The ‘gay Christian': an oxymoron

I read in the Pink News that a “Christian council worker sues after being sacked for homophobic email.”

Denise Haye, 25, worked at Lewisham Council’s legal services department.

Last September, she used her work email address to send an email to Rev Sharon Ferguson, head of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (sic).

She wrote that Rev Ferguson should be “ashamed” of herself and that homosexuality was “not normal” and a sin. Citing the importance of repenting in the “last days”, Haye added, in capitals, “the wages of sin is death”.

This is absolutely correct. The very fact that so many now view homosexuality as normal is a sign that we are in the last days. The Bible tells us that “the wages of sin is death”. Is it now a crime for a Christian to quote from the Bible when emailing another alleged believer? Or just via the council’s email system?

If this ‘reverend’ really were a Christian, she would surely have tried to settle her concerns in private with Denise Haye rather than going straight to the Council to complain. I’m sure she knows there is increasing persecution which Christians are experiencing in their places of work, so why would she want to subject a fellow believer to this?

She (Rev Ferguson) told “I’m not questioning that she thought she was doing the right thing. But there was no love and compassion in her email. It was full of death and damnation.

This ‘gay Christian’ lives in la-la land. It’s a very dangerous place to be when dealing with matters of the soul. She thinks that she can sin and sin and never repent. She doesn’t even concede she is sinning. She’s a gonner at present.

What I have found by discussing matters on the internet with self-labelled ‘gay Christians’ is that they seem to be ‘gay’ first and have tried to reform Christianity around their sexuality.

You see, this wasn’t a difference of opinion (and that’s what it was, but blown up into a major ‘hate’-related incident, as usual) between two Christians, but between a homosexual and a PC dissident.

Haye is now taking Lewisham Council to court for unfair dismissal. She was suspended for six months and then dismissed.

What amazes me is that homosexuals have become such a selfish, pride-filled tribe that they don’t have a shred of understanding or compassion for this woman losing her job.

I have read the reader comments on the Pink News article. These are quite typical responses:

The only concern this bigot is showing by stating such drivel, is for herself

Says David North. They just don’t ‘get it’ that people are genuinely concerned and that is why we get involved. Why bother otherwise?

Regular Pink News commentator Adrian T chips in with this:

Good riddance to scum like this, sending such e-mails from the workplace. There should be no room for hate fuelled bigotry in the workplace.

See what I mean? They just cannot see the folly of their ways.

Iris says:

Disgusting. “the wages of sin is death”? That sounds like a threat to me.

It is a threat. From the Almighty. The Bible is full of threats, because the wages of sin is death. That’s why you need a Saviour.

Lee is unforgiving too:

Her email was full of death and damnation – I hope this matter has been passed onto the police for investigation as a hate crime.

What punishment would you like to see, Lee? Feeding her to the lions?

Jennifer Hynes writes this.

Can people stop calling these people Christian please? It gives the millions of queer Christians (like me) a really bad name.

This is mind-blowing in its ignorance.

Rose says:

Silly cow. Not only homophobic but as usually dragging Christianity down with it. As I have said before, I am a Christian

Yeah, it really sounds like it.

At this time, The Halcyon seems to be the only one concerned:

Sacking was a bit harsh

But it doesn’t cut ice with the others.

Homosexuals have been mollycoddled so long now that they are becoming like the street thugs who refuse to be ‘dissed’. On this evidence, they have become cruel and uncaring; totally unable to see the other person’s point of view. Worse than that, they think the other person should be treated as a ‘hate’ criminal.

It is actually a tragedy for our country. It would have been avoidable if we had a government that knew the difference between right and wrong and acted in the best interests of our country. It’s clear we’ve not had one of them for quite a while.

What Denise Haye did was out of love. I know, because that is also my motivation. The hatred is clearly expressed in the comments section of the Pink News. Black is now white and two plus two equals five. Everything is made to make sense, except reality.

My hope and prayer is that people will see that the sins of the flesh war against the spirit and so will repent, believe and be saved. The alternative is grim beyond our wildest imaginations.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to The ‘gay Christian': an oxymoron

  1. John says:

    As I always say: If you don’t like the fact that God says its wrong take it up with Him. The plain truth is … just because they want it to “miraculously” become acceptable does not make it so … it is still sin.

  2. ¨Coddled¨ indeed! Murderous bigots at Church have instigated terror down through the ages and now your ¨sensitive¨ when called on trashing/persecuting fellow human beings,…furthermore, how dare you think ¨God¨ says as if you know! If you were paying attention to REALITY, or indulge in some self-searching, you´d know that LOVING THY NEIGHBOR is a Commandment (that God really did say) and demonizing fellow human beings (sitting next to you a Church) is abominable!

  3. Mark Case says:

    Ahhh, but it’s NOT a sin if you don’t believe in your particular god – my god (lower g deliberate!)says it’s fine, he also says nowt about shellfish and mixed fibres etc!!

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    John – Of course it’s a sin. I’ll be writing more about it.

    Leonardo Ricardo – Part of ‘Love thy neighbour’ is to warn them of the consequences of sin.

    Mark Case – The old shellfish and mixed fibres. If only you learned to think for yourself, eh?

  5. Sam says:

    Suppose a Muslim using a taxpayer funded government e-mail sent a message to a Christian stating that their beliefs are wrong and therefore they should change their beliefs or suffer eternal damnation. Say the Muslim individual does this out of “love” and they are subsequently fired for using a government system to perpetuate personal beliefs. Would you feel “compassion” for this individual? Would you require a Muslim keep their personal beliefs out of the workplace when acting as a representative of the government?

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Sam,

    “Would you feel “compassion” for this individual?”


    “Would you require a Muslim keep their personal beliefs out of the workplace when acting as a representative of the government?”

    The problem we have in this country is people stirring things up. Government, quangos, fake charities, etc. We never used to have these problems when there was one way of doing things. One law for everyone.

    It would be more realistic to compare this situation to a Muslim emailing a ‘gay’ Muslim about the consequences of that lifestyle.

    I’d have no qualms about them doing that.

  7. John says:

    Leonardo Ricardo – “I dare to think” because it is actually said in the Bible i.e. The Word of God. And the REALITY as you call it, is yes, I love my neighbor BUT it does not mean that I can condone his/her actions if its not in accordance with God’s Word.

    Mark Case – OK lets talk about the shellfish and the rest …. God gave us laws/commands. Some are moral laws and some are cultural laws. The moral laws are things like the 10 commandments .. again i.e. to do with our moral living. Shellfish and et al … they fall under cultural laws (Things the people of Israel use to do …) Jesus came and freed us from the cultural laws, but not the moral laws. They are still applicable today as it was when God gave them.

  8. Richard Borrett says:

    But surely if god were so omnipotent then the laws he gave would be eternal and not in need of constant re-evaluation. Seeing as he is the creator of all and the giver and taker away of all, and isn’t therefore subject to cultural or historical relativity, why is there a need to re-evaluate the importance, meaning and application of the laws/commands?

    Clearly many are indeed culturally and historically relative and many are no longer relevant – indeed many would now be abhorrent. This is an indicator that they were a product of that culture, point in history, and therefore that people, rather than some all-knowing God, would it not?

  9. John says:

    Richard Borett- “But surely if god were so omnipotent then the laws he gave would be eternal and not in need of constant re-evaluation.”

    But they ARE eternal … the moral laws did not and have not changed, its people that want to change them to their benefit.

    The fact that God gave us something called a brain means that we can make decisions, some right and some wrong … AND we have also moved forward an grow in “culture” and yes, the all-knowing God knew that and gave a Saviour, Jesus Christ, who in turn freed us from the cultural laws BUT stressed that we follow the moral laws for they are eternal.

  10. P Gibbs says:

    There is nothing normal about sitting at work and sending would-be anonymous and threatening poison pen letters to people.
    Poison pen letters was what these type of messages would have been called before the days of email.
    Denise Haye thought she could do a bit of anonymous homophobic Christian bullying to fill in a slow part of her working day at 04.59pm but she got caught out this time surfing the internet during working time and rightfully got the sack.
    You reap what you sow.

  11. Jimbo says:

    If the women would have been posting equal racist or sexist comments using the bible, noone would have complained.

    What amazes me is that religious people have become such a selfish, pride-filled tribe that they don’t have a shred of understanding or compassion for this woman beeing sacked for beeing a bully.

    Religious people = no morals.

  12. Jim Baxter says:

    It’s interesting, biologically I mean, how very different human perspectives can be. The ideas of sin and salvation (and God) have never meant anything to me and I see no way that they ever could, yet they are at the core of others’ minds.

    The difference must surely be genetic. Something lacking in my brain perhaps, or in yours, of course. And don’t say – yes – intelligence – oh, say it if you like. What we do matters only to ourselves and then only if we let it, as Marcus Aurelius sort of said.

