I accept the bible in its entirety….good and bad. You are the one that wants to selectively omit passages that you don’t agree with, or construe them in order to support whatever point it is you seem to think you’re making. Again, I say, No Sale, Wad!

And you obviously love to pick and choose what parts of the bible you follow. I guarantee you do not follow all the laws in leviticus. If you did, you’d be typing to me from jail.

LOL! You obviously had a lot of time on your hands to post all your blather….and to what end? You act as if there aren’t other places in the bible that do not approve of homosexuality. You must be a liberal. Libiots LOVE to twist, contort, even IGNORE words and reassemble them to come out looking like it supports their viewpoint. Sorry, Wad….No Sale!

The word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until 1892. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=homosexual&searchmode=none

Also King James Version doesn’t use that word anywhere. So if you are seeing that word in your bible, it is a modern rendition. It is also interesting to note that many different bible versions say something different about same sex intercourse and some don’t mention it at all in the quoted chapter and verse number (1 Corinthians 6:9).

Aplified Bible – “homosexuality”

common English Bible – “same-sex intercourse”

Contemporary English Version – “is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual”

Darby Translation – “nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,”

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition – Doesn’t mention that part at all!

Easy-To-Read Version – “men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men”

English Standard Version – “nor men who practice homosexuality”

English Standard Version Angilicised – “nor men who practise homosexuality”

Expanded Bible – “those who are ·male prostitutes [or passive homosexual partners], or ·men who have sexual relations with other men [or active homosexual partners]”

1599 Geneva Bible – “nor buggerers”

GOD’S WORD Translation – “homosexuals”

Good News Translation – “homosexual perverts”

Holman Christian Standard Bible – “anyone practicing homosexuality”

J.B. Phillips New Testament – “neither the effeminate”

Jubilee Bible 2000 – “nor effeminate nor homosexuals”

King James Version – “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”

Authorized (King James) Version – “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”

Lexham English Bible – “nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners”

Living Bible – “homosexuals”

The Message – “Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex”

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament – “nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals”

Names of God Bible – “homosexuals”

New American Standard Bible – “nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”

New Century Version – “those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men”

New English Translation – “passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals”

New International Reader’s Version – “Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.”

New International Version – “men who have sex with men”

New International Version UK – “men who have sex with men”

New King James Version – “homosexuals, nor sodomites”

New Life Version – “or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex”

New Living Translation – “male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality”

New Revised Standard Version – “male prostitutes, sodomites”

New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised – “male prostitutes, sodomites”

New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition – “male prostitutes, sodomites”

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition – “male prostitutes, sodomites”

Orthodox Jewish Bible – “nor effeminate call boys nor homosexuals”

Revised Standard Version – “nor sexual perverts”

Revised Stnadard Version Catholic Edition: “homosexuals”

The Voice – “sexual deviancy”

World English Bible – “male prostitutes, nor homosexuals”

Worldwide English – Doesn’t mention this at all.

Wycliffe Bible – “lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men”

Young’s Literal Translation – “effeminate, nor sodomites”

SOOOOO WHICH VERSION DO WE USE? WHICH ONE IS RIGHT? IS IT THE ONE THAT DOESN’T EVEN MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY IN THAT CHAPTER/VERSE (say like the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, or Worldwide English)???

I think there is enough question here in just a few quoted words that should make anyone have reasonable doubt to the benefits of reading the bible literally.

Good eye Jim. “Homosexual” does not appear ANYWHERE in the bible. If you are going to quote a bible as source of information, and if you are asked to back up your quotes; quoting word for word with book & chapter numbers is required. Otherwise, you are just stating your opinion. You know what they say about opinions… don’t you? …. Opinions are like….

A 2000 year old book? Talk about demeaning an entire group of people. Why don’t you just say that you don’t believe in Christianity or that you are an Atheist or believe in another religion? It would be less disrespectful than to call the Bible a “2000” year old book. And by the way, the Bible is less than 2000 years old so educate yourself before you speak about a subject.

He absolutely was quoting from the bible, Jim. He slipped up on a few words, but the message is the SAME. Defensive? You’re the one that began being defensive towards me, and now don’t like it that I refuse to back down. Go play your games with someone else, or act civilly and get treated that way in return.

So he WASN’T quoting directly from the Bible. He was paraphrasing. I didn’t look up the verse(s) in the Bible because I wasn’t the one claiming he was quoting from it. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, I knew darn well what the Bible said about homosexuality – I just wanted to see if you were just spouting-off or actually knew what you’re talking about.

You’re awfully defensive about this. Everyone is trying to have a civil conversation and you’re running around being confrontational to anyone with a view that doesn’t align with yours 100-percent.

Are you kidding me? He openly condemned an entire group of people because a 2000 year old book told him to. Replace gay with black and tell me what side of the fence you would be on then. And nowhere did I claim he wasn’t entitled to his beliefs… I don’t think he should be censored in any capacity… only that his employer shouldn’t be criticized for justifiably dismissing an employee. Go to your place of employment and stand on your desk and publicly criticize everyone in your office because of their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc… and see how long you keep a job… And there are far more self-righteous Christians in this country than there are gays… And next time you respond to a comment how about leave the straw man out…