Here's 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in the King James Version:
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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is part of a letter (epistle) authored by Paul (Saul of Tarsus) to the Corinthians. Paul is known as Saint Paul and the Apostle Paul. He was not one of the original disciples of Jesus but persecuted the first Christians and later converted to Christianity. He was originally a devout and highly trained Pharisaic Jew and an official citizen of Rome. After his conversion, he traveled extensively, for the age, spreading his understanding of the Gospel message.
There were differences between his early understanding and that of the remaining original 12. Judah (Judas), the one who betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin (non-Christian Jewish religious council headed by the Jewish High Priest), had already died and was replaced. The major issue at the time was so important to Paul that it ended up being the sole topic of the first meeting of the early Church that could rightly be described in historical terms as the First Christian Council. The subject was circumcision and whether Gentile converts to Jesus should be allowed to join the Church without undergoing circumcision. The decision of the council headed by James, the immediate biological brother of Jesus and head of the Church in Jerusalem where the meeting took place, was to allow Gentiles to join without undergoing circumcision. Other restrictions remained, however, but didn't present nearly the obstacle that circumcision would have presented going forward. Much of our understanding about Paul's view concerning ritualistic "law" is derived from the debate and outcome.
What you will be wise to notice though is the absence of any similar council concerning another point of Mosaic Law and that concerns the prohibition on homosexuality. No where in the history of the early Church was the idea of allowing homosexuals to practice homosexuality while being allowed to join the Church or remain in it. It just was not even debatable. Paul never advocated for it in any sense and neither did any other early Church leader.
Anyone claiming the opposite is stupid, a liar, ignorant about it, or any combination thereof — no exceptions. Anyone professing Christianity who coddles rather than firmly rebukes those people is doing Jesus a disfavor. Remember, Jesus cleaned the temple with whip in hand as a sign of things to come, which did come and will come. Also be aware that he referred to the Pharisees as serpents. He did so to their faces. He was mild when appropriate but strict and stern when appropriate. Anyone who wants to be an authentic Christian needs to be Christlike and not molly coddle the unrepentant but tell them the truth and then treat them as the heathens they choose to be and remain.
There were always issues coming up. There were many councils over the years, but it is a very recent phenomenon that the idea of glorifying or celebrating homosexuality in the Church, the way it was handled in ancient cults and pagan temples, has even come up.
Relatively recently, homosexuals have spread certain falsehoods concerning 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and other passages in their insidious attempt to turn people's minds to the totally unsupported claim that Paul and those receiving his letters and following him as his disciples were only opposed to homosexuality used in idolatrous worship.
As I've written before, as original with me (could also have occurred to others independently) and which has caught on some and should continue to do so, a clear reading of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 indicates the following:
Paul used the term idolaters. If he were referring solely to homosexual idolatry, it certainly would have been ridiculously redundant to have said homosexual by way of the description "abusers of themselves with mankind." If all idolatry is condemned, then listing off subsets of it would be a waste of breath. Secondly and more tellingly, he listed idolaters but also adulterers. If the homosexuals are correct that the reference to homosexuality pertains solely to idol worship, then we have to conclude that the reference to adultery also pertains only to idol worship. Clearly, that would be nonsense. The same pattern may be applied to every term in the two verses.
What the homosexuals are doing and doing very poorly is stretching context into utter nonsense, selectively contextualizing, and deliberately distorting in order to mislead. They go to wild lengths to do that and always completely ignoring everything that proves them completely wrong. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is only the tip of the iceberg, and I haven't even gotten into their distortion of the Greek term in 1 Corinthians 6:9 itself yet.
Î±Ì“ÏÏƒÎµÎ½Î¿ÎºÎ¿Î¹ÌÏ„Î·Ï‚ If that doesn't show up right for you because your computer doesn't have the right Greek font, the word transliterated is arsenokoiteÌ„s. It is interpreted as "abusers of themselves with mankind," which was always clearly understood to mean homosexuals. Homosexual itself is of recent coinage relative to the whole of time since before Jesus was crucified by the unrepentant sinners. That's one of the reasons it doesn't show up as one word (homosexual) in Jesus's words and not because he didn't condemn it. He did, just in other words and by association and logic.
You can see Paul use arsenokoiteÌ„s (possibly coined by Paul; we don't know is my understanding — nothing wrong with coining words regardless) again here where idolatry, per se, is not there for the homosexuals to twist the context from homosexuality itself absent idolatry to only condemned as part of idol worship:
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1:9-10)
The first part of the term arsenokoiteÌ„s means male(s). The second part comes from koiteÌ„ (couch; bed) and in context means sexual intercourse (go to bed with; sleep with; lay). We get our modern term coitus from it. Together, it means males preforming anal sex on males (per the homosexuals, later synonymous with "Sodomites," wanting to gang rape the angels (have anal sex with them) who were in Lot's house in the city of Sodom and which angels had appeared to the Sodomites as men). It's clear that it was prohibited in Mosaic Law ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22), and the prohibition continued and was never limited to idol worship, although it certainly occurs under a false god.
Remember, there was no council held on the subject of homosexuality, contrary to the one held concerning circumcision that was also part of the Mosaic law. The New Testament changed things. It did not change everything. It enhanced our understanding of what is and is not acceptable in the sight of God. It did not open the doors to homosex in God's Temple in any sense of the term Temple.
Where homosex is, God is not except to save from homosex for those who will receive salvation, turn, repent, atone, and all the rest of the good. That's it for now, and it should be enough for most. Unfortunately though, very many have been deeply brainwashed by wickedness for wickedness.
Lastly, if you reject Paul's teachings but still insist that homosexuality is acceptable in authentic Christianity, you still have to deal with Jesus's express teachings on marriage and sexual relations, which teachings also do not lend any support whatsoever to homosexuality, quite the contrary.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)