  13. English Viking says:

    As far as I can see, the lady using the works computer to e-mail anybody about anything other than work related issues is guilty of the theft of employer’s time and should be spoken to. The fact that, as a Council employed legal worker, I consider her a thief anyway is of no importance. The lady she communicated with is not a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ, as the name would suggest. The Word, Christ, specifically, repeatedly and unequivocally condemns homosexual behaviour in the strictest terms. One cannot follow Christ and disobey his commands at the same time. You can no more be a Christian homosexual than you could enjoy Christian pornography or take Christian cocaine. The two things are mutually exclusive.

    ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments.’ The words of The Christ, John 14 v 15 RV

  14. Raycol says:

    While the Bible does prohibit sex between men (homosexuality), it can nevertheless be shown that the prohibition does not apply today when the sexual activity causes no harm. Also, the prohibition does not apply today because it applied only to the ancient Israelite and Greco-Roman cultures. The Bible criticises, but does not prohibit, sex between women. Full reasons for these conclusions are given on the “Gay and Christian” website (

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Raycol,

    Illicit sexual activity causes *great* harm. I’m not just talking about the regrets and the diseases, abortions and marriage break-ups, but the breakdown of society itself.

    I had a look at your website and sure, men can love each other deeply. Women too. This is *love* though. It doesn’t imply sexual desire, does it?

    I posted this a couple of months ago: Changing sexual behaviour blamed for more oral/anal cancer – “experts” want boys immunised

  16. English Viking says:

    Raycol @ 12:21

    Just looked at the web-site you posted on. It is full of inaccuracies, half-truths, fallacies, ignorance of fact and down-right lies. To suggest that parts of The Bible are not relevant today because they conflict with modern-day ‘wisdom’ on what is and is not acceptable moral conduct, and that we can ignore or explain away the passages we disagree with, reduces Christianity to a kind of pick and mix type religion which is based upon the foolish idea that we can create God in our own image, and ignore the fact that it is the other way around.

    Like it or not, deny it, confuse the arguments, ignore the facts and whatever else people may choose to do to try to make wrong right, the fact of the matter is that God considers homosexual activity and even the thoughts of homosexual activity an abomination and sinful. The Bible does condemn sexual activity between women in Romans 1. Trying to remodel Christianity, and therefore God, into something people find more palatable is the exact opposite of what The Bible teaches, which is that the man needs to be transformed into what God requires, and that this process is not possible except by placing faith in The Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sin that has been repented of, by the new-birth granted by God upon the excercise of this faith and the regenerating, supernatural power of the Holy Spirit to create ‘clean hands and a pure heart’.

    I fear you may have been misled by clever argument and the constant exposure the gay lobby has in the media into thinking whatever a person does is fine, so long as ‘it causes no harm’, without actually considering what The Bible really says. Christians follow The Christ, Jesus, God in human form. God has forbidden homosexual activity. You cannot follow God and live a life which is pleasing to Him if you are engaging in activities which He has forbidden. It really is that simple. It does not matter one jot whether you agree with God on this matter, whether you think that it is unfair, unenlightened, archaic, homophobic or just plain wrong. God is God, and He can decide to demand whatever He likes from those who have agreed to obey Him, whenever He likes it. Fortunately for us He is not capricious, He is ‘the same yesterday, today and forever’. Heb 18 v 8.

  17. P Gibbs says:

    A scriptural message for Denise Haye.
    Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

  18. English Viking says:

    A scriptural message for P Gibbs.

    Judge not according to the appearance, BUT JUDGE righteous judgement. John 7 v 24. KJV. The words of The Lord Jesus Christ.

    For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, HAVE JUDGED already… 1 Corinthians 5 v3. KJV. The words of the Apostle Paul.

    Please do not try to give the impression that it is not Christlike or Biblical to use the righteous judgement that God has given us, to point out errors and faults in other’s doctrine, particularly those who are in positions of leadership. The scripture you quoted is a warning to Christians not to judge others and condemn them for things that they themselves are ALSO doing. It is a continuation of the theme in the preceding chapter of Romans, a condemnation of homosexuality, amongst other sins, and the darkening of the mind and hardening of the heart that accompanies this abomination. A full reading of both of these chapters will make that fact abundantly clear. Don’t forget that the chapter divisions are not present in the original and in this case the division falls in an unfortunate place.

    The scripture you quote is not a blanket ban on highlighting heresy, nor does it allow for the worldly concept of moral relativism, whereby an individual’s behaviour is entirely a matter for that individual and only God can judge that person. God has told us what is right and what is wrong. He wrote it down, so that we can refer to His wisdom to ensure that we are on the correct path. He encourages us to encourage others to repent of their sins and correct their behaviour. If we fully extend the logic of your post, we as Christians ought not communicate the Gospel, in case hell-bound sinners take umbrage at being ‘judged’.

  19. John says:

    English Viking @ 10:34pm

    Amen !!!

  20. P Gibbs says:

    Response to English Viking.
    Interpretation is eveything but exactly whose eyes are you attempting top pull the wool over here?

    (English Viking wrote:”The scripture you quoted is a warning to Christians not to judge others and condemn them for things that they themselves are ALSO doing.”)

    Heterosexual couples ALSO do all the same sexual acts that homosexual couples do(and more actually if you think about it) nothing wrong with any of it for anyone when it’s consensual, positively wonderful if it’s with the person you love whatever your sexual orientation. So I ask you to consider that quote about judging others again.

    “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

    Opposite sex couples do the all same things same sex couples do … don’t be ashamed of it and please don’t be a hypocrite judging others.

  21. English Viking says:

    P. Gibbs

    ‘Interpretation is everything…’ Some passages of scripture are hard to be understood (2 Peter 3 v 16), whilst others need no interpretation, they are as plain as the nose on your face. How would you interpret ‘Thou shalt not steal or Thou shalt not commit adultery’? Do these verses mean the opposite of what they plainly say? I assume you think that they do indeed mean the very opposite of what they say, as you appear to think that the clear and strident warnings contained in scripture concerning the abomination of homosexuality mean that God has lifted the prohibition on sodomy.

    I attempt to pull the wool OFF your eyes, as you appear blind to the dangers that you are in and utterly ignorant of the truth laid out in scripture. All my arguments are laid out for all to see, with scripture references for people to check. I am attempting to fool no-one.

    Heterosexual couples do not do all the same acts as homosexuals. It is not physically possible for a women to sodomise a man, and if you believe that ‘all’ heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, could it be simply that you associate exclusively with strange people?

    Simply repeating the same scripture that has been proven not to mean what you wish it meant, or calling me a hypocrite is not debate, it does nothing but expose the shallowness of your argument.

    I’ll write out the verses in question and the reader can decide what interpretation is needed to make these verses teach that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally valid in God’s eyes, and that those people who say otherwise and sleep with their wives are hypocrites.

    Romans 1 v 26,27 KJV ‘For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections, for even the women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.’

    Let’s try Leviticus 18 v 22 KJV ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womenkind, it is abomination.’

    What about 1 Corinthinians 6 v 9,10 NAS ‘Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God’.

    What, exactly, is Romans 1 decrying, if it is not, amongst other things, speaking against the sin of homosexuality and the awful consequences of continuing in this sin?

    How much plainer does Leviticus have to be? God mentions homosexuality in the same breath as bestiality, it is equally as wicked.

    The Apostle Paul states that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of God and that even being effeminate will prevent a person from entering.

    You appear to be bringing a set of pre-conceived ideas to God, like the lie that all sex is OK as long as it’s consensual or that heterosexuals and homosexuals do the same things in bed, and then demand that God conform to your image of him. When scripture clearly speaks against your pre-conceived ideas you interpret (in your case re-write with the exact opposite meaning) these scriptures in an entirely illogical and non-sensical way, to attempt to quieten the still, small voice inside you which tells you that you are wrong.

    What is the point of pretending to be a Christian and deceiving yourself into thinking that God will ignore sins he has explicitly and repeatedly forbidden? Why try and change the orthodox doctrine of the Church that has been in place since the the first coming of Christ, the truth of which doctrine had been in place since the beginning of time? Even if you succeed, what you will be left with will not be sound doctrine, or a church, or Christian. That form of religion will profit you nothing. It would be a man-made thing, that allows all forms of behaviour and considers those who object as sinners. It may please you (I doubt it) in this life, but will be thoroughly useless when you stand before the one whom you think has the sole right to judge. Carry on in the direction you are going and you will hear the terrible words at the end of these couple of verses.

    ‘Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? have we not cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And I will profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity’. The words of the Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 7 v 22,23 KJV.

