100meters:
You argue that homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible because the word was not inserted until 1946. Your illogical conclusion from this fact is that since the word “homosexual” was not mentioned then it must be an act that God is pleased with.
You are hung up on the actual word “homosexuality.” As I have already pointed out to you words change as times do. You disregard my example of calling a woman “hot.” In 2005 “hot” means one thing when some refer to a woman. It will probably not be noted as such 1000 years from now. However, it still meant that the woman was sexually attractive way back in 2005.
If I see two men fighting with each other and I describe them as punching and kicking each other violently did I still not describe a fight without stating the word “fight?”
You are the one twisting and turning and looking for loopholes so that you can rationalize and act that is clearly sin according to the Bible!
You also love to draw a line between a homosexual act and actually being homosexual. You stated: "All men from every part of the city…both young and old. “MEANS ALL MEN. These were all heterosexual men!” Do you honestly think that it matters if they were basically heterosexual men who wanted to commit a homosexual act, or, if there were 50% homosexual men and 50% heterosexual men, or, any combination thereof?
Furthermore, I see no provision in the Bible which makes an exemption for those who simply commit a homosexual act (because of a ritual etc), or those who are fully homosexuals. The “ACT” of homosexuality is wrong based upon the Bible. Typical of your ineffective argument is your rant regarding the word “know” as used in the Old Testament describing Lots plight in Genesis. You really, really want that word “know” to mean something like a greeting in this case. Yes “know” does have other meanings, so does the word “hot.” How do we know that the “hot” chic you want to meet is not simply very warm as in body temperature? Not that difficult, this ones a no brainer.
Let’s take a look at how it is used and in what context (without hidden homosexual agendas).
All (non-homosexual-social liberal) Bible scholars are aware that the term “know,” as used in Lots case is a term to have sex. "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we might “know” them.?
Now how do we know that they wanted to have sex with them? Perhaps they just wanted to shake their hands and give them a ?support Gay rights? button. No, that’s what the homosexual agenda might have you think, but as usual that’s not the case.
We know that the word “know” meant “to have sex” because in Genesis 19:8 Lot pleads with the men of the town not to have sex with the “strangers.”: “Behold now I have two daughters who have not “known” a man. Do to them as you would have done to these two men. Only leave these two men alone…” What do you suppose Lot was pleading for? What do you think he was begging the men of the town to do with his daughters, instead of the visiting strangers? Obviously, it was sexual relations! ?know? in this case absolutely means ?sexual relations.?
However, to drive the point home even further, in verse 7 Lot again pleads with the men: “Don’t do this wicked thing.” “Wicked” was used throughout the old and new testament, it means “morally bad.” (That’s when morals were universal, not like today.).
Honestly, this stuff is not difficult if you look at it without the pro homosexual slant.
Your explanation of Leviticus is just as ridiculous.
You are claiming that what God was upset about was the act of homosexuality committed during a ?pagan ritual.? I see, then if you take away the ritual, or “pagan act” there is no problem at all with homosexuality, right? That’s what you are claiming.
By your perverted (I like that word) logic then every act in Leviticus, if not done “as a pagan act” (your words) is perfectly alright, just like the homosexual act, right?
That means that Leviticus 18:23, (the verse right after the warning not to perform sexual acts with those of the same gender) is a perfectly good act to commit as long as it’s not done in a “pagan ritual.”:
Leviticus:
18:23-“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile your self with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is perversion.”
Either God was warning us not to have sex with animals (not just because of a pagan ritual) or he wasn’t. If he was warning us not to have sex with animals, then he was also warning us not to have sex with people of the same gender as it states in Leviticus 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” You can’t have it both ways 100meters. Which is it?
