Certain people on the right have said, "If gays were allowed to be married, it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. It would bring down the integrity of the entire institution and destroy the fabric of our society." I personally think that sounds a little extreme. I for one don't give gay people that much credit where I think they have the power to destroy society. Sorry gay people. But the fact still remains that this is a very common way of thinking among conservatives. Sure, straight people can get divorced, throw their vows out the window, and treat their marriage license like toilet paper, but god forbid two penises touch each other!
I don't mean to make a joke about this. In fact, this is a very serious matter that needs to be dealt with as such. Let's look at a couple of things. One, the constitution: this a document created to give rights. The most important aspect of the constitution is in its telling of what we may do. It is not a list of "thou shall nots". The worst thing you can do is turning it into something that says what we can't or shall not do. The fact that it is even a Political issue at all is insulting to the very nature on which this country was founded. Those that wish to amend the constitution in order to restrict peoples' rights are down right un-American and are no better than Nazis.
It is a common misconception that the founding fathers were Christians. This simply isn't true. They were deists. They believed in the enlightenment and it is from here that we get the values that were placed in the constitution and the declaration of independents. There is a commonly known fact among Revolutionary scholars that the most import line in the declaration of independents, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," was originally written "We hold these truths to be sacred, that all men are created equal." Ben Franklin, with his quill, immediately scratched out the word sacred and wrote self-evident. He knew that to mix together church and state would be social suicide. This is showing true today. The constitution clearly says, "All men are created equal." Therefore, all men are entitled to the same rights. Marriage is one of those rights. And if you notice it says, "endowed by their Creator." A term commonly used by deists when referring to what they understand to be God.
I think that it is unconstitutional for the government to get involved in such matters. I don't even think it should be left up to the state. It is my belief that the churches should be allowed to decide, if they find within the walls of their particular religion, that gays should be joined in matrimony. This is a religious issue and therefore has no place on the floor of the senate or the congress. Also, according to the constitution, if the government recognizes the religion and the religion recognizes the marriage, the government has to recognize the marriage as well. That's if you believe in the constitution.
And lastly, there is the issue of gay marriages destroying the sanctity of marriage. I think this idea is backwards. The struggle, the pain, the persecution that gay people are willing to go through shows just how sacred and important marriage is. These can only strengthen the sanctity of marriage. To the average American, marriage is a waist of time and money which is why 50% of all married couples in this country get divorced. But that means that 50% of married couples stay together. I used to think in the negative frame of mind. But it is the struggle of the gay community, the fact that they find it so important that they will risk everything for it, has renewed by faith in marriage and in love. My question to the conservatives of the world is why doesn't this inspire you? What is it about this issue that fills you with such rage? Why are you so against these people being in love and wanting to express it just like you? What makes them different? Lastly, what makes this issue so much more important than all the other issues that many of you will base your vote for the presidency on it?
I turn the floor over to you.
-Rev. Richard Ribuffo
Full Version: Spiritual Reflections: Thoughts on gay marriage.
Always a controversy when the subject turns to gay marriages... I say if they are willing to jump the hoops proposed then let them, same as any straight couple.
I think that a lot of people automatically presume that because a person is gay they must be some kind of deviant, well it’s not any truer than to say just because so-and-so down the street is a child molester all of the neighbors must be too! As individuals we know better, but for some reason when you get a clump of people together who might be inclined to follow someone else’s train of thought they do just that. And to top that off, a lot of times, the first person to cast the stone doesn’t even really believe that the reason is valid; they just want to be socially accepted. What a great reason to condemn your brother or sister...
Love and Light to you.
Rev. Messenger
I think that a lot of people automatically presume that because a person is gay they must be some kind of deviant, well it’s not any truer than to say just because so-and-so down the street is a child molester all of the neighbors must be too! As individuals we know better, but for some reason when you get a clump of people together who might be inclined to follow someone else’s train of thought they do just that. And to top that off, a lot of times, the first person to cast the stone doesn’t even really believe that the reason is valid; they just want to be socially accepted. What a great reason to condemn your brother or sister...
Love and Light to you.
Rev. Messenger
Thank you for your words. Yeah, it's called "Lynch Mob Mentality". Incapable of original thoughts of their own, they choose to follow rather than lead...God's Peace...To`na Wanagi
It's a learned behavior, a generational curse.
Read Romans 1: 18-32
"For it is better to have not known than to have known and done nothing"
"Resist the devil and he will flee"
Many blessings upon all who read and understand God's word
MinisterKLR
Read Romans 1: 18-32
"For it is better to have not known than to have known and done nothing"
"Resist the devil and he will flee"
Many blessings upon all who read and understand God's word
MinisterKLR
Having many friends and family members who are gay/lesbian; and having done some non-scientific - scientific research on this; it is my true belief that we are all a part of a larger picture; one which we may not all understand at all times, but will be clear to us someday. Who are we to judge what a "Higher Power" has in store for us? All I know; in agreement with the founding fathers; all men (and women) are created equal; and equality for all means equality in all aspects of life. Who am I or any other "mere mortal" to judge the quality or the life of someone else?
All men and women - created equal; entitled to love whoever they fall in love with.
Blessings; love and light to all
Rev. Elkins
All men and women - created equal; entitled to love whoever they fall in love with.
Blessings; love and light to all
Rev. Elkins
If the genetics of the human species were altered to virtually eliminate the occurrence of homosexuals what price would we pay as a species? Would rape, for example, be endemic? Those who want to "pray the gay away" should be careful. The worst thing that could happen might be to get what they want!
Normally I stay away from threads like this one, but I am going to throw my two cents in.
Now you ask what does it matter if we allow gay marriages. Are any of you reading your Bibles?
Someone asked who are we mere mortal to judge. it is not judgment when you have it written that it is wrong. Marriage is a bond sanctified by God. If gays want to have all the rights of a straight couple then let them have a civil union.
That way they can have all the tax breaks and legal rights..
God Bless
Jake
Now you ask what does it matter if we allow gay marriages. Are any of you reading your Bibles?
Someone asked who are we mere mortal to judge. it is not judgment when you have it written that it is wrong. Marriage is a bond sanctified by God. If gays want to have all the rights of a straight couple then let them have a civil union.
That way they can have all the tax breaks and legal rights..
God Bless
Jake
("Jake77":1c7ltnte)
Are any of you reading your Bibles? Someone asked who are we mere mortal to judge. it is not judgment when you have it written that it is wrong. Marriage is a bond sanctified by God.
I have read it. Have you? Remember, no one follows Leviticus any more - we'd all have to be stoned to death if we did. And as for "Marriage is a bond sanctified by God", remember that a biblical marriage consists of one man, one or more wives, zero or more concubines and as many sexual slaves of either sex and any age, in any combination as long as he could afford them all. The current form of marriage referred to has only been in effect for about 200 years, and the church was not involved for many centuries.I was opposed to the term "gay marriage" until Britne.y Spear.s and her 55 hour marriage. Considering many gay couples have been together for as many years that was it for me. Let it be - it's a fair trade off for allowing divorce -- which doesn't seem to bother the evangelical reactionaries since they are involved so very often.
I have read it. Have you? Remember, no one follows Leviticus any more - we'd all have to be stoned to death if we did. And as for "Marriage is a bond sanctified by God", remember that a biblical marriage consists of one man, one or more wives, zero or more concubines and as many sexual slaves of either sex and any age, in any combination as long as he could afford them all. The current form of marriage referred to has only been in effect for about 200 years, and the church was not involved for many centuries.
Could you possibly give me a verse that you may be referring to? According to my Bible marriage is only covered in Genesis 2:18-25, Matthew 19:1-12, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1Peter 3:1-7, and 1Corinthians 7. Leviticus is not..
The sexual depravity and violence was the reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed.
You must forgive me because I have not read much in the old testament. I read my Bible but I have not read it all. I only know that what I have read refers to only one man and one woman..
God Bless!!
Jake
Could you possibly give me a verse that you may be referring to? According to my Bible marriage is only covered in Genesis 2:18-25, Matthew 19:1-12, Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1Peter 3:1-7, and 1Corinthians 7. Leviticus is not..
The sexual depravity and violence was the reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed.
You must forgive me because I have not read much in the old testament. I read my Bible but I have not read it all. I only know that what I have read refers to only one man and one woman..
God Bless!!
Jake
Oh dear. My reference to Leviticus is because that is where the proscriptions against gay sex are usually cherry picked from. The same people ignore all of the other rules in that tedious book - and don't actually know what Leviticus says about homosexuality.
Overview of Leviticus 18:22
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general.
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman."
This particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes. The original text stated that the act of a 'man lying with a man' is 'toevah'. Toevah does not mean 'abomination'. It does not even mean 'sin' or 'unlawful'. It means 'untraditional/against tradition/unclean' that is, it was against tradition for Jewish men to have homosexual sex. The same term applies to having s.e.x with a menstruating woman.
Not a sin, just an odd behavior (toeyvah) needing ritual cleansing. You'll also note there is no mention of women - there is nothing in the bible about lesbians. And no one understands that passage anyway.
And see Luke 7:1-10; the "centurion's servant (pais), whom his master valued highly" is impliedly his homosexual partner (catamite - boy). So if Jesus would cure him . . . . ?
As for all the people who have to be stoned according to Leviticus, unless every stitch you wear every day is all linen, or all wool, you get stoned. Any mixing at all is a death penalty offence under Leviticus. That would wipe out everyone in every super church!
As for biblical marriage, the description I gave was typical of the times. Certainly there were comments recommending a one man - one woman pairing, however they may represent jealousy on the part of those who couldn't afford more sexual partners.
Finally, the 'sin' of Sodom and Gomorrah was not sex, it was inhospitality - to the Jews. There is little evidence for these cities or the cause of their fall - the current view is that they may have been destroyed by an earthquake, a natural event.
Overview of Leviticus 18:22
This is a passage from the Mosaic Code that is often used to condemn homosexual behavior in general.
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman."
This particular text was changed during the translation of the King James scribes. The original text stated that the act of a 'man lying with a man' is 'toevah'. Toevah does not mean 'abomination'. It does not even mean 'sin' or 'unlawful'. It means 'untraditional/against tradition/unclean' that is, it was against tradition for Jewish men to have homosexual sex. The same term applies to having s.e.x with a menstruating woman.
Not a sin, just an odd behavior (toeyvah) needing ritual cleansing. You'll also note there is no mention of women - there is nothing in the bible about lesbians. And no one understands that passage anyway.
And see Luke 7:1-10; the "centurion's servant (pais), whom his master valued highly" is impliedly his homosexual partner (catamite - boy). So if Jesus would cure him . . . . ?
As for all the people who have to be stoned according to Leviticus, unless every stitch you wear every day is all linen, or all wool, you get stoned. Any mixing at all is a death penalty offence under Leviticus. That would wipe out everyone in every super church!
As for biblical marriage, the description I gave was typical of the times. Certainly there were comments recommending a one man - one woman pairing, however they may represent jealousy on the part of those who couldn't afford more sexual partners.
Finally, the 'sin' of Sodom and Gomorrah was not sex, it was inhospitality - to the Jews. There is little evidence for these cities or the cause of their fall - the current view is that they may have been destroyed by an earthquake, a natural event.
I guess this is something that we are just going to need to agree to disagree on...
I wish I could read Hebrew..Maybe that will be my next life lesson.
Thank you for the intelligent discussion on the subject though. It's hard to find someone to talk about these things without taking it personal...
God Bless!
Jake
I wish I could read Hebrew..Maybe that will be my next life lesson.
Thank you for the intelligent discussion on the subject though. It's hard to find someone to talk about these things without taking it personal...
God Bless!
Jake
If I may throw my two cents in on the gay marriage debate....
I believe the term marriage is undebateably a religious word. It is the founding principal of this church that each is entitled to his own religious belief, this principal is also present in our nation's constitution. Personally, I find homosexuality immorale (stress on personally please), certainly I can find biblical refernce, however one can also find biblical reference to support many unpopular ideas (such as perhaps the feminist movement being worng, or slavery being ok). Ultimately I believe the idea of gay marriage is strictly a question of morales and the beliefe of a church...I do not believe the government should have a say. I do however believe that all couples who have dedicated thier lives to each other should share the same benifits (insurance, taxes, etc). Therefore I prefer the law which the state of Vermont inacted, allowing for civil unions. To the couple, they can say they are married, to the state they simply enjoy all legal benifits of a married couple. The state knows that it has no place in defining religious terms such as mariage.
Truely this is a very sensitive subject in today's society, and it is one that people as a whole will never agree on. I do not believe we will ever agree on homosexuality being moraly acceptible or not, and therefore we, as a society will probably never agree on the subject of gay marriage, and I agree with Jake77 on this note...agree to disagree.
God's peace to all who welcome Him,
William
I believe the term marriage is undebateably a religious word. It is the founding principal of this church that each is entitled to his own religious belief, this principal is also present in our nation's constitution. Personally, I find homosexuality immorale (stress on personally please), certainly I can find biblical refernce, however one can also find biblical reference to support many unpopular ideas (such as perhaps the feminist movement being worng, or slavery being ok). Ultimately I believe the idea of gay marriage is strictly a question of morales and the beliefe of a church...I do not believe the government should have a say. I do however believe that all couples who have dedicated thier lives to each other should share the same benifits (insurance, taxes, etc). Therefore I prefer the law which the state of Vermont inacted, allowing for civil unions. To the couple, they can say they are married, to the state they simply enjoy all legal benifits of a married couple. The state knows that it has no place in defining religious terms such as mariage.