    If you were to repent now, confess your sins and ask God’s forgiveness, He will be only too pleased to restore you to your right mind and forgive your sins. Homosexuality is a wicked crime against God, your family and society, but it is no worse a sin than many others and you are no worse a sinner. Turn now, while you have the chance. Repent.

  22. P Gibbs says:

    That’s a long rant English Viking, here’s one in return.

    The Bible says nothing clear about homosexuality per se, oh there is the Old Testament

    “and with a man do not lay layings of a woman”

    but nobody today knows or can say with certainty what that really means, is it referring to sex with a male slave? or is it merely two men laying in a womans bed? or is it two men laying with one woman in her bed? it could mean a number of other things…who can say what the correct interpretation is? anyone who says they know is a liar. It is by no means “clearly” referring to homosexuality or homosexuals.

    And the story of Lot & the Angels and the sins of the people of Sodom & Gomorrah is not about homosexuality. In the myth the two towns were already scheduled for destruction before the Angels arrived, although the story describes an attempted gang rape of strangers the violence and the general inhospitality implied was the sin in view, again this is not about homosexuality or homosexuals.

    Paul in Romans is all you’ve got and it speaks of sacred Pagan temple sex-worship and although it may refer disparagingly to same sex acts in that context it is not homosexuality being described but otherwise heterosexual people taking part in ritualistic sacred Pagan orgies including some same sex acts as part of their religious worship that might otherwise be considered unnatural for them in any other situation, this is not about homosexuality or homosexuals, here it is again.

    Romans 1:26-27: “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: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.”

    Anyway right after the passage about Pagan religious customs in Romans, Paul very clearly warns readers against condemning others:

    Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

    A passage that should take all the wind out of any scripture quoting anti-gay bigots sail … but they simply ignore it, brush it aside, reinterpret it to continue the habitual judging, warning, threatening and discrimination against gay people because they have become addicted to a compulsive autopilot judging of others and so cannot stop.

    Interpretation really is everything and much translation and interpretation of the Bible has been done or commissioned by people with an agenda all their own, you need to think about this.

    English Viking wrote: “Heterosexual couples do not do all the same acts as homosexuals. It is not physically possible for a women to sodomise a man, and if you believe that ‘all’ heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, could it be simply that you associate exclusively with strange people?”

    Of course heterosexual couples don’t all utilise the back door and neither do all homosexual couples, it would be ridiculous to think that, still due to the far greater number of heterosexual couples the number of them that do is greater than the number of gays that do. We are all the same we all kiss, cuddle, make love in a variety of ways…wonderful.

    This is not the proper place for a debate, try seeing things from a different perspective, perhaps try to be kinder and less certain English Viking because what if you’ve got it a bit wrong?

  23. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs

    The Bible does speak clearly about homosexuality, I have given you three verses, two from the New Testament, that are unequivocal if read to mean just what they say. You are being disingenuous to pretend that only the Old Testament condemns this behaviour.

    You quote ‘and with a man do not lay layings of a woman’, but do not give the book, chapter or verse, nor the version of The Bible you claim it is from. It is not a verse in any of the 23 versions of The Bible I currently have access to, so I am forced to conclude that you are either deliberately misquoting or inventing verses to support your argument, because it cannot be supported from The Bible, or you are using a translation that is so obscure the Christian world has never heard of it. I really have no idea what that sentence means, but I do know what Leviticus 18 v 22 KJV means – “Thou shalt no lie with mankind as with womankind’. I also know the meaning of the other verses you have refused to address properly.

    Romans 1 is about homosexuality. You admit it concerns ‘same-sex acts’, a quaint term which has evolved over time in order to remove the offensive notions from the usual words such as sodomy and buggery. I do not see the difference between these ‘acts’ and homosexuality. There is also not one jot of evidence from any verses in Romans that this practice was concerning some strange form of pagan temple sex- worship, you appear to just wish it was because you hold the nonsense explanations given on pro-gay web-sites and the pro-gay media in higher esteem than the commands given in the word of God.

    You have now quoted Romans 2 v 1 KJV three times in an attempt to prove that criticism of homosexuality is not allowed under any circumstances, and that married, heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. You said that ‘ Heterosexual couples do also ALL the same sexual acts that homosexual couples do’. Your logic, or rather lack of it, is astonishing.

    You brand me a bigot and my pleas that you should obey scripture a rant. Is Christ a bigot? He was not averse to calling people liars, thieves and hypocrites, nor from telling them to repent, before it was too late. Was He just being judgmental? Was He a ranter? Perhaps He would do well to repent of His intolerance and unkind speech, get with the program, it is 2009 you know?

    You introduce the story of Lot and claim it is a myth. The Lord Jesus Christ did not think it a myth when he referred to it in Luke 17. Nor did Jude in chapter 1. Nor did Jeremiah in chapters 49 and 50. I fear that this was a diversionary tactic, to change the parameters of the discussion as you have failed to prove any of your previous points, but seeing as you wish to discuss this part of scripture, consider this fact (not myth); The homosexuals were struck blind by an angel of The Lord, so that they could not find their way. They could not see left from right, up from down, right from wrong. I have found that this spiritual blindness afflicts many who openly and blatantly ignore the Lord God and his commands. Perhaps you are also afflicted. There are none so blind, as those that will not see.

    Finally, I assure that I have no wish to simply best you in an argument, nor to be unkind. Sometimes the truth is painful, and I would be being unkind if I were not to warn you of the impending judgment that you are facing. I would like nothing more than for you to be in a right relationship with God, enjoying the good things he has for you, including sex, but of the wholesome variety and not the sick, perverted shadow the Devil has fooled you into thinking is natural and condoned by scripture. Even if this is not to be, I will continue to defend and expound the Word of God to all and sundry, regardless of their sexual proclivities.

  24. John says:

    Maybe someone should go and learn Greek and Hebrew to read these passages in the original language … but then again as you say …. “There are none so blind, as those that will not see.”

    @ English Viking
    Amen !!! yet again

  25. P Gibbs says:

    English Viking, space here doesn’t permit in depth discussion
    The OT translation in most Bibles of following is not supported
    by the Hebrew text

    *Sodom and Gomorrah
    *Leviticus 18:22
    *Leviticus 20:13

    These following verses are mistranslated in nearly
    every English Bible commonly available.
    *Romans 1
    *1 Corinthians 6:9
    *& 1 Timothy 1:10

    If you are genuinely interested you can find word for word translations of the above OT verse from Hebrew transliterated with correct translations and explanations also the transliterated Greek of NT verses followed by correct translations and explanations here:

    I don’t know if a website address will be allowed here but you can google “hope remains” or paste in your browser.

    All the best!

  26. P Gibbs says:

    English Viking,
    another site I recommend is Religious Tolerance Org
    it discusses all views conservative and liberal plus
    word for word translations transliterations and explanations

    Below verses regarding homosexuality analysed
    for Sodom & Gomorrah see:
    for Leviticus see:
    for Romans see:
    for Corinthians see:
    for Timothy see:

  27. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs

    I have looked at the site you recommend and have drawn the following conclusions;

    i) The site in question is attempting to convince the reader that a conspiracy on a galactic scale has taken place over the course of the last 2000 years, that conspiracy being the theory that EVERY single Bible translation to date is wrong and that thousands of Christian scholars involved in these translations have deliberately mistranslated the parts of The Bible that they disagree with because they were all homophobic.

    ii) The author(s) of the site give no external references to their conclusions, they display a complete and utter ignorance of the biblical languages, their work is not peer-reviewed and as the author(s) are anonymous, no indication is given of their qualifications and experience in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis, which at first glance appears to be none.

    iii) The site contains glaring inconsistencies, such as the author(s) assertions that most languages cannot be directly translated into other languages in a literal, word for word form, that often a transliteration is required, which is quite correct. They then proceed to translate (very badly) a passage in an attempted exact word for word form, which makes little sense in English. This is then presented as evidence that the passages condemning homosexuality are unintelligible and can be ignored by homosexuals.

    iii) I strongly suspect that the site is authored by homosexual(s) and that their accusation of heterosexual bias in the translation of the scriptures is nothing more than a reflection of their own homosexual bias in their attempts to re-translate them.

    I could go on and on, but I fear there is little point. When I got to the parts that explain that Eve had male genitalia and that Adam and Eve were therefore homosexual, I began to see that refuting this rot is going to be a fruitless exercise if a person has so suspended their intellectual faculties in order to believe it, in a vain attempt at normalizing and even spiritualizing their own abnormal sexual habits. It also contains other heresies such as a denial of the triune nature of man and firm assertion that David (the future King) and Jonathan (King Saul’s son) were homosexual lovers and that they had a gay wedding.