The following Romans 1:26, 27, 28 is the Greek text with the King James version below:
26dia touto paredwken autouV o qeoV eiV paqh atimiaV ai te gar qhleiai autwn methllaxan thn fusikhn crhsin eiV thn para fusin
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 omoiwV te kai oi arreneV afenteV thn fusikhn crhsin thV qhleiaV exekauqhsan en th orexei autwn eiV allhlouV arseneV en arsesin thn aschmosunhn katergazomenoi kai thn antimisqian hn edei thV planhV autwn en eautoiV apolambanonteV
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 kai kaqwV ouk edokimasan ton qeon ecein en epignwsei paredwken autouV o qeoV eiV adokimon noun poiein ta mh kaqhkonta
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 peplhrwmenouV pash adikia porneia ponhria pleonexia kakia mestouV fqonou fonou eridoV dolou kakohqeiaV yiquristaV
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Do you still want to claim that all of the above would be just fine in Gods eyes as long as it was not part of “Pauls rant” of “idol worship and it’s ritual.”
That means either by your definition “murder” is just fine if not associated with “idol worship and it’s ritual.” Either that or they are all wrong according to the Bible, including men having sex with other men as explicitly stated in Romans 1:27 (both Greek and King James versions). I don’t want to use the word “homosexual” because that was not yet invented. Oh…I guess it doesn’t matter what you call it huh? 
So, which is it? Is homosexuality a sin or not? If you say no based upon this then neither is murder or any other sin which is mentioned. Your choice!
For Corinthians, you stated:
?The scripture wasn’t written in english, and the scripture is what were going on here right? Let me repeat, there is no word, not one that is parallel to homosexual. Adding it in 1946 does not change that fact."
Again I will use the King James version with the Greek above for your own edification:
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 oute kleptai oute pleonektai oute mequsoi ou loidoroi ouc arpageV basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Seems your entire defense of homosexuality being accepted (and never attacked) in the Bible is that the actual word “homosexual” had not yet reached common usage. However, as I stated above, words fall in and out of vogue over hundreds of years, as the in the “hot” woman example.
In Biblical days there were many terms used to define having sex with one another, ?to lie with," “to know” etc. The Greek word “Malokoi” was used to describe any man who was “effeminate.”
Effeminate is a character trait of a male showing femininity, unmanliness, womanliness, weakness and delicacy. Basically anything that contradicts a traditional masculine role.
Now do you suppose that Paul is using that word to claim that anyone who talks with a lisp and wears pink will not inherit the kingdom of heaven? No…I don’t think so. 2000 years ago homosexuals were referred to as “effeminate” (Malokoi) among other things.
Even today there are a host of names and terms to describe homosexuals: Fag, queer, gay, limp wristed, butt pirates etc., none of them condoned by me, but nonetheless used by many. If one chooses to use any of the above is he still not intending to describe for you (in his own way) a homosexual?
9 h ouk oidate oti adikoi basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin mh planasqe oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moicoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 oute kleptai oute pleonektai oute mequsoi ou loidoroi ouc arpageV basileian qeou ou klhronomhsousin
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
While there are exactly zero scriptures condoning homosexuality in the Bible (but many condemning it), there are several scriptures in the old and new testament speaking to the sorts of relationships that the Bible views as acceptable:
Matthew 19:4-?In the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said ; For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one.? Just as in many other verses like the above there is no exception here for two men or two women, why do you think that is?
You can continue to condone homosexuality, or even participate in it as well, that is your right. However there is no justification for calling that act anything less than sinful based upon the Bible, which was (and still is) my original claim!
It’s very clear throughout various passages of the Bible that God takes a dim view of homosexuality (or whatever word you choose to call it). Only those blinded by their own lusts could possibly see it any other way.
You are right 100meters, as you stated ?God is not petty.? However, what you forget in your game playing with the scripture is this ?God will not be mocked!? Do you know where that scripture is located?
I?ll leave you with one more lest you think that when Jesus Christ came to earth he eliminated the need to avoid sin, and simply forgives those who continue to sin with no regard for repentence or the truth:
Galatians 5:13, - You my brothers were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature. Rather serve one another in love.?
That’s “love” not “lust.”