World’s first 'gay bible' published

[+Sherapy]

You're the one that made the assumption that arguing on a forum is all I do.

It's still not selfish. You see homosexuality is a sin being harmful is something tangible. We can see the harm it does. We can see people being denied rights, abused and murdered bycause people see their homosexuality as a sin. That is a FACT. It's undeniable.

By contrast a religious person trying to convert a gay person doesn't have any sort of proof. There's no evidence that the conversion will make the person happier. In fact, quite the contrary. There's reams of evidence that converting a gay person is harmful to the person and leads them to live a lie that harms more people.

Now when a person looks at the evidence and sees that a belief is harming people and there's proof, yet ignores and excuses it, yes it bothers me and no its not selfish. And I'm not limiting that to christians or homosexuality.

Lets say if you had a person and they were smoking a box or cigarettes tody. The evidence is clear that they will harm themselves and others. Is it selfish to try and get the person to stop then?

I have to leave in five minutes, so I can't give you what you want in detail.

However what comes to mind right away is christians that offer gay cures to 'pray away the gay' or conversion therapy. Those cause harm Obviously theres people too who bully relentlessly or murder people and theres a number of right wing religious morons that call for gay people to be punished.

No, but then i never said that. It'd show me that people can change.

Shadow,

I have a friend who is in a very abusive relationship-- she sought my help and I tried to help her see there was another way besides being abused-- she ended up marrying the guy a week ago. I am deeply saddened because it is not what I'd chose for her,( she is really a sweet lady) but it is what she sees for herself. I do not agree-- but it is her life and her choice/right and at the end of the day I am not responsible for her--I am only responsible for myself( the essence of empowerment.) What I had an oppourtunity to experience in this situation was compassion, it turned out to be very valuable for me on a personal level. But bottom line is I let her go and live her life, and I hope she finds a way to make things work-- even though it isn't how I would choose to live.

IMO, there are times the most noble thing to do is let go and let people find there own way-- through their own experinces-- even if it's not the way we would do things.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Sherapy

[Beckys_Mom]

And people accepting it and moving on blindly is part of the problem.

The problem will never go away, even if Christians dropped that one sin...........Then if they did, how many more sins should they drop? Should they place their bible up for a public vote and ask people to pick out what suits and they will adjust? Lets face it, if they did drop homosexuality as sinful, more people will start pointing out how other sins are too daft to believe in ..There would be bugger all left of their bible if we all wanted Christians to take out the parts that we feel is wrong...

Again, you focus on the one word, even when I change it.

You only changed because you made a blunder..

I'll repeat and bold it but this is the last time I will.

Once again and this time in bold.. I need to ask you - Who are you speaking of? A mad man? The average Joe ? Who? All three differ...So if you want a direct answer, at least explain more...

Far too often gay christians get in that position and get pressured into that situation and they can't see an alternative or look elsewhere

And a lot will ignore the negative ones and do their own thing..

Because it's not something that should be let go.

As you were eager to point out that allowing beliefs to fester cannot do any good, this is proof you allow that quote you brought up from PA to fester, and now you claim it is something that should not be let go.. This makes your statement look hypocritical

Seriously, get a grip.

Of what exactly? You weren't using location and study as an excuse as to why you do not spend some time to go out and support the gays right cause? And me pointing out posting on a forum was not true?

The same could be said for you.

We all post in our free time, but I am not someone who wishes to go out and create or support some cause..

I support my causes through other ways

Like what?

I do not have the best networking skills and what do you expect me to do? Drop everything and move to London?

How do other people who don't live in the city do it?

No I haven't.

Of course not, you never allow anything to fester and get to you... If someone tells you they don't wish to drop part of their faith, you just leave them to it..

Edited February 7, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[Beckys_Mom]

Disgusting! Homosexuals should never claim to be christians anyway, it goes against the teachings.

If every last Christian dropped their faith because of their every day sinning, Christianity would barely exist as a religion, there wouldn't be anyone left to follow it... There is no such thing as a sinless person

Edited February 7, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[shadowhive]

Well as 'fun' as this is (and I use that term quite wrongly this'll likely be my last reply to you. Not because I'm 'letting you win' before you start, but because I'm going to be away for the weekend and so won't be back properly until Monday (and even then, I'm away for the better part of the day), at which time I doubt either of us will particularly want to keep this going. If you do, be my qest, but like I said, I won't be able to respond so don't be surprised whn I don't.