    In order for this conspiracy to be true, the like of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Moffat, Knox and Coverdale were serial liars, frauds and bigots who all perverted the word of God and deceived millions. All of greatest Bible scholars and expositors over the centuries must either have been thick, deceitful or both. Spurgeon, Studd, Darby, Charles Macintosh, George Henry Lang-serial fraudsters to a man. The greatest translations such as the KJV and the ERV, even the AS and the NAS, even a translation as liberal and lilly-livered as the NIV are all condemned as completely incorrect. In fact, according to the theory, not only are all the English translations incorrect, and there are to my knowledge at least 30 different versions, the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint, along with the Masoretic Text is also incorrect. These last three do not require translation and can be read by competent scholars in the original. They ALL confirm what has been translated in the KJV and other versions on these matters. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did much to confirm that the accuracy of these documents is unrivaled in the ancient world and aside from the odd punctuation mark and perhaps the total number of horses a certain man owned at a certain time, they are exact copies of documents written by the Apostles, their contemporaries and their immediate successors centuries before.

    Let’s not stop at the English translations. What about the French, the German, Spanish, Dutch, AfriKaans etc. These all translate in the same way as the English. What about, for example, the Norwegian version of the Holy Scriptures? I personally own a copy of this version and am able to read it as it stands without translating into English. It was not translated by Norwegians from an English version and therefore can be relied upon to be independent. It too translates the exact same sense and exact same prohibitions on this perverted behaviour.

    In stark contrast to the name of this abominable web-site, there really is no hope for those who would deliberately pervert the truth in order to excuse their sin, nor for those who are eager to support them.

    The latter part of Romans Chapter 1 rings as true as ever; ‘Who knowing the judgment of God, that those that commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them’.

  28. English Viking says:

    John @ 10:02

    Thank you for your encouragement. With regard for the need for people to learn the original languages in order to explain to the less well educated the true meaning of scripture in their own languages, I refer you to the post directly above, which names some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen. They wrote their findings down. One such writing is called the King James Version of The Holy Bible.

  29. P Gibbs says:

    English Viking.
    CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS tend to accept English translations of the Bible, such as the New International Version (NIV) and the King James Version (KJV) as authoritative. They generally accept the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret passages literally, unless there is a good reason not to. They consider all Bible passages as instructive in today’s society. When they see any same-sex activity condemned, they believe that this applies to all homosexual activities. All homosexual behavior is sinful, regardless of the nature of the relationship. Homosexuality is a chosen, unnatural, abnormal, changeable, and perverted lifestyle, which is hated by God.

    LIBERAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS tend to follow a wider variety of translations, and to be more concerned with instances of copying errors in the original Hebrew or Greek, of forgery, and of biases among the translators. They consider some passages (e.g. those referring to slavery, burning some hookers alive, raping female prisoners of war, etc.) as not being valid today, as immoral, and against the will of God. They differentiate among various homosexual and heterosexual sex practices, treating some (rape, prostitution, temple sex rituals) as immoral and some (within committed relationships) as positive. Homosexual orientation and behavior is seen as a normal human sexual expression among a minority of adults. It is not changeable or chosen. Like all sexual behavior, it can be a sin if it is exploitive or manipulative or not carried out safely within a committed relationship.

    The site I directed you to is about as unbiased as it is possible to be and provides a very full analysis of scripture from many viewpoints.

  30. John says:

    English Viking –

    I agree with you totally in respect to the general man on the street (having battled with the Greek and Hebrew myself) … Great minds have don a far better job with the translation of the bible in ALL languages and as you say they all say the same (So there goes the idea of a small group “planning” to write what they wanted into the bible). The people that I was focusing on was those who belief everything and anything regardless of the fact that ALL the translations in the different languages say the same … maybe when they tried to do it properly i.e. by reading it in the original language for themselves, they would under the guidance of the Holy Spirit see that there are quite a few false prophets running around. But then again we were and are warned of the are we not ?

    Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits : Mat 7:15

  31. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    I think I shall probably make this my last post on this subject, as the front of my head is becoming very sore from banging it against the ten foot high wall of your victim-complex.

    Liberal Christian Theologians almost always = unsaved, uninspired (except by the Devil), disobedient humanists who think they know best and feel the world would be a better place if only everybody would deny all things Christian, especially the essential doctrines of Christianity. The ‘flowers in our hair, skip around Stonehenge’ types. They dilute the teachings of God to an inane, basic, coverall doctrine – be nice and don’t judge. They accept all and any authority except that of the inerrant Word of God, they are unlearned and unstable, wrestling with the scriptures, which leads to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3 v 16.

    The religious tolerance website you directed me to appears nothing more than a promotion for ecumenical, humanist apologetics. It is pointless to debate Christianity, or to look for meaningful answers to some difficult questions, on a site which considers Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as denominations of Christianity. If you have ever read the other parts of The Bible, you would find that it predicts a mass joining-up of all false religions in the last days- The whore of Babylon.

    There are no same-sex relationships in The Bible that are permitted by God. If there were, homosexuality would indeed have been the norm for societies all over the world and these societies would have objected to the so-called corrupting of the scriptures when they were first issued. Remember that these ancient people would have needed no translation as the words would have been in their native tongue. Remember also that most Israelites and Greeks were literate. They would have noticed any altering of scriptures immediately. They didn’t, because there were no such alterations.

    You talk of ‘committed relationships’ and the sex that takes place within them. The Bible speaks of marriage as the only institution that permits sex, and biblical marriage is exclusively between a man and woman. If, as you claim, the Bible permits male-male and female-female marriage, and also that key characters like King David entered into such marriages, why does the Bible not give any teaching on the divorce proceedings of same-sex arrangements, when it goes into great detail in great length, in both testaments, about the arrangements for male-female divorce? Read Matthew 5, Mark 10, Romans 7, Matthew 19. The final scripture in that list also proposes that those men who are not able or unwilling to marry should be celibate.

    Why, when the Apostle Paul gives a list of requirements and pre-conditions before a man can be considered for Eldership, does he say the candidate should be ‘the husband of one wife’ and not mention the possibility of him being the husband of one man? Titus 1 v 6.

    Why does the Lord Jesus Christ teach that ‘ from the beginning of time, God made them male and female, for this cause shall a man leave his mother and father (not mother and mother or father and father), and cleave to his wife (not husband)? Mark 10 v7.

    You will have no reasonable answers to questions posed above. The only correct answer is that God abhors homosexuality and sanctions marriage only between a man and a woman, even then only under certain circumstances. I fear you will not come to the right answer, because it will involve an admission of your guilt. I fear you will continue with your near psychotic denial of all contrary evidence, presented by eminent scholars over a near 2000 year period, continue to deceive yourself and even worse, others, and continue to resist the convicting effect that Spirit would have on your conscience, if you would only let Him. To do the right thing will involve a total abandonment of these childish, foolish ideas and an acceptance that God knows best and that His word is absolute truth, to be humbly obedient to and not perversely corrupted.

    I will pray that God will be merciful and convict you.

  32. P Gibbs says:

    English Viking wrote: “You quote ‘and with a man do not lay layings of a woman’, but do not give the book, chapter or verse, nor the version of The Bible you claim it is from. It is not a verse in any of the 23 versions of The Bible I currently have access to, so I am forced to conclude that you are either deliberately misquoting or inventing verses to support your argument,”

    Stepping back a little.
    You accused me of deliberately misquoting or inventing verse… presumably your aim was to discredit my argument. Although I have already provided links that clear me of your slur, here is further information in my support. (I can also back up anything else I have written in my posts here)

    Analysis of Leviticus 18:22

    “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written:

    “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”

    * The first part of this verse is literally translated as

    “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman”

    Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example:
    * The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden.”

    * On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say “Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden.”

    * The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:
    1. Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew “toeyvah” in this verse into English words such as “abomination,” “enormous sin,” or “detestable.”
    2. Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe.

    The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase “lay lyings” has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

    1. The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce “And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.” A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: “You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman.”
    2. An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: “And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman.” That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman’s bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman’s bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.

    More here:

  33. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    I did only say that my previous post would probably be my final word!

    You claim I am stepping back. I step back not one inch, Sir. I made the assumption that you were either inventing verses or quoting from a version so obscure that the Christian world had never heard of it. I was correct, you were quoting from an unattributed source on an anonymous pro-gay web-site. It claims to have found a new way of translating scripture that is far superior to all the other, shoddy, incorrect and homophobic versions that the followers of God have had to struggle by with for the last few thousand years. As far as I am aware, this astonishing advancement in biblical hermeneutics remains unpublished.

    Writing reams of Hebrew (or should I say cutting and pasting?) may serve to confuse some readers, obfuscate the subject, divert attention from the many unanswered questions I have posed you, that you attempt to gloss over, but I am afraid it will not have the same effect on me.