Truely this is a very sensitive subject in today's society, and it is one that people as a whole will never agree on. I do not believe we will ever agree on homosexuality being moraly acceptible or not, and therefore we, as a society will probably never agree on the subject of gay marriage, and I agree with Jake77 on this note...agree to disagree.
God's peace to all who welcome Him,
William
[quote="Jake77"]Normally I stay away from threads like this one, but I am going to throw my two cents in.
Now you ask what does it matter if we allow gay marriages. Are any of you reading your Bibles?
response: Yes and many other texts and philosophies/theologies written by man
Someone asked who are we mere mortal to judge.
response: We are mere mortals who judge because we have to blame someone else for all the wrongs we have done and left undone.
Jake wrote: "it is not judgment when you have it written that it is wrong. Marriage is a bond sanctified by God. If gays want to have all the rights of a straight couple then let them have a civil union."
Response: Marriage, in America, is a civil act that requires a legal license from a governmental body. The religious marriage is no more than a ceremony asking the blessing from your particular faith/religion. Oftentimes these marriages are only an act of self-righteousness, that is, seeking God to sanctify s e x-before-marriage that may, or may not, result in pregnancy. These marriages very frequently end in dissolution. And in fact, nearly 52% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and about the same in gay/lesbian relationship breakups.
That way they can have all the tax breaks and legal rights..
Response; That is a great assumption on your part. I am with the woman I love, now 8 years, because I love her. We have a wonderful and equal relationship that does not require legality, approval from society, sanctification from a religious organization, or any other entity. We are together because we share our lives and spirits together, in unity, love, charity, and respect. These things are a natural way of life and are not in opposition to the God of our understanding. We do not seek "tax breaks" and we do have the same "legal rights", if one takes the time to do these legal things(according to man's law) correctly. As for our rights as free citizens, we don't allow any person to deprive us of those. And as for being Children of God, well....that is a given! And a blessing!
God Bless you too!.....To`na Wanagi
Now you ask what does it matter if we allow gay marriages. Are any of you reading your Bibles?
response: Yes and many other texts and philosophies/theologies written by man
Someone asked who are we mere mortal to judge.
response: We are mere mortals who judge because we have to blame someone else for all the wrongs we have done and left undone.
Jake wrote: "it is not judgment when you have it written that it is wrong. Marriage is a bond sanctified by God. If gays want to have all the rights of a straight couple then let them have a civil union."
Response: Marriage, in America, is a civil act that requires a legal license from a governmental body. The religious marriage is no more than a ceremony asking the blessing from your particular faith/religion. Oftentimes these marriages are only an act of self-righteousness, that is, seeking God to sanctify s e x-before-marriage that may, or may not, result in pregnancy. These marriages very frequently end in dissolution. And in fact, nearly 52% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and about the same in gay/lesbian relationship breakups.
That way they can have all the tax breaks and legal rights..
Response; That is a great assumption on your part. I am with the woman I love, now 8 years, because I love her. We have a wonderful and equal relationship that does not require legality, approval from society, sanctification from a religious organization, or any other entity. We are together because we share our lives and spirits together, in unity, love, charity, and respect. These things are a natural way of life and are not in opposition to the God of our understanding. We do not seek "tax breaks" and we do have the same "legal rights", if one takes the time to do these legal things(according to man's law) correctly. As for our rights as free citizens, we don't allow any person to deprive us of those. And as for being Children of God, well....that is a given! And a blessing!
God Bless you too!.....To`na Wanagi
I prefer the approach taken by New Zealand. There, the government registers civil unions for two persons of either sex. If you want to be 'married', that is done by a 'church' of your preferred sect or faith. The government is not involved. It seems simpler.
response: Yes and many other texts and philosophies/theologies written by man
I am assuming that you are not of the Christian faith. If I had to guess you are shamanistic, Wiccan or naturalistic. You see i use to think the same way when I followed the Wiccan faith. I too did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired. That the Roman Catholic Church had some big conspiracy to use the Bible in order to control the masses who at the time could not read enough to speak out against the lies.
The following facts are why I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. It was:
* Written over a 1,500 year span
* Written by over 40 authors from just about every walk of life - kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, poets, tax collectors, musicians, statesmen, scholars, shepherds and even fishermen.
* Written on three separate continents - Asia, Africa and Europe.
* Written in three languages - Hebrew, Aramic and Greek.
* Written in a wide variety of literature styles - historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, song, romance, law, biography, autobiography, satire, parable, allegory and even personal correspondence.
* Addresses hundreds of controversial subjects and yet presents a single unfolding story - God’s redemption of humanity.
* Despite having 66 books and hundreds of hundreds of verses, its one central character is the one true God represented through Jesus Christ.
* More copies of the Bible have been circulated than any other book in history.
* The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other piece of literature ever - over 2,200 languages at this present time.
* Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.
* The Bible is the only book to contain hundreds of prophecies, some written hundreds of years in advance, that have been literally fulfilled. You do not see this in other books that claim “divine” inspiration including The Book of Mormon and the Koran.
Now I have read this info from a different source but I found a copy of it from this website: http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/08/n ... the-bible/
response: We are mere mortals who judge because we have to blame someone else for all the wrongs we have done and left undone.
Wow what a bleak view of humanity. I am sorry for who or whatever turned your view to this. I for one do not view telling someone that they are committing a sin as being judgmental.
The reason being that most people do not move beyond the scripture of Matthew 7:1 which states "Judge not least ye be judged. if they continued on through to verse 5 they would know the whole truth.
We are not suppose to judge others to a higher mark then we judge ourselves.
So if I tell you that homosexuality is immoral and then went and had sex with another man then I would be a hypocrite. Since I am not then I am not judging anyone to a higher standard then I set for myself.
"We do not seek "tax breaks" and we do have the same "legal rights", if one takes the time to do these legal things(according to man's law) correctly."
In your relationship you may not be seeking these tax breaks and such but that is from what I am understanding what a lot of other gay and lesbian couples are seeking. They want to have the same rights the straight couples have.
Now my question is if we give gay couples the same rights because in this country everyone is equal, then shouldn't we also allow polygamists, necrophiliacs, and those who preform beastiality the right to marry whomever they chose?
It's not about equal rights in this country...It is about what society as a whole deems is acceptable. Gay marriage as looked upon by Christianity as being wrong according to the word of God, but society today has lost all contact with God. Leaving Christians with the label of hatemongers and homophobes because we state what we believe to be the truth.
I for one do not fear nor hate gays/lesbian couples. I love them as God loves us all. I only hate the sin and pray for them.
They have proven that homosexuality is not a matter of genetics. It's not natural because some animals in nature will have sex with the same sex. Animals do not know gender only that it feels good.
God Bless You All!
Jake
I am assuming that you are not of the Christian faith. If I had to guess you are shamanistic, Wiccan or naturalistic. You see i use to think the same way when I followed the Wiccan faith. I too did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired. That the Roman Catholic Church had some big conspiracy to use the Bible in order to control the masses who at the time could not read enough to speak out against the lies.
The following facts are why I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. It was:
* Written over a 1,500 year span
* Written by over 40 authors from just about every walk of life - kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, poets, tax collectors, musicians, statesmen, scholars, shepherds and even fishermen.
* Written on three separate continents - Asia, Africa and Europe.
* Written in three languages - Hebrew, Aramic and Greek.
* Written in a wide variety of literature styles - historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, song, romance, law, biography, autobiography, satire, parable, allegory and even personal correspondence.
* Addresses hundreds of controversial subjects and yet presents a single unfolding story - God’s redemption of humanity.
* Despite having 66 books and hundreds of hundreds of verses, its one central character is the one true God represented through Jesus Christ.
* More copies of the Bible have been circulated than any other book in history.
* The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other piece of literature ever - over 2,200 languages at this present time.
* Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.
* The Bible is the only book to contain hundreds of prophecies, some written hundreds of years in advance, that have been literally fulfilled. You do not see this in other books that claim “divine” inspiration including The Book of Mormon and the Koran.
Now I have read this info from a different source but I found a copy of it from this website: http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/08/n ... the-bible/
response: We are mere mortals who judge because we have to blame someone else for all the wrongs we have done and left undone.
Wow what a bleak view of humanity. I am sorry for who or whatever turned your view to this. I for one do not view telling someone that they are committing a sin as being judgmental.
The reason being that most people do not move beyond the scripture of Matthew 7:1 which states "Judge not least ye be judged. if they continued on through to verse 5 they would know the whole truth.
We are not suppose to judge others to a higher mark then we judge ourselves.
So if I tell you that homosexuality is immoral and then went and had sex with another man then I would be a hypocrite. Since I am not then I am not judging anyone to a higher standard then I set for myself.
"We do not seek "tax breaks" and we do have the same "legal rights", if one takes the time to do these legal things(according to man's law) correctly."
In your relationship you may not be seeking these tax breaks and such but that is from what I am understanding what a lot of other gay and lesbian couples are seeking. They want to have the same rights the straight couples have.
Now my question is if we give gay couples the same rights because in this country everyone is equal, then shouldn't we also allow polygamists, necrophiliacs, and those who preform beastiality the right to marry whomever they chose?
It's not about equal rights in this country...It is about what society as a whole deems is acceptable. Gay marriage as looked upon by Christianity as being wrong according to the word of God, but society today has lost all contact with God. Leaving Christians with the label of hatemongers and homophobes because we state what we believe to be the truth.
I for one do not fear nor hate gays/lesbian couples. I love them as God loves us all. I only hate the sin and pray for them.
They have proven that homosexuality is not a matter of genetics. It's not natural because some animals in nature will have sex with the same sex. Animals do not know gender only that it feels good.
God Bless You All!
Jake
("Jake77":1nidwc4y)
response: Yes and many other texts and philosophies/theologies written by man
I am assuming that you are not of the Christian faith. If I had to guess you are shamanistic, Wiccan or naturalistic. You see i use to think the same way when I followed the Wiccan faith. I too did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired. That the Roman Catholic Church had some big conspiracy to use the Bible in order to control the masses who at the time could not read enough to speak out against the lies.
Response: If you have been on this site for long, you would know my background and that you are wrong.
The following facts are why I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. It was:
* Written over a 1,500 year span
* Written by over 40 authors from just about every walk of life - kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, poets, tax collectors, musicians, statesmen, scholars, shepherds and even fishermen.
* Written on three separate continents - Asia, Africa and Europe.
* Written in three languages - Hebrew, Aramic and Greek.
* Written in a wide variety of literature styles - historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, song, romance, law, biography, autobiography, satire, parable, allegory and even personal correspondence.
* Addresses hundreds of controversial subjects and yet presents a single unfolding story - God’s redemption of humanity.
* Despite having 66 books and hundreds of hundreds of verses, its one central character is the one true God represented through Jesus Christ.
* More copies of the Bible have been circulated than any other book in history.
* The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other piece of literature ever - over 2,200 languages at this present time.
* Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.
* The Bible is the only book to contain hundreds of prophecies, some written hundreds of years in advance, that have been literally fulfilled. You do not see this in other books that claim “divine” inspiration including The Book of Mormon and the Koran.
Now I have read this info from a different source but I found a copy of it from this website: http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/08/n ... the-bible/
Response: What you have cited are interpretations as perceived by mankind. Do we know for certain the true motives of these writers? No. No more than we can know the heart of any other of this species. If this were not so, Levitical law would be the rule of the day in this country.
response: We are mere mortals who judge because we have to blame someone else for all the wrongs we have done and left undone.
Wow what a bleak view of humanity. I am sorry for who or whatever turned your view to this. I for one do not view telling someone that they are committing a sin as being judgmental.
Response: It is not a bleak view. It is the Truth as given to me directly from God. Some can handle the truth and others cannot. There is a certain knowledge that occurs when one opens the mind to God leaving man's world behind, to become like the Mind of Christ and become a Son of God and not a son of man. Aldous Huxley from his foreword in "A Brave New World" says it best, to whit; "The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but refraining from doing. Great is Truth, but still greater from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."
The great truth here is that some of the most horrific acts committed against humanity and the Earth are perpetrated by people who are small 'c' christians, those who are self-righteous.
The reason being that most people do not move beyond the scripture of Matthew 7:1 which states "Judge not least ye be judged. if they continued on through to verse 5 they would know the whole truth.
We are not suppose to judge others to a higher mark then we judge ourselves.
So if I tell you that homosexuality is immoral and then went and had sex with another man then I would be a hypocrite. Since I am not then I am not judging anyone to a higher standard then I set for myself.
Response: Nor am I !
"We do not seek "tax breaks" and we do have the same "legal rights", if one takes the time to do these legal things(according to man's law) correctly."
In your relationship you may not be seeking these tax breaks and such but that is from what I am understanding what a lot of other gay and lesbian couples are seeking. They want to have the same rights the straight couples have.
Response: Now it is you who has a bleak view. And we do have the same rights in the eyes of God.
Now my question is if we give gay couples the same rights because in this country everyone is equal, then shouldn't we also allow polygamists, necrophiliacs, and those who preform beastiality the right to marry whomever they chose?
It's not about equal rights in this country...It is about what society as a whole deems is acceptable. Gay marriage as looked upon by Christianity as being wrong according to the word of God, but society today has lost all contact with God. Leaving Christians with the label of hatemongers and homophobes because we state what we believe to be the truth.