The problem will never go away, even if Christians dropped that one sin...........Then if they did, how many more sins should they drop? Should they place their bible up for a public vote and ask people to pick out what suits and they will adjust? Lets face it, if they did drop homosexuality as sinful, more people will start pointing out how other sins are too daft to believe in ..There would be bugger all left of their bible if we all wanted Christians to take out the parts that we feel is wrong...

First, homosexuality is an inorn trait, just like hetrosexuality is so treating one as eing superior to the other simply makes no sense at all, especially since it comes from a source that honestly doesn't know better.

Second you make that sound like it's a bad thing. It wouldn't be.

You only changed because you made a blunder..

Once again and this time in bold.. I need to ask you - Who are you speaking of? A mad man? The average Joe ? Who? All three differ...So if you want a direct answer, at least explain more...

No, I didn't make a blunder. The only blunder I made is by not explaining what I intended clearly enough and letting you hijack the point.

So here is the point I was trying to get across.

Here i the quetion again: If someone (terrorist, mad man or average Joe is trying to kill someone, do you let them get on with it even if they have justification?

The answer, which I thought was pretty obvious, is no, you don't. You try and stop them. The method of doing so (of course) depends on who you are dealing with. You may be able to talk them out of it or it may be past that point in which case you call the authorities or (if possibe) warn the person involved.

Now, my point with bringing that up (again lost by you focussing on the wrong part) i that even if a person feels justified doing something, that's not always enough. The terrorist might genuinely think their god tells them to kill. The mad man may have snapped. The average Joe may be getting revenge on someone who has wronged them. Regardless of the specifics, we don't just shrug and say 'Oh you have a reason for killing someone? Well that's alright then! Here's a handgun, kill away!'

So just because a religious person has a justification for doing something by their faith, doesn't mean that they automatically can or should.

And a lot will ignore the negative ones and do their own thing..

Yes some will do that. The problem is that there are ones that can't get away or ignore them and really have no choice in the matter. I don't believe in just shrugging and being ok with that because some get away. We don't act that way in any other situation.

As you were eager to point out that allowing beliefs to fester cannot do any good, this is proof you allow that quote you brought up from PA to fester, and now you claim it is something that should not be let go.. This makes your statement look hypocritical

Ah but I've not let it fester. I've simply kept it in my mind. It's not grown into anything my thoughts on him are the same as when he first said it and he's not offered anything to prove me wrong on it, or give me reasons to disregard it.

Of what exactly? You weren't using location and study as an excuse as to why you do not spend some time to go out and support the gays right cause? And me pointing out posting on a forum was not true?

Of you saying I'm using my location as 'an excuse'. I am reliant on public transport and I can't drive, so my options are (naturally) rather limited. That's not my fault and, if I had the time and money to spare, I'd be able to get more involved in things. At the moment however, I have neither. that's not an excuse, that's truth. Most protests/demonstrations and the like are done in locations I can't get to or at times I can't get to. There was (for instance) a recent protest outside the Ugandan embassy (I think) and I'd have gone if I was in London. But London is three trains and £70 return away and it's simply not practical. The nearest workable city is Birmingham and, in comparison to London, very litte goes on.

We all do what we can, but sometimes this thing called reality gets in the way and location, money and time are all things that prevent people (not just me) from participating in such things.

We all post in our free time, but I am not someone who wishes to go out and create or support some cause..

I agree we post in our free time and yet I'm critised for it. I can post on here pretty much any time my location doesn't prevent me from having the internet and sicne I study at home, I can come on any time I take a break (or late at night when I'm not working).

Like what?

It's down (again) to practicality. There may not be a community I can actively get involved with here, but there are still things I can do. Writing a letter and e-mailing it to my MP was one (something you rather nicely laughed off). I took part in the government consultation and other such things. Most of the stuff I do is online related, but that doesn't make it any less valid I've talked to people all around the world some in vulnerable positions, some needing a shoulder to cry on or simply just someone to talk to.

There is more than one way to support a cause and just because my location makes it difficult to get involved in active events doesn't mean I can't do anything.

