Let's take each lie sentence by sentence:


That is a blatant lie. Not only are there no reliable reports that this was practiced by the Hebrews, but the line in Leviticus 18:22 is clearly not a reference to rape. Instances of rape are set off by the verb laqah, which means "to seize". Consensual sex is identified by the verb shakav, which means "to sleep". The exact wording of Leviticus 18:22 is as follows: v'et-zakar lo tishkav mishkevei ishah to'evah hi, which translates literally "and do not sleep with a man as (one) sleeps with a woman this is an abomination".


Another lie. Not only does Paul not say that (you're misquoting Leviticus from the Old Testament), but he is far clearer in what he does actually say. Your conjecture that he is talking about "the Greek tradition of wealthy men buying slaveboys to dominate" (which was really a common tradition in the ancient world, and which was augmented by the institution of pederasty, which did not involve slaves, as well as equal-age homosexual acts, since most Romans and Greeks were bisexual) is completely unsupported both by background and by the text itself. Paul says:

?????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ??????????? ?????????????? ??? ??? ??????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ??????????????.

And in this way the men, forsaking natural relations, in their desire burned in lust one for each other, men performed indecencies upon men and received upon themselves the penalty for this delusion of theirs.

The text is clear that it is men with other men, not men with boys. They burned in their lust for ONE ANOTHER. This is a RECIPROCAL verb used with every single mark of reciprocity possible. It says specifically ??????? ?? ???????, which literally translates as "men into men". The word used is that of a full-grown man, not a child.



I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that this was the only truthful sentence you wrote, but actually, the sad part is that the Old Testament is very lenient on rape, as opposed to male homosexuals. The penalty for having sex with another man is death by stoning (Leviticus 20:13), whereas rape can lead to a variety of outcomes, one of which being forcing the rapist to marry his victim and pay money to her father (Deuteronomy 22:28). Rape can in some cases lead to death by stoning, but not in all cases. Homosexual sex in all cases leads to death by stoning.



This has just been proven to be a lie. As for lesbian sex, continue reading Paul's statement in Romans, chapter 1.



So what? You seem to have a very poor understanding of the nature of faith and salvation if that's your attitude. The forgiveness of sins by Christ is founded on the penitence of the sinner. Jesus said to the adulteress, "Go, and sin no more", not "Go, and keep doing what you've been doing". While every human is a sinner in Christian doctrine, there is a difference between sinning and asking for forgiveness, and trying not to sin again, and being comfortable with sin and professing it to not be a sin. That is pretty much the standard definition of an unrepentant sinner no matter what denomination you belong to. If the priest is a homosexual who tries to refrain from acting on his urges, then he's no different than the priest who struggles with any other sin. It's when he claims that what he's doing is okay that he has crossed a line, and a very clear one at that.