Response: And if this society votes to allow these rights under our Constitution, will you then accept it as the "norm"? You are assuming the U.S. is only Christian...it is not. Nor is it all white. The cultures that exist in our country are beautiful, diverse, religious, faithful, philosophical, wise, multi-racial ethnicities that may, or may not, agree with your personal interpretation of what is right. And "Just because the rest of the world says it's so, doesn't make it so." (my quote)
I for one do not fear nor hate gays/lesbian couples. I love them as God loves us all. I only hate the sin and pray for them.
Response: It is only sin to you and to those who have perceived it as such according to their personal interpretations of scripture....just like any other ancient manuscript, it changes over time. Re
They have proven that homosexuality is not a matter of genetics. It's not natural because some animals in nature will have sex with the same sex. Animals do not know gender only that it feels good.
Response: You have just defeated your own argument by using the term "they have proven"! Who are "they"? The answer; "they" are other sons of men full of prejudices, hypocrisy and fear. And I would say, "Prove it!" You have assumed that a healthy same-gender relationship is all about s e x. It is much more complex and beautiful than that.
God Bless You All!
Jake
I am assuming that you are not of the Christian faith. If I had to guess you are shamanistic, Wiccan or naturalistic. You see i use to think the same way when I followed the Wiccan faith. I too did not believe that the Bible was divinely inspired. That the Roman Catholic Church had some big conspiracy to use the Bible in order to control the masses who at the time could not read enough to speak out against the lies.
Response: If you have been on this site for long, you would know my background and that you are wrong.
The following facts are why I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. It was:
* Written over a 1,500 year span
* Written by over 40 authors from just about every walk of life - kings, military leaders, peasants, philosophers, poets, tax collectors, musicians, statesmen, scholars, shepherds and even fishermen.
* Written on three separate continents - Asia, Africa and Europe.
* Written in three languages - Hebrew, Aramic and Greek.
* Written in a wide variety of literature styles - historical narrative, prophecy, poetry, song, romance, law, biography, autobiography, satire, parable, allegory and even personal correspondence.
* Addresses hundreds of controversial subjects and yet presents a single unfolding story - God’s redemption of humanity.
* Despite having 66 books and hundreds of hundreds of verses, its one central character is the one true God represented through Jesus Christ.
* More copies of the Bible have been circulated than any other book in history.
* The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other piece of literature ever - over 2,200 languages at this present time.
* Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence to support it than any ten pieces of classical literature combined.
* The Bible is the only book to contain hundreds of prophecies, some written hundreds of years in advance, that have been literally fulfilled. You do not see this in other books that claim “divine” inspiration including The Book of Mormon and the Koran.
Now I have read this info from a different source but I found a copy of it from this website: http://www.jesussite.com/blog/2008/08/n ... the-bible/
Response: What you have cited are interpretations as perceived by mankind. Do we know for certain the true motives of these writers? No. No more than we can know the heart of any other of this species. If this were not so, Levitical law would be the rule of the day in this country.
response: We are mere mortals who judge because we have to blame someone else for all the wrongs we have done and left undone.
Wow what a bleak view of humanity. I am sorry for who or whatever turned your view to this. I for one do not view telling someone that they are committing a sin as being judgmental.
Response: It is not a bleak view. It is the Truth as given to me directly from God. Some can handle the truth and others cannot. There is a certain knowledge that occurs when one opens the mind to God leaving man's world behind, to become like the Mind of Christ and become a Son of God and not a son of man. Aldous Huxley from his foreword in "A Brave New World" says it best, to whit; "The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but refraining from doing. Great is Truth, but still greater from a practical point of view, is silence about truth."
The great truth here is that some of the most horrific acts committed against humanity and the Earth are perpetrated by people who are small 'c' christians, those who are self-righteous.
The reason being that most people do not move beyond the scripture of Matthew 7:1 which states "Judge not least ye be judged. if they continued on through to verse 5 they would know the whole truth.
We are not suppose to judge others to a higher mark then we judge ourselves.
So if I tell you that homosexuality is immoral and then went and had sex with another man then I would be a hypocrite. Since I am not then I am not judging anyone to a higher standard then I set for myself.
Response: Nor am I !
"We do not seek "tax breaks" and we do have the same "legal rights", if one takes the time to do these legal things(according to man's law) correctly."
In your relationship you may not be seeking these tax breaks and such but that is from what I am understanding what a lot of other gay and lesbian couples are seeking. They want to have the same rights the straight couples have.
Response: Now it is you who has a bleak view. And we do have the same rights in the eyes of God.
Now my question is if we give gay couples the same rights because in this country everyone is equal, then shouldn't we also allow polygamists, necrophiliacs, and those who preform beastiality the right to marry whomever they chose?
It's not about equal rights in this country...It is about what society as a whole deems is acceptable. Gay marriage as looked upon by Christianity as being wrong according to the word of God, but society today has lost all contact with God. Leaving Christians with the label of hatemongers and homophobes because we state what we believe to be the truth.
Response: And if this society votes to allow these rights under our Constitution, will you then accept it as the "norm"? You are assuming the U.S. is only Christian...it is not. Nor is it all white. The cultures that exist in our country are beautiful, diverse, religious, faithful, philosophical, wise, multi-racial ethnicities that may, or may not, agree with your personal interpretation of what is right. And "Just because the rest of the world says it's so, doesn't make it so." (my quote)
I for one do not fear nor hate gays/lesbian couples. I love them as God loves us all. I only hate the sin and pray for them.
Response: It is only sin to you and to those who have perceived it as such according to their personal interpretations of scripture....just like any other ancient manuscript, it changes over time. Re
They have proven that homosexuality is not a matter of genetics. It's not natural because some animals in nature will have sex with the same sex. Animals do not know gender only that it feels good.
Response: You have just defeated your own argument by using the term "they have proven"! Who are "they"? The answer; "they" are other sons of men full of prejudices, hypocrisy and fear. And I would say, "Prove it!" You have assumed that a healthy same-gender relationship is all about s e x. It is much more complex and beautiful than that.
God Bless You All!
Jake
And also to you.....To`na Wanagi
As with everyone else on this thread and subject has stated...We are just going to need to agree that we disagree.
Only one person will be able to settle this discussion without a doubt and we will just need to wait until He returns or we see Him in heaven ..Assuming we are judged worthy...
God Bless Us All!!!
Jake
Only one person will be able to settle this discussion without a doubt and we will just need to wait until He returns or we see Him in heaven ..Assuming we are judged worthy...
God Bless Us All!!!
Jake
("Jake77":fce08tsm)
... The following facts are why I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. It was:
< ... long list ... >
That list would strongly indicate that it was NOT divinely inspired. I'd like to see a book which was written by one person in one place in a short period of time - and that person someone who could read and write. Why is it that all of these books from the Tanach to the LDS missives are always given to someone who is illiterate? Seems an odd thing for a god to do. And with all of the scholars we have today, why was the truth about Scientology given to L. Ron Hubbard of all people?< ... long list ... >
("Jake77":fce08tsm)
... So if I tell you that homosexuality is immoral and then went and had sex with another man then I would be a hypocrite. Since I am not then I am not judging anyone to a higher standard then I set for myself. ...
Really? So you are exclusively homosexual, incapable of an intimate relationship with a woman then? Because if not then you are judging others to a higher standard than you set for yourself.
Really? So you are exclusively homosexual, incapable of an intimate relationship with a woman then? Because if not then you are judging others to a higher standard than you set for yourself.[/quote]
Say What?? I was only using that particular sin for an example. I am not gay..never have been gay..nor will I ever be gay..
But just out of curiosity sake..What does exclusivity have to do with the standards one would set? forgive my ignorance but it just don't make sense to me.
And as far as Mr. Hubbard goes..I personally do not view Scientology as a valid religion..( I stress that as personally ) but if it was a valid religion.Why not him? Is he any less capable of a human being than you or I?
Say What?? I was only using that particular sin for an example. I am not gay..never have been gay..nor will I ever be gay..
But just out of curiosity sake..What does exclusivity have to do with the standards one would set? forgive my ignorance but it just don't make sense to me.
And as far as Mr. Hubbard goes..I personally do not view Scientology as a valid religion..( I stress that as personally ) but if it was a valid religion.Why not him? Is he any less capable of a human being than you or I?
Jake;
And, if a child is born who is non-gender specific, will you say that child has sinned? This is more frequently occurring, not only in nature, but in humankind as well. And do we attribute the cause to mankind for having dumped all manner of poisons, rubbish, hormones, and everything else we can discard into the watershed of our lands? Of course not! Instead we rationalize and justify our actions (in the name of God and Christ of course) claiming it is not as bad as it may seem. Satan, the "wolf in sheep's clothing", selling us another lie! So, when this child is born, appearing female, but is genetically male, or vice versa, shall we humiliate him/her, persecute, defame, hate, kill, eliminate, discard, and charge this person with sin saying it was by choice? It was not so many years ago that mankind did the very same thing to African-Americans, before that, women, and before that, my people, the American Indian. All in the name of religion and belief, justifying and rationalizing why these other humans were not equal to them. There is a higher calling than religious conviction, doctrines and dogma of men. There is the calling of the Spirit, that which roars through one's conscience at night, the voices of those who are oppressed by others of their own kind. Who will hear their cries? I will! I do! Every moment of every day, I hear them because I have experienced the same prejudice and discrimination, because I have been one of them. I know their pain, their sorrow, their stories of being violated by others, beaten, r a p e d , even murdered. And today, I speak for them because God provided His Grace to me and saved me from the world of mankind. He gives me utterance and strength to advocate for their rights. And I truly love them, just as Jesus of Nazareth loved them. And will I quit because some religious zealot or misguided, uninformed sheep chooses to follow after the goat? Never!
If God is love, and Jesus of Nazareth is Emmanuel, that is, "God with us", then how can love abide in us if we despise our worst enemy? It is contradictory, the two cannot exist except in the hypocrisy of mankind.
Was it you who opened this post by saying you don't usually respond to this type of post? Maybe you weren't listening to the voice of Truth, heeding God's caution to you. So now, rather than answer the posted queries, you say we must agree to disagree? You started out by judging me as shamanistic, wiccan, or naturalistic. And I say to you, in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, "Get thee behind me, you never knew me." Listen to the Word of Truth that is God. Open your mind to the Mind of Christ. Watch the world around you and judge yourself as to whether you are truly following the Way of God and Christ. And remember, it is not that which goes into the mouth of man that defiles him, but every word that proceeds from his mouth. Saying is easy....doing...well, that's a whole other story.
I hope you find what you are seeking and that you receive what you are due, in fairness and in justice, as we all will.....Peace....To`na Wanagi
And, if a child is born who is non-gender specific, will you say that child has sinned? This is more frequently occurring, not only in nature, but in humankind as well. And do we attribute the cause to mankind for having dumped all manner of poisons, rubbish, hormones, and everything else we can discard into the watershed of our lands? Of course not! Instead we rationalize and justify our actions (in the name of God and Christ of course) claiming it is not as bad as it may seem. Satan, the "wolf in sheep's clothing", selling us another lie! So, when this child is born, appearing female, but is genetically male, or vice versa, shall we humiliate him/her, persecute, defame, hate, kill, eliminate, discard, and charge this person with sin saying it was by choice? It was not so many years ago that mankind did the very same thing to African-Americans, before that, women, and before that, my people, the American Indian. All in the name of religion and belief, justifying and rationalizing why these other humans were not equal to them. There is a higher calling than religious conviction, doctrines and dogma of men. There is the calling of the Spirit, that which roars through one's conscience at night, the voices of those who are oppressed by others of their own kind. Who will hear their cries? I will! I do! Every moment of every day, I hear them because I have experienced the same prejudice and discrimination, because I have been one of them. I know their pain, their sorrow, their stories of being violated by others, beaten, r a p e d , even murdered. And today, I speak for them because God provided His Grace to me and saved me from the world of mankind. He gives me utterance and strength to advocate for their rights. And I truly love them, just as Jesus of Nazareth loved them. And will I quit because some religious zealot or misguided, uninformed sheep chooses to follow after the goat? Never!
If God is love, and Jesus of Nazareth is Emmanuel, that is, "God with us", then how can love abide in us if we despise our worst enemy? It is contradictory, the two cannot exist except in the hypocrisy of mankind.
Was it you who opened this post by saying you don't usually respond to this type of post? Maybe you weren't listening to the voice of Truth, heeding God's caution to you. So now, rather than answer the posted queries, you say we must agree to disagree? You started out by judging me as shamanistic, wiccan, or naturalistic. And I say to you, in the words of Jesus of Nazareth, "Get thee behind me, you never knew me." Listen to the Word of Truth that is God. Open your mind to the Mind of Christ. Watch the world around you and judge yourself as to whether you are truly following the Way of God and Christ. And remember, it is not that which goes into the mouth of man that defiles him, but every word that proceeds from his mouth. Saying is easy....doing...well, that's a whole other story.
I hope you find what you are seeking and that you receive what you are due, in fairness and in justice, as we all will.....Peace....To`na Wanagi
And Jake, if you would like more insight into the Truth of God, the Mind of Christ, the Sons of God and the sons of men, may I suggest you go back about a year and read up on DW's posts on meditation?
