latter term is also the one used in 1 Tim. 1:10, which appears in another list of vices.) The context here in 1 Cor. is one of heterosexual immorality; homosexuality as such is not the topic at hand. Paul simply mentions the sort of abusive, exploitative homosexuality that goes on between young “call-boys” and their customers as one example of the sort of immorality Christians in Corinth should avoid. “This is what some of you used to be” implies only that some of the Corinthians were guilty of some of the vices Paul mentioned. Not much more can be made of this.”
All these biblical quotes are from http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm
Why didn’t I address these quotes to Eric? Because Eric is an ego worshipper. He has shown that it is virtually impossible for him to admit error. God Himself could come down and berate Eric for his hatred of homosexuals and his deliberate misinterpretation of scripture and it wouldn’t make a scap of difference.
Do not worry, I am not a latent homosexual. I have heard that pitiful argument way too many times. Can you come up with something a little more original? I was a fornicator before I repented of my sins and was born again. Lust in your mind makes one a fornicator so all of humanity falls into that category. That is the bad news. The good news is that we can be forgiven and transformed. I have experienced that transformation and the freedom that it brings. I want all people to experience that, even homosexuals.
Still no proof of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The Words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount are clear for all to see. Jesus explains who a true believer is and who is not. He was so clear on the subject that those who were listening to the message literally fell down from shock because of the power of the message. You will not admit what is there in black and white but that is okay. You are not the first and sadly will not be the last. No goal post shift. There is a clear distinction between those who have the Holy Spirit and those who do not. It is in the Bible. You should try and read It sometimes.
Passed Philosophy with an A, and it is a first rate university.
As to what Jesus says about the sin of homosexuality and those who practice it, please see the actual Words of Jesus here and not someone’s words explaining Jesus’ Words. Please go to the source if you want the truth.
Jesus specifically uses man and woman in the context of marriage in Matt. 19, the joining of one man to one woman. Again, make sure you actually check out the Words of Christ and not just what someone “claims” Jesus said. See what how and why God says marriage is between one man and one woman here.
That is exactly what all forms of homosexuality are, abuse. Paul condemns homosexuality. He specifically says men with men and women with women committing indecent (sexual) acts. This is in accord with the Old Testament teachings (which Paul knew by heart). You are making stuff up and grasping at straws because you have no argument.
How do YOU know what Paul assumes? Can you read his mind?
Because homosexuals have denied God and His authority (the Scripture of the Old and New Testament) they are given over to indecent acts and that is manifested in their burning passion for one another, their homosexual lust. The sexual act is the manifestation of their previous action, the fact that they have rejected God and made themselves their own god, claiming what they feel is right and wrong.
The word translated “homosexual” is sodomite in the original. This article explains what a Sodomite is. The effeminate were the call boys for the “sodomites”. This text must also be interpreted in the light of all Scripture. The Bible speaks very clearly on homosexuality and what it is and why it is punished. Homosexuality is wrong in every situation, whether in prostitution or pagan ritualistic orgies, and even homosexuals in “committed” relationships. See the previous link to the article on how Jesus condemns homosexuality and homosexuals.
Once again, I do not hate homosexuals. I love the sinner but I do hate the sin (as God also does). I hate the sin of homosexuality. There is a big difference between the two.
Eric spun the line “Do not worry, I am not a latent homosexual. I have heard that pitiful argument way too many times. Can you come up with something a little more original?”
Oh look at the lovely red herring fallacy. 🙂 Pathetic indeed Eric.
Here is the evidence for my truthful claim [Oh and by the way Eric the truth doesn’t have to be “original” as you put it, just the truth – you know…the oposite of your statements] A few years ago several groups of people were attched to machines which would register sexual excitation. All members were then shown pictures first of naked women then pictures of naked men.
The heterosexuals of the group showed sexual excitement when shown pictures of naked women but showed no reaction when shown pictures of naked men.
The subjects who had evinced a strong antipathy toward homosexuals showed a strong arousal when shown pictures of naked men.
This was submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Your evidence [if one can use that term] consists of opinion, bad methodology and unsupported assertions.
But I know that eric will dismiss it with another lie, a wave of his hand, or a logical fallacy.
What I will ask you though Eric is what would convince Eric that his ego is wrong?
Name the terms of falsification. And please not by a quote from the bible – we’re talking about evidence here NOT interpretation of a text.
I will be convinced by a modern scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Not some quote in a fundie publication but a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Now it’s time for you to put up or shut up Eric. But we both know you’ll do neither.
Oh wow, exposing people to sexual acts causes them to be aroused, that is the first time in history. So, pre teens who see dogs locked together and are interested in seeing what is going on (maybe even turned on, on a biological level), they must be inclined to bestiality, according to your sited theory? That is just a pathetic spin to avoid the facts of the argument.
Let’s decontruct Eric’s lies one more time shall we readers?
Eric wrote “Thanks for the science lesson. So on one hand, behavior can and should be controlled (eating young and throwing poop) yet when it comes to acting out one’s sexuality (you cannot deny the action aspect) then there is no restraint.
Red Herring fallacy since Meggan was responding to Eric where he said “Before I answer the rest of what you have written I would like to point you to a post where I have explained the irrational argument that pro-homosexuality supporters have being that there is homosexuality among the animals.”
In other words Meggan proved Eric wrong and he frantically changed the subject and hoped no one would notice. We noticed Eric, we noticed. You little old ego worshipper you. 🙂
Eric then went on to assert “One may have a biological tendency toward homosexuality or monogamy or polygamy etc. but feelings and actions are two different things. Murderers may have a hormonal imbalance that inclines them to murder but they are not judged on the imbalance, they are judged on their actions.”