    You quote from the Living Bible in an attempt to demonstrate that current versions are not correctly translated. This is unfair and reveals either that you are ignorant on the methods used in modern translations, or you disingenuously hoped that I was. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and an explanation that may help you really understand the truth, not my opinion, which just happens to coincide with truth. The fact that my opinion and the truth are in agreement on this issue does not negate the truth, neither will the fact that your opinion conflicts.

    The Living Bible is a PARAPHRASED version of the Scriptures and does not use a method known as Formal Equivalence as the standard for its ‘translation’. Indeed, it is not even a translation per se, and this fact is acknowledged in every edition of this version of the Bible. It’s writer has the intention of conveying the thoughts of God in a form of words that could be understood by Sunday school children, the ill-educated and those with impaired learning abilities. The writer never once claimed or even attempted to translate from the copies of the originals. I understand the idea behind the version, and as all versions are marked on their covers and fly-leaves with an indication that one cannot rely on this version as an accurate representation of the original, I accept that it could be useful for a child, although never for serious, in-depth study. The writing method actually used is similar to Dynamic Equivalence but, if it were possible, has even less relevance to the original words than the versions produced using this method. Such versions include The Word, The Message, The NIV, et al and are, in my opinion, partly responsible for the undermining, in the eyes of the worldly, the veracity of God’s word and it’s dependability throughout the ages.

    Should you wish to make a serious study of God’s words, the KJV (also known as AV), the RV and the ASV are all examples of versions which use Formal Equivalence as the sole method of translation. They attempt to translate as closely as possible from the original words in the original texts. I am sure that you are aware that it is not always possible to do this, and where this is the case and extraneous words are introduced in the English to allow for the meaning of the passage to be correctly conveyed, these words are ALWAYS indicated to allow the reader to see what the translators have done. If a passage has two possible meanings, both meanings are given.

    You refer to parts of the Old Testament that were superceded by teachings in the New Testament, apparently to attempt to show God as some kind of ‘picky’ individual who demands that his followers adhere to strange rules, when Christ has fulfilled the requirements of these rituals, and faith in and obedience to Him is sufficient to be in compliance with the new way of doing things, the ‘new covenant in my blood’, 1 Corinthinans 11 v 25, which is commonly known as Christianity. That is what we are talking about, isn’t it? Not the rituals of the children of Israel under the Law?

    You claim that if there were a liberal (do you mean pro-gay?) version of the Bible, Romans 1 would be translated something like ‘Ritual anal sex in a pagan temple is forbidden’. This is arrant nonsense and would require the entire phrase to be imported into the original as it simply just is NOT there. Not in any way, shape, manner, fashion or form. It is a fantasy to say that it is. You may as well base your life on the books of Postman Pat if you need to so emasculate the real words and meanings of Bible passages you dislike. It would have the same effect in the end, which will be that you go through life vainly imagining all is fine in your comic-book world, because your comic-book tells you so, and then you will die, and then you will have the sickening realisation that the god you created in you own mind, to excuse the in-excusable, is a very different figure from the one before whom you will stand and attempt to give an explanation for your sinful life, despite the numerous warnings you received throughout it to repent.

    Please don’t think that I am picking on you, or being harsh, because you are a homosexual. You will probably think that I am, that Christians and the Church have no other purpose but to be ‘homophobic’. That is because your sexuality has become an obsession to you. It has become the thing that defines you and you cannot think anything negative about it because you would have to be negative about yourself. You define all non-homosexuals as possible bigots, people to be wary of because they just don’t understand your emotions, which in reality are probably a near overwhelming sense of loneliness. You probably feel excluded, but you exclude yourself and blame the Church and God for excluding you because you are homosexual, when in actual fact you are excluded for being a sinner, just like all the heterosexuals that have built themselves an enormous lie to obscure the truth, in order to ignore God. You turn your sexuality into a cause célébre and have a mission to eradicate bigotry within the Church and the Bible, to force it to conform to your views, when the clear teaching of God is that you must conform to His views.

    If you really want to know the truth about the real meanings of these Old Testament verses in the original, why not go to a Synagogue and ask to speak to the Rabbi. He will be fluent in Hebrew and English, probably Aramaic as well. Forget fridays and Saturday mornings, he will be busy. He will be able to advise you as to the correct meanings of the words and give a realistic translation. If you live in a big city, synagogues are easily found. If you don’t, may I suggest you take the time to travel to one, this is important and you obviously will not take my word for it. With regard to the New testament passages, you will have to look a little harder and find a Greek Orthodox Church. The Priest will again be fluent in English and NT Greek.

    Think of this, If I am wrong, and God allows all forms of sexual behaviour, I will have to give an explanation to God that I was doing only what was contained in the dozens of translations of his Word, in dozens of languages, that say that my view is correct. I am still saved, my punishment suffered by Christ and guilt paid for with His blood. If you are wrong, your entire sexuality is a mess, you are not saved and you are spreading lies about scripture. God will exact a very heavy penalty for such crimes if they remain outside of his ever present calls for repentance.

  34. P Gibbs says:

    English Viking

    As far as the Bible is concerned, I have demonstrated that God’s will is to remain silent on the subject of homosexuality.

    Your fantasy character portrait of me is laughable and beyond ridiculous.

  35. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs

    As far as the Bible is concerned, you most certainly have not demonstrated that it is God’s will to be silent on the subject of homosexuality.

    You directed me to web-sites which attempt (rather pathetically) to demonstrate that the Bible clearly teaches that not only was King David a practising homosexual and had a ‘gay wedding’, but that Eve, the mother of the race, was endowed with a set of male genitals and Adam and Eve were homosexual lovers. This is not silence on the matter, it is a blatant exercise in pro-gay propaganda that requires literally dozens of explicitly clear verses to be either ignored, removed or re-translated in a way that is more accurately described as editing and re-writing with zero regard for accuracy.

    You constantly refer to the verse in Leviticus (which is equally clear and correctly translated in the versions I have recommended) as though it is the damning evidence that proves that God cannot string a sentence together and that He never intended us to understand these verses anyway.

    To arrive at the conclusions that you have, by attempting to re-translate the scriptures in such a way as to make them say what they plainly do not, is a sin. It would be as though a group of murderers had attempted to re-write the scriptures that condemn that foul practice, or adulterers had assembled themselves together to form a pressure group, that eventually became so large they were able to control the popular TV and radio stations, the newspapers and the even the school curriculum, and using this control they would spew out the lie, 24 hrs a day, that being an adulterer was fine, that God sanctions it in his word, that it is normal and healthy, that the Lord Jesus Christ was probably an adulterer and the Bible teaches it is a wholesome, beautiful thing when carried out in a loving way and it is consensual. Ridiculous words would need to be invented, such as ‘adulterophobic’, in an Orwellian style attempt to reverse the truth of the matter, painting those who were right and who condemned such clap-trap as thought-criminals who needed re-educating. Chat -shows and glossy magazines would be full of adulterers ‘coming out’, obviously in an overtly emotional way, to rapturous applause and an avalanche of fan mail. Political parties would make it a priority to have as many adulterers on Parliamentary Candidate lists and in Government as possible. There would the public execration of an hitherto good man, secretly recorded murmuring behind the back of hand that he thought that adulterers were ‘dirty, and sinful, and the practice ought to be made illegal’, followed by his inevitable appearances on these same chat-shows explaining how he is now a reformed character, that there is nothing wrong with adultery and that he is thoroughly ashamed of himself for using the ‘A’-word.

    This is exactly what perverted individuals from the gay-lobby have done over the last 40 years. They are perverts themselves, they have perverted minds that think of next to nothing else other than their sexuality, they pervert the minds of others with this filth and they even now have the brass-neck to attempt to pervert the scriptures. I fear that it is obvious that they will become more and more successful as the world becomes more and more sinful, and this success will convince them that God’s blessing is upon them, when in reality He is waiting for them drink the last dregs from the cup of judgment that they have poured for themselves.

    I shall leave the last words to the prophet who correctly foretold the utter destruction of a nation because of its sin. May the Lord preserve us from going the same way.

    ‘The grass withereth, the flowers fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.’. Isaiah 40 v 8 KJV

  36. P Gibbs says:

    If God Had Wanted Me To Be Accepting Of Gays, He Would Have Given Me The Warmth And Compassion To Do So

    By Jane Kendricks
    October 13, 2009 | Issue 45•42
    Jane Kendricks

    “I don’t question God. The Lord is my Shepherd and I shall put none above Him. Which is why I know that if it were part of God’s plan for me to stop viciously condemning others based solely on their sexual preference, He would have seen fit—in His infinite wisdom and all—to have given me the tiniest bit of human empathy necessary to do so.

