How Jesus, and The Bible affirm, not condemn homosexuality. Gay Biblical Heroes. David and Jonathan.
74Contents.
Bible and Homosexuality.
Homosexuality in The Old Testament.
Jesus and his Homosexual Friends.
Another Homosexual Bible Hero, and Conclusion.
Jesus and Homosexuals.
A small addition.
Isaiah 53:3. A most important scripture.
Love, with God's blessing. Deal with it.
Gay scriptural icons.
Bible and Homosexuality.
One of the strangest things about Christians, especially the more Bible reading fraternity, is that the more they devour "The Good Book", the less they seem to understand the real messages contained in it. Stories that are about one thing are usually completely misunderstood. The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices.
Take the subject of homosexuality, and homosexual sex, as written about, and depicted in The Bible. A large amount of ink has been spilled on this subject, and an enormous amount of hot air has been exhaled by various preachers, in efforts to prove that God dishes out an extra bit of "Hellfire" to men who love men, and women who love women. Their spewing on this subject has even managed to become an international scandal recently, when we consider the effect it has had on the polity of some countries in Africa, most especially Uganda.
Homosexuality in The Old Testament.
It is a misrepresentation of Sacred Scripture to say that it condemns homosexual practices. It never does as such. Take the most commonly mentioned one of "the sin of Sodom". It was not homosexuality, but a disregard for the ancient laws of hospitality, and contempt for the poor and needy. The connection with homosexuality wasn’t made until the sixth century AD, and that was just a political thing by a corrupt Byzantine emperor, to do with blackening his opponents. Nothing to do with The Bible.
And what are we to make of the story of David and Jonathan, two fit young men, if ever there were. In 1st and2nd Samuel their story is related in exquisite detail. Plenty of disrobing there, and what about the "love that surpasses the love of women"? Don’t try to fool yourselves that that pair were not, at least bisexual. It is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the accounts.
Let us not exclude the "fair sex". Ruth and Naomi, almost undoubtedly lesbians. The vows that they made to each other are the basis of the marriage vows repeated in every Christian church today. Ironic isn’t it that "Mr and Mrs Bigot" used the same vows as a pair of lesbians when they got hitched.
All those "abomination charged" laws in the Book of Leviticus are equally meaningless. They were designed to discourage idolatrous pagan practices as done in the temples of Egypt and Canaan. These included ritual sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. It wasn’t "gay sex" as such that was being condemned, just doing it as part of a pagan worship ritual. Even if the Leviticus rules did say that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, the same punishment was prescribed for children who cheeked their parents, and for people who wore two types of cloth at the same time, or planted two types of seed together in the same field or garden. If you have tulips and daffodils growing alongside each other, you are certainly going to Hell.
Jesus and his Homosexual Friends.
In the New Testament, St Paul's Epistle to The Romans is used to condemn "Gays". But again this was really directed against Temple Rituals, and idolatry, exactly like in The Old Testament. Once again anything he might have had to say about other subjects, like the position of women, are ignored. Just the poor old homosexuals get hammered again, by his false interpreters, and only just to reinforce their own bigoted attitudes. People should really understand The Bible before spouting it. Since St Paul was a Roman citizen, and probably had plenty of Gentile friends, some of them were probably homosexuals. It was rife in his time anyway.
The feelings of Jesus on the subject are best found in the story of the centurion's servant/lover. The roman centurion is constantly held up to us as an example of great faith in Jesus. But the plain fact that he was homosexual is generally ignored. It didn’t bother Jesus Christ. Why should it bother his followers?
Then there is the curious one about the three categories of Eunuch. The term eunuch does not just mean a man without "his bits". It actually means a man without sexual interest in women. Jesus refers to three types of eunuch. One is a eunuch that has been that way from birth. Since most scientific opinion believes in homosexuals being born that way, what Our Lord meant should be pretty obvious. There is also a story in The Acts of the Apostles, in which St Philip baptises a eunuch. That one needs to be thought about as well.
Another Homosexual Bible Hero, and Conclusion.
There are also a lot of less well defined examples of probable homosexuals as heroes in The Bible. What about Joseph? I don’t see any reference to him being married. Perhaps "the coat of many colours" was symbolic of him being gay. It would explain a lot.
Then there was the strange story of Joseph's encounter with Potiphar's wife.
When Joseph was brought to Egypt, he was sold to Potiphar, a married eunuch. Potiphar must not have been satisfying his wife sexually, as she made several passes at Joseph, who manfully resisted her charms. The scorned woman accused him of rape, and he was put in prison. The subtext here is that Joseph and Potiphar were, most probably, both homosexual men. Not what the conventional expect, but most likely the truth.
One other thing. In ancient Canaan a “coat of many colours” was the garb of the Canaan temple male prostitutes. No wonder Joseph’s homophobic brothers attacked him.
Anyway folks, to wrap up. There may be some among you who wish to persist in the notion that homosexuality is an "abomination". But if you are looking to The Bible for evidence to back you up, you are wasting your time, and deluding yourself. The Bible simply oozes homosexual affirmation. But then what else would you expect from A Book that was inspired by an all loving God.
Jesus and Homosexuals.
 | Amazon Price: $40.00 List Price: $55.00 |
A small addition.
I feel it is appropriate, in view of all the negative comments that this hub has attracted, and no doubt will attract in the future, to post this video. The prophecy is being fulfilled again in our own day, in the attitude that certain Christians adopt towards God's own homosexual children.
Isaiah 53:3. A most important scripture.
Quality items from eBay.
|
Precious Moments Thou Art Mine Jonathon and David 1979 E-3113
Current Bid: $7.99
|
|
1980 Hanging Ornament Girl Holding Bunny Jonathon and David Figurine
Current Bid: $.99
|
|
Print circa 80 year old The Love of David and Jonathon
Current Bid: $41.43
|
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (2)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
Hi Druid Dude. Thanks for reading, and for your kind comments.
I.m going to do a bit of copying and pasting here to save me typing, then I will give you the link, so you can check it for yourself if you like.
"To Know" occurs 943 time in the Old Testament. Out of 943 only 10 refer to having sexual meaning".
"Rape" is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without the woman's consent (can also be applied to men), effected by force, intimidation, or deception as to the nature of the act. The city showed it deserved destruction, for the vile mob of residents of Sodom, including boys and old men, surrounded Lots house, attempting to rape his angelic guests.