How do other people who don't live in the city do it?

Various ways, possibly similar to what I do. However, big campaign events happen in cities and it simply isn't practical for people to attend and that's a fact. Smaller places do have their own things going on, however (again) there simply are places where people can't do much.

Of course not, you never allow anything to fester and get to you... If someone tells you they don't wish to drop part of their faith, you just leave them to it..

That's not the same as letting it fester.

[David Henson]

Why, though, should they have to start another 'cult' (do you mean another church within Christianity, like yet another sect of Protestantism, or a new religion altogether?), if the basis for regular Christianity making such a fuss about it is based on such flimsy grounds (a couple of lines in the Old testament, which have nothing to do with the ideas behind Christianity at all, and a throwaway line in a letter from Paul, which again was nothing to do with any of the teachings of Jesus)? Why should people have to abandon Christianity and the community of the Church and go off and start a new cult?

Since it is increasingly politically correct to accept homosexuality there is a concentrated effort to stamp out homophobia wherever it appears, so naturally there is an attempt to influence acceptance in Christianity. The reason there has been no effort of a divisive sect is twofold, 1. There is a substantial percentage of gays within the various sects, and 2. Anyone who is honest about what the guidelines of the Bible dictate, whether gay or not, are well aware of the obvious regulations against it.

If you are gay and you are going to form some sort of a spiritual or even secular movement it would be pointless, in fact almost counterproductive. People get hung up on sociopolitical agendas, much like the Christians with homosexuality and abortion and a small percentage of gay activists who want to make everyone think and act like they do.

The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a minor issue.

[David Henson]

As soon as the way others live start affecting the way I live my life, well, then I turn green, and you would not like me when I turn green.

Religions have effected the way we live, hence why am not in favour of them, but, for those who are religious and do not enforce it, fine....carry on, no problem with them, I am not going to spend my life holding grudges against people who have done nothing wrong but happen to follow the same religion as those who have.

YEAH!! You can't go wrong with a post if you are able to throw in a reference to the Incredible Hulk. I once played drums in a garage band who toyed with the possible name of the group being Lucifer Ferrigno. Of Course, my brother played bass and was a Mopar fanatic so I suggested the name Greasus Chrysler.

Both awesome names, I think.

Edited February 8, 2013 by David Henson

[David Henson]

The problem will never go away, even if Christians dropped that one sin...........Then if they did, how many more sins should they drop? Should they place their bible up for a public vote and ask people to pick out what suits and they will adjust? Lets face it, if they did drop homosexuality as sinful, more people will start pointing out how other sins are too daft to believe in ..There would be bugger all left of their bible if we all wanted Christians to take out the parts that we feel is wrong...

Exactly! That sums up this entire debate more than any post I have read in this thread, including my own.

Edited February 8, 2013 by David Henson

[+Paranoid Android]

The UK statues forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive or insulting towards individuals based on their race, sexuality or faith.

Rewriting the Bible into a pinker version is insulting towards me as it is no doubt to most other Christains.

"Insulting" is such a subjective word, though. For example, while I shake my head at how someone can mistranslate Romans 1 to somehow not be a comment against homosexuality, I (as a Christian) do not actually find it "insulting".

[Frank Merton]

I have to say reading some of the stuff some of the Christians have posted that I'm so glad I was raised a Buddhist. I don't really believe all of Buddhism, but at least I didn't have that Bible-born superstition about sex to deal with.

Buddhism tells us sex is one of many desires that can lead to suffering, but not that there is anything wrong with it in itself.

[Ultima Weapon]

Buddhism tells us sex is one of many desires that can lead to suffering, but not that there is anything wrong with it in itself.

The way I view sex is simply that it's worldly, not spiritual. I don't care if it's homosexual or heterosexual, to me there is no sexuality in heaven and therefore it's just another simple worldly thing that's just not all that important. It's similar to food and sleep in the sense that our physical bodies need it but our spiritual ones don't. Therefore do what you can to nurish those worldly 'handicaps' in a safe and healthy way that doesn't involve hurting others or yourself. Simple as that.