    It’s a simple matter of logic, really. God made me who I am, and who I am is a cold, anti-gay zealot. Thus, I abhor gay people because God made me that way. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Here, let’s start with the basic facts: I hate and fear gay people. The way they feel is different from how I feel, and that causes me a lot of confusion and anger. Everyone knows God is all-powerful. He could easily have given me the capacity to investigate what’s behind those feelings rather than tell strangers in the park they’re going to hell for holding hands. But God clearly has another path for me. And who am I to question His divine will?

    Compassion, tolerance, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another person’s position: God could have endowed me with any of those traits and yet—here is the crucial part—He didn’t. Why? Because the Creator of the Universe wants me to demonize homosexuals in an effort to strip them of their fundamental human rights.

    I’m sorry, but you can’t possibly ask me to explain everything God does. He works in mysterious ways, remember?

    Try to understand. If I were capable of thinking and acting any other way, then I’m sure I would, but God seems to be quite adamant about this one. He’s just not budging at all. So unless our almighty Lord and Savior decides to change His mind about my ability to empathize on even the most basic level—which I find highly unlikely—then everyone is just going to have to accept the fact that I’m going to keep on hating homosexuals. And I know that He will fill me with the strength to remain mindless and hurtful in the face of adversity.

    Which isn’t to say that my faith hasn’t been tested. Believe me, there have been times when I’ve drifted from the bitter and terrified life God has chosen for me. When my younger brother told me he was gay, it shook my faith to its very core. But here I am, 27 years later, still refusing to take his calls. Just the way God intended.

    It’s actually pretty astonishing how many complaints to the school board you can make regarding the new band teacher you’ve never met when you are filled with the Light of Christ and devoid of any real kindness or mercy toward His other children.

    At the end of the day, I’m just trying to lead a good Christian life. That means going to church on Sunday, following the Ten Commandments, and fighting what I believe to be a sexual abomination through a series of petty actions and bitter comments made under my breath. Sure, I sometimes wish God would just reach into my heart and give me the ability to treat all people with, at the very least, the decency and respect they deserve as human beings. But unfortunately for that new couple who moved in three houses down, He hasn’t yet.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have God’s work to do.”

  37. Jim Baxter says:

    A long time ago, in two galaxies far, far away…

  38. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    I do not hate you, or homosexuals. I intensely dislike the hold that the gay lobby have on the media, and apparently your mind. I am even more concerned that false teachers and their lies are permeating the Church and corrupting the doctrines of the ill-informed. Trying to imply that I am a bitter and twisted individual, whose only pleasure in life is to hate those who are ‘different’ just because of a mistaken belief that God has told me to is a childish attempt to move attention away from the facts.

    I have pointed out the facts in the many previous posts. Facts gleaned from scripture, from the Bible. If you wish me to argue my case concerning the world, and how the worldly should live, I openly admit that the world is un-reformable, as are all those in it. It is not God’s purpose and He has not promised to improve the world, nor to gradually improve the worldly, by a process of enlightenment, which includes such tosh as ‘human rights’. Such ideas display breath-taking ignorance of His rights. He does not appeal to his followers, the Christians, to attempt to make the world a decent place. The world is cursed by God and appointed for destruction, by fire, as are the ungodly. The death of the old, worldly nature, and the impartation of a new, holy nature, is the only possible way laid out in scripture that will ‘improve’ a man and enable him to move from the cursed, worldly position to the blessed, holy position – 2 Corinthians 5 v 17 KJV – ‘Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away: behold, all things are become new.’. This process, this ‘re-birth’, is known as salvation, as being ‘born again’, as getting saved – John 3 v 3 KJV – ‘…Jesus answered him and said, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God’. Without this process, a person is utterly incapable of correctly interpreting the Scriptures, and will come to all sorts of faulty conclusions concerning God, His rights and their fate. They will either continue in opposition to Him or else deceive themselves into thinking that they have no need of repentance- 2 Peter 3 v 16 -‘As also in all his (the Apostle Paul’s) epistles, speaking in them of things; in which are some things hard to be understood which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.’ my brackets.

    You now appeal to a book other than the Bible, by Jane Kendricks, whom I confess I have never heard of. This book apparently holds the grossly mistaken belief that in order to be a good Christian, one must ‘go to church on Sunday and live by the Ten Commandments’. It also espouses the idea that there is such a thing as fundamental (with the emphasis on mental) human rights. As you quote this book, I assume you agree with it. I am afraid that, again, you are mistaken in your understanding of what constitutes Christianity and what God desires in his followers. The Ten Commandments are but a tiny part of the ‘rules and regs’ that an Israelite was required to perform, if he was to comply with ‘The Law’. The point of the Law was to prove to it’s adherents that they were utterly depraved and incapable of keeping it. Galatians 3 v 24 KJV ‘Wherefore, the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified (declared innocent) by faith.’ – my brackets. It was the barest minimum standard demanded by God from his followers. It was not a pinnacle of excellence – you have done God no favours by refraining from murder, adultery, theft etc, etc.

    There is not one single scripture that calls for the followers of God to be tolerant of sin, which is what the worldly would like us to do with their sins. Homosexual, heterosexual, it doesn’t matter. The world wants God to ignore sin. The world wants the Christians to pretend that sin is not sin, that it is merely a difference of opinion. Those that refuse to conform to the world’s ideas of tolerance are, naturally, branded intolerant. This ‘intolerance’ is apparently a very grave sin indeed, and those committing it are doomed already.This is the world’s idea of tolerance.

    Compassion, understanding, basic decency, the ability to put myself in another’s position. Again, from a scriptural point of view, these words mean very different things than from the view of those engaged in sins they not only have no wish to repent of, but rather revel in them and in those who also do them. The worldly like it when they receive ‘counseling’, when someone strokes their hand and tell them ‘There there my dear, God loves you, and heaven awaits. Don’t worry about all the crucifixion stuff, the faith and repentance, the continuance in a Godly walk. God accepts you just as you are’. They forget to mention that, although God will indeed accept sinners in any condition, providing they are repentant of their sins, He also loves them enough to refuse to leave them in this condition. They paticularly dislike the ‘Go, and sin no more’ stuff that Christ was so fond of . John 8 v 11.

    Your appeal to non-Biblical, badly written pulp fiction is a sign that you have no Biblical argument. That’s OK, I’ve known that since we started. You appeal to the things of the world, because you are worldly – ‘Because the carnal mind is enmity (in a state of perpetual opposition) against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be.’ – Romans 8 v 7 – my brackets. Your ‘wisdom’ is of the worldly variety. It will profit you nothing in eternity.

    You should, as a Christian, be able to pin-point a time when you became a Christian. There should be times in your life that you can recall and be able to say of them, ‘that was before I became a Christian’, or ‘that was after I became a Christian’. You should be able to list your own catalogue of crimes, committed against God, your family, society and yourself. Crimes which you would now be ashamed to be associated with, things you don’t do any more, things that have been repented of and forgiven by God. You should ‘…be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.’. – Romans 12 v 2.

    Going to church does NOT make you a Christian. Neither does being baptised or Christened. Neither does reading a Bible, praying, disliking sinful behaviour or trying to keep the Ten Commandments. Other things that will not save you is an adherence to concepts such as human rights, anti-slavery campaigns, a concern for the environment or supporting charities. ALL these things are UTTERLY useless in the saving of a person and in the equipping of that person for the service of God. John, chapter 3, spells it out. ‘ For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life…He that beleieveth on Him is not condemned: but he that beleiveth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness more than the light, because their deeds were evil’.

    Believing that Christ existed is no more than the Devil does. He knows, He has seen Him many times and yet the devil is not and will not be saved. The belief that God requires is one that brings forth fruit, Godly fruit, that will always include a willingness to be obedient to His word and a shunning of sin. If you are not in this position, and I very strongly suspect that you are not, you are not saved, you are not pleasing God, you will die in your sins if you do not repent and then your destiny will be sealed. Repent. Do it now, you do not know how long His patience will be extended to you.

  39. Oscar Wilde says:

    “People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards.”

    “Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived”

    big·ot (bgt)
    One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    ho·mo·pho·bi·a (hm-fb-)
    1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
    2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

    Noun 1. homophobe – a person who hates or fears homosexual people
    bigot – a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

    *For the European Parliament “homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism”.[3] It is defined by behavior (such as discrimination) as well as motivation (such as fear, antipathy or contempt)

  40. Stewart Cowan says:

    If that is what the European Parliament thinks homophobia means then they are changing definitions to further their agenda.

    Sure, I have an ‘aversion’ to homosexuality, but it’s not an irrational fear, or a fear at all. As for it being “similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism,” well, like I said, there’s an agenda at stake. People have been led away from thinking about the physical behaviour or the morality, to viewing it more in abstract terms re: ‘discrimination’ and ‘rights’.

    The homosexual agenda goes like this:

    Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!

    And what does the European Parliament consider to be ‘sexism’ I wonder? Probably somebody who thinks women should be bringing up their own children rather than handing them over to the State to be indoctrinated. That’s what it’s all about: weakening society to control the people more easily.