"The Bible tells us that rape of any kind - heterosexual or homosexual - is evil. If rape is part of Sodom's sins, it could be included-but not specified-in the sins mentioned by Isaiah and Ezekiel. But since homosexuality, as distinguished from homosexual rape, is not mentioned as one of Sodom's sins, we have no grounds for concluding that it was a sin in Sodom. Again remember the difference between orientation and practices".
Sin of Sodom
For the Bible often refers back to the story of Sodom and says aright what Sodoms sin was. In Lot's time, homosexual rape was a way of showing oneself to be superior to the victim. The village wanted to prove their superiority to the visitors. In order to get a clear view of this passage, we need to look at the context that it was written in.
"We come to first to Ezekiel 16:48-49 which we read:
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
The sin of the Sodomites was they refused to take in the needy travelers in Genesis Chapter 19. They were not destroyed because of Homosexual acts like people want to say they did. They were destroyed because they were not helping the poor and needy."
Nowhere does the text mention that they were destroyed of homosexual acts".
http://www.whosoever.org/v4i6/youth.html
Jesus understood the sin of Sodom to be inhospitality.
That is why in Matthew 10: 5-15 he said that the punishment of the people who refused hospitality to his disciples would be worse than that given to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Emperor Justinian I in the sixth century was the first person to declare that the sin of Sodom was with certainty homosexuality. He did this because he wanted to scapegoat certain political opponents of his as homosexuals. Because in Byzantine society the emperor was considered to be an authority on theology, his meaning took hold. It did not have any earlier currency.
I'd sure like a list of scripture books, chapters and verses here along side each statement so I can read your offerings for myself. It's not to doubt you it's to understand your position, as I'm vaguely familiar with some of the points you make but was taught by a closed mind and I'd like to read from an open mind, that in my opinion would reinforce your points here, thanks 50
Hi 50 caliber.
I will publish some more concrete information on this subject in the next few days. In the meantime, If you want to check this one out.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Two-strange-facts-about-Je
The videos with both these hubs should give some more details as well.
Thanks for reading.
I'll check that out as well as punch the trailer button to catch your further postings, dusty
all ready done....
50 Caliber.
Thanks for that. Much appreciated.
Very likely to provide you some sharpening up on your debate skills, Christopher.
"One of the strangest things about christians, especially the more Bible reading fraternity, is that the more they devour "The Good Book", the less they seem to understand the real messages contained in it"
Isn't that the truth!
Thanks Wesman. I appreciate your comments.
Now you should realize by now that a good pot stirring individual is very likely to be someone I appreciate!
Hi Wesman.
It is true that I like stirring pot.
I used to like smoking it as well in my earlier days.
Cheers!
Hello Christopher,
My knowledge of the Bible is limited, but we should all remember that homosexuality was more than accepted in the ancient world and it was made a "sin" only by the Christian faith, while ironically, the Catholic prists are doing it even to children - hipocrisy at its worst.
Some of the finest men I know are homosexsual and I am proud to call them friends.
Hi Petra.
What you say is essentially the truth, although I would not single out priests for particular condemnation. Pedophilia is a problem throughout society. There are plenty of good priests as well.
I would like to turn your last sentence on it's head by saying that,
"some of the finest men, and women, that I know are heterosexual and I am proud to call them friends".
Thanks for dropping by.
Heck I slept with a gay dude 2 weeks every fall on hunting trips, good guy, and just blurted it out one day as we were returning to southern California from a hunt. Poor guy thought he might have to walk home. I told him what he did in his private places didn't concern me, and told him if he didn't try to get in my cot with me when camping that I didn't give 2 shits what he did. We hunted together for 4 or 5 more years, then I moved out here. I don't get the big deal? dust
Cheers Dusty.
It never really was a big deal, just another variation in nature; at least, not until some folks started to make it a big deal, why, I cant ever figure out.
While the above article has great style, one can convincingly argue that nearly all it says is wrong. The author’s statement that “The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices” applies to his own article.
While the Bible does accept homosexual orientation in the David and Jonathan story, it also consistently prohibits and criticizes homosexual activity (sex between men) in all situations, not just idolatrous sex. The Bible’s condemnation was mainly based on the ancient idea that it was appalling and totally shameful for a man to be sexually penetrated like a woman is.
However we now realize that the condemnation only applied to the ancient biblical cultures who held this idea, and it does not apply today because of our different view of male and female sexual roles. Sex between men is therefore okay if the participants care for each other and no one is harmed. See the “Gay and Christian” website (www.gaysandslaves.com) for more information on this.
Hi Raycol,
Do you really think that an eternal God, that is, one who has lived for way more than trillions of years, would have changed his mind on something so essential in two thousand years? That would be less than the blink of an eyelid to him. If it is ok for men to have sex together now, then it was ok then. The same rule applies to women.
I will have a look at your website later. thanks for the url.
I was gonna answer your hub point by point however that would turn my comment into a hub. Therefore that is what I will do, write up a hub on this very subject. It is obvious from your remarks you have not devoured the good book enough to understand what it says.
I look forward to your hub, but I think you will find you are mistaken regarding my reading of The Bible.
what is going on in Africa is a tragic extension of the hate speech coming out of the US evangelist movement.
peanutroaster.
Thanks for reading.
Sadly what you say is true.
peanutroaster.
perhaps this is one you might like to read.
In your hub you mentioned seeing no reference to joseph being married. Genesis Chap 41 v 45&50 name his wife, Asenath and his son's Ephraim and Manasseh, both of whom become tribes in Isreal. Also he rejected the advances of potipher's wife because it would be a sin against God. The sin of adultry. As for the coat of many colours, the rainbow was not a symbol of the Gay lifestyle untill the 1970's. I'm sorry to be harping but Joseph in eygpt is one of my favorite old testiment stories.
Hi ruffridyer.
Thanks for that correction, which I deserve. But you must admit of the possibility that Joseph married Asenath for dynastic reasons. He wont have been the first, and he certainly wont be the last.
The coat of many colours was something that was worn by male temple prostitutes in Canaan. That is why I associated it with the idea that Joseph might be gay. It has nothing to do with the rainbow. I agree that is a modern symbol.
Good hub. Provoking many points of view in the comments.
Your assessment is correct, but it will make no difference to those who view the world with one blind eye. Those who spend their lives judging others will do so no matter how convincing any argument is in opposition to those narrow minded views they possess. Any one with the ability to reach a logical conclusion can certainly understand that a benevolent "Creator" would not, could not, create anything that would be so loathing to it; that is only a human trait.
