When evangelicals attack

It's up to him, but I think he would be well within his rights to press charges if he so chose. Of course there would be the "martyred victims of the (presumed) war on Christians" b.s. to contend with.

i can see this is turning in to a thread, albeit a timely one.

By “homosexual lifestyle” i mean the sexual activities which homosexuals engage in, and though i referred primarily to men, it also refers to women.

Regarding your (pasted) argument against the condemnation of of homosexual acts in Rm. 1, i am not a formally trained Theologian either, but this is one which i deal with in http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html, as are many of the issues in the next post.

As for the argument that what the writer meant by the word nature was “the previously accepted common usage” or accepted societal norms, neither the context nor the grammar allows such a simple rendering. While the author of your argument declares that “nature” meant “previously accepted common usage, “ a study of the Greek word “phusis” [5449] in Romans reveals nature to mean that which Gentiles did when acting in accordance with God's law (Rm. 2:14, 27), or that it would be contrary to design for a tree that was wild by nature to be grafted into a good olive tree (Rm. 11:24), though spiritually this was possible. In 1Cor. 11:4 it refers to the normal, if not universal natural condition of the animal world, and in Gal. 2:15 it refers to the racial nature of the Jews. In Gal. 4:8 it refers negatively to the intrinsic nature of idols. Likewise in Eph. 2:3 to the sinful nature of man, and positively in 2Pet. 1:4 to th holy nature of God. Here we see that though what man or animal normally does can denote proper function as opposed to aberrations, morality is determined by what God sets down, and not by whatever we feel we would most like to do. No nation has fallen obeying Biblical morality, but the opposite is ultimately true for those who continue in rebellion, and this one will be no different.

The context of Rm. 1:18- 32 is that of perverse and wrong behaviors which are a result – not necessarily just a part of – of idolatry, as from idolatry all sin proceeds. Though Rm. 1:23 uses formal idolatry as an example, what is revealed in Rm. 1 is not simply that which was done religiously, but sins which flows from idolatry in general. And which need not be constructing formal idols, but misconstruing the God of the Bible to sanction sin. Idolatry occurs whenever we put anything, including our own “happiness” or idea of what make right, before what God says. Thus the first commandment is to love God with all we have (Dt. 6:5), manifested in obedience to Him, and then love for others in accordance with God's word (Lv. 19:18).
The practice of working that which is “unseemly” (which word has to do with nakedness in Rv. 16:15) referred to in Rm. 1:27 was consensual homo-sexual activity, not forced rape, and was condemned not because it went against societal norms, but because it was contrary to God's design, which was seen in the intrinsic nature of man as normally manifested, and against which homosexuality militates. The argument that only a specific form of homoeroticism was condemned has no support, as nowhere in Scripture is any homo-sexual activity sanctioned (homosexual eisegesis notwithstanding), in contrast to heterosexual relations which the LORD clearly and abundantly provides for by marriage. Thus all homosexual relations are unholy fornication, which in any case even a motive of love versus lust cannot make right.

(Rom 1:24-27) "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: {25} Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. {26} For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: {27} And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

>I would be living in defiance of what I know to be my true nature.

Your true nature is that of a sinful nature, prone to sin, and according to such logic all manner of iniquity can be justified because that is my true nature, some of which would be more immediately felt as harmful while others do so in the long term. Pornography is such a sin.

>As for the Bible, the Bible says a lot of things. Do you regard them all with equal weight?

Yes, in context.

>How do you feel when you read the outdated laws?
The Bible is it's own interpreter. It foretells of a New covenant (Jer. 31:31-33) in which certain type of laws, which it defines (Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:10; Heb. 9:10) as ceremonial, and dietary, and which have spiritual fulfillments under the New covenant (Jn. 1:29; Acts 10:9-16; Gal;. 6:15; Heb. 4:3), versus purely moral laws, which are reiterated under the New covenant. The injunctions against illicit sexual behavior clearly belong to the second category.

>Do you take everything in it literally, or do you see some of it as parable?

In the Bible is it obvious which is which, and when in the latter, in which known physical realities have c
>Do you think every word is divinely inspired, or do you allow that humans may have corrupted some over these hundreds of years?

Yes and no. The Bible is a quality like no other book, revealing both God and man, with the latter's salvation on the formers expense and righteousness supremely manifested in Christ, as well as the corresponding negative consequences for those love darkness rather than light. It did not become the world's best seller because of ecclesiastical decree, but because of it's spiritual quality that gives life to those who receive it's Author, and Heavenly guidance to those who obey Him.

As for the supposed meddling of man, the abundance of ancient extant Biblical manuscripts (far more than any other ancient literature) themselves disallow the charge of the corruption of the Bible. While there are better versus poorer manuscripts, the poorer ones are allowed to co-exist with the the “majority text,” and in any case the differences are rare and relatively insubstantial.
>When it contradicts itself, how do you reconcile?
Almost all asserted contradictions are not, and are easily reconciled upon further research, and problematic passaged make upon an extremely small percentage of Scripture and so not change doctrine, except that of the doctrine of inerrancy, which most hold to refer only to the original autographs. For research on this last 2 questions i would suggest www.christian-thinktank.com or www.tektonics.org among many others. And the page on the Da vinci code on peacebyjesus..com

>How do you feel when you read the bloodthirsty parts?
I take it you mean a few passages that call for the extermination of entire nations? I take it in context, and realize that judgment happens, and that it was not done arbitrarily, but “that the judgment of God is according to truth” (Rm. 2:2) and was and will be warranted and just, after much long suffering by God of deleterious immorality by souls opposing what even they knew at one time was right.
>Do you put more faith in the words and deeds of Jesus than in those of the Old Testament or of Jesus' followers, or are they all the same?

All Scripture given by inspiration of God, (2Tim. 3:16) , though He used certain personal means of expression and their degree of anointing as well as different obvious genres to reveal what we needed to know. The words of Jesus manifested His Divinity in powerful and succinct ways, in which He also promised the rest of the New Testament (Jn. 16:12-14), in which prior revelation said is reiterated, confirmed, expanded upon and explained more fully under the same Spirit of God by which Christ spoke. Pertinent to our subject, by this we see that while Jesus did not/need not address every sin in Scripture, He disallowed fornications (Mk. 7:21; plural) as part of His affirmation of the morality of the Mosaic law, and later that the specific sin of Sodom was “fornication, and going after strange flesh” (Jude v. 7), that of the men which they sought to sexually know (Gn. 19:5-8; cf. Jdg. 19:22-25).

And not bathing!