I see you have only been here for about 3 weeks(which does not disqualify or diminish your credentials). Slow down, take your time to get to know some of us, and you probably will enjoy your time much more on this forum. If you come in as a new person and charging accusations, you will continue to meet with the same type of response you have received.
I think you have much to offer all of us....but give it to us without the prejudice and discrimination. Remember this site is dedicated to all religions, faiths, anti-faith/religion, scientologists, witches, wiccan, pagan, Native American, humanists, marxists, communists and whatever other label man can ascribe to another. We can learn from one another, but only if we listen to the persectives and understandings of the persons who post here. When I came here a little over a year ago, I was at odds with DW. But having read and considered his teachings, and being a very logical and spiritual, loving person, it all started to make sense. We can, and do, change as our spiritual minds mature and grow in the knowledge and love of God as we understand "God", and the mind of Christ.
Just a thought and a suggestion to you, given in the love and spirit of God....Peace....To`na Wanagi
I see you have only been here for about 3 weeks(which does not disqualify or diminish your credentials). Slow down, take your time to get to know some of us, and you probably will enjoy your time much more on this forum. If you come in as a new person and charging accusations, you will continue to meet with the same type of response you have received.
I think you have much to offer all of us....but give it to us without the prejudice and discrimination. Remember this site is dedicated to all religions, faiths, anti-faith/religion, scientologists, witches, wiccan, pagan, Native American, humanists, marxists, communists and whatever other label man can ascribe to another. We can learn from one another, but only if we listen to the persectives and understandings of the persons who post here. When I came here a little over a year ago, I was at odds with DW. But having read and considered his teachings, and being a very logical and spiritual, loving person, it all started to make sense. We can, and do, change as our spiritual minds mature and grow in the knowledge and love of God as we understand "God", and the mind of Christ.
Just a thought and a suggestion to you, given in the love and spirit of God....Peace....To`na Wanagi
To`na Wanagi
I am sorry I did not realize that you had actually asked a question of me or I surely would have answered it.
As far as your question of whether I would shun a child born with a non-gender issue...No I would not. I would never be that cruel.
I also would never tease, torment, beat anyone for having a different sexual orientation. I merely threw my two cents worth on the fact that the Bible states that homosexuality along with beastiality and polygamy is wrong. Everyone else decided to take it to the land of is the Bible even valid. Which if you think about it that means I have been treated as if I was being prejudice and my religious views not respected.
I did not attack anyone. I just asked if anyone actually read their Bibles. I was raised that the Bible is the single authoritative Word of God. So with that in mind gay marriage is wrong.
I respect the fact that others on this site may have a different view on the subject. That is the nature of this site. I may not agree with everyone's view, but I will always respect their right to have them..Which is why I said we will need to agree to the fact that we disagree.
God Bless!
Jake
I am sorry I did not realize that you had actually asked a question of me or I surely would have answered it.
As far as your question of whether I would shun a child born with a non-gender issue...No I would not. I would never be that cruel.
I also would never tease, torment, beat anyone for having a different sexual orientation. I merely threw my two cents worth on the fact that the Bible states that homosexuality along with beastiality and polygamy is wrong. Everyone else decided to take it to the land of is the Bible even valid. Which if you think about it that means I have been treated as if I was being prejudice and my religious views not respected.
I did not attack anyone. I just asked if anyone actually read their Bibles. I was raised that the Bible is the single authoritative Word of God. So with that in mind gay marriage is wrong.
I respect the fact that others on this site may have a different view on the subject. That is the nature of this site. I may not agree with everyone's view, but I will always respect their right to have them..Which is why I said we will need to agree to the fact that we disagree.
God Bless!
Jake
I have removed my posting from this topic because I feel others who do not agree with my personal view point have taken offense. This is never my intention.
God bless those who welcome him,
William
God bless those who welcome him,
William
("William Wilkinson":1uvd9ki3)
As is my nature when controversy arises in my life, I spend time in prayer, and then in thoughtful research. I admit, my last post on this topic did not have that advantage, I posted strictly on my personal beliefs regarding the subject of homosexuality. As I have been following this topic, and found it would grow to include various interpretations of the Bible (as any other modern controversy will), I felt it necessary to dig deeper into the Biblical perspective in the subject. I know my understanding of the word is not complete, and that I must turn to others with more knowledge for guidance on certain matters. Though I intended to research many different articles and texts, I found this article that spoke to my heart, this article that seemed to present my personal beliefs in a well thought out manner. I would encourage any one with time to please read the whole article before passing judgment on it’s perspective and author.
I will say that personally I feel that the desire for sexual intimacy was given from God as a desire to procreate, and on that belief it is hard to see homosexuality as anything more than action of pure desire of the flesh. I do not expect my belief will change any persons thoughts on this topic, and in a way I hope they don’t. In the end, we all need to remember the primary teaching of the Bible, to love one another as God loves us. Even if in fact the beliefs of some are true (that homosexuality is sin), we know that those who partake in that sin will be redeemed by their faith, if their faith is true.
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
Rev. Albert Mohler Jr.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.
Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.
The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.
Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.
The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.
This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?
Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.
The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.
Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.
The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.
We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.
To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.
Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."
The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)
A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)
Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.
A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.
Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.
The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.
Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.
This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.
Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)
Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.

1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.
2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.
3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.
4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.
5. Ibid.
6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.
7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
9. Genesis 2:23.
10. Genesis 2:24-25.
11. Genesis 2:18.
12. Genesis 2:24.
13. Romans 3:9-20.
14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
I will say that personally I feel that the desire for sexual intimacy was given from God as a desire to procreate, and on that belief it is hard to see homosexuality as anything more than action of pure desire of the flesh. I do not expect my belief will change any persons thoughts on this topic, and in a way I hope they don’t. In the end, we all need to remember the primary teaching of the Bible, to love one another as God loves us. Even if in fact the beliefs of some are true (that homosexuality is sin), we know that those who partake in that sin will be redeemed by their faith, if their faith is true.
The Compassion of Truth: Homosexuality in Biblical Perspective
Rev. Albert Mohler Jr.
Homosexuality is perhaps the most controversial issue of debate in American culture. Once described as "the love that dares not speak its name," homosexuality is now discussed and debated throughout American society.
Behind this discussion is an agenda, pushed and promoted by activists, who seek legitimization and social sanction for homosexual acts, relationships, and lifestyles. The push is on for homosexual "marriage," the removal of all structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as "erotic minorities," deserving of special legal protection.
The larger culture is now bombarded with messages and images designed to portray homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Homoerotic images are so common in the mainstream media that many citizens have virtually lost the capacity to be shocked.
Those who oppose homosexuality are depicted as narrow-minded bigots and described as "homophobic." Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate arena of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture.
The church has not been an outsider to these debates. As the issue of homosexual legitimization has gained public prominence and moved forward, some churches and denominations have joined the movement--even becoming advocates of homosexuality--while others stand steadfastly opposed to compromise on the issue. In the middle are churches and denominations unable or unwilling to declare a clear conviction on homosexuality. Issues of homosexual ordination and marriage are regularly discussed in the assemblies of several denominations--and many congregations.
This debate is itself nothing less than a revolutionary development. Any fair-minded observer of American culture and the American churches must note the incredible speed with which this issue has been driven into the cultural mainstream. The challenge for the believing church now comes down to this: Do we have a distinctive message in the midst of this moral confusion?
Our answer must be Yes. The Christian church must have a distinctive message to speak to the issue of homosexuality, because faithfulness to Holy Scripture demands that we do so.
The affirmation of biblical authority is thus central to the church's consideration of this issue--or any issue. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is the critical watershed: Those churches which reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age. Those churches that affirm, confess, and acknowledge the full authority of the Bible have no choice in this matter--we must speak a word of compassionate truth. And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration.
Professor Elizabeth Achtemeier of Richmond's Union Theological Seminary states the case clearly: "The clearest teaching of Scripture is that God intended sexual intercourse to be limited to the marriage relationship of one man and one woman."(1)That this is so should be apparent to all who look to the Bible for guidance on this issue. This assessment of the biblical record would have been completely uncontroversial throughout the last nineteen centuries of the Christian church. Only in recent years have some biblical scholars come forward to claim that the Bible presents a mixed message--or a very different message--on homosexuality.
The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity--and the basis for legitimate family relationships. Every obstacle which stands in the way of progress toward this agenda must be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.
We should not be surprised therefore that apologists for the homosexual agenda have arisen even within the world of biblical scholarship. Biblical scholars are themselves a very mixed group, with some defending the authority of Scripture and others bent on deconstructing the biblical text. The battle lines on this issue are immediately apparent. Many who deny the truthfulness, inspiration, and authority of the Bible have come to argue that Scripture sanctions homosexuality--or at least to argue that the biblical passages forbidding homosexual acts are confused, misinterpreted, or irrelevant.
To accomplish this requires feats of exotic biblical interpretation worthy of the most agile circus contortionist. Several decades ago, the late J. Gresham Machen remarked that "The Bible, with a complete abandonment of all scientific historical method, and of all common sense, is made to say the exact opposite of what it means; no Gnostic, no medieval monk with his fourfold sense of Scripture, ever produced more absurd Biblical interpretation than can be heard every Sunday in the pulpits of New York."(2) Dr. Machen was referring to the misuse and misapplication of Scripture which he saw as a mark of the infusion of a pagan spirit within the church. Even greater absurdity than that observed by Machen is now evident among those determined to make the Bible sanction homosexuality.
Different approaches are taken toward this end. For some, an outright rejection of biblical authority is explicit. With astounding candor, William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality declared that "the scriptural texts in the Old and New Testaments condemning homosexual practice are neither inspired by God nor otherwise of enduring Christian value. Considered in the light of the best biblical, theological, scientific, and social knowledge, the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is better understood as representing time and place bound cultural prejudice."(3) This approach is the most honest taken among the revisionists. These persons do not deny that the Bible expressly forbids homosexual practices--they acknowledge that the Bible does just that. Their answer is straightforward; we must abandon the Bible in light of modern "knowledge."
The next step taken by those who follow this approach is to suggest that it is not sufficient for the authority of the Bible to be denied--the Bible must be opposed. Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University charges: "Not to recognize, critique, and condemn Paul's equation of godlessness with homosexuality is dangerous. To remain within our respective Christian traditions and not challenge those passages that degrade and destroy us is to contribute to our own oppression."(4) Further, Comstock argues that "These passages will be brought up and used against us again and again until Christians demand their removal from the biblical canon, or, at the very least, formally discredit their authority to prescribe behavior."(5)
A second approach taken by the revisionists is to suggest that the human authors of Scripture were merely limited by the scientific immaturity of their age. If they knew what we now know, these revisionists claim, the human authors of Scripture would never have been so closed-minded. Victor Paul Furnish argues: "Not only the terms, but the concepts 'homosexual' and 'homosexuality' were unknown in Paul's day. These terms like 'heterosexual,' 'heterosexuality,' 'bisexual,' and 'bisexuality' presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with the advent of modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the vaguest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'."(6)
Indeed, Paul and the other apostles seem completely ignorant of modern secular understandings of sexual identity and orientation--and this truth is fundamentally irrelevant. Modern notions of sexual orientation must be brought to answer to Scripture. Scripture must not be subjected to defend itself in light of modern notions. Paul will not apologize to Sigmund Freud or the American Psychological Association, and the faithful church must call this approach what it is; a blatant effort to subvert the authority of Scripture and replace biblical authority with the false authority of modern secular ideologies.
A third approach taken by the revisionists is to deny that biblical passages actually refer to homosexuality at all, or to argue that the passages refer to specific and "oppressive" homosexual acts. For instance, some argue that Paul's references to homosexuality are actually references to pederasty [the sexual abuse of young boys], to homosexual rape, or to "non-committed" homosexual relationships. The same is argued concerning passages such as Genesis 19 and Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Yet, in order to make this case, the revisionists must deny the obvious--and argue the ridiculous.
Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear. Beyond this, Jude, verse 7, self-evidently links the sin of Sodom with sexual perversion and immorality, stating that "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."
This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act.
The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
As Romans 1 makes absolutely clear, homosexuality is fundamentally an act of unbelief. As Paul writes, the wrath of God is revealed against all those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."(8) God the Creator has implanted in all humanity a knowledge of Himself, and all are without excuse. This is the context of Paul's explicit statements on homosexuality.
Homosexual acts and homosexual desire, states Paul, are a rebellion against God's sovereign intention in creation and a gross perversion of God's good and perfect plan for His created order. Paul makes clear that homosexuality--among both males and females--is a dramatic sign of rebellion against God and His intention in creation. Those about whom Paul writes have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. Thus, men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God's intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.
This is a very strong and clear message. The logical progression in Romans 1 is undeniable. Paul shifts immediately from his description of rebellion against God as Creator to an identification of homosexuality--among both men and women--as the first and most evident sign of a society upon which God has turned His judgment. Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders.
Here the confessing and believing Church runs counter to the cultural tidal wave. Even to raise the issue of gender is to offend those who wish to eradicate any gender distinctions, arguing that these are merely "socially constructed realities" and vestiges of an ancient past.