There is apparently little, if any, understanding of the concepts of a Creator as described in any of the ancient writings that have little to do with reality in the first place. Those 'sacred' texts, from which all this hatred is derived from, were written less than 2,000 years ago. A mere millisecond in terms of eternity, and to base a culture of hatred on those words taken out of context, is beyond my comprehension.
If people want to maintain their ignorance, let them. But they also must realize that those ignorant beliefs belong to them alone, and they have no right to impose them on others. The bible is just an old book of words written by humans for a specific purpose. And that purpose certainly was NOT for the redemption of souls.
d.william.
Thanks for your supportive comments. I think myself that The Bible is an inspired book, and it does point out a way for the salvation of our souls, but it is not very well understood by it's most fanatical adherents.
http://hubpages.com/profile/christopheranton.
If one believes in the bible verbatim, that certainly is their prerogative and i would never fault any one for their beliefs. I do not happen to believe it is anything remotely connected with messages from God. I have done extensive research on the origins of the bible, and it was nothing more than a political tool to reign in the masses and control their lives. I have little, if any, use for any organized religion that chooses to preach hatred, intolerance and bigotry. I do not know of any, other than the ancient religions, that taught spirituality, love and acceptance, but those days are long gone. It is time to step into reality and move toward the future with focus on spirituality and not the false teachings of fear and guilt for the perceived sins of mankind that are man made. There is no one on this planet that can attest to the true nature of our Creator, and i do not speculate based on ancient biased texts.
I think I need to add to my comment, above, that The Bible is not understood by it's detractors either. One thing I am not is a bible literalist. The problem for those who regard The Bible as actual history in it's entirety, is that it is manifestly not so. They are therefore missing out on the true messages conveyed in that Holy Book.
They are also adding fuel to the fire of people who share your equally extreme opposite views, which I feel is a great pity.
Hi christopher, I did a lot of research into homosexuality after my mother kindly told me that if I were ever lesbian she would cut off all contact in case it 'rubbed off' onto my little sisters. Now, the research I did was scientific, not biblical, but it states that a man being gay is influenced within the first three months of his mothers pregnancy, it occurs because of low amounts of testosterone being passed through to him. Lo testosterone leads to a certain part of the brain being smaller, and therefore being female. Same with women, high amount of testosterone essentially make for a lesbian woman as a certain part of the brain is essentially male, enlargened. As for the bible, I was brought up a Jehovah's witness from birth, so for me I guess you could say that I was brainwashed?... Any mention of anything in the bible, any challenge still leaves me with a lump in my throat... but thankyou ever so much for this interesting hub, it would be interesting to know if you could look at the new testament of the holy scripture that JW's use and still come to the same conclusion. I do know that the romans had a lot of homosexual practises going on. Strong regards and please keep writing your hubs, they make me think and rethink and think again... Take Care, Jo.
Oddly enough Jo, I know a lot more about Witnesses than you would suspect, bercause my closest friend was one until he discovered he was gay, and then had a nervous breakdown over worrying that he was an abomination. He has got past that now, Thank God, and although he is still a strong christian, he has left the witnesses behind. You are right about the "witness bible", but then The New World Translation is notorious for it's deliberate mistranslations deliberately done to back up their wierd theological arguments.
Thanks for your scientific input. It goes to prove that if God did have any hand in making us, He intended us to be as we are, regardless of sexuality.
I love God, and hate religion. I would be considered a christian, but I do not preach hatred or judge people. You seem like a good person,and have writtin a thought provoking Hub. Yet I must say, in my humble opinion, you are distorting and "spinning" your examples as much as those you criticize. Just examine your David and Jonathon example.
David and Jonathan, two "fit young men" (so?), "exquisite details" (where?), "plenty of disrobing" (Huh? Where?),"the love that surpasses the love of women" (is gay love the only possible interpretation of that phrase? If so, are you contending that male gay love or sex is superior to that of a man and a woman? Why?). Finally, you write "don't try to fool yourself...that they weren't at least bi-sexual, it's ' pretty obvious'to anyone who reads the accounts.
I've read the passages you reference with no desire to fool myself,and I honestly cannot see anything that makes it pretty obvious that your conclusions are correct. With respect,it's a bit of a stretch to conclude what you find to be so obvious. If there are any facts, not surmisings, that I have overlooked, I'd gladly take another look.
I think many of us choose to see what we want to see. I've been guilty of the same, as are many Christian preachers, atheistic preachers, gay or straight preachers, even Hubpages preachers.
Thanks for an interesting Hub.
Hi DMz.
Of course in the story of David and Jonathan the Bible doesnt explicity say they were gay, and David did have a wife, but whatever the reason, their story does ooze homoeroticism.
That much is pretty undeniable.
Undeniable? Please point me to the verses that "ooze" homoeroticism.
I'm not attacking you, I'm interested in how you draw your conclusions. Respectfully, my thinking is that one undermines their position when they surmise or add personal opinions to what could be some good points.
Writers lose me when they stray from concrete facts to personal interpretaion and claim it is "obvious", etc. That's one reason I cannot bear to listen to sermons from most christian preachers. In the spirit of good will, I would caution you not to fall into the same error-in reverse.
Again, you strike me as striving to be intellectually honest-note your willingness to stand corrected, responding 'ruffrider': "thanks for that correction, which I deserve." That impressed me, as well as your following comment "but you must admit the possibility...etc". That's more like it, in my humble opinion. Much easier to swallow than "don't fool yourself" or "it's obvious".
Anyway, show me where to look and I'll check it out.
Thank you.
Hi DMz.
Rather than just typing out a lot of verses from the Bible, I will give you the link to this Wikipedia article, and you can look it up for yourself.
It is a balanced article, that gives both points of view.
If you have the time, read it, and then you can make up your own mind.
Hi C.
I wasn't requesting that you type out verses-how tedious-just references e.g. 1Sam.22:11, etc.
Sure, I'll peruse the article, but I was interested in how you drew your conclusions from what verses. That's how your Hub began, by criticizing christians who read the bible but don't understand it.