To me that's the general rule for all sexuality, homosexual or not. I don't have the typical hatred toward homosexuals most Christians have. If one truly can't help their homosexuality, then whatever makes you feel most healthy, go for it. Otherwise, no. Just stick to nature...

As far as this "gay bible", that's just in my opinion editing to justify your own beliefs. It's just not needed in my opinion.

Edited February 8, 2013 by AquilaChrysaetos

[David Henson]

I have to say reading some of the stuff some of the Christians have posted that I'm so glad I was raised a Buddhist. I don't really believe all of Buddhism, but at least I didn't have that Bible-born superstition about sex to deal with.

Buddhism tells us sex is one of many desires that can lead to suffering, but not that there is anything wrong with it in itself.

Just having briefly been accustomed to your thought dreams in between I see you fixed upon nothing.

[+Paranoid Android]

I have to say reading some of the stuff some of the Christians have posted that I'm so glad I was raised a Buddhist. I don't really believe all of Buddhism, but at least I didn't have that Bible-born superstition about sex to deal with.

Buddhism tells us sex is one of many desires that can lead to suffering, but not that there is anything wrong with it in itself.

Just so it's clear, I wasn't raised Christian. I chose this path when I was about 20 years old. And there is nothing wrong with sex. It's a beautiful thing. Within its proper context. Like a fire in the fireplace burning merrily is a beautiful thing in winter, but starting the fire in your living room floor will burn the house down with you and your family inside it. Edited February 8, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[freetoroam]

Just so it's clear, I wasn't raised Christian. I chose this path when I was about 20 years old. And there is nothing wrong with sex. It's a beautiful thing. Within its proper context. Like a fire in the fireplace burning merrily is a beautiful thing in winter, but starting the fire in your living room floor will burn the house down with you and your family inside it.

You are a christian, I am not religious, but your starting a fire bit is good, like I have said before, to me there is nothing wrong with being gay, but if they want to start a fire, do not do it on the middle of a church which does not want it, because they will only keep putting it out.

But as a non religious person, I do think that religions have started enough fires of their own in the past in other peoples sittingrooms.

Peace.

[Space Commander Travis]

Since it is increasingly politically correct to accept homosexuality there is a concentrated effort to stamp out homophobia wherever it appears, so naturally there is an attempt to influence acceptance in Christianity. The reason there has been no effort of a divisive sect is twofold, 1. There is a substantial percentage of gays within the various sects, and 2. Anyone who is honest about what the guidelines of the Bible dictate, whether gay or not, are well aware of the obvious regulations against it.

If you are gay and you are going to form some sort of a spiritual or even secular movement it would be pointless, in fact almost counterproductive. People get hung up on sociopolitical agendas, much like the Christians with homosexuality and abortion and a small percentage of gay activists who want to make everyone think and act like they do.

The Bible's stance on homosexuality isn't a minor issue.

You mean Leviticus? Why is that an obvious regulation applicable to Christians? Was any of Leviticus aimed at Christians? of course it wasn't, there were no Christians for about a thousand years after it was written.. Why is Leviticus accepted unquestioningly as obvious regulations applicable to Christians? Because it's in the Bible? Circular argument. Because Paul mentioned it in passing? Do his opinions trump those of Jesus, then? In fact, when he mentioned that subject (in passing), he wasn't even talking about anything to do with what Jesus said about anything, or his interpretation of what Jesus talked about. So why are these taken, unquesitoningly, as regulations in the Bible? Leviticus does not apply to Christians; Paul's opinions in this area were nothing to do with his opinions about Jesus. (It's a question in itself why Paul's opinions on everything under the sun have been given equal, if not greater, weight that anything in the Gospels.)

I'm afraid The Bible's stance on homosexuality is a minor issue, since it was only mentioned in passing a couple of times, and Jesus, him who keeps being forgotten whenever "Christians" talk about the teachings of the Bible, said nothing about it at all. Should Christianity not primarily and overwhelmingly be about the views and teachings of Jesus? Not Paul or the ancient writers of the law for the Jewish people?

[Frank Merton]

Just having briefly been accustomed to your thought dreams in between I see you fixed upon nothing.

Is this supposed to be a put-down? It sure comes across that way.

[Space Commander Travis]

"Insulting" is such a subjective word, though. For example, while I shake my head at how someone can mistranslate Romans 1 to somehow not be a comment against homosexuality, I (as a Christian) do not actually find it "insulting".