Scripture will not allow this attempt to deny the structures of creation. Romans 1 must be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2. As Genesis 1:27 makes apparent, God intended from the beginning to create human beings in two genders or sexes--"male and female He created them." Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparably linked by God's design. The genders are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized in the woman "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."(9)
The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization over time. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God's intention--before and after the Fall. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."(10)
Evangelicals have often failed to present this biblical truth straightforwardly, and thus many of our churches and members are unarmed for the ideological, political, and cultural conflicts which mark the modern landscape. The fundamental axiom upon which evangelical Christians must base any response to homosexuality it this: God alone is sovereign, and He has created the universe and all within by His own design and to His own good pleasure. Furthermore, He has revealed to us His creative intention through Holy Scripture--and that intention was clearly to create and establish two distinct but complementary genders or sexes. The Genesis narratives demonstrate that this distinction of genders is neither accidental nor inconsequential to the divine design. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make for him a helper suitable for him," determined God.(11) And God created woman.
God's creative intention is further revealed in the cleaving of man to the woman ("his wife") and their new identity as "one flesh."(12) This biblical assertion, which no contorted interpretation can escape, clearly places marriage and sexual relations within God's creative act and design.
The sexual union of a man and a woman united in covenant marriage is thus not only allowed, but is commanded as God's intention and decree. Sexual expression is limited to this heterosexual covenant, which in its clearest biblical expression is one man and one woman united for as long as they both shall live.
Therefore, any sexual expression outside of that heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God's command and law. That fundamental truth runs counter, not only to the homosexual agenda, but to the rampant sexual immorality of the age. Indeed, the Bible has much more to say about illicit heterosexual activity than about homosexual acts. Adultery, rape, bestiality, pornography, and fornication are expressly forbidden.
As E. Michael Jones argues, most modern ideologies are, at base, efforts to rationalize sexual behavior. In fact, he identifies modernity itself as "rationalized lust." We should expect the secular world, which is at war with God's truth, to be eager in its efforts to rationalize lust, and to seek legitimacy and social sanction for its sexual sins. We should be shocked, however, that many within the Church now seek to accomplish the same purpose, and to join in common cause with those openly at war with God's truth.
Paul's classic statement in Romans 1 sets the issues squarely before us. Homosexuality is linked directly to idolatry, for it is on the basis of their idolatry that God gave them up to their own lusts [epithymia]. Their hearts were committed to impurity [akatharsia], and they were degrading [atimazo] their own bodies by their illicit lusts.
Their idolatry--exchanging the truth of God for a lie, and worshipping the creature rather than the Creator--led God to give them over to their degrading passions [pathos atimia]. From here, those given over to their degraded passions exchanged the natural use of sexual intercourse for that which God declared to be unnatural [para physin]. At this point Paul explicitly deals with female homosexuality or lesbianism. This is one of the very few references in all ancient literature to female homosexuality, and Paul's message is clear.
But the women involved in lesbianism were not and are not alone. Men, too, have given up natural intercourse with women and have been consumed with passion [orexis] for other men. The acts they commit, they commit without shame [aschemosyne]. As a result, they have received within their own bodies the penalty of their error.
Beyond this, God has given them up to their own depraved minds, and they do those things which are not proper [kathekonta]. The message could not be more candid and clear, but there are those who seek to deny the obvious. Some have claimed that Paul is here dealing only with those heterosexual persons who commit homosexual acts. The imaginative folly of this approach is undone by Scripture, which allows no understanding that any human beings are born anything other than heterosexual. The modern--and highly political--notion of homosexual "orientation" cannot be squared with the Bible. The only orientation indicated by Scripture is the universal human orientation to sin.(13)
In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself.(14)
The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, and the only hope for any sinner is the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, who on the cross paid the price for our sin, serving as the substitute for the redeemed.
Our response to persons involved in homosexuality must be marked by genuine compassion. But a central task of genuine compassion is telling the truth, and the Bible reveals a true message we must convey. Those seeking to contort and subvert the Bible's message are not responding to homosexuals with compassion. To lie is never compassionate--and their lie leads unto death.

1. Elizabeth Achtemeier, quoted in "Gays and the Bible," by Mark O'Keefe, The Virginian Pilot, Norfolk, Virginia (February 14, 1993), p. C-1.
2. J. Gresham Machen, "The Separateness of the Church," in God Transcendent, edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982 [1949]), p.113.
3. From the statement by William M. Kent published in Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality to the General Council on Ministries of the United Methodist Church, August 24, 1991.
4. Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43.
5. Ibid.
6. Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teachings of Paul: Selected Issues (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985), p. 85.
7. John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 3rd edition (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988).
8. Romans 1:18. All biblical references are taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
9. Genesis 2:23.
10. Genesis 2:24-25.
11. Genesis 2:18.
12. Genesis 2:24.
13. Romans 3:9-20.
14. D. F. Wright, "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai." Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
Amen!!!!
("Jake77":13t592ui)
Say What?? I was only using that particular sin for an example. I am not gay..never have been gay..nor will I ever be gay..
But just out of curiosity sake..What does exclusivity have to do with the standards one would set? forgive my ignorance but it just don't make sense to me.
And as far as Mr. Hubbard goes..I personally do not view Scientology as a valid religion..( I stress that as personally ) but if it was a valid religion.Why not him? Is he any less capable of a human being than you or I?
But just out of curiosity sake..What does exclusivity have to do with the standards one would set? forgive my ignorance but it just don't make sense to me.
And as far as Mr. Hubbard goes..I personally do not view Scientology as a valid religion..( I stress that as personally ) but if it was a valid religion.Why not him? Is he any less capable of a human being than you or I?
If you aren't exclusively homosexual how is it you can decide you are morally superior by deciding to do something you cannot avoid doing? Who are you to decide that being born homosexual is a sin? Or that Scientology is not a valid religion? It has as solid a foundation as all others and at least its books were written by one person who was reasonably literate - unlike Joseph Smith say.
I happen to be a lot smarter than most people (but definitely not all). I don't regard myself as morally superior because of that - just lucky.
How Quickly we forget what the Bible tells us. After the fall of Adam in the garden of Eden God gave man the freedom of choice. It is not up to us to judge that's God' job. He will have the final judgement. You need to follow your own heart.
Many argue that "the meaning of marriage should be between one man and one women." What about this meaning? " Two people who love each other so much they vow to spend the rest of their lives together."
If we let people be and let God make his own decisions, the world would be a much easier place to live in. However, to assume that God meant this or that is portraying a "False God" (thou shalt not have false gods before me). Live in peace in yourselves and let others do the same. "Judge not least ye be judged". Let go and let God.
Your friend in God
Al Doc
Many argue that "the meaning of marriage should be between one man and one women." What about this meaning? " Two people who love each other so much they vow to spend the rest of their lives together."
If we let people be and let God make his own decisions, the world would be a much easier place to live in. However, to assume that God meant this or that is portraying a "False God" (thou shalt not have false gods before me). Live in peace in yourselves and let others do the same. "Judge not least ye be judged". Let go and let God.
Your friend in God
Al Doc
Al Doc;
Well said, and accurate!
Are you new here? I don't recall seeing your name on the board before. If you are new, know that we welcome you to the forum...God's Peace....To`na Wanagi
Well said, and accurate!
Are you new here? I don't recall seeing your name on the board before. If you are new, know that we welcome you to the forum...God's Peace....To`na Wanagi
Thank you for reading my thoughts. Yes I am new (my first posting) I hope to be more vocal. I've believed In God all my life. I have in the past questioned my faith but never never stopped loving Him. Thank you for welcoming me in and allowing me to share God's love with all.
Always faithful
Al Doc
Always faithful
Al Doc
Wow - this is a great thread with a lot of amazing insight. Two posters in particular have caught my attention: SeekerOfTruth and Jake77. Thank you so much for sharing.
Born a Jew and a member of the Lubavitcher Movement, the most orthodox of the sect, I can share that these Rabbi's would agree with SeekerOfTruth. Jews do not believe in a prolonged hell and homosexual behavior is not a sin. I am still looking for references to sin and punishment in hell in the Old Testament.
Accepting Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, I have listened to many ministers who proclaim to preach the "literal" gospel of the bible and rail against homosexual relationships. Jake77 brings up some real good points about the history and writing of the bible, but now as a spiritual leader, I have other thoughts.
Though the bible was written by scribes over a 1,500 year period, versus of the Five Books of Moses were passed down from generation to generation for about two thousand years before Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. We see acceptable social changes occurring in scripture since its inception. There is about 1,000 years between Adam and Abraham. During that time idol worship is practiced but not forbidden. Suddenly, Abraham changes social practices and idol worship is forbidden.
When Moses accepts the Ten Commandments, God includes commands like "Remember the Sabbath and to Keep it holy." In my opinion, this was included to instruct the Jews, who were slaves for 400 years and worked long hours seven days a week, that they could have a day of rest. Other laws were passed down in Deuteronomy like, keeping kosher and many other laws. In fact, there are about 628 commandments that orthodox Jews follow.
Jesus proclaimed that there were fewer laws to follow. In fact, I believe the number is three.
The bible as we know it began with creation and has changed many times over a relatively short period of time. I believe these changes were the result of people who were inspired by God. My problem is with religious doctrine that prevents additional God inspired changes. The bible is a living guide that changes according to the needs of the people. Moses assumed a guide for slaves, Jesus proclaimed changes for a free society, and now we are living in a time of increased spirituality due to higher education, advanced sciences, and greater capacity to understand abstract concepts.
Who could proclaim that no one has been inspired by God over the past 1,700 years? Are we too engulfed protecting against "False Prophets" that we fail to see the divine inspirations that occur around us every moment?
Forget statistics. See God for that which He is...a loving God. We are all God's children and there is an abundant abundance of love for all of us - including gay men and women. I believe our purpose here is to praise God, Love one another, and create. Gay people are very capable of doing these things and I would agree that gay marriage should not be prohibited.
Born a Jew and a member of the Lubavitcher Movement, the most orthodox of the sect, I can share that these Rabbi's would agree with SeekerOfTruth. Jews do not believe in a prolonged hell and homosexual behavior is not a sin. I am still looking for references to sin and punishment in hell in the Old Testament.
Accepting Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, I have listened to many ministers who proclaim to preach the "literal" gospel of the bible and rail against homosexual relationships. Jake77 brings up some real good points about the history and writing of the bible, but now as a spiritual leader, I have other thoughts.
Though the bible was written by scribes over a 1,500 year period, versus of the Five Books of Moses were passed down from generation to generation for about two thousand years before Moses received the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. We see acceptable social changes occurring in scripture since its inception. There is about 1,000 years between Adam and Abraham. During that time idol worship is practiced but not forbidden. Suddenly, Abraham changes social practices and idol worship is forbidden.
When Moses accepts the Ten Commandments, God includes commands like "Remember the Sabbath and to Keep it holy." In my opinion, this was included to instruct the Jews, who were slaves for 400 years and worked long hours seven days a week, that they could have a day of rest. Other laws were passed down in Deuteronomy like, keeping kosher and many other laws. In fact, there are about 628 commandments that orthodox Jews follow.
Jesus proclaimed that there were fewer laws to follow. In fact, I believe the number is three.
The bible as we know it began with creation and has changed many times over a relatively short period of time. I believe these changes were the result of people who were inspired by God. My problem is with religious doctrine that prevents additional God inspired changes. The bible is a living guide that changes according to the needs of the people. Moses assumed a guide for slaves, Jesus proclaimed changes for a free society, and now we are living in a time of increased spirituality due to higher education, advanced sciences, and greater capacity to understand abstract concepts.
Who could proclaim that no one has been inspired by God over the past 1,700 years? Are we too engulfed protecting against "False Prophets" that we fail to see the divine inspirations that occur around us every moment?
Forget statistics. See God for that which He is...a loving God. We are all God's children and there is an abundant abundance of love for all of us - including gay men and women. I believe our purpose here is to praise God, Love one another, and create. Gay people are very capable of doing these things and I would agree that gay marriage should not be prohibited.
I am extremely disturbed by some of your posts. This church is supposed to be accepting of different beliefs. It is disappointing to see that several of you are quoting the bible as if it is THE correct book/teachings to follow. In addition, as pointed out by others, you are selectively literally interpreting passages in the bible. Either all are to be interepreted literally, or none should be. In no way do I mean to disrepect your beliefs; I merely ask that you 1) look at the history of the creation of the bible, 2)the reasons why certain books were included and others not, 3)...and most importantly...refrain from imposing your opinions or judgment on people who are supposed to be in THE most accepting and diverse ministry in the world. THIS church is not about condemnation; it is not only about tolerance, but about acceptance. The "motto" of THIS church is "We are all children of the same universe," and openly lists multiple religious and other symbols including a pink triangle for LGBT individuals. There are as much a part of this church as any of us. Your ingorance (that's ignorance--not stupidity--it's mean as a fact, not an insult) on the issue and lack of acceptance does not belong in this church.
It is senseless for any particular group to state what is right or wrong. Every person affiliated with this church will have a wide variety of beliefs and religious backgrounds. None are wrong. This is a church where people are all equal. If you do not believe this, you do not (respectfully) belong as a member of this church.
It is senseless for any particular group to state what is right or wrong. Every person affiliated with this church will have a wide variety of beliefs and religious backgrounds. None are wrong. This is a church where people are all equal. If you do not believe this, you do not (respectfully) belong as a member of this church.