You write "The obvious meaning is discarded, and some totally inaccurate interpretation is put on the words, purely to accommodate their own peculiar prejudices." Yet, I would submit that you are doing exactly that. To be guilty of writing an article and 'spinning' it according to your own beliefs and opinions is not limited to christian 'churchianity.'As a matter of fact-dare I say it-many Hubbers are guilty of the same. Your Hub examples are not backed up with specifics, which leads me to conclude:
1. You're writing examples which you've been told and accepted without research and comparison, or;
2. You read an article somewhere and paraphrased it (btw, I suspect many Hubbers are guilty of rewriting other authors' articles and then Hubbing them as though it were their own original thoughts),or;
3. We ALL live in a yellow submarine.
My personal conclusion is that most of your biblical examples are not supported by what's written, but are wishful thinking, possibilities, and some real stretches and surmisings, but nothing I've read so far leads me to agree that your conclusions are "obvious" "conclusive."
I am not belittling you in any way; I am as imperfect as any human can be, because I'm only human.And I have been guilty of the same "sin" :)
I'll not wear out my welcome, or belabor the point. Again feel free to respond with concrete facts, and thanks for giving me space to respond to your Hub.
Now I go to check out the Hub that RUFFRYDER (see above) said he would post and see if he delivered.
Best regards,
DMZ
Hi there DMZ.
Verses from the first book of Samuel regarding David and Jonathan.
If you dont see what I, and a lot of other people, see there is nothing further that I can say.
18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
20:17 And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
I hope that meets your requirements.
Here's my article on religious texts (in general).
http://mccordrm.hubpages.com/hub/Religious-Texts
I completely agree that we have a tendency to take things out of context, and/or misplace the significance of our stories.
Hi there McCordRM. Thanks for the link. I've read it, and will be putting a comment on it later on.
Welcome to HubPages.
Excellent, thanks!
You're welcome.
Couldn't find much I agreed with, when the "evidence" you provided was taken in context. This article seems to be more about theology and philosophy, than the Bible itself... a clever way to spin a written document toward a more personally favourable context. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say it was pure genius: you've provided a brick wall against any possibly more accurate presentation, providing for the poisoning of the wells and an ex-silencio argument. I commend you for your cunning.
Having said that, I will admit that the love between Jonathan and David in the Bible could easily appear to be homosexual in nature; not to mention that you're right about Sodom and Gomorrha not being destroyed solely for homosexuality itself. But, you've taken the book of Ruth entirely out of context, in so many ways, for just one example in your article. For one thing, why would she produce children with a man, if she were married to a woman? That would be adultery. For another, from the reading of the entire book, it's blatantly obvious that her romantic affections were reserved solely for two men: her former husband; and, later, Boaz. It takes a real confirmation bias to read into the text what obviously isn't there.
Again, all in all, quite a cunning way to present your own case; but, I'm afraid I must chalk your expository method up to the same method used by people who beat their children, and commit acts of violence against people of other races or cultures, simply because they can cherry-pick a piece of a passage, here and there, and read into it what isn't there. Theologizing a passage leads to that kind of error. Speaking where the Bible speaks, and being silent where the Bible is silent, is the only way to remedy this error.
Hi Dave. Thanks for reading. I'm not sure what wells I am supposed to have poisoned. If you mean the wells of scripture, I think I have done rather a good job in extracting the poisons that have been thrown in there by inaccurate homophobic interpretations.
I am glad that you can see the homoeroticism in the story of David and Jonathan. There is hope for you yet.
Regarding Ruth and Naomi. I never hinted that they were married, just that the vows they made to each other are the basis of the vows made in the christian marriage ceremony. Whatever affection Ruth may have felt for both her husbands, pales somewhat when we consider the dept of love between herself and Naomi. I think you will find that the text bears me out.
I was speaking where The Bible speaks. The story of the centurion, and the three categories of eunuch, show that very well.
Comparing my methods to those of childbeaters and racists is peculiarly curious, when I wrote the article in order to defend one of the most unjustly vilified sections in society,(the homosexual).
I can only charitably assume that you are one of those people who always reads without understanding.
I don't know what Bible you're reading; perhaps one written in your own words to suit your life style or belief. Homosexuality is clearly condemned both in the Old AND New Testament. It is simply your wish that the Bible sanction it; but it is not the reality. Even though gay marriage and other gay "rights" are becoming more and more prevalent and condoned, gays are STILL uncomfortable with being who they are and CONTINUE to require validation from every possible source, requiring that churches to which they don’t HAVE to belong to accept their life style rather than joining churches that do. You guys won’t stop until you make the world like unto yourselves. Until you guys get comfortable in your OWN skins, you will continue to feel that what you do in the bedroom is wrong, which, by the way, IS wrong.
itDoesntMatter.
If you really knew what The Bible actually says, you would be adopting a different attitude.
To read, and understand, an ancient book you need to know a little bit about the context in which it was written; and also have some idea of the original meaning of the actual words.
I think it is a safe bet, from the rot you are spouting, that both those areas of knowledge have passed you by.
How much do you know about the terms of service of officers in the roman army, in the first century?
Do you actually know the correct meaning of the term eunuch?
Do you know what "Ecclesiastes" describes as the sin of Sodom?
Do you know the meaning of the term "arsenokoites"?
Do you even know where it was first used?
Until you can actually honestly answer these questions, do not presume to lecture me on what The Bible says on any subject, because you dont have a clue.
Oh, and bye the way, I dont feel uncomfortable about what I get up to in the bedroom, or sometimes in the kitchen, or even occasionally, when I share a bath with "a friend".
I am quite happy in my sexuality. I hope that you are also in the same blessed situation.
A very insightful and entertaining article, thank you for writing it, I enjoyed it quite a lot!
Thank you Danny. I'm glad you enjoyed reading my article.
I enjoyed writing it.
christopheranton,
Your read of Scripture is simply not at all a natural reading - if you start reading with a premise to defend rather than to merely discover what the text actually states, you can find language, situations, and statements that can be presented to appear to say just about whatever it is you want to defend or promote (to others not actually reading to discover what the text actually says).
In the actual text of Scripture when God refers to those who "Claiming to be wise, they became fools" He tells us the resulting foolishness was to practice "dishonorable passions", and he doesn't leave us to imagine or surmise what He "dishonorable passions" He was speaking of - the text continues "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men".
That is what the actual text states - to assert that "Perhaps 'the coat of many colours' was symbolic of him being gay"?! is stretching so far it is ludicrous. Silly. There is a sound and reasonable purpose for God making humanity male and female and, before any kind of civil order, government, or any manner of institution, establishing marriage as the foundational order to His creation - homosexuality clouds and slanders that purpose.
If you start with creation, with Genesis, and understand and believe what it presents as the truth, you could never conclude that Scripture then proceeds to promote or approve of the practice of homosexuality, any more than it promotes or approves adultery, fornication, divorce, etc.