So one has a biological tendency toward homosexuality according to Eric? But how can that be because he “claims” that he knows several “former” homosexuals. That mustt mean they changed their own biology. 🙂
But I agree with him in a way so let me paraphrase Eric. “One may have a biological tendency toward being an arrogant, lying fundie,. but feelings and actions are two different things. Murderers may have a hormonal imbalance that inclines them to murder but they are not judged on the imbalance, they are judged on their actions.” I’m sure we can all agree with my paraphrase. 🙂
Eric then went into fullincomprehension mode and asserted “If homosexuals would just leave their relationship in their bedrooms that would be one thing but they take it public through pride (shame) parades, laws, curriculum in schools, tv sitcom shows, hollywood etc.”
It’s not like there are laws against homosexuals or something: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dem_hom_law_of_the_wor_hom_law_law_aga_hom-democracy-homosexuality-laws-world-against
Well all right but it’s not like people kill homosexuals or something: http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/
Ah but WW2 was so long ago. People don’t kill homosexuals now merely because they are homosexuals…do they?: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/index.html
Hmmm. Maybe homosexuals do have to make attempts to change the way they are perceived so that they won’t be seen with such horror.
Eric then went on to lie “Scripture makes the claim and science can now back it up”
In fact science has not backed up any statement in the bible concerning homosexuality. For one very simple reason. Science has no say in what is ethically right or wrong. Science is morally neutral. Its only concern is with data and ideas which explain said data. If the bible condemns an action on the other hand it does so from moral grounds. The very thing science has nothing to do with.
Eric then went on to tell another lie “Plus, macro evolution makes many claims that cannot be backed up scientifically”.
let’s have a look at what the theory actualy says.
Ah you reply, what about all those proofs of creationism?
How about the idea that macroevolution has never been observed?
Or like the biblical flood?
Like the disproof of scientific dating methods?
Like the discovery of dinosaur blood and Polystrat trees?
How about population levels showing we must be living on a recently created Earth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eFM6C3 … re=related
How about ring species?
Creationist leaders have been lying to you.
Eric then waffles on and on about the “correct” interpretation of scripture. What Eric means by the term correct is the correct fundie interpretation which will support Eric’s ideas.
Want to know two questions which will have the average fundie chasing his tail?
1) When was Jesus crucified?
2) Who was the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection?
They will tell lie after lie, change the meaning of words [that’s always a last refuge of many fundies] and in the end pull facts out of thin air or wildly change the topic and hope no one notices. You know…just like Eric has done. 🙂
Megan actually understood what I meant. She wrote it herself. I addressed this very issue in another response. You keep writing the same things over and over again in different posts. I will just answer them once.
Wow, there is a big difference between may and and has. Do we need some grammar lessons (I do that for a living too).
Here is a list of articles which prove how homosexuality is not just “in the privacy of the bedroom” as you claim on one hand, but it is actually systematically promoted and propagated (even in the public schools).
Have you had a chance to read “The Pink Swastika”? I would recommend it to you so that you will know the the Nazis who were ordering the death of homosexuals, were butch homosexuals themselves and they hated the feminine homosexuals and had them thrown in prison camps and killed. Homosexuals were killing homosexuals, but that is nothing new. Violence among homosexuals has always been prevalent (see Sodom in Genesis 19, also Judges 19)
“I wrote In other words Meggan proved Eric wrong and he frantically changed the subject and hoped no one would notice. We noticed Eric, we noticed. You little old ego worshipper you. ”
Eric waffled “Megan actually understood what I meant. She wrote it herself. I addressed this very issue in another response. You keep writing the same things over and over again in different posts. I will just answer them once.”
Sorry Eric but if you keep lying I have to raise the same points over and over again.
I wrote “So one has a biological tendency toward homosexuality according to Eric?”
And Eric tried to cover his lie by another red herring “Wow, there is a big difference between may and and has”
Allow me to point out the obvious to anyone but a liar Eric. If Homosexuality is a choice as you first asserted then there is NO POSSIBILITY of it being biological. If it may have a biological cause then it CAN’T be a choice now can it? 🙂 You little lying ego worshipper you.
. Eric then snidely remarked “Do we need some grammar lessons (I do that for a living too).” Do you teach your students how to lie too Eric? 🙂
Eric attempted to back up his assertions “Here is a list of articles which prove how homosexuality is not just “in the privacy of the bedroom” as you claim on one hand, but it is actually systematically promoted and propagated (even in the public schools).”
I have NEVER claimed that homosexuality was just “in the privacy of the bedroom”. Chapter and verse where I wrote that or admit that you are a liar. Will you do either? Of course not! You’ll introduce another red herring and change the subject and hope no one noticed that you lied once again.
As to the other waffle concerning your [sorry God’s] interpretation of various scriptures that’s already been dealt with. I ask once again. Why do you tell so many lies Eric? Is it because of a compulsion or because of your father the prince of lies?
All the repeated stuff here has already been answered so I will not go into it again.
I teach people how to study the Bible for themselves so that they will not be deceived by people who boldly claim “that is your interpretation” (when they really have no clue about any interpretation of the Bible)
I did not direct you to an article written by me. I directed you to the Bible. You assumed that it was an article written by me.
Then, instead of agreeing with the Words of Jesus Christ, not mine, you tried the poor excuse of “well, that is just your interpretation”. There was no interpretation, just the Words of Christ, easy to understand without any “mystical” revelation. But, since it destroys your argument, you have to try and spin the argument somehow and you use the “that’s your interpretation” cop out.