Chicarney,
Though I respect and appreciate your thoughts on this matter, I must point out something amiss in your thoughts. You mention that every person affiliated with this church will have a wide range of beliefes...not so. Though collectivley as a group we encompass a wide range of beliefs, as individuals we hold our own personal beliefs. This thread is a prime example of the differing beliefs in our little community. Often times I believe when people of a particular faith express thier views, others assume that person to be forcing those views...the same could be said of your thoughts on the Bible, you seem to not follow the book as part of your beliefe (I could be wrong, pardon my assumtions)...and to critique it the way you have, someone could assume you are pushing your beliefe (I do not feel that way, but it could be assumed). One thing I find helpfull to keep in mind on this board is that just because another disagrees with me or my beliefe does not meen they are saying thiers is better, or mine is wrong. Dissagreement does not neccesarrily equal judgement, sometimes it's just disagreement. Granted this thread is not the best example of that.
Any way, welcome to the conversation, and to our little corner of the world.
May you find the blessings of the path you choose,
William
Though I respect and appreciate your thoughts on this matter, I must point out something amiss in your thoughts. You mention that every person affiliated with this church will have a wide range of beliefes...not so. Though collectivley as a group we encompass a wide range of beliefs, as individuals we hold our own personal beliefs. This thread is a prime example of the differing beliefs in our little community. Often times I believe when people of a particular faith express thier views, others assume that person to be forcing those views...the same could be said of your thoughts on the Bible, you seem to not follow the book as part of your beliefe (I could be wrong, pardon my assumtions)...and to critique it the way you have, someone could assume you are pushing your beliefe (I do not feel that way, but it could be assumed). One thing I find helpfull to keep in mind on this board is that just because another disagrees with me or my beliefe does not meen they are saying thiers is better, or mine is wrong. Dissagreement does not neccesarrily equal judgement, sometimes it's just disagreement. Granted this thread is not the best example of that.
Any way, welcome to the conversation, and to our little corner of the world.
May you find the blessings of the path you choose,
William
("William Wilkinson":u7fjctd1)
Chicarney,
Though I respect and appreciate your thoughts on this matter, I must point out something amiss in your thoughts. You mention that every person affiliated with this church will have a wide range of beliefes...not so. Though collectivley as a group we encompass a wide range of beliefs, as individuals we hold our own personal beliefs. This thread is a prime example of the differing beliefs in our little community. Often times I believe when people of a particular faith express thier views, others assume that person to be forcing those views...the same could be said of your thoughts on the Bible, you seem to not follow the book as part of your beliefe (I could be wrong, pardon my assumtions)...and to critique it the way you have, someone could assume you are pushing your beliefe (I do not feel that way, but it could be assumed). One thing I find helpfull to keep in mind on this board is that just because another disagrees with me or my beliefe does not meen they are saying thiers is better, or mine is wrong. Dissagreement does not neccesarrily equal judgement, sometimes it's just disagreement. Granted this thread is not the best example of that.
Any way, welcome to the conversation, and to our little corner of the world.
May you find the blessings of the path you choose,
William
Though I respect and appreciate your thoughts on this matter, I must point out something amiss in your thoughts. You mention that every person affiliated with this church will have a wide range of beliefes...not so. Though collectivley as a group we encompass a wide range of beliefs, as individuals we hold our own personal beliefs. This thread is a prime example of the differing beliefs in our little community. Often times I believe when people of a particular faith express thier views, others assume that person to be forcing those views...the same could be said of your thoughts on the Bible, you seem to not follow the book as part of your beliefe (I could be wrong, pardon my assumtions)...and to critique it the way you have, someone could assume you are pushing your beliefe (I do not feel that way, but it could be assumed). One thing I find helpfull to keep in mind on this board is that just because another disagrees with me or my beliefe does not meen they are saying thiers is better, or mine is wrong. Dissagreement does not neccesarrily equal judgement, sometimes it's just disagreement. Granted this thread is not the best example of that.
Any way, welcome to the conversation, and to our little corner of the world.
May you find the blessings of the path you choose,
William
Greetings to you all my friends,
I agree with our brother William here. While the ULC accepts all faith systems, it does not mean that each of us have to give up our personal beliefs to be a member, nor does it mean that we as individuals have to accept all beliefs as valid.
The forum exists for us to share our beliefs with each other, to learn from each other, and hopefully grow in our own understanding of what our individual faith systems encompass. We will never all come to have the same belief systems, but we can come to understand and respect all. That is the strength of the ULC, and why I remain a part of it.
In Christ's service,
Padre
Dear Padre,
Well said!!!
I think sometimes, we get confused as to what our purpose is here. We are a diverse group of people who with even more diverse beliefs, gather together to lend support and uphold each other’s individual right to practice our faiths/beliefs. We share, we explore, we examine, but most importantly, we respect each others rights and beliefs. This with the understanding that our chosen path does not infringe upon or harm another. Patience, understanding, tolerance, and respect, is our main objective for all who wish to be part of our ULC so we can foster harmony and create a safe-haven for all who come in search of a place to belong. We share and discuss our insight and experiences, and grow to understand and in some cases, admire or borrow philosophies of the different schools of thought. We dispel the myths that lead to segregation and persecution, and replace such things with knowledge and unity. The outcome to me is well worth the effort.
God’s blessings,
Rev. Campbell.
Well said!!!
I think sometimes, we get confused as to what our purpose is here. We are a diverse group of people who with even more diverse beliefs, gather together to lend support and uphold each other’s individual right to practice our faiths/beliefs. We share, we explore, we examine, but most importantly, we respect each others rights and beliefs. This with the understanding that our chosen path does not infringe upon or harm another. Patience, understanding, tolerance, and respect, is our main objective for all who wish to be part of our ULC so we can foster harmony and create a safe-haven for all who come in search of a place to belong. We share and discuss our insight and experiences, and grow to understand and in some cases, admire or borrow philosophies of the different schools of thought. We dispel the myths that lead to segregation and persecution, and replace such things with knowledge and unity. The outcome to me is well worth the effort.
God’s blessings,
Rev. Campbell.
I think that some of you have misunderstood my comment. I absolutely agree that some of us will disagree of on this or other issues, and that we certainly will differ on what generates the basis of our beliefs. The problem I was having was that statements were being made as if they are fact--that the person's belief, often based on their interpretation of the bible--was THE way to interpret THE way a person should conduct his or her life.
My understanding is that this church is not to impose any belief based on tradition of any particular organized religion, sect, etc. I am merely requesting that we all be respectful of each other's backgrounds, and that this forum and church is here to be a place of acceptance for all of those who have a desire to live a spiritual life.
I do not claim to have all the answers to different "controversial" topics. That would be absurd and self-righteous. Pointing out the fact that I caution others who might be doing such is in no way promoting a personal opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, it is true, that I believe that love is something that happens without being a choice (as is being supported by scientific evidence). However, if you re-read my comment, I strongly adhere to the fact that I was not imposing such a belief on the topic on anyone. I was pointing out that comments made based on the interpretation of the bible (or potentially any other book or document) can appear as a condemnation based on supposedly established rules.
I guess the easiest example I can give is this: a Christian points out that the bible states that Jesus is the son of God. A Jew would disagree, but the Christian would state that "the bible says..." My point is that beliefs based on written documents or traditions are not the backbone of this church. The commonality of spiritual attainment and adherence is what the church is about and that alone.
My understanding is that this church is not to impose any belief based on tradition of any particular organized religion, sect, etc. I am merely requesting that we all be respectful of each other's backgrounds, and that this forum and church is here to be a place of acceptance for all of those who have a desire to live a spiritual life.
I do not claim to have all the answers to different "controversial" topics. That would be absurd and self-righteous. Pointing out the fact that I caution others who might be doing such is in no way promoting a personal opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, it is true, that I believe that love is something that happens without being a choice (as is being supported by scientific evidence). However, if you re-read my comment, I strongly adhere to the fact that I was not imposing such a belief on the topic on anyone. I was pointing out that comments made based on the interpretation of the bible (or potentially any other book or document) can appear as a condemnation based on supposedly established rules.
I guess the easiest example I can give is this: a Christian points out that the bible states that Jesus is the son of God. A Jew would disagree, but the Christian would state that "the bible says..." My point is that beliefs based on written documents or traditions are not the backbone of this church. The commonality of spiritual attainment and adherence is what the church is about and that alone.
I think that some of you have misunderstood my comment. I absolutely agree that some of us will disagree of on this or other issues, and that we certainly will differ on what generates the basis of our beliefs. The problem I was having was that statements were being made as if they are fact--that the person's belief, often based on their interpretation of the bible--was THE way to interpret THE way a person should conduct his or her life.
My understanding is that this church is not to impose any belief based on tradition of any particular organized religion, sect, etc. I am merely requesting that we all be respectful of each other's backgrounds, and that this forum and church is here to be a place of acceptance for all of those who have a desire to live a spiritual life.
I do not claim to have all the answers to different "controversial" topics. That would be absurd and self-righteous. Pointing out the fact that I caution others who might be doing such is in no way promoting a personal opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, it is true, that I believe that love is something that happens without being a choice (as is being supported by scientific evidence). However, if you re-read my comment, I strongly adhere to the fact that I was not imposing such a belief on the topic on anyone. I was pointing out that comments made based on the interpretation of the bible (or potentially any other book or document) can appear as a condemnation based on supposedly established rules.
I guess the easiest example I can give is this: a Christian points out that the bible states that Jesus is the son of God. A Jew would disagree, but the Christian would state that "the bible says..." My point is that beliefs based on written documents or traditions are not the backbone of this church. The commonality of spiritual attainment and adherence is what the church is about and that alone.
My understanding is that this church is not to impose any belief based on tradition of any particular organized religion, sect, etc. I am merely requesting that we all be respectful of each other's backgrounds, and that this forum and church is here to be a place of acceptance for all of those who have a desire to live a spiritual life.
I do not claim to have all the answers to different "controversial" topics. That would be absurd and self-righteous. Pointing out the fact that I caution others who might be doing such is in no way promoting a personal opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, it is true, that I believe that love is something that happens without being a choice (as is being supported by scientific evidence). However, if you re-read my comment, I strongly adhere to the fact that I was not imposing such a belief on the topic on anyone. I was pointing out that comments made based on the interpretation of the bible (or potentially any other book or document) can appear as a condemnation based on supposedly established rules.
I guess the easiest example I can give is this: a Christian points out that the bible states that Jesus is the son of God. A Jew would disagree, but the Christian would state that "the bible says..." My point is that beliefs based on written documents or traditions are not the backbone of this church. The commonality of spiritual attainment and adherence is what the church is about and that alone.
Dear Chicarney,
Sorry I hadn’t read your original post; I was commenting on the well-worded post of Padre.
At the beginning of this thread, comments were made to demonstrate an individual’s opinion on the subject at hand. The fact that such comments were made on this forum, basically leaves this subject open for further input of others and their opinions, as does all threads. Though we may have different beliefs, we all have our opinions, and most are based on our beliefs. It would be incredibly difficult to express the reason for our opinion if we are to eliminate the belief system we subscribe to and it’s origins. If one believes in the bible and your belief system is based on the bible, then it is impossible to give an opinion that does not include it’s reference. To be offended by someone who quotes the bible is to deny them their right to share and express their belief, as would it be if they were to quote any other sacred material of any other faith.
There are many such written materials one may quote depending on their faith or belief, and all should be welcomed for sharing, as they are part of the people who collectively make up the ULC community.
No one is asked to believe or subscribe to any of the positions, opinions, faiths or beliefs of another that is offered here. But we are asked to be tolerant and respectful of them, as we would expect the same for our own should any of us choose to express and share.
Just my opinion I offer for consideration.
God’s blessings,
Rev. Campbell. p.s Don't worry about the double posting, my attempts at posting are acting wonky too!
Sorry I hadn’t read your original post; I was commenting on the well-worded post of Padre.
At the beginning of this thread, comments were made to demonstrate an individual’s opinion on the subject at hand. The fact that such comments were made on this forum, basically leaves this subject open for further input of others and their opinions, as does all threads. Though we may have different beliefs, we all have our opinions, and most are based on our beliefs. It would be incredibly difficult to express the reason for our opinion if we are to eliminate the belief system we subscribe to and it’s origins. If one believes in the bible and your belief system is based on the bible, then it is impossible to give an opinion that does not include it’s reference. To be offended by someone who quotes the bible is to deny them their right to share and express their belief, as would it be if they were to quote any other sacred material of any other faith.
There are many such written materials one may quote depending on their faith or belief, and all should be welcomed for sharing, as they are part of the people who collectively make up the ULC community.
No one is asked to believe or subscribe to any of the positions, opinions, faiths or beliefs of another that is offered here. But we are asked to be tolerant and respectful of them, as we would expect the same for our own should any of us choose to express and share.
Just my opinion I offer for consideration.
God’s blessings,
Rev. Campbell. p.s Don't worry about the double posting, my attempts at posting are acting wonky too!
Well put Reverend Camble,
I like your explanation of using sources for our beliefes when expressing those beliefes...It is something I have recently begun to understand about this board...just because someone disagrees, does not mean they are judging my beliefe. When it comes to a topic as delicate as religion, it is near impossible to not state those things that you hold sacred, and it is near impossible to fully express your feelings without mentioning your beliefe.
Chicarney,
I hope you understand, no one is replying in disagreement with your point of view...just different points of our own view. Again in your post you mention not quoting the Bible, but you also state reasons for not doing so...I recently wrote a letter to an Athiest which asked the question...If you spend time trying to convince people there is no God, aren't you infact trying to convert people to your point of view? The same could be said about your sharing your views on the Bible (again, I do not feel this is you intention, but it could be taken as such), if you are to spend time trying to deter people from following this text, are you not infact promoting your view, as much as those who quote the text are promoting thiers?