Hi Mickey Snr.
If you must quote from St Pauls epistle to the romans, you need to include this.
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen".
Here it is plain that he is condemning pagan practices, not homosexual sex as such.
There were temple prostitutes of both sexes in pagan temples throughout the roman empire. Straight men used to have sex with male priests as a form of worship. That is what is being condemned.
A homosexual would be forsaking the natural use of his body by having heterosexual sex, as that would be against his nature.
And before you come up with all that creation order spiel about Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve, there is homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. Biologically we are animals. Are you saying that God made a mistake when he created homosexuals? Or, if you prefer, let them evolve.
Perhaps he just decided to really "wind up" a large section of his human creation.
christopheranton,
Your assertion that what Paul was writing to the Romans about was the "There were temple prostitutes of both sexes in pagan temples throughout the roman empire." is not what the full text reveals. Paul, in his letter to the Roman church, sets forth the gospel message of Jesus' accomplished atonement by starting with man's need for an atonement. In the passage we're looking at he's not talking about the current temple practices throughout the empire at all - he's laying out the history of redemption . . . he is starting at the beginning and brining the Romans to understand, not the corruption of their own temple practices, but the corruption of man's very nature "ever since the creation of the world".
Look at what leads up to the "dishonorable passions" Paul is speaking of that is revealed to be "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men". The fuller text shows us he is not talking about current temple corruption, but the ongoing corruption of men's hearts "ever since the creation of the world" . . . look at it, this is what sets up Paul's account of "dishonorable passions" ~
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
The corrupted worship Paul is talking about is not the current circumstances in the Roman world - he's talking about the ancient pagan religions of idol worship. He's establishing the historic evidence for what fallows, namely, his argument that "Therefore you have no excuse, O man" were he proceeds to talk about those under God's law are not guiltless merely because they have God's law, etc, etc.
Paul is not, in this first chapter of Romans, saying that homosexuality is ok, just that the temple worship of the Roman world was corrupted - Paul was saying that man, by nature, is corrupted, that from the beginning his worship has always been an offense to God, and in his condemnation that men are in their very nature corrupt, Paul asserts as examples of our evil "full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful", etc, and includes in his examples of our corruption "their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men".
To assert that "A homosexual would be forsaking the natural use of his body by having heterosexual sex, as that would be against his nature" is like asserting that thief must, and so cannot be faulted for, following his natural inclination to steal, that an adulterer would be going against his nature were he to practice fidelity, that a slanderer is only acting according to his nature, etc.
And, how does "homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom" undo the fact that God made man male and female, ordained them to marry, and later condemns homosexuality? I'm not suggesting that because the Bible happens to record the account of Adam & Eve and their union, rather than happening to record some subsequent union between Bill & Fred that this must and can only mean that only male and female union should be accepted - I'm saying that there is a sound and reasonable purpose for God making humanity male and female and, before any kind of civil order, government, or any manner of institution, establishing marriage as the foundational order to His creation - homosexuality clouds and slanders that purpose.
If we don't know or understand that purpose, a purpose being clouded and slandered by homosexual conduct, then we would of course we would find no fault in homosexual conduct and misapprehend the rest of Scripture, that clearly condemns it, imagining that it doesn't at all condemn it . . . and, after all, God is love, etc, etc. The problem is that's all a presuppositional approach to the text and based on biased assumption and not at all seeking to know the actual truth of the text.
In answer to your question Mickey Snr regarding homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, if you believe in creation, either God made an Almighty Cockup, when he created homosexuals, or he is unjust because he burdened a section of his human creation with a nature that he condemmned. Which is it? Your choice.
Also if you want to cite Bible examples, how do you explain the three categories of eunuch, as cited by Jesus himself?
Why did Jesus cure the centurion's servant/lover? This was an ideal chance for Him to reprove them for their relationship, but He didnt take it.
It appears that Christ has a much more understanding attitude than a lot of those who claim to be his followers.
I am reminded very much of The Pharisees, and their rigid unloving interpretation of "The Law". We all know what Jesus thought about them. How many of them are in Heaven?
Try not to be allied with these people, or you might find yourself on the wrong side, on your last day.
Good for you, to stand up against the powerful bible thumping hypocrites of the world. Personally I have given up on religion. That doesn't mean that I have given up on God, or Yahweh, as I called Him, spirituality, truth, love or wisdom.
I recently came to my own conclusion that the Bible was written by men and for purposes of controlling the masses and promoting an agenda. The bible stories all seem to carry the same God and Goddess themes of ancient mythology, including the life of Jesus. Ironically the manuscripts that have been found in latter times written by other disciples, followers and prophets didn't make the cut because what they talked about didn't fit into what the church wanted the people to believe. None-the-less
I know I will be burned at the stake for this comment but is it possible that Jesus himself was gay? All of the evidence points to it. If we believe the bible and all it says then we are all going to hell. Liars, fornicators, gossipers, drunkards, thieves, etc. etc. Sin is sin, if one believes in sin. People would do well to worry about their own business instead of who another sleeps with. Let God judge people and everyone stay out of Gods business.
If God is a "Just" God, then how on earth could he condemn a human that is born with homosexual orientation? Homosexual nor heterosexuals don't have a choice in what they are attracted to. It is natural to them. Who would choose a life of ridicule? That's pretty unfair of God to not start everyone on a level playing field if he is going to send them to hell for desiring what He Himself gave them.
By the way, it also says that masturbation is wrong too. Too all the obese women that stare me down for having a cigarette as though I've committed a mortal sin, I'll have you know that the bible says that gluttony is a sin too. So keep shoving those pies down your throat.
I'm sorry, but dolly do gooders who secretly have their own vices anger me to the point of madness. Thank you for an excellent hub.
Thanks Lisa.
I think I am a pretty conventional religionist, except on the gay issue. I am pretty sure that Jesus was asexual. I doubt that sex figured at all in His existence.
Odd that you should mention smoking. I once got approachrd by a man on the street, who told me that, "I could not be a friend of Jesus" if I smoked. I didn't want to tell him that I was gay as well as being a friend of Jesus. That might have been too much for him to contemplate.
The kind of people you mention leave me fuming as well.