In your theological studies, I guess you missed the part where only Christians have the Holy Spirit? What type of theology did you study? Must not have been Christian theology.
As I stated earlier, I have taken history, philosophy, and world religions classes in 3 different institutions of higher education (2 secular and 1 religious). As I have already written (you must not really read what I write, more assuming on your part) I received a secular education, k-12 and undergrad, as well as graduate studies in theology.
When studying any literature (which I have a degree in) you must study the immediate context, the overall context, the original languages, the historical context etc and then use the simple tools for interpreting any text of literature. This applies from Shakespeare to the Bible. I apply all of the tools to the Biblical text. (immediate chapter context, book context, as well as the entire Bible). When these tools are applied, it is not difficult to arrive at the proper interpretation. The problem is, most people do not take the time to apply all of these steps. They just see what they want or take someone’s word about the subject (the Bible). That is why there are so many different interpretations.
Have you ever had a face to face discussion with Cameron? I have and he does not homosexuals. He does hate the sin of homosexuality because of what it does to people and society. You call him a hater, not based on evidence that he has said or written, “I hate homosexuals” but instead (no pun intended) your interpretation of what you assume he thinks.
Wow, I have never said or written that I cannot be wrong. The Word of God cannot be wrong. I believe and follow the Word. God knows I have made enough mistakes in this life to last the rest of it. That is why I do not trust in myself but instead, in God and His Word.
You say Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, please read this.
To be continued . . . (I will finish the rest later. I have to go teach the Bible to some dear English students so that they will know how to study for themselves and not be deceived by people who want to tell them what the Bible says 🙂
I have included links with the answers to your supposed contradictions. Once again, you are not original. You should actually study the stuff for yourself instead of copying and pasting from another site.
Once again it’s let’s examine eric’s lies and exagerations time. 🙂
I wrote “Let me get this straight. You try to prove yourself write by directing me to another article by you?”
Eric replied “I did not direct you to an article written by me. I directed you to the Bible. You assumed that it was an article written by me. ”
That’s a lie Eric. Shame on you. The article was YOUR interpretation of bible passages. You seem to confuse the two. It seems that in your mind your interpretation of the bible and the bible are the SAME thing.
Eric then lies by claiming “Then, instead of agreeing with the Words of Jesus Christ, not mine, you tried the poor excuse of “well, that is just your interpretation”. There was no interpretation, just the Words of Christ, easy to understand without any “mystical” revelation. But, since it destroys your argument, you have to try and spin the argument somehow and you use the “that’s your interpretation” cop out.”
Oh liar, liar, pants on fire. 🙂 Since you are asserting certain verses apply in a given situation that is an interpretation Eric. What a shame you’re such a baldfaced liar.
Eric then twittered “In your theological studies, I guess you missed the part where only Christians have the Holy Spirit? What type of theology did you study? Must not have been Christian theology.”
1) Red herring fallacy. You asserted that “true” christians never did X. When I pointed out that Peter had done X you moved the goalposts and started talking about the Holy Spirit.
2) My studies were in Biblical and systematic theology. Now folks let’s see if we can catch Eric out in some more lies or logical fallacies.
Eric then twittered “As I stated earlier, I have taken history, philosophy, and world religions classes in 3 different institutions of higher education (2 secular and 1 religious). As I have already written (you must not really read what I write, more assuming on your part) I received a secular education, k-12 and undergrad, as well as graduate studies in theology. ”
I didn’t say anything about you attending a Christian uni. I said it was 3rd rate. It seems in your mind 3rd rate = Christian. Interesting. 🙂 It seems you failed the course in both logic and comprehension Eric. You’ve shown complete inability to use logic by your constant use of logical fallacies and your inability to understand basic sentences indicate a lack of reading comprehension. Yet we share the same era. When you read scripture you share neither an era nor a culture & you claim you have no problem understanding scripture when you can’t seem to understand me?
Eric then tries to impress. Oooh aint it sweet when a no-nothing tries to impress? “When studying any literature (which I have a degree in) you must study the immediate context, the overall context, the original languages, the historical context etc and then use the simple tools for interpreting any text of literature. This applies from Shakespeare to the Bible. I apply all of the tools to the Biblical text. (immediate chapter context, book context, as well as the entire Bible). When these tools are applied, it is not difficult to arrive at the proper interpretation. The problem is, most people do not take the time to apply all of these steps. They just see what they want or take someone’s word about the subject (the Bible). That is why there are so many different interpretations. ”
Eric I noticed you didn’t even mention archaeology which makes nonsense of your ultra conservative interpretations of the bible. You keep mentioning this “proper” interpretation. Proper for whom Eric? It can’t be the author, he’s long dead and without checking with the author you have no way of checking whether your “proper” interpretation is what the author wanted to say. It’s also not “proper” according to reality since that would mean checking with archaerology. Since archaeology has a real problem with many of the things the bible asserts are true. The only conclusion left is “proper” to you Eric. 🙂 You little ego worshipper you.
Eric then twittered “Have you ever had a face to face discussion with Cameron? I have and he does not homosexuals. He does hate the sin of homosexuality because of what it does to people and society. You call him a hater, not based on evidence that he has said or written, “I hate homosexuals” but instead (no pun intended) your interpretation of what you assume he thinks. ”
Actually Eric my opinion is based upon psychological profiles that have been done of Cameron. The findings were that he was extremely homophobic – i.e. he hates and despises homosexuals. When his errors are shown beyond a doubt and pointed out to him he just repeats the now lies and keeps on going. No wonder you get on well with him. You do exactly the same thing.