But why does his opinion carry so much weight? was he talking about what Jesus said about it? He wasn't, because Jesus never did say anything. Why does Jesus get so little attention? Is Christiabity not (supposed to be) based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.? Of course, Paul should come under those other New Testament writings, but why does everything he said have equal or greater importance than anything Jesus said?

[hellig heilige]

You mean Leviticus? Why is that an obvious regulation applicable to Christians? Was any of Leviticus aimed at Christians? of course it wasn't, there were no Christians for about a thousand years after it was written.. Why is Leviticus accepted unquestioningly as obvious regulations applicable to Christians? Because it's in the Bible? Circular argument. Because Paul mentioned it in passing? Do his opinions trump those of Jesus, then? In fact, when he mentioned that subject (in passing), he wasn't even talking about anything to do with what Jesus said about anything, or his interpretation of what Jesus talked about. So why are these taken, unquesitoningly, as regulations in the Bible? Leviticus does not apply to Christians; Paul's opinions in this area were nothing to do with his opinions about Jesus. (It's a question in itself why Paul's opinions on everything under the sun have been given equal, if not greater, weight that anything in the Gospels.)

I'm afraid The Bible's stance on homosexuality is a minor issue, since it was only mentioned in passing a couple of times, and Jesus, him who keeps being forgotten whenever "Christians" talk about the teachings of the Bible, said nothing about it at all. Should Christianity not primarily and overwhelmingly be about the views and teachings of Jesus? Not Paul or the ancient writers of the law for the Jewish people?

It applies to Christians because Jesus Christ is the continuation of the OT ,but is Leviticus God's words or humans' agenda? Pork and shirmps are bad, and slavery is okay. It's a no brainer. I'm Christian because I follow Jesus Christ. I don't believe in Paul, a self appointed apostle. I'm amazed how the writings of Paul made it in the Bible. Jesus Christ never said anything negative about gays. We're both preaching to choir.

[Beckys_Mom]

Second you make that sound like it's a bad thing. It wouldn't be.

If we were to pick out the parts of the bible we didn't like, and left bugger all for Christians to follow, then we would be stripping Christians of their rights to follow their faith... Who is anyone to do that? We don't like it done to ourselves I cannot ever belong to Christianity, I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but there is no way in hell I will ever want to strip them from their beliefs all because I find a few things wrong... I am not that arrogant and self centred..

No, I didn't make a blunder.

You did when you mentioned terrorists, later to realize you would freeze up when facing one, so after realising that, you moved your goal posts..

Here i the quetion again: If someone (terrorist, mad man or average Joe is trying to kill someone, do you let them get on with it even if they have justification?

If it were a terrorist, I would like to, but I know the chances are, that terrorist would kill me for trying..

Mad man - likely the same thing.. Only hope I would have against him, is to be armed myself and take him out first..

Average Joe who lost his marbles, that one would be a lot easier..I likely wouldn't need to be armed, I would talk to him and see how we can sort it out There is a difference in these killers..Ones you don't go near, ones you would need back up and ones you can talk them down...

Ah but I've not let it fester.

What I mean is, when you read things you don't like, you do allow them to build up inside you, until one day you see an opportunity and you unleash what is built up.. Even if it means raising the same things you see mentioned by Christians, you will keep bringing them up and up and up..You wont let it go, it just builds up.. You prove that every time to battle people like PA..

I agree we post in our free time and yet I'm critised for it

I never criticize you for it, I did mention you spend time doing it and pointed out that we all do in our free time.. If you really felt strongly for a cause you would not allow anything to get in your way...It's the same if you have your heart set on building your own business.. You will go to all lengths to get what you need and you will stop at nothing..

Various ways, possibly similar to what I do

There are people who feel so strongly for a cause like - The starving children in Africa.. They will gather funds and what they need and fly over there to do what they can.. That is just one.. To them, I doubt they say, I can only do that if I lived in a city.. They would do it no matter where they lived..

Well as 'fun' as this is (and I use that term quite wrongly this'll likely be my last reply to you. Not because I'm 'letting you win' before you start, but because I'm going to be away for the weekend and so won't be back properly until Monday (and even then, I'm away for the better part of the day), at which time I doubt either of us will particularly want to keep this going. If you do, be my qest, but like I said, I won't be able to respond so don't be surprised whn I don't.