Of course Jesus was asexual or maybe he was capable of loving all. You can love someone as a partner love and just not practice the sexual act of that love. He loved Mary Magdaline (spelling)? and they never had sex, although many claimed they married and had children. Jesus claimed to have loved men, the names in particular, I cannot remember. Love is a fusion and the act of coming together in intercourse is a manifestation of that fusion. There is nothing dirty about it unless we make it dirty. Jesus was married to the church, which embodied male and female. This, however, was on a spiritual level, I believe. Your hub has inspired food for thought and that is what is important. Thank you so much.
I don't know why I keep coming back to this hub. I suppose it is because I am going thru so much religious turmoil in my soul. I look up to you and maybe I am looking for answers. I don't trust very many in matters of God as I cannot put faith in what is said by hypocrites and self promoters for personal wealth or prestige. I went to my bible studies for 30 years 3 times a week and was a diligent student and I love my creator more than anyone could know. It bothers me that my father would send me to hell for what he put in me to feel. Until I know for sure what is truth, I have to live by the truth that I know in my heart and that is, Love thy neighbor as thyself. I practice this, therefore, I cannot condemn any man or I condemn myself. Also I have faith that God knows the hearts and minds of men and is capable. He doesn't need for me to be his judge. We are all sinners, only to show we need a saviour. None of us are worthy. Love to you.
Thanks again Lisa.
Food for thought is the most important food that we can eat. Oh! The spelling was Mary Magdalene.(I think.)
Lisa.
God will only let people go to Hell, who reject him. If you try your best to show love to others, as I feel sure you do, that is all that is required.
See you up there in Heaven, but not for a while yet, hopefully.
Your arguments demonstrate an impressive level of intellectual dishonesty in your wild assumptions regarding Joseph, Potipher, and virtually every example you have provided.
You make enormous assumptions regarding Jesus and Paul's gay friends whom you invent and then claim receive no rebuke. I could just as easily claim that in the jewish culture that homosexuality was frowned upon and since Jesus doesn't correct that understanding, therefore he disapproved of homosexuality. It would be a presumtous argument, but no less so than any of yours.
The way you completely ignore the Old Testament command to "not lie with another man as one does with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22) is particularly foolish. While we may not handle sodomy the same way today (stoning or execution) the burden is on you to explain why God's moral disapproval of that activity is different today.
If God felt that these activities were immoral then, why would He change his mind now? If committed, marriage partnerships can be had between same-sex individuals why in Genesis does God not include them? If procreation and a stable foundation for parenting is a primary goal of marriage (and I believe it is) how do homosexuals fit into that equation since natural laws prevent them from having children.
You pretend to promote an "all-loving God" but in reality you condone practices that bring brokenness and separation from His love. Better to have a millstone tied around your neck than to preach such foolishness.
Or at least do it with a grain of competency.
Ian.
Welcome to my parlour.
It is strange that someone can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, when that same person is apparently incapable of remembering what they have just read before they make comment.
I refer of course to your assertion that I completely ignored Leviticus.
I am posting this excerpt from the above article to refresh your memory.
"All those "abomination charged" laws in the Book of Leviticus are equally meaningless. They were designed to discourage idolatarous pagan practices as done in the temples of Egypt and Canaan. These included ritual sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. It wasnt "gay sex" as such that was being condemned, just doing it as part of a pagan worship ritual. Even if the Leviticus rules did say that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, the same punishment was prescribed for children who cheeked their parents, and for people who wore two types of cloth at the same time, or planted two types of seed together in the same field or garden. If you have tulips and daffodils growing alongside each other, you are certainly going to Hell".
I suggest that you further look to "the beam" of incompetence in your own eye, before making reference to "the mote" of incompetence in mine.
You are exactly the type of person, about whom I wrote in the first paragraph. I suspect that you "devour" your Bible, but for all the understanding you glean from it, you might as well be reading a long roll of toilet paper.
Please remember that the people most condemned by Our Lord were the pharisees, i.e those who constantly stood on "the moral high ground", and castigated those who they considered less worthy than them.
They, like you, probably thought they had a great insight into the Divine mind.
Where are they now? Does your competency inform you what their fate may have been?
Are you yearning to join them? Your mindset certainly suggests that you would be comfortable in their company.
Finally. I have to thank you for inspiring an edit to this hub. There is a new picture at the top of the page.
I strongly suggest that you download it, and give it pride of place over your mantlepiece.
It just might save your soul.
Your assertion that every instance in the Bible that strongly urges against engaging in homosexual sex is to be applied only in instances of promiscuous activity at shrines is a tremendous and dangerous leap in logic.
Does it say, "stay away from the temples and sex with prostitutes" or does it say, "thou shalt not lie with a man like one does with a woman."
Under your interpretation of that passage that would mean that having sex with a woman at a shrine is perfectly okay. The author is clearly indicating that sex with another man is morally wrong.
Jesus has given us a new commission and it clearly doesn't include stoning sinners however the burden is on YOU to demonstrate why something that God considered morally evil for Israel was not, in fact, morally evil. Your listing of the punishments the Israelites were supposed to mete out on sinners are a red herring to the real issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
Should we punish, condemn or ostracize homosexuals? Of course not. But encouraging them that their behavior is okay is to err in the opposite direction.
As far as my soul, I'll entrust it into the hands of Christ's mercy rather than a poorly done jpeg.
I also note that your two men have wedding rings. Are we to assume that they are married to each other or that they are cheating on their spouses?
I feel very sorry 4 ur lost soul.
If the command to "not lie with a man as one would with a woman" is meant to refer to having sex with shrine prostitutes...then it would follow that it is permissible to have sex with women at the shrines.
Your arguments regarding our prescriptions of justice for sins are irrelevant. Christ gave us a commission to love and to advance the Kingdom of Heaven against satan, not to condemn or kill sinners. However, we are clearly given authority and power to overcome sin.
The burden then, is on you to demonstrate why God called homosexual sex an abomination if He actually approved of it.
As for your suggestion, I'll entrust my soul into the hands of Christ rather than your poorly done jpeg.
"ItDoesn'tMatter," you make many assumptions about what a homosexual person does "in the bedroom." You don't know!! You only make these assumptions on the basis of what your hear talked about by other members of your club, whichever church you belong to.
Anyway, what ever two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of yours, or my, business. Provided there is no undue coercion, force, cruelty, dangerous practice without the other partner's permission, it's their business. If there IS any of the forgoing, then its Societies duty to sort it out, and there are laws in place to protect the individual from it.