“Eric then tells a half-truth “Wow, I have never said or written that I cannot be wrong. The Word of God cannot be wrong. I believe and follow the Word. God knows I have made enough mistakes in this life to last the rest of it. That is why I do not trust in myself but instead, in [my interpretation of] God and His Word.”
You trut YOUR interpretation of scripture which, according to another point you’ve made previously, is the same as scripture. Since your interpretation of scripture is the same thing as scripture & scripture can’t be mistaken [according to you] then that means the great god Eric’s ego can’t be mistaken.
But there’s a simple test for this. Let me ask you just one question. Can you be wrong about the bible’s infallibility? If you answer no then you’re saying that you are infallible as well – in at least one area.
Eric then went on to tell another lie by claiming “You say Jesus did not condemn homosexuality, please read this.”
Eric your whole case is based on Jesus mentioning Sodom? That’s it? Well we know how Eric the lying hater interprets the verse. How would a theologian interpret the story of Sodom?
“The inhabitants of Sodom displayed a despicable form of sexual immorality. Nevertheless, this passage cannot be construed as condemning loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. The sin displayed in this story is the sin of homosexual (gang) rape, possessive lust, and sexual abuse. Homosexuality itself is not the focus of these cities’ later notoriety within the biblical tradition — at least not in all cases (see the passages listed in the middle column). This is aptly demonstrated in Ezekiel 16:49: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” And in v. 51, Ezekiel says that in comparison with sinful Judah, Sodom and Gomorra were righteous. Some Jewish writings indicate that the sinful desire behind the Sodomites’ lust for Lot’s guests was because they were angels, not because they were men (see Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5). This story reflects the sacred value placed in Middle Eastern culture on hospitality. It is a responsibility so sacred that Lot would rather offer his virgin daughters to his ravenous neighbors than the strangers he feels obligated to protect. That sodomite has become synonymous with certain homosexual acts does not pertain to the ethical issue of the propriety of loving, committed homosexual relationships. “Sodomites” are condemned in several Old Testament texts not because the male prostitutes were having sex with other males, but because they were serving alien gods as part of the Canaanite fertility cult.
To use Genesis 19 as a means to condemn homosexuality makes as little sense as using 2 Sam. 13 as a means to condemn heterosexuality.”
Conclusion: Jesus DIDN’T condemn homosexuality by mentioning Sodom. I guess you lied again Eric. Just in your last post to me alone you’ve been caught out in lie after lie and in using a logical fallacy. Now will you abandon these lies of yours? Of course not! You’ll invent even more lies and hope we believe those ones instead. And when we realise you are just a compulsive liar and wander off you’ll think smugly to yourself “they’ve left because they couldn’t stand the truth from a “true” Christian”. Won’t you, you little ego worshipper you?
Once again, if you will open the link you will see that it is the Bible, Matthew chapter 7. It is not a link to an article that I wrote. I am beginning to wonder about you. Also, there is no “interpretation” required. The passage is very clear, in simple language for everyone to understand. The ones who do not understand, do not do so because they do not want to accept what is there.
As far as the name calling, it does not bother me because I left that on the playground in the 1st grade.
Was it a liberal institution, moderate, or conservative?
You avoided answering the question, do you not know the difference between people who do have and do not have the Holy Spirit in the Bible? Did you not study the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in your systematical theology?
I mentioned the secular education because that is usually the next line of attack from people like you when you get no where in your “arguments” (oh, you must have had a religious education only, or home schooled)
Sorry to inform you but I graduated with honors. I feel like I am going to be challenged to a peeing contest next 🙂
I clearly understand your arguments because I have seen them before and dismantled them one by one until I get blocked from the “open minded” sites (sarcasm intended)
Proper interpretation according to the rules of interpreting any form of Literature (I have written that very plainly yet you seem to miss it over and over again, or ignore it because it destroys your argument)
Modern archeology actually helps confirm what is written in the Bible.
So you admit that you have never sat face to face with the man and discussed with him yet you claim to know his motives and intentions. To paraphrase you, “Can you now read minds?”
Once again, there is no “my” interpretation and ‘your” interpretation. There is proper interpretation based on the simple rules of interpreting any form of literature. Are you familiar with the “inductive” study process? Go directly to the source. 1) Observe what is written through careful reading and study (immediate context, book context, entire Bible context, original languages, cultural context, historical context etc.). This leads to steps 2, interpretation (based on careful research and analysis done in step one, this takes an enormous amount of time). If these 2 steps are followed, arriving at the proper interpretation is not difficult.
I have yet to see a mistake in the Bible or contradiction. I have not seen one pointed out either (although many seem to try). Once the supposed contradictions are study according to the observation method that I mentioned earlier, the truth is revealed and the supposed contradiction is proven to be false.
So according to you, the entire homosexual society in Sodom was just the wrong kind of homosexuals? Wow, you just do not have any Biblical evidence to support this. The Bible as a whole teaches that all forms of homosexuality are condemned. I used an overview of the entire Bible’s teaching in the article. Pay more attention when you read next time.
Angels in the Bible always appear in male form. Apply your systematical theology training to study the subject of angels instead of regurgitating what you have read one someone’s blog.
Jesus did condemn homosexuality and agreed with the punishment that homosexuals received for their debase actions.
I read your “repLIES” and all I could think was “Bwahahahaha. That’s hysterical.”