Oh I know you'll be back to continue, and it's not about winning, it's about getting your point across

Edited February 8, 2013 by Beckys_Mom

[+Paranoid Android]

But why does his opinion carry so much weight? was he talking about what Jesus said about it? He wasn't, because Jesus never did say anything. Why does Jesus get so little attention? Is Christiabity not (supposed to be) based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.? Of course, Paul should come under those other New Testament writings, but why does everything he said have equal or greater importance than anything Jesus said?

Paul was called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ (at least, this is what I believe). If what Paul says contradicts what Jesus said, then I agree that Jesus' words trump Paul. However, and despite occasional arguments to the contrary, I believe that Paul's teachings compliment Jesus' teachings rather than contradict. Taking into consideration that I believe Paul was chosen as one of Jesus' 12 apostles my conclusion therefore is that his writings are acceptable for teaching us what Jesus wants. Call it "faith", if you will. I wouldn't say that Paul's words are "greater" than Jesus', but his words are of a divine origin, just as Jesus' words are of divine origin (again, my view, based on faith).

[David Henson]

You mean Leviticus? Why is that an obvious regulation applicable to Christians? Was any of Leviticus aimed at Christians? of course it wasn't, there were no Christians for about a thousand years after it was written.. Why is Leviticus accepted unquestioningly as obvious regulations applicable to Christians? Because it's in the Bible? Circular argument. Because Paul mentioned it in passing? Do his opinions trump those of Jesus, then? In fact, when he mentioned that subject (in passing), he wasn't even talking about anything to do with what Jesus said about anything, or his interpretation of what Jesus talked about. So why are these taken, unquesitoningly, as regulations in the Bible? Leviticus does not apply to Christians; Paul's opinions in this area were nothing to do with his opinions about Jesus. (It's a question in itself why Paul's opinions on everything under the sun have been given equal, if not greater, weight that anything in the Gospels.)

I'm afraid The Bible's stance on homosexuality is a minor issue, since it was only mentioned in passing a couple of times, and Jesus, him who keeps being forgotten whenever "Christians" talk about the teachings of the Bible, said nothing about it at all. Should Christianity not primarily and overwhelmingly be about the views and teachings of Jesus? Not Paul or the ancient writers of the law for the Jewish people?

Jesus said God's word is true, John 17:17, and that includes Leviticus 18:22. Jesus warned against fornication, which is any unlawful sexual act, including homosexuality. (Mark 7:21-23 / Jude 1:7 / Revelation 2:14, 20)

[David Henson]

Is this supposed to be a put-down? It sure comes across that way.

Sorry about that, apparently I've pasted a mix of something I was writing elsewhere instead of what I had edited here. It must have been late, I didn't even realize I had posted it.

[hellig heilige]

Paul was called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ (at least, this is what I believe). If what Paul says contradicts what Jesus said, then I agree that Jesus' words trump Paul. However, and despite occasional arguments to the contrary, I believe that Paul's teachings compliment Jesus' teachings rather than contradict. Taking into consideration that I believe Paul was chosen as one of Jesus' 12 apostles my conclusion therefore is that his writings are acceptable for teaching us what Jesus wants. Call it "faith", if you will. I wouldn't say that Paul's words are "greater" than Jesus', but his words are of a divine origin, just as Jesus' words are of divine origin (again, my view, based on faith).

^{Galatians 3:13}

¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

Deuteronomy 21:23

http://biblethumping...-homosexuality/

Edited February 9, 2013 by euroninja

[hellig heilige]

Jesus said God's word is true, John 17:17, and that includes Leviticus 18:22.

Galatians 5:1

New International Version (NIV)

Freedom in Christ

5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

"Leviticus is the yoke of slavery!"

[hellig heilige]

Matthew 7:1

New International Version (NIV)

Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

[+Paranoid Android]

^{Galatians 3:13}

¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

Deuteronomy 21:23

http://biblethumping...-homosexuality/

I wasn't quoting Leviticus! I was quoting Romans 1! Edited February 9, 2013 by Paranoid Android