I can not speak for the founders of this church, or it's current leaders, but I am under the impression that you are correct...the church itself is not here to promote any particular path, but I feel it is also not here to lead people away from the paths they have choosen. In other words, the fact that the church does not promote the Bible, or Christian way of thinking, does not mean that they discourage it (I could use other texts from other faiths for my examples, but alas...Christian I am ).
I look forward to getting to know you more on these boards, and learning the path you have choosen to follow. It is nice to hear from new voices from time to time.
William
ps. again, I know this particular thread does contain some posts that are a bit judgemental, it has also been important for me to remember that though the church may be founded on great ideals, all of us members are still human...and thus prone to thinking we're right, and everyone else is wrong from time to time .
pss...my postings acting screwy too
I like your explanation of using sources for our beliefes when expressing those beliefes...It is something I have recently begun to understand about this board...just because someone disagrees, does not mean they are judging my beliefe. When it comes to a topic as delicate as religion, it is near impossible to not state those things that you hold sacred, and it is near impossible to fully express your feelings without mentioning your beliefe.
Chicarney,
I hope you understand, no one is replying in disagreement with your point of view...just different points of our own view. Again in your post you mention not quoting the Bible, but you also state reasons for not doing so...I recently wrote a letter to an Athiest which asked the question...If you spend time trying to convince people there is no God, aren't you infact trying to convert people to your point of view? The same could be said about your sharing your views on the Bible (again, I do not feel this is you intention, but it could be taken as such), if you are to spend time trying to deter people from following this text, are you not infact promoting your view, as much as those who quote the text are promoting thiers?
I can not speak for the founders of this church, or it's current leaders, but I am under the impression that you are correct...the church itself is not here to promote any particular path, but I feel it is also not here to lead people away from the paths they have choosen. In other words, the fact that the church does not promote the Bible, or Christian way of thinking, does not mean that they discourage it (I could use other texts from other faiths for my examples, but alas...Christian I am
). I look forward to getting to know you more on these boards, and learning the path you have choosen to follow. It is nice to hear from new voices from time to time.
William
ps. again, I know this particular thread does contain some posts that are a bit judgemental, it has also been important for me to remember that though the church may be founded on great ideals, all of us members are still human...and thus prone to thinking we're right, and everyone else is wrong from time to time
.pss...my postings acting screwy too
Very well put. We are almost on the same level. My intent was never to suggest that I person should abandon his or her beliefs. We should all share why we believe what we believe, but I think the difference in our stance here is that I believe that this church is about promoting why we believe what we believe because of the freedom granted in the church, but at the same time we should be open to comments and beliefs of others because the church is non-denominational, where all are equal. In other words, we are all on a spiritual path and are relying on one another to find that INDIVIDUAL path. The problem (for lack of a better word at the moment) I think I have with the differences of opinion is when a person suggests that their particular belief is the CORRECT way.
It's healthy and appropriate to say "I believe xxx because of xxx" vs "this IS the way because xxx." Does this make more sense? Suggesting that something is THE way to believe is promotion of something; asking someone to refrain from doing so is not asking them to stop believing that. It merely requests respect of those who disagree. This church should be a safe place to have beliefs without judments, which is what happens when a belief is suggested as truth and it is harmful to others.
For example, and in alignment with the sam-sex marriage topic of this forum, statements that it is wrong is in direct conflict with the freedom allowed in this church. Keep in mind that the pink triangle is part of the symbol of this church. That does not mean that everyone should agree on the topic because of different backgrounds. I think it is appropriate to state WHY you agree or disagree, but we must be careful with word choice to avoid condemnation of someone, which I believe is happening here. We should try to find commonality rather than point out differences at the expense of others.
I am not trying to promote my view or change others. I am trying to illustrate that some of the statements I have read posted here are scary in that they are alienating people that are also seeking enlightenment. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant regardless of any of our beliefs on the issue--at least in the purpose of this particular church. The same goes for a person who believes Jesus Christ is the savior of us all, as well as a person who believes there is no god. I agree that trying to suggest that any one person is "correct" is a waste of time. That is exactly my point. This church is a place to explore our differences, to individually find what is "right" for us to obtain spiritual enlightenment. It should not be about judgment, but instead about acceptance and take what we can from the experience and lessons of each other.
It's healthy and appropriate to say "I believe xxx because of xxx" vs "this IS the way because xxx." Does this make more sense? Suggesting that something is THE way to believe is promotion of something; asking someone to refrain from doing so is not asking them to stop believing that. It merely requests respect of those who disagree. This church should be a safe place to have beliefs without judments, which is what happens when a belief is suggested as truth and it is harmful to others.
For example, and in alignment with the sam-sex marriage topic of this forum, statements that it is wrong is in direct conflict with the freedom allowed in this church. Keep in mind that the pink triangle is part of the symbol of this church. That does not mean that everyone should agree on the topic because of different backgrounds. I think it is appropriate to state WHY you agree or disagree, but we must be careful with word choice to avoid condemnation of someone, which I believe is happening here. We should try to find commonality rather than point out differences at the expense of others.
I am not trying to promote my view or change others. I am trying to illustrate that some of the statements I have read posted here are scary in that they are alienating people that are also seeking enlightenment. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant regardless of any of our beliefs on the issue--at least in the purpose of this particular church. The same goes for a person who believes Jesus Christ is the savior of us all, as well as a person who believes there is no god. I agree that trying to suggest that any one person is "correct" is a waste of time. That is exactly my point. This church is a place to explore our differences, to individually find what is "right" for us to obtain spiritual enlightenment. It should not be about judgment, but instead about acceptance and take what we can from the experience and lessons of each other.
Ah!!! Good analogy...
I believe that Unitarian Universalism is the closest existing religion that compares to the basic foundation of this church. I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with such. Members are united by their goal of spiritual growth. Although it had protestant beginnings, the church has evolved beyond that.
What I am feeling based on the posts here is that the goal of this church is lost when individual beliefs are imposed instead of shared. I believe that our church is meant to be completely accepting (as long as no harm is done to others)--period. I don't mean that in a condescending way--merely to illustrate a point. The main differences between us and Unitarian Universalism are our more diverse background and the less "centralization" of the church.
We have to be careful not to divert from the commonality we share of spiritual enlightenment or else the church will quickly evolve into another form of christianity based on the mere fact of number of followers. It is similar to what has happened in the U.S. The country was based, in large part, based on the desire to have freedom of religion, but ultimately has become a place where so many laws and civil rights are established based on "majority rules." That was not the intent of the founding fathers nor of those that established this church.
I believe that Unitarian Universalism is the closest existing religion that compares to the basic foundation of this church. I am not now, nor have I ever been affiliated with such. Members are united by their goal of spiritual growth. Although it had protestant beginnings, the church has evolved beyond that.
What I am feeling based on the posts here is that the goal of this church is lost when individual beliefs are imposed instead of shared. I believe that our church is meant to be completely accepting (as long as no harm is done to others)--period. I don't mean that in a condescending way--merely to illustrate a point. The main differences between us and Unitarian Universalism are our more diverse background and the less "centralization" of the church.
We have to be careful not to divert from the commonality we share of spiritual enlightenment or else the church will quickly evolve into another form of christianity based on the mere fact of number of followers. It is similar to what has happened in the U.S. The country was based, in large part, based on the desire to have freedom of religion, but ultimately has become a place where so many laws and civil rights are established based on "majority rules." That was not the intent of the founding fathers nor of those that established this church.
My only concern, for homosexuals and hetrosexual...
for gays and straights...
for men and for women...
my only concern is that they know where they are from...
and that they know how and why experiences shape their preferences, discriminations
and orientations...
and finally that they know they were created to have these experiences so that
they would learn, and grow, and embody the unified consciousness physically
that they were in the beginning...spiritually.
For people to believe that gays are more lost than the religious or non-religous
is like believing there a heavenly place of bliss and rest in the after life.
Life is a process of emergence, experience and transition through death to
the next level towards self-actualized awareness.
Condemning others for their level of awareness, does nothing to enhance
unity of awareness, as it intensifies and perpetuates the fragmenting of
the whole of our collective consciousness.
There is no soul that does not desire conscious, social unification with other souls
so my question is:
Hhow does allowing the spiritually confused to compete, strive for wealth,
pursue material gain and even marry...
how does our allowing and promoting any and all of that, do anything but make
the journey toward knowing the whole spirit, that much farther and harder to comprehend?
for gays and straights...
for men and for women...
my only concern is that they know where they are from...
and that they know how and why experiences shape their preferences, discriminations
and orientations...
and finally that they know they were created to have these experiences so that
they would learn, and grow, and embody the unified consciousness physically
that they were in the beginning...spiritually.
For people to believe that gays are more lost than the religious or non-religous
is like believing there a heavenly place of bliss and rest in the after life.
Life is a process of emergence, experience and transition through death to
the next level towards self-actualized awareness.
Condemning others for their level of awareness, does nothing to enhance
unity of awareness, as it intensifies and perpetuates the fragmenting of
the whole of our collective consciousness.
There is no soul that does not desire conscious, social unification with other souls
so my question is:
Hhow does allowing the spiritually confused to compete, strive for wealth,
pursue material gain and even marry...
how does our allowing and promoting any and all of that, do anything but make
the journey toward knowing the whole spirit, that much farther and harder to comprehend?
My only concern, for homosexuals and heterosexual...
for gays and straights...
for men and for women...
for boys and girls...
for all children of God and of Men...
my only concern is that they know where they are from...
and that they know how and why experiences shape their preferences, discriminations
and orientations...
and finally that they know they were created to have these experiences so that
they would learn, and grow, and embody the unified consciousness physically,
that they were in the beginning...spiritually.
For people to believe and bash gays as more lost than their religious or non-religious
brothers and sisters is like believing there a heavenly place of bliss and rest in the after life.
Life is a process that mopves us through levels of consciousness upon our
emergence in life.
Knowledge and Experiences shape a self-perception and we will
transition through the portal of death to our next emergence until our
final self-actualized awareness of being whole and unified with the intelligent
energy of creation.
Condemning others for their level of awareness, does nothing to enhance
anyone's unity of awareness, as it only intensifies and perpetuates the fragmenting of
the whole of our collective consciousness.
Look at it this way...
there is no soul that does not desire conscious, social unification with other souls.
So my question is:
How does encouraging and allowing the spiritually confused to compete, strive for wealth,
pursue material gain and even marry...
How does our allowing and promoting any and all of that, do anything but make
the journey toward knowing the whole spirit, that much farther and harder to comprehend?
Note: This may be a rhetorical question
God's Peace
for gays and straights...
for men and for women...
for boys and girls...
for all children of God and of Men...
my only concern is that they know where they are from...
and that they know how and why experiences shape their preferences, discriminations
and orientations...
and finally that they know they were created to have these experiences so that
they would learn, and grow, and embody the unified consciousness physically,
that they were in the beginning...spiritually.
For people to believe and bash gays as more lost than their religious or non-religious
brothers and sisters is like believing there a heavenly place of bliss and rest in the after life.
Life is a process that mopves us through levels of consciousness upon our
emergence in life.
Knowledge and Experiences shape a self-perception and we will
transition through the portal of death to our next emergence until our
final self-actualized awareness of being whole and unified with the intelligent
energy of creation.
Condemning others for their level of awareness, does nothing to enhance
anyone's unity of awareness, as it only intensifies and perpetuates the fragmenting of
the whole of our collective consciousness.
Look at it this way...
there is no soul that does not desire conscious, social unification with other souls.
So my question is:
How does encouraging and allowing the spiritually confused to compete, strive for wealth,
pursue material gain and even marry...
How does our allowing and promoting any and all of that, do anything but make
the journey toward knowing the whole spirit, that much farther and harder to comprehend?
Note: This may be a rhetorical question
God's Peace
To Jake77:
I appreciate you taking the time to post an actual study. However, as both a priest and more importantly, a Linguist, I'd like to point out some errors in the same that might have clouded your judgment.
"Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear."
This is not the case at all! We read in Genesis 19:5 that the people [note: not just the men, but all people "young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom" ] demanded of Lot “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may [have relations] with them.” What I put in brackets is a translation of the Hebrew verb יֶדַע “yādhả” which means “to know.” It is, however, proper, to interpret this word as “engage in coitus” however only when sufficiently linguistically qualified as such. Tthis is not necessarily the meaning of the word in this passage. There are actually 943 uses of this verb in the Old Testament, but it is used only 10 times without qualification, apart from this text in Genesis and Judges 19:22, to denote sexual coitus. And even then, with the possible exception of this verse, it always denotes heterosexual coitus rather than homosexual, because the word normally used for both homosexual coitus and bestiality is שָׁכַב “shākhabh.” “Yādhả” is also used, however, in verse 7 of the same chapter, when Lot offers his daughters “who have never [known] a man.” Here, the word clearly and unambiguously denotes sexual relations, but only because it is explicitly clarified by the word “man.” G.A. Barton also argues that, based on this evidence, “there is no actual necessity to interpret ‘know’ in Gen 19:5 as equivalent to ‘have coitus with.’ It may mean no more than ‘get acquainted with.’ ” (”Sodomy,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,11:672a)
There is another interpretation of this passage which is far more straightforward; Lot was not a citizen of Sodom. Rather, he was a גָּר “gēr” or resident alien in Sodom, may have exceeded his rights therein by hosting guests who were also foreign and may have had hostile intentions. There was no way for the city of Sodom to be certain of this, since they had come directly to Lot and not through the proper channels by presenting credentials. This provides a very clear reason why the people of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded of him “Bring them unto us that we may [know] them.“
There is also an important point that should be addressed: if the nature of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t homosexual practices, then what was? We read in Genesis that those cities were wicked and grievously sinful, but the specific nature of the iniquity isn’t clear. It can only be assumed on completely a priori grounds that it was only or even mostly sexual in nature. There is no evidence elsewhere in the passage itself or the entire Old Testament to show that homosexual behaviour was commonplace in these cities. Lot also offered his virgin daughters to appease the strangers, and this is usually interpreted as an offer of heterosexual relations in lieu of homosexual relations. But in truth, that was most likely the best bribe Lot could come up with at the time to appease a rowdy crowd. And in Old Testament times, that would have been a pretty generous offer, no?