In many ways Eric you’re like a 5 year old who’s been caught doing the wrong thing. You’re madly scambling for a lie, any lie, which will deflect blame away from you.
Seriously though, to both of your “answers” my reply is the same – go read a good, secular history book. 🙂
A terrific one I can heartily recommend is “Joshua, the man they called Jesus” By Ian Jones.
Eric’s compulsion forced him to add yet another lie:
“I have included links with the answers to your supposed contradictions. Once again, you are not original. You should actually study the stuff for yourself instead of copying and pasting from another site. ”
I have studied this stuff Eric. Remember I have a degree in theology and classical history? I know what I’m talking about – unlike yourself. I had no need to cut and paste from anywhere. You old ego worshipping liar you. I ask you once again – do you tell lies because it is a compulsion or because of your father the Prince of Lies?
On a side note concerning “The Pink Triangle” why don’t you ring up a holocaust centre and ask them what they think of the book. The will tell you, in no uncertain terms:
1) The author was a liar.
2) The author was a bigot.
But you don’t care do you Eric? Any lie in a storm for you so long as it supports your hatred and beliefs of course.
So, anyone who happens to disagree with you on the subject of homosexuality is a “bigot”. You are not very open minded.
Anyway, you avoiding actually constructing an argument against what I actually wrote, typical.
Eric blathered “So, anyone who happens to disagree with you on the subject of homosexuality is a “bigot”.
What I actually wrote was “On a side note concerning “The Pink Triangle” why don’t you ring up a holocaust centre and ask them what they think of the book. The will tell you, in no uncertain terms:
1) The author was a liar.
2) The author was a bigot.”
So who’s calling the authors bigots? That’s right Eric…it’s the people in the holocaust museum. Isn’t it Eric?
Why did you deliberately distort what I wrote? Why did you lie like that Eric?
Actually Eric I was specifically referring to brain size and intelligence in problem solving, like thinking two moves ahead in a chess game, which is not the same as a moral code. This is the characteristic that our species has that other animals do not. Extinct close human relatives like Homo habilis had similar brain size and likely similar intelligence. There is a clear definition for what qualifies as an animal and a mammal, and humans are included in this category. Please do not dodge this fact by saying something like “that is what supporters of immorality want people to believe, to debase themselves, so that they can live in debauchery and not feel guilty”. I am in no way implying that it is a good idea for our species to mimic other animal behaviours, that would not be beneficial to us. I have shown you scientific articles that indicate that that the sexual orientation of certain human individuals is in fact genetic (yes, orientation is separate from action). You have countered me by saying “scripture makes the claim and science can now back it up”. I have just provided you with studies indicating the opposite, and you have not provided any scientific evidence to the contrary. You have used Dr. Paul Cameron’s studies to back up your claims. Some Random Person pointed out that his ‘research’ is not valid, to which you did respond.
Ah, but we do have a moral code. It goes along with our being created separate from the animals.
We have the same moral code among humans on every part of the earth, the probability of evolution causing the exact same moral code everywhere is almost impossible. We have the moral code in us (put there by our Creator).
Science is not conclusive on the gay gene. There is not one.
For proving the dangers of immorality, the Bible has claimed that from the beginning and now modern science can prove why, STD’s.
Eric, our understanding that we shouldn’t kill each other and that we should look after each other is perfectly explainable by cultural development (as opposed to biological evolution). In other words, we have learned – through living together in groups – that it’s better to look after each other and not kill each other. It’s no surprise at all that this has developed in several places simultaneously. It would be strange if it hadn’t.
There is no need to attribute any of this to any kind of deity.
Sorry – typo in my e-mail account
So science is not conclusive, but you are. Upon what evidence do you base your assertion?
If STDs are the reason it’s dangerous, then everyone (including Christians, of course) should get together and educate all the kids how to be responsible and use protection when they have sex. Those kids can then grow up into responsible adults. Expecting kids to not have sex is rather like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in – ain’t gonna happen.
Meggan you wrote “You have countered me by saying “scripture makes the claim and science can now back it up”. I have just provided you with studies indicating the opposite, and you have not provided any scientific evidence to the contrary.”
I’ll make a prediction here:
1) Eric will just dismiss your scientific evidence and talk about a “pro-evolution” conspiracy. Without using the “conspiracy” word of course. 🙂
2) He will quote some other fundie’s opinion as though someone’s opinion is at least as good as your evidence.
3) He’ll provide another one of his interpretations of a scripture verse. After all his interpretation is just the same as the bible and, as Eric has already previously asserted, the bible can’t be wrong. [leaving aside for the moment that such an assertion is HIS interpretation]. 🙂
4) Just pull another “fact” out of thin air, combine it with a logical fallacy and hope no one notices. 🙂
Actually, the answer was none of the above from what you childishly asserted. Sorry, wrong again. Nice try though.
Here’s another lie from Eric “No one is against a person’s race [KKK, NeoNazis, Christian Identity], because that is not a choice and it has nothing to do with morality while homosexuality is a choice…” But Eric you wrote later that “One may have a biological tendency toward homosexuality…”
So homosexuality is NOT a choice. Notice you said homosexuality [in both cases] NOT homosexual acts [just in case you try to weasel out of it].
So it seems that not only does Psychology and Sociology disagree with you but so does Eric Brewer. 🙂
You just can’t keep your lies straight can you Eric?
When I wrote no one is against a person’s race, I was referring to me (I believe that was obvious) but since you are grasping at straws I will have to be clearer.