There are places in the world still where a person caught engaging in any homosexual practice is quickly, summarily, strung up! Or beheaded! His family will suffer also. Such a guy is not able to change his basic nature. Being homosexually inclined is not something you choose or not choose, like a garment you wear. It's just a natural part of your being. And the only chance of being loved, cherished, by another person is if that person is of the same gender.
Your God is Love, "ItDoesn'tMatter." To you, this fact should matter.
Ian, I have suffered all my life from the attitudes of people like yourself.
I am just happy now to say that I dont really care, about how people percieve me any more.
There are plenty of more vulnreable victims for your bigotry.
Go excercise it on them.
I'm sorry if you felt condemned by my comments, that was definitely not my intent. I believe it's clear that God hates the sin of homosexuality and wants to rescue those trapped in it. Every homosexual has my compassion which I believe must come with a Godly understanding of the issue.
Clearly you don't actually want to engage in debate on the issue but I hope in the future you can hear truth and not be offended. I also hope that you won't invite the offending parties to attack "more vulnerable victims" as that hardly seems like the Christ-like approach that a pastor/shepherd should take.
jonnycomelately.
Thanks for your supportive and uplifting comments, with which I completely agree.
I,m not a pastor or a shepherd, and I thought I was debating the issue Ian.
I do just want to live my own life. In my opinion, the sexuality of a person is the last thing about them that we should be bothered about as christians. Especially when we look about us, and see the real problems that we should be trying to adress in the world. I feel that Jesus would be in agreement with me in this.
In a debate, one usually responds to the arguments by the opponent or risk defeat.
As for Jesus' concerns, he wants all of us and isn't going to settle for partial victory anywhere.
Even if our sexuality was a minor problem, which I don't think you are actually trying to concede, it would still be a big deal to our perfect father.
Your confidence that Jesus would agree with you doesn't seem to be based in any logic or scripture but merely your own desires.
How dare these bullies in the comment section judge anyone. You perpetuate hate and belittle Gods creatures. Shame on you. You make people not want to be Christians. You do a disservice to God and it is you that Jesus condemned. Jesus nor God needs you as His spokesperson. Learn what it means to be a real Christian, and don't you ever insult my friend again. You don't have to answer to me or Christopheranton but there is one you will have to answer to and I would never want to be in your shoes.
I am just outraged at the comments by Ian Boyd. He has caused me to look up many a scripture tonight. My poor writing partner had to engage in this as my eyesight is poor with small print. Ian is clearly a closet gay, and is obsessed with it. As a statehouse reporter, I know for a fact that the Senators and House reps who are always voting against gay rights are the very ones who are gay. I could mention names but I wont. They are always diabolically opposed to gay rights. Why? For fear of being found out. And why the fear? Because of nut cases like Ian Boyd. It is a sin to live a lie. And one point to be made is, Jesus fulfilled the law. There were many of them. 619. The Jews had to hang them from their clothing just to remember all of them. It was a burden. Jesus came to release them from this burden. And by the way, If you weren't a Jew, It didn't even apply to you. The Gentiles were a law unto themselves. Ian, I'll bet you would have been one of the Pharisees to condemn Jesus when he was plucking grain on the Sabbath. It was against Hebrew law, but they (as well as you) had no understanding. In fact you remind me of the Pharisees who claimed to be so righteous and were instructed in the law and always quick to judge. But what did Jesus say about them? Luke 11:39
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. He said a whole lot more about them but what good would it do for me to quote scriptures?
There is a long list of human characteristics that was made to show that none of us are worthy and left without a saviour we are all doomed. Fornication (having sex without being married) adultery (sex with someone other than your spouse) masturbation was wrong (it is better for your seed to fall on the belly of a whore than on the ground), or something to that affect, liars, thieves, murderers, backbiters, gossipers, gluttony,(yes, the big fat dolly do gooder sitting in church who has never done anything wrong is going to hell for shoving too many cakes and pies down her throat), coveting, drunkards, boasters, proud, etc. etc.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Ian said, If God felt that these activities were immoral then, why would He change his mind now? If committed, marriage partnerships can be had between same-sex individuals why in Genesis does God not include them? If procreation and a stable foundation for parenting is a primary goal of marriage (and I believe it is) how do homosexuals fit into that equation since natural laws prevent them from having children.
All I can say to this ridiculous statement is, Adam and Eve surely screwed up as parents. They produced Cain, who killed his brother. I think Children Services would have a problem with that. I'm sure Eve would have been declared a horrible mother for producing a murderer. So much for the perfect family, huh? I don't know about you Ian, but I look around me and see women having children just because they can spread their legs. Many of them should have been sterilized for the sake of the suffering children. Is it possible that God had Adam and Steve take over the children that dumb asses with a womb but no caring instincts, failed? Get a grip. Before you go and condemn, thinking marriage between male and female is oh so righteous because they are good at hiding, (husband watches porn every night and whacks off, because the wife doesn't want to have sex with a drunken slob who is a minute man, or husband picks up prostitutes because he likes to do freaky things that his wife wont indulge in, or the oh so common husband picking up a male prostitute because he is really gay, but is afraid of telling anyone because of people like you that condemn him to hell. Yes, the perfect marriage. While we have a gay couple next door who is looked down upon, yet they are truly committed to each other and wouldn't dare think of straying because they are honest and deeply care for one another. They wish to God they could have a child to share in their love, but no, that right is only given to the wombs who wouldn't know love if it slapped them in the face. A child grants them security. And that is why the world is so fucked up. Nobody wants to look at themselves. It is so much easier to condemn our neighbor.
Ian.
You cannot really say that you are against gaybashing, and the awful things that are happening in Africa and Iran; or the suicides that happen among young gays all over the world, when it is the low level prejudice that you peddle that fosters these problems. Examine your concience. I have done so with mine. It is an enlightening experience.
lisadpreston.
I cannot really top what you have just posted, so I wont try.
Thanks for all your support. I really do appreciate it, and you are a very good friend.
Well, I'm willing to continue to comment on the issue if you guys want to maintain the discussion but I'd like to make a point first:
All I've said is that homosexual sex is a sin and that Christopher's arguments are foolish and specious.
I believe that husbands looking at porn is a sin, I believe that husbands cheating on wives is a sin, I believe that condemning homosexuals and harassing them is a sin, and I certainly believe that Jesus weeps over violence against homosexuals and suicides. All of this brings separation from the Kingdom of Heaven and all of this needs to be washed in the blood of Christ.