So, I pose this question to those who still maintain that sexual crimes resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: if God so condemns sexual crimes, why did he aspire to let Lot live? After Lot and his daughters escaped the destruction, the lived in a cave where Lot committed incest with both of his daughters. Such sexual misbehaviour would surely likewise invoke the wrath of God.
"This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act."
Leviticus 18:22 -
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination*.
וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה* הִֽוא
As the user named "SeekerOfTruth" has already pointed out, the word "abomination" doesn't mean what we generally interpret it to mean. תועבה “to’ebah” means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as “abomination.” Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is “to’ebah” A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was “to’ebah.” A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is “to’ebah” today. This is very specific when referring to idolatry, but it should be noted that its basic meaning is something which is either ritualistically unclean for Jews, or something which is condemned by socioreligious consequences. Genesis 43:32 that “the Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.” using the exact same word.
But there is a more important word to look at in the Old Testament. קדש “qadesh” means a male ********** who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as “sodomite” or “homosexual.” (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple **********. It is frequently mistranslated simply as “*****” or “**********.” A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple. Strong’s bible concordance/lexicon goes further to say that they were consecrated to Asarte or Venus, and prostituted themselves in order to bring honor to either deity. This clearly does not apply to what we percieve of homosexuals today. This word is present in Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, and 2 Kings 23:7.
"The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter."
In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.” This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors — including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) — all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.
The Bible is clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble. When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us — and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives. Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were homosexual or homosexual? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.
"In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself."
That, as such, is a blatant lie. Paul did not take the words from Leviticus. He couldn't have... because those words were in Hebrew and the Epistle to the Corinthians was written in Koine Greek. It's true that this word doesn't appear in the greek literature, but there is another way of preserving words - oral tradition, the same way many of our Church practices came down to us today. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of “the effeminate call boys.” We might call them “dirty old men.” Others translate the word as “sodomites,” but never explain what that means. But taking a closer look at the etymology of this word, we can form a pretty good estimate of what it does in fact mean. There are two parts to this word, the first of which being derived from ἄρσην [arsen] which is usually translated as “man” or “male”, but is in fact better translated as “adolescent.” So, we have the first part, what is the second? Kοίτη [Kite] can refer to a bed or the act of sexual intercourse . If you make a compound noun out of those to words, you’d get something like “a man who has sex with adolescents.” Clearly not a broad sweeping definition to condemn all homosexuality, is it? That is not an attempt to relegate the scripture, I'm speaking on a purely linguistic basis. If Paul wanted to be more specific to homosexuality, there are a plethora of words he could have chosen.
The concept of sexual orientation wasn’t even known until the 19th century. The discovery that some of us are created and/or shaped in our earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years. Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created heterosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and heck below, and that the sun moved up and down. Although the word homosexual was not used for the first time until later in the 19th century, Dr. Karl Heinrih Ulrichs recognized that homosexuals had been around from the beginning of recorded time, that we were “innately different from heterosexuals,” and that our desire for same-sex intimacy and affiliation is intrinsic, natural, inborn and/or shaped in earliest infancy. According to Dr. Ulrichs, what may have looked “unnatural” to Moses and Paul was in fact “natural” to homosexuals. In other words, the Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.
In Christ,
Rev. Nick
I appreciate you taking the time to post an actual study. However, as both a priest and more importantly, a Linguist, I'd like to point out some errors in the same that might have clouded your judgment.
"Likewise, some argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. John J. McNeill makes this case, arguing that the church oppressively shifted the understanding of the sin of Sodom from inhospitality to homosexuality.(7) The text, however, cannot be made to play this game. The context indicates that the sin of Sodom is clearly homosexuality--and without this meaning, the passage makes no sense. The language and the structure of the text are clear."
This is not the case at all! We read in Genesis 19:5 that the people [note: not just the men, but all people "young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom" ] demanded of Lot “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may [have relations] with them.” What I put in brackets is a translation of the Hebrew verb יֶדַע “yādhả” which means “to know.” It is, however, proper, to interpret this word as “engage in coitus” however only when sufficiently linguistically qualified as such. Tthis is not necessarily the meaning of the word in this passage. There are actually 943 uses of this verb in the Old Testament, but it is used only 10 times without qualification, apart from this text in Genesis and Judges 19:22, to denote sexual coitus. And even then, with the possible exception of this verse, it always denotes heterosexual coitus rather than homosexual, because the word normally used for both homosexual coitus and bestiality is שָׁכַב “shākhabh.” “Yādhả” is also used, however, in verse 7 of the same chapter, when Lot offers his daughters “who have never [known] a man.” Here, the word clearly and unambiguously denotes sexual relations, but only because it is explicitly clarified by the word “man.” G.A. Barton also argues that, based on this evidence, “there is no actual necessity to interpret ‘know’ in Gen 19:5 as equivalent to ‘have coitus with.’ It may mean no more than ‘get acquainted with.’ ” (”Sodomy,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,11:672a)
There is another interpretation of this passage which is far more straightforward; Lot was not a citizen of Sodom. Rather, he was a גָּר “gēr” or resident alien in Sodom, may have exceeded his rights therein by hosting guests who were also foreign and may have had hostile intentions. There was no way for the city of Sodom to be certain of this, since they had come directly to Lot and not through the proper channels by presenting credentials. This provides a very clear reason why the people of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and demanded of him “Bring them unto us that we may [know] them.“
There is also an important point that should be addressed: if the nature of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t homosexual practices, then what was? We read in Genesis that those cities were wicked and grievously sinful, but the specific nature of the iniquity isn’t clear. It can only be assumed on completely a priori grounds that it was only or even mostly sexual in nature. There is no evidence elsewhere in the passage itself or the entire Old Testament to show that homosexual behaviour was commonplace in these cities. Lot also offered his virgin daughters to appease the strangers, and this is usually interpreted as an offer of heterosexual relations in lieu of homosexual relations. But in truth, that was most likely the best bribe Lot could come up with at the time to appease a rowdy crowd. And in Old Testament times, that would have been a pretty generous offer, no?
So, I pose this question to those who still maintain that sexual crimes resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: if God so condemns sexual crimes, why did he aspire to let Lot live? After Lot and his daughters escaped the destruction, the lived in a cave where Lot committed incest with both of his daughters. Such sexual misbehaviour would surely likewise invoke the wrath of God.
"This verse is sufficient to indicate the severity of the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an "abomination"--the strongest word used of God's judgment against an act."
Leviticus 18:22 -
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination*.
וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה* הִֽוא
As the user named "SeekerOfTruth" has already pointed out, the word "abomination" doesn't mean what we generally interpret it to mean. תועבה “to’ebah” means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as “abomination.” Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is “to’ebah” A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was “to’ebah.” A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is “to’ebah” today. This is very specific when referring to idolatry, but it should be noted that its basic meaning is something which is either ritualistically unclean for Jews, or something which is condemned by socioreligious consequences. Genesis 43:32 that “the Egyptians could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.” using the exact same word.
But there is a more important word to look at in the Old Testament. קדש “qadesh” means a male ********** who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as “sodomite” or “homosexual.” (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple **********. It is frequently mistranslated simply as “*****” or “**********.” A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple. Strong’s bible concordance/lexicon goes further to say that they were consecrated to Asarte or Venus, and prostituted themselves in order to bring honor to either deity. This clearly does not apply to what we percieve of homosexuals today. This word is present in Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, and 2 Kings 23:7.
"The most extensive argument against homosexuality is not found in the Old Testament, however, but in Romans 1:22-27, a passage which is found within Paul's lengthy introduction to his Roman letter."
In Romans 1:26-27 the apostle Paul describes non-Jewish women who exchange “natural use for unnatural” and non-Jewish men who “leave the natural use of women, working shame with each other.” This verse appears to be clear: Paul sees women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and he condemns that practice. But let’s go back 2,000 years and try to understand why. Paul is writing this letter to Rome after his missionary tour of the Mediterranean. On his journey Paul had seen great temples built to honor Aphrodite, Diana, and other fertility gods and goddesses of sex and passion instead of the one true God the apostle honors. Apparently, these priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors — including castrating themselves, carrying on drunken sexual orgies, and even having sex with young temple prostitutes (male and female) — all to honor the gods of sex and pleasure.
The Bible is clear that when passion gets control of our lives, we’re in deep trouble. When we live for pleasure, when we forget that we are God’s children and that God has great dreams for our lives, we may end up serving the false gods of sex and passion, just as they did in Paul’s time. In our obsession with pleasure, we may even walk away from the God who created us — and in the process we may cause God to abandon all the great dreams God has for our lives. Did these priests and priestesses get into these behaviors because they were homosexual or homosexual? I don’t think so. Did God abandon them because they were practicing homosexuals? No. Read the text again.
"In other letters, Paul indicates that homosexuals--along with those who persist in other sins--will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoites, a word with a graphic etymology. Some modern revisionists have attempted to suggest that this refers only to homosexual rapists or child abusers. This argument will not stand even the slightest scholarly consideration. The word does not appear in any Greek literature of the period. As New Testament scholar David Wright has demonstrated, the word was taken by Paul directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, and its meaning is homosexuality itself."
That, as such, is a blatant lie. Paul did not take the words from Leviticus. He couldn't have... because those words were in Hebrew and the Epistle to the Corinthians was written in Koine Greek. It's true that this word doesn't appear in the greek literature, but there is another way of preserving words - oral tradition, the same way many of our Church practices came down to us today. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of “the effeminate call boys.” We might call them “dirty old men.” Others translate the word as “sodomites,” but never explain what that means. But taking a closer look at the etymology of this word, we can form a pretty good estimate of what it does in fact mean. There are two parts to this word, the first of which being derived from ἄρσην [arsen] which is usually translated as “man” or “male”, but is in fact better translated as “adolescent.” So, we have the first part, what is the second? Kοίτη [Kite] can refer to a bed or the act of sexual intercourse . If you make a compound noun out of those to words, you’d get something like “a man who has sex with adolescents.” Clearly not a broad sweeping definition to condemn all homosexuality, is it? That is not an attempt to relegate the scripture, I'm speaking on a purely linguistic basis. If Paul wanted to be more specific to homosexuality, there are a plethora of words he could have chosen.
The concept of sexual orientation wasn’t even known until the 19th century. The discovery that some of us are created and/or shaped in our earliest infancy toward same-gender attraction was made in the last 150 years. Biblical authors knew nothing about sexual orientation. Old Testament authors and Paul assumed all people were created heterosexual, just as they believed the earth was flat, that there were heavens above and heck below, and that the sun moved up and down. Although the word homosexual was not used for the first time until later in the 19th century, Dr. Karl Heinrih Ulrichs recognized that homosexuals had been around from the beginning of recorded time, that we were “innately different from heterosexuals,” and that our desire for same-sex intimacy and affiliation is intrinsic, natural, inborn and/or shaped in earliest infancy. According to Dr. Ulrichs, what may have looked “unnatural” to Moses and Paul was in fact “natural” to homosexuals. In other words, the Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.
In Christ,
Rev. Nick
Apparently this forum doesn't allow the use of certain words.
For clarity:
The 7 stars are protit... etc
and the other is whor... etc.
For clarity:
The 7 stars are protit... etc
and the other is whor... etc.
QUOTE (Fa. Jacob @ Aug 10 2009, 06:39 PM) 
Apparently this forum doesn't allow the use of certain words.
For clarity:
The 7 stars are protit... etc
and the other is whor... etc.
For clarity:
The 7 stars are protit... etc
and the other is whor... etc.
Fa. Jacob; Yes, H e l l is now heck, not as scary now is it? I assume that D a m n is probably then , darn. The only way to beat the auto-censor device is to place a space between letters, such as w h o r e, or other words that might be picked off.
Thank you also for your clarification on the post regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, as much light as might be shed upon any given subject, many of our species will choose to ignore the Truth of God preferring the persecutory prejudices of man. It appears that one man must malign another in order to feel good and make himself superior over something? We race ever forward in our efforts to humanize God and deify self. In the beginning, the perfect garden was not sufficient for mankind's desires. And in the end, God is no longer necessary for mankind's sustenance or guidance. We are naught but willful children lost in the forest of our own imaginings, evil incarnate that has planned the obsolescence of God.
I prefer the Red Road of spirituality and the teachings of Jesus to the whims of man.....God's Peace.....To`na Wanagi
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.