I never wrote that homosexuality is not a choice. Again, grammar, the difference between “has” and “may have”. (keeping reaching for the straws my friend)
Eric lied by stating “I never wrote that homosexuality is not a choice.”
Where did I ever write that you said it wasn’t a choice Eric? What I wrote is “But Eric you wrote later that “One may have a biological tendency toward homosexuality…”
The I added “So homosexuality is NOT a choice.” As I pointed out previously if something is a choice it CANNOT possibly have a biological component. Can it? Lying once again you little ego maniac you.
Homosexuality, like all other sins, is a choice. People who want to excuse their sin, come up with all kinds of reasons why they should sin.
I know these discussions are over a year old, I and doubt anybody will read this, but I couldn’t sleep last night and ended up on your site and spent hours going through the replies………how you can continue to keep your cool and respond to aggressive infantile people like Chris is beyond me……..I do wonder at what point God wants us to wipe our feet and move on….God must have given you an extra dose of long suffering
A small correction. When I previously mentioned a book called “the pink triangle” that should have read “The Pink Swastika”. Sorry for any confusion.
Alright Eric..I’ve caught you out in lie after lie, tons of logical fallacies. You’ve deliberately distorted what I’ve written but it’s me that doesn’t understand and deliberately according to you. 🙂
For the record Eric I don’t believe that you are a latent homosexual. Cameron is, that can be proven. You on the other hand are a compulsive liar and unhinged.
Want evidence? Quite simple really. Print out a couple of your articles aginst homosexuals, take them to a secular psychologist and ask him or her what they think. We both known what will happen. They will have you on medication so fast your head will spin.
You’ll probably put that down to another homosexual conspiracy but it’s really just because of your mental instability. I thought you were just the regular form of arrogant, lying fundietard. I was tragically wrong and I apologise.
Whether you believe me or not your behaviour is not normal. Go to a psychologist, or even a psychiatrist. Seek help please.
Chris, I am assuming that you find the evidence in support of evolution satisfactory to believe that it likely occurred, so I was wondering if you or someone without a religious bias that is reading this blog could give your ideas on morality and a ‘moral code’. My idea is that I do not think that there is a static, unchanging ‘absolute morality’. Rather, our ideas on what is moral and immoral, sort of “evolves” over time. For example, today we take into consideration the ethical treatment of animals and the equality of all people, which has only been a recent development in human history.
I know I’m getting a bit off the topic of this blog, but I think that we would be much better off, and homosexuals would be treated equally if people were not convinced that scripture is the source for an absolute and dictatorial morality.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Dawkins does a good job in this video of explaining non-static morality.
Murder is frowned upon in every culture. I know that you will probably say, “what about cultures that practice human sacrifice?” In that same culture, if you just murder a person’s family member on the street, will it be an acceptable act or condemned?
Megan, I wrote the following in answer to Eric (a few pages above), but I messed up my e-mail so it looks like it’s someone else. We don’t need any deity to be the source of our morality.
Cultural development translates to “evolution”. But every culture developed the same basic set of moral values? Not likely. It is obvious that this moral code that we have come from without (God gave it to us, and put it in us).
Not even close. You are purposely conflating the word “evolution” in what we could call “cultural evolution” with biological evolution. They are not the same. To say that one term containing the word “evolution” could be used to show something, therefore (all of) evolution shows that thing is not only incorrect, it is also intentionally misleading (or at least trying to be, to prove your point).
I expressly avoided the term cultural evolution to prevent such confusion. You are clearly trying to link them, so that you can claim (wrongly) that “evolution” led to similar moral codes, therefore (your particular form of) god. No. People living together in groups and working out their own rules led to those groups of people developing similar rules: help each other and don’t kill each other. No god is necessary.
And all of those little groups developed the exact same moral code in every corner of the earth??? Do you realize what you are saying?
Sorry – typo. That should have read “You are clearly trying to link them, so that you can claim (wrongly) that “evolution” could not have led to similar moral codes, therefore (your particular form of) god.”
I’d guess that it’s an over-simplification to say that the exact same moral code developed everywhere. I’d expect that there would have been some differences, while the main points match. But developing a general moral code based on what works in your society (ie, including but not limited to: help each other and don’t kill each other) is like discovering that 1+1=2. It works wherever you are and whatever you call it.
Erik you used murder as an example, but there are several instances in which killing another individual is considered the right thing to do. Go to another place and that same killing act is considered abhorrent. Take euthanasia, abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, war, etc. These are all controversial because people do not agree on the morality of these actions.
If we did have some moral values that were held constant throughout every culture, (of which the issue of homosexuality is not one) it would be perfectly explicable by natural selection. At one point, Homo sapiens were all living in Africa, so the idea that humans “developed the exact same moral code in every corner of the earth” isn’t logical. At one point we were only in one large group, then in somewhat recent historical times Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the world.
You still have to justify your belief that our morality was instilled in us by god, that god even exists, and that god has somehow revealed himself to us through jesus and the bible. Basically, if you want to prove that homosexuality is a sin, you still have all your work ahead of you.
I must interrupt you here are this moment and point out that there is a difference between murdering and killing. In the original Hebrew, there are two different words used when speaking of murdering someone and killing someone. In the 10 commandments, the phrase “do not murder” is used. Some translations make a mistake and translate it as “do not kill”. There is a huge difference between the two ideas. God gives examples of both in the Law. He explains what constitutes “murder” and what constitutes “killing”.