  41. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs/Oscar Wilde

    Referring to the writings of a notorious homosexual who was also a child molester, criminal, plagiarist and brothel-creeper, who never professed to be a Christian, whose own life was ruined by that homosexuality and his habitual lying, as proof of the wholesomeness of homosexuality, and the Christian world’s misunderstanding of the scriptures concerning this matter, is beyond ridiculous. It is simply circular reasoning, rather like asking Alex Ferguson’s opinion on how good Man Utd are or what he thinks of Liverpool fans that disagree with him. You know the answer before you hear it. It proves nothing, except that you appear ever willing to ignore the truth as laid out in scripture.

    Your constant references to worldly and unscriptural texts as the only sources that back your arguments do nothing but cement the fact that your arguments are unscriptural and worldly.

    Your veneration of the utterly God-less EU Parliament as the font of all wisdom also betrays the fact that you do not value the teachings of God, but would rather accept the pronouncements of a thoroughly anti-christian institution. You appear utterly incapable of realising that the quote from the old pervert Wilde that you refer to on your previous post – ‘People fashion their God after their own understanding’- is never more true than when applied to yourself.

    ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.’ Colossians 2 v 8 KJV

  42. Oscar Wilde says:

    Homosexuality is not a moral issue, it is a natural human sexual orientation.

    No doubt like any other person a homosexual person also can be a moral person or an immoral person and like anyone else may express his/her sexuality in a moral or immoral way entirely dependent on what or by whose moral standards the arbitrary judgement is made.

    “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.”
    Oscar Wilde

  43. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs/Oscar Wilde

    Homosexuality is a moral issue, it is not a natural sexual orientation. If you think that people are born homosexual, that would allow room for people to be born paedophile, necrophile or whatever else takes their fancy. Perhaps a man could take a liking to his donkey? I mean, if it’s consensual, what’s the problem? If we do not adhere to timeless morals, those laid out in the Bible, God’s commands, but simply make them up as we go along, you will find the world a terrible place to live in…oh…it already is.

    You are still quoting lying weirdos to prove that being a pervert is fine and that those who object are being judgmental. It didn’t work in your previous post, it won’t work now either. Read The Bible, it’s far better than Oscar, with the added bonus that it’s true.

    ‘..and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ John 8 v 32 KJV

  44. P Gibbs says:

    I did say homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation, I did not say people were born homosexual(you deviously twisted my words and replaced them with your own for your own convenience as appears to be your habit)… although to the best of anyone’s knowledge and present medical and psychiatric research, a human child’s potential sexual orientation appears fixed at birth (if not at birth then certainly very early in infancy) sexual orientation therefore cannot possibly be chosen.

    Homosexuality is not a choice, it is not an illness to be cured, it is neither desirable nor is it possible to change a persons natural sexual orientation to another by any known therapy, attempting to do so is dangerous as well as totally ineffectual, this view is held and supported by the British Psychological Society, Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Medical Association and the American Psychological

    Looking briefly through all your previous posts, they are padded with irrelevant waffle, misrepresentation both of what I wrote and of links I provided (Eve had male genitals? reference please English Viking, I think you misread something).
    Diversionary tactics in an attempt to hide the thin argument you make in support of your assertion that the Bible is inerrant and that the popular homophobic interpretation of it that you promote is correct and may not be challenged.
    It also seems to me that you are incapable of conducting an impersonal debate but instead have throughout made personal flaming comments about me, a person you know nothing whatsoever about beyond the few posts I have written here.

    If anything describes an oxymoron to perfection it must be the following…

    English Viking wrote: “I have pointed out the facts in the many previous posts. Facts gleaned from scripture, from the Bible.” (LOL)

    English Viking also wrote: “such tosh as ‘human rights’” (oh dear!)

    You know what they say…give ‘em enough rope etc

  45. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs

    Oh dear, don’t throw a queeny fit because the bigot will not go along with your nonsensical theories!

    You say ( mis-quoting me) –

    ‘I did not say people were born homosexual (you deviously twisted my words and replaced them with your own for your own convenience as appears to be your habit)… although to the best of anyone’s knowledge and present medical and psychiatric research, a human child’s potential sexual orientation appears fixed at birth (if not at birth then certainly very early in infancy) sexual orientation therefore cannot possibly be chosen.’

    If you read my previous post carefully, you will see that I prefaced my remark about the false ideas of being born perverted with the three words ‘IF you think’. That makes a world of difference. It allows for the possibility that you do not agree with the sentence that followed. Who’s twisting things now? As it happens, you confirm in your latest post that you do actually believe just exactly what I suggested you might, so why imply otherwise? You also state that this is a habit, but fail to produce any examples, because there aren’t any. You, naturally, fail to answer the accompanying question, which I shall reiterate for you now. If a man can be born a homosexual, that his sexual behaviour and appetite is beyond his control, that it is all pre-programmed in his genes and has an air of inevitability about it, what if a person just happens to be born with an attraction to donkeys? What if he likes children, or dead people? What if he likes it a bit rough, and gets his kicks from thrashing his wife while he has sex with her? Is this OK? No, didn’t think so.

    You again quote the world and it’s wisdom in reference to a matter of Christian doctrine, as though this will settle matters. The psychiatric/medical societies you mentioned USED to consider homosexuality as evidence of mental illness. They only stopped doing this after years of pressure, abuse and threats from ‘gay activists’, particularly the American branch, the members of which grew tired of having their annual conference invaded by militant gays disrupting proceedings in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

    You then move on to claiming that I have invented things concerning the website you asked me to visit, Hope Remains. Go to the Adam and Eve/ Adam and Steve button on the left-hand side, click on it and read in full. When you’ve done that, you could apologise for calling me a liar, if you wanted to. The fact that you evidently do not read the rubbish you ask others to is not surprising. If you did you would see it for childish drivel that it is.

    You are totally ignorant of the teaching of the Bible if you think it is a charter for Human Rights. The Bible teaches that humans, the creatures, have NO rights. ALL the rights lay with the creator, God. Romans 9 vv 20-23. Don’t attempt to introduce your humanist ideals into a book which intends to focus the man upon God and is not about social welfare or equal rights. The Bible does not teach that all men are created equal – that was Thomas Jefferson, with another humanist document you are possibly fond of, the American Constitution. Christ lived under one of the most oppressive regimes the world has ever seen, the Roman Empire. He NEVER taught that his disciples might be able to improve things with a bit of democracy, maybe a declaration of civil rights, a bit more equality or an LGBT pressure group, by becoming members of Liberty or Amnesty International. He NEVER asserted his own rights, which as creator of the planet were all encompassing. He told us to pick up our cross and bear it, not to use worldly wisdom to improve something which is appointed for destruction.

    That your are a gay is not really the point. You can do what you want, when you want, regardless of who approves or disapproves. God will judge you for it. The point is that it is not possible to be a practicing gay and be a Christian. The point is that you try and say that it is possible, that the Bible says that it’s fine, when it says the exact opposite. The point is that you have deceived yourself and attempt to deceive others into believing these lies about scripture, and your main evidence for your assertions appear to be unattributed pro gay web-sites ,the absurd ramblings of Jayne Kendricks, Oscar Wilde and the United Nations’ Charter of Human Rights. These thing are fine (I suppose) if you want to shape a Godless, sin-stricken world into accepting yet another sin as perfectly normal. The world has always been willing to do that. Please don’t try and shape the Church and it’s doctrines, the teachings of the Bible or the followers of those teachings. It would be better for you to give up all pretense of being a Christian, than to stack up the sins of blasphemy and perverting the peoples minds on top of your already well known and fondly promoted sin of homosexuality. Ideally, it would be better all round if you got saved.

    Galations 6 v 7 ‘Be not deceived: God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’

  46. John says:

    @ English Viking:

    You are a better person than I am, plus you have patience far more than I ever have … Thanks for being a good example to us all.

    The saying:” why be difficult, when with a bit more effort you can be impossible”, springs to mind when I read how P Gibbs/Oscar Wilde constantly, by using all kinds of tactic, try and persuade someone (maybe just himself) that it is possible to be a practicing gay and be a Christian. AND that the Bible is on his side on that point (sic) …….

  47. P Gibbs says:

    And it is true, I did not say people are born homosexual or heterosexual for that matter ever but again you say I do, you are clearly a liar.

    English Viking wrote “You, naturally, fail to answer the accompanying question, which I shall reiterate for you now. If a man can be born a homosexual… etc etc”

    I made no such claim, I said “although to the best of anyone’s knowledge and present medical and psychiatric research, a human child’s potential sexual orientation appears fixed at birth”… quite a difference.