According to God, abortion is murder. According to God, euthanasia is murder. The reason that people do not agree on these issues is because they remove God’s Law from the equation and then you get each person doing what is right in his own eyes. Even without God’s written Law, all people are against murder. Even in a society that practices human sacrifice, if you just randomly murdered someone in broad day light at the market place, then that would be look down on as a crime. I use the example of human sacrifice because that is the usual next line of argument on this subject.
If you look at secular human history (take the Greeks and the Romans) you will see a direct connection between the fall of those empires and their sexual practices. As sexual immorality increased in popularity, culture declined. Open homosexuality is practiced at the height of sexual immorality in a society (notice I wrote “open homosexuality”).
You must be reading a different blog. You have not caught me in any lies because I have not written any. Maybe that is what you believe in your own little fantasy world, but here in the real world, you have just avoided answering many questions and gone on with false accusations and spin (and let’s not forget the childish name calling). As to fallacies, you make a lot of claims but with nothing legit to back it up (other than spin and illogical reasoning or the lame “that’s your interpretation”). But, if it make you feel well about yourself, the fact that you win these fantasy arguments in your head, then you keep on going. Self-deception is a terrible thing but unfortunately, it does exist (you are a living example).
Erik this post is not of the heart of God. I have recently left my same sex relationship, but I will tell you it is not because of people like you. You hateful words keep people from coming to God and experiencing his love. I think you need to take a good look and humble yourself, so that you can understand the error of your way. And in the meantime, you should refrain from blogging. I would first revisit the heart of God and the ways that Jesus demonstrated his love for us. God does not hate homosexuals. He knows we seek love in the way everyone does, but the way in which we do so is not his will or plan for us. However, as promised, when we seek we will find him and he will meet us halfway. He understands our hurts and struggles (we all have struggles; none of us are perfect) and promises “my Grace is sufficient for you for my power is made perfect in your weakness.” God is a father. For those of you who are searching, read the parable of the prodigal son. He is always ready to welcome you home. Do not be discouraged by words such as in this person’s blog. Man will disappoint, but God keeps his promise and will never let you go.
Please point out where I wrote that God hates homosexuals. Also point out where I wrote that I hate homosexuals.
At the beginning of several of Erik’s blog posts on homosexuality, he refers to the 1948 Kinsey Report, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.”
He also quotes and refers to Dr. Paul Cameron, head of the Family Research Institute (FRI) in Colorado Springs.
I have researched the various quotes by obtaining the original 1948 Kinsey Report, also a 1979 survey called “The Gay Report” by Karla Jay and Alan Young, quoted by Cameron, and a 1985 Los Angeles Times survey of Child Abuse victims, also quoted by Cameron, and The Kinsey Institute, as well as other sources.
Here’s what I found:
Erik states: Kinsey was a homosexual researcher.
This is False: Kinsey was married for 35 years, and had four children (one died at age 5 from juvenile diabetes.) He considered himself bisexual.
Erik states: The Kinsey Report proclaims in a survey that “37% of homosexuals admitted to having sexual relations with boys under the age of 17 years old.”
This is False: the Kinsey Report states: “37% of males had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm,” page 623 from Chapter 21, Homosexual Outlet.
The full quote is: “The statistics given throughout this volume on the incidence of homosexual activity, and the statistics to be given in the present section of this chapter, are based on those persons who have had physical contacts with other males, and who were brought to orgasm as a result of such contacts. These are not data on the number of persons who are “homosexual.” but on the number of persons who have had at least some homosexual experience, even though sometimes not more than one experience. In these terms (of physical contact to the point of orgasm) the data in the present study indicate that at least 37% of the male population has some homosexual experience between the beginning of adolescence and old age.”
Nothing about boys under the age of 17. In fact, the Kinsey report had only 9 cases of child molestation by an adult. “It was later revealed that Kinsey used data from a single pedophile and presented it as being from various sources.” from “Sex, science, and Kinsey: a conversation with Dr. John Bancroft – head of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction” http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/cont-akchild.html
Cameron states: “About 2% to 3% of the population is made up of homosexuals yet they are responsible for 40% of the child molestation cases in the country.”
This is False: Erik took this from Cameron’s FRI paper, Child Molestation and Homosexuality, which stated: The Los Angeles Times surveyed 2,628 adults across the U.S. in 1985. 27% of the women and 16% of the men claimed to have been sexually molested. Since 7% of the molestations of girls and 93% of the molestations of boys were by adults of the same sex, about 4 of every 10 molestations in this survey were homosexual.”
The article actually states: “Two-thirds of the victims were girls, and 93% of their abusers were men.” Period. Nothing about the men or boys. Here’s the article you can read for yourself: http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-25/news/mn-24801_1_child-sexual-abuse
From the same FRI paper, Cameron states: Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said that, from his experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual and “40% to 45%” of child molesters have had “significant homosexual experiences.”
This is false: Dr Adrian Copeland later wrote when he heard of Dr. Cameron’s quote, “This is not even a study, and no such quotation as cited can be found within the article. Adult males (homosexuals) who
have sex with other adult males rarely have sex with pre-pubertal males. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf
From the same FRI paper: Cameron states: In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21.” This was cited in the book, “Homosexualities” by Bell and Weinberg.
This is Flase: A representative for the authors stated when they heard of Cameron citing their work: “for him (Cameron) to use our figures to estimate differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals across the board in the general population is ludicrous.” http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Anti-gayActivismandtheMisuseofScience_1.pdf
Cameron states in his paper “How Much Child Molestation is Homosexual?”: The Gay Report — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16; 7% with boys aged <13.
This is false: The Gay Report was a questionable survey at best. It was a questionaire which was posted in the gay magazine Blueboy which was only available in Miami area bathhouses and gay bars in the mid 70's. Nevertheless, the report states nothing of the sort.
I could go on. This is just the tip of the fabrication iceberg from Cameron. It's clear that he takes data from previous studies and fabricates his own take on them, often replacing the word "males" with "homosexuals," or just making up facts or figures out of the blue. No wonder the American Physiological Association, the American Sociological Association and other professional organizations have dissociated themselves from his "research."
I think Erik's readers should be aware of the falsehoods, misinformation, and lies spread by anti-gay activists.
Yes, Kinsey practiced what the Bible describes as homosexuality (when a male lies with another male as a male lies with a female). You can play with the language all that you want but God described the act of homosexuality. He knew back then that there would be people like you who would play with semantics to manipulate and deceive 🙂
If this is your only response to my entire post describing your falsehoods, misinformation and lies about gay people, Erik, then I think I’ve proved my point.
No way man that’s just number one I have many many many more I just did not have enough time last night because it was too late
No way man I have many many many more to show you but I did not have enough time last night because it was so late. By the way I guess this means that you agree that and your first one was a mistake??? In your zeal to prove me wrong you ended up proving yourself wrong 🙂
OK, Erik. If two 16 year old boys at summer camp play with each other once, then grow up, get married and have kids and never have another same-sex experience, by your definition they are both homosexuals for life. I get it. 37% of American men are homosexual. Fine. You win. Happy now?
Anyway, Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you too. It is worse than that, they have committed the act of fornication too. There is hope for those two boys just like there is hope for anyone who has sinned sexually. BTW, a fornicator is no better off than a homosexual. In God’s eyes, they are both in the same boat.
I think you’re forgetting that Leviticus also says: “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads” (Leviticus 19:27), I can see from you’re profile picture that you obviously will burn in Hell with the fornicators and the homosexuals! Think about Matthew 32:39: “Love thy neighbor as thy love thyself”. Now think for a second about the pure hatred you preach above.Think about what Uganda is doing to its fellow people; it’s neighbours. Goodbye.
Wow, you are really original in your thought process. Which website did you cut and paste this info from? Do you know the difference between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws? When you discover that, then we can actually have a dialogue.
He cut and pasted that from the Bible, the one people use as an excuse to hate gay folks. You know, the one that says don’t eat pork or wear mixed fibers and a million other things that the “holy” homophobes ignore while focusing on the one thing they are personally afraid of. Using the Bible as a justification for hate is the most antiG-d thing you can do.
Erik and other Evangelical Christians write about the difference between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. But did the writer of Leviticus really make that distinction? I don’t think so.
A careful reading of Leviticus shows no distinction. Every chapter begins with “And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak unto the children of Israel saying…” and then come the sacrificial rites, prohibitions and penalties. The writer of Leviticus made no mention of various degrees of abominations or death penalties, no separation, classification, or grading of prohibitions or penalties. In fact, I don’t think in Biblical times, especially in the Old Testament, there was ANY distinction of laws. All the laws were equal. It may sound crazy to us now to think that the laws governing what to wear are the same as who you can sleep with, but they were. And Leviticus was clearly written with that in mind. All those laws on sacrifice, rituals, and prohibitions were what separated the Israelites from everyone else. Whether it was wearing two different fabrics or penalties of giving your seed unto Molech. No one law was more important than any other. Certainly if the writer of The Book of Leviticus, which clearly was written very thoughtfully and carefully, wanted laws segregated or classified, if some laws were more important that others, he certainly would have had no problem in doing so.
The distinction of laws is a recent development. I think that Evangelical Christians have developed the classification of laws to enable them to justify their particular prejudices.
Okay, I will have to help you out a little. I am not going to give “my” opinion but the clear teachings of Scripture. The Law, of first 5 books of the Bible, the Torah, was written as a shadow of the good things to come in Jesus Christ. The Law was given to show people just how sinful that they are and then to lead them to their only source of hope, Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfilled every aspect of the Law.
Those His own words about the Law and about Himself.
The Law was not the focal point. The Law just taught us what was right and what was wrong and then showed us how far we fall short of God’s desire. You cannot keep the Law apart from Christ. The Law is a tutor that leads us to Christ.
The civil and ceremonial laws of the Law were written there to prepare the way for Christ. Trying to keep them would be ridiculous. Would you prefer to walk across the shadow of a bridge or the bridge itself? Keeping the civil and ceremonial requirements of the law does not make sense now that Jesus has come. Moral laws, on the other hand, remain. Jesus helps us keep those laws because without Him, we cannot do it.
So, you assertion that the distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws being recent is just not true. That distinction has been around for about 2,000 years. We have written proof that is almost 2,000 years old. Please check your sources, specifically the Bible, before making such bold statements. You really should set the record straight and admit that you were wrong.
I understand what you’re saying about the Torah. But again I just don’t see the specific distinction and/or classification of laws. Somewhere in Bible I would think that this would be made crystal clear. But it’s not.
Hebrews 10 speaks of sacrifice, specifically that the sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary and speaks of a call to persevere in faith through Jesus.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year, make the comers thereunto perfect.
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the sacrifices of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
In Hebrews 10:26, it is said “for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for truth.” What sins are referred to here? The sinning against Mosiac Law? All of Mosaic Law? Parts of Mosiac Law? Unclear.
While the Sermon on the Mount lists many specific behaviors in seeking a path to perfection, Jesus doesn’t mention any specifics about Levitical Laws.
So I am still left with wondering what ancient scribe classified Levitical Laws into three classes in the Bible.