    You have now significantly changed the “question” you say I did not answer. So here’s the original “question”,
    English Viking wrote: If you think that people are born homosexual, that would allow room for people to be born paedophile, necrophile or whatever else takes their fancy. Perhaps a man could take a liking to his donkey? I mean, if it’s consensual, what’s the problem?
    As I said, I think potential sexual orientation for everyone is fixed at birth or very early in infancy, this has nothing whatever to do with a persons fancy.
    Apart from homosexuality (you forgot to add heterosexuality to your list by the way), all the non-consenting sexual practices you refer to in your original “question”, that’s paedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are outside the bounds of this discussion so I will ignore them as obviously children, the dead & dumb animals cannot realistically give consent, so what about them? they have nothing to do with this discussion. Question answered.

    Psychiatric & medical research & knowledge has moved on some nowadays, let’s try to stay in the present shall we. Those darn pesky homosexuals who objected to being marginalised, criminalised, incarcerated and subjected to bizarre and dangerous therapies largely the result of incorrect and mistranslated scripture and the damning homophobic interpretations embraced by powerful and institutionally homophobic religious groups that unduly influenced social attitudes and legislation in the past.

    And again there is nothing in the link about Eve having male genitals, indeed it says that before the fall there was no need for sexual differentiation in the Garden, Eve was a clone of Adam and his help meet but until the fall neither Adam nor Eve would have required genitals as neither sex nor sexual reproduction took place in the Garden…that was fairly implicit. In any case I personally view the Adam & Eve story as an allegorical creation myth as do many others.

    English Viking wrote: “You are totally ignorant of the teaching of the Bible if you think it is a charter for Human Rights.”
    I assure you I do not think anything of the sort. I place the law of Government above scripture where there is conflict between the two or any other holy religious text.

    You have deceived yourself into thinking that only your interpretation of Christianity and of scripture is valid, but actually scripture belongs to anyone who takes the time to investigate it.
    How the Bible was compiled by whom and what was included or excluded from it and why is a fascinating story to look into, that there were no mistakes made in translation or interpretation either accidental or deliberate over the millenia, that there was no forgery or that the powers that be over that time… and those who commissioned translations and interpretations & unfortunately forgeries… did not have political influence over how the Bible developed in inconceivable, these things can be unravelled little by little to some extent but there have been 2 millenia where the development of the Bible into what it has become today went totally unchallenged because of the great reverence and power behind religious institutions and because ordinary people had no voice, how the internet has scuppered that.

    I say again the Bible is completely silent regarding consenting committed homosexual relationships, what little scripture there is that is reputed to refer to homosexuality actually refers to something else, sex with slaves, humiliation of the enemy or strangers, ritual pagan sex orgies.
    It would be similarly wrong if you chose to accept stories of gang heterosexual rape. heterosexual orgies or heterosexual sex with slaves as a condemnation of all heterosexuals and all heterosexuality, it is a nonsense way to look at things which sideteps any possible moral insight.

    The Christian church and all it’s 35.000+ denominations only illustrates that there is little agreement reached on exactly what is the will of God, nor agrreement about scripture and certainly your interpretation, one that plays to popular prejudice so profoundly is not a definitive interpretation.

    I’m done here, no doubt you will require to have the last word…so go ahead, rest assured I won’t waste my time coming back to read it.

  48. English Viking says:

    P Gibbs,

    You did say that sexual orientation appears fixed at birth, or at a very early stage in infancy, twice. It is therefore fair to conclude that you imagine that a man can be born as a homosexual. To argue otherwise, and to call me a liar for pointing it out, well what can I say?

    To claim that I changed my original question, because I rephrased it using the same words (because I had to repeat it as you didn’t answer it the first time) instead of cutting and pasting, is not an accurate representation of the truth. People will be able to see this, all our posts are on screen, doh! I also said that I ‘reiterate’, not repeat word for word.

    You change the question of whether a man is born with a fixed sexuality i.e. necrophilia, into one of consent and then cleverly refuse to answer the question whilst claiming that you have. Well, can a man be born with the innate genetic predisposition to be sexually attracted to children or donkeys? Yes or no. If yes, then you argue that paedophilia and bestiality are natural. If no, you destroy your own argument. That is why you will not answer.

    You correlate the mistreatment of homosexuals by psychiatrists with the mistranslation (according to your argument) of the scriptures. You again show your ignorance of Christianity and psychiatry if you think that there has been anything other than hostility from the so called ‘science’ of this branch of ‘medicine’ since it’s inception. I can assure you that psychiatric associations and guilds, past and present, have been no friends of Christian doctrine. You might find that, if you look close enough, you are blaming Christians for all sorts of things they never said and never did.

    Concerning the dreadful web-site you directed me to – there is the heresy of Eve being male, and that Adam would have made mention of the fact that (s)he was missing a penis if (s)he hadn’t had one, and therefore did have one. It states that Eve was an exact clone of Adam, and therefore male. It does think that Adam and Steve is a fair representation of the truth, hence the name of the link. It does deny the triune nature of man (you didn’t deny that one), it does claim that King David was a homosexual, it does say that he married Jonathan in a civil partnership. Why do you deny this when people can read it for themselves? If it is because you are embarrassed that you lied, that is a good thing, it is one of the warnings God gives us to show us when we are wrong.

    ‘I place the law of Government above scripture where there is conflict between the two or any other holy religious text.’ – P Gibbs.
    You didn’t do that when, less than 25 years ago, that Government said you were a pervert, did you? What you actually mean is that you will pick and choose bits of bobs of morality that just happen to fit your conscience on any particular day. Also, to the Christian, there are no ‘other holy religious texts’ outside of the Bible.

    ‘You have deceived yourself into thinking that only your interpretation of Christianity and of scripture is valid…’ – P Gibbs.
    Pot, kettle, black (am I allowed to used that word?) anyone?

    ‘I say again the Bible is completely silent regarding consenting committed homosexual relationships, what little scripture there is that is reputed to refer to homosexuality actually refers to something else, sex with slaves, humiliation of the enemy or strangers, ritual pagan sex orgies.’ – P Gibbs.
    Wrong. Pretending that homosexuality is not condemned in the strictest terms in The Bible is evidence of the corrupting effect this vice has on the mind of it’s devotees.

    ‘The Christian church and all it’s 35.000+ denominations only illustrates that there is little agreement reached on exactly what is the will of God, nor agrreement about scripture and certainly your interpretation, one that plays to popular prejudice so profoundly is not a definitive interpretation. (sic) – P. Gibbs.
    That there are many denominations within Christianity is a sad fact, although it is no-where near 35,000. One reason why there are so many denominations is because there are so many people involved in starting them that have absolutely no right whatsoever to the title ‘Christian’. Outward observers then point the finger and say ‘Isn’t The Bible useless? Even Christians cannot agree on it’. People, most regrettably, like you.

    Your main strategy for supporting this bilge seems to run along the lines of trying to repeat (ad nauseam, ad infinitum) the lies as often and as loudly as possible, inventing crimes that don’t exist and then accuse your opponents of committing these crimes, in an attempt to either silence them or cause them to doubt themselves and the Word of God. It is a reasonable plan, I suppose. It will be quite effective on those who do not know either God or his Word. For those who do, well, it’s just silly. As you are not keen on the wisdom contained in the Holy Bible (at least we have ascertained this fact) how about this gem from what was reputed to be the most intelligent man to have ever lived, Albert Einstein?

    ‘To repeatedly do the same thing and expect to get a different result is the definition of madness.’

    Finally – ‘ I’m done here, no doubt you will require to have the last word…so go ahead, rest assured I won’t waste my time coming back to read it.’ P. Gibbs – You know you will!

  49. AdrianT says:

    It’s always a pleasure to see Stewart Cowan hysterically raging and seething about ‘intolerant homosexuals’, who are doing no more than giving some silly religion-soaked halfwit the criticism and ridicule she rightly deserves.

    Really, I don’t give a damn if you act out of ‘love’ – I didn’t ask for your ‘love’. Until you learn to keep out of other people’s private lives, you can expect to be hated. The issue of homosexuality, a perfectly natural phenomenon, has been settled decades ago, and we have better information on how the mind works than the primitive, illiterate Palestinian peasants, who dreamt up the mythical events in the books of ‘moses’.

  50. Stewart Cowan says:

    Oh, Adrian,

    The only time I tend to rage hysterically is with my PC or laptop.

    The rest of your raging comments are a bit hysterical, are they not?

    Oh, and, as homosexual behaviour has been taboo all around the world, are you blaming Palestinian peasants for that too? I’m going to let you into a secret, Adrian: anti-homosexuality is not unique to Christianity or Judaism or me or Denise Haye. You are just using it as a convenient tool to try to make yourself feel better.

    Maybe this is why you don’t understand the sort of love where people sacrifice their jobs?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>