I've been accused of condemning and propagating hatred but of the following charges: closet homosexuality and living a lie, Pharisee-ism, victimization, and bigotry
All have been leveled against me, and on what basis? That I believe homosexuality is a sin? That I think Christopher's arguments are silly?
I suspect that both of you (lisa and Christopher) have some deep hurt from actions by the church in the past and I'm deeply sorry if such is the case.
Lisa: I think you made one actual argument against my point that the Leviticus passage that I believe demonstrates that God believes homosexual sex is a sin, which was that Jesus fulfilled the law and that it was only for Jews anyways, therefore its moral prescriptions need not be followed.
I don't think that's an interpretation that will hold much water. In many cases, Jesus upheld STRICTER morals than did the Mosaic law. He tells us that everyday lust is akin to marital unfaithfulness of the heart, he tells us that divorce for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness is wrong, he said "be perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect."
Obviously we can't actually do that, but what he was instilling was that obedience to the will of God is the goal, not adherence to the law. His blood and Holy Spirit served the purpose of making our faithful response to the Lord meaningful and powerful, not excusing us to live however we want and ignore God's will to advance Heaven on earth and bring restoration, life abundant, and fullness of joy to every part of our world.
My point again is that the scripture indicates that God believed homosexual sex to be an evil action. What reason do we have for believing that he changed his mind?
And whatever your experience may say, please believe that just because I disagree with you guys doesn't mean I hate you. That your experience with the church has taught you that lesson is not lost on me and I hope to do whatever I can to demonstrate that correction on the issue can be done without condemnation or lack of love.
Hi Ian.
I cannot speak for lisadpreston, but I can for myself. I dont have any unhappy memories, or bad experiences from the church in my past. I am now, as I have always been, a proud catholic. I just happen to disagree with them on their teaching about homosexuality.
I am also happy to see that there are some signs of a change coming in the teaching on that issue. I just hope and pray that it comes soon.
Ian, Thank you for your profound dialog. First, I love God. I have no qualms or hurtful experiences with any church. Until my husband died, I went to my bible classes 3 times a week and then on Sunday for 30 years. When I was 4 years old, I would get up on Sunday, dress myself, and walk to church, while my mother lay in bed, probably hungover. I remember the big people saying, "who is this child?" "What do we do with her?" "Where is her mother?" They put me in a Sunday School class in the basement, and to this day, I love the smell of basement churches. God was never mentioned in my family. But my aunt tells me that ever since I could talk, I would ask her where God was and how do I get back to him. She said that I loved God so much that she was afraid to tell me that I would have to die to get back to God, because she knew I would commit suicide just to be with Him. That frightened her. Funny, how that I could love God so much and live such a sinful life. Of which, I have no regrets because I learned valuable lessons that brought me closer to my eternal Father. I am thankful for my flaws and all of the hell I went through. How is Gold purified? By putting it in the fire.
I don't pretend to understand everything. I'm not so sure that I want to. I have always thought of myself as pretty stupid, only finishing the 10th grade of high school. One thing I do know about is human nature. Yes, there are scriptures that oppose homosexuality. But I have to ask God, "Why then? Why,if you are a just God, would you put it in the hearts of men and women to be born with a feeling of love for the same sex?" It is as natural to them as it is for heterosexuals. They are not deviant people. They love you, worship you, they are not bad people. How could you put something in a human, from birth, that is supposed to be evil, and condemn them for it? How can you send someone to hell for shoving too many pies down their throat? How can you send a woman to hell for divorcing a man that beats her and her children everyday? None of this makes sense to me.
Until the answers are revealed to me, I have to be true to my heart. I know I have the Holy Spirit dwelling in me. However, I will come up short every time, simply because I am in the flesh. We are all little children in Gods eyes, and little children disappoint their parents all the time, but the parent still loves the child, regardless. It is not for you or I to judge anyone. Let God be the judge. With all of your Knowledge and wisdom, get understanding. If you don't have love, because that is what the whole law was based upon, you have nothing. I am free, I trust God with my whole heart and soul. He doesn't need for me to be His spokesperson. If you truly love God, Ian, and I believe that you do, then let go of your control, and trust that God knows what He is doing and knows the hearts and minds of the people He created. It is hard to just focus on ourselves and not try to convert the world to our carnal way of thinking. I get that. But His ways are so much higher than our ways. I tried to use the example of Jesus plucking corn on the Sabbath. That was atrocious to the Hebrew law and way of thinking. But His ways are so much higher than our ways. We don't fully understand, therefore, it is not our right to judge or condemn what God created or put in a mans heart. We should obey His commandment and love one another, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Period. If we could do that, and work on our own hearts, we would do well. In law, it appears to be black and white, however, there are always mitigating factors. And, if you have a good attorney, which I do, Jesus, who is the mediator, you are likely to have a good outcome. There is no such thing as a big sin or a little sin. In God's eyes they are all felonies. None of us are worthy. If you think it, you did it. So, we all need not condemn one another, but love one another, and let God be the father that He is. He doesn't need your help, Ian, nor does He need mine. Love to both you and Christopheranton.
Very well put Lisadpreston. I think I can say Amen to all you have written here. Thank you.
Well suffice to say that I don't believe that everything we find about ourselves and how the world operates is what God intended and I'm inclined to trust the Scriptures over my own heart or feelings. Generally when I have felt that something in the Bible is distasteful or seems wrong I later find that I've either misunderstood it, missed context, or been completely wrong.
So I'm going to trust the Word.
"So I'm going to trust the Word".
That is something that I have always tried to do myself.
Thanks for your contribution Ian.
Okay Ian, You know I am a woman and I'm always going to try and have the last word! That was a joke, so lighten up.
The "WORD" says, and by the way, I am a little angry that I am trying to remember so many scriptures due to my concordance and Bibles being locked away from me when the bank stole my house, and am left with a Gideon Bible that my writing partner and I took from a motel we stayed in on our journey to cover an execution. I was told that the Gideons want you to take the Bible. I hope I was told right. I wish they would make the print bigger. Here I go digressing.
2Corinthians 6
1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2Peter3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
I TOO,ONLY FOLLOW THE WORD, WHICH IS: John1:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Again, love to you both and Ian, I did apologize on your hub for my rude comment. I am truly sorry and I mean that.
Beautiful words lisadpreston. Reading them was like saying a morning prayer.
One more quick thought:
Greg Boyd has an interesting point on the matter here: http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/christians-social-issue
He points out that Christians tend to treat homosexuality differently than they would other sins and worries that this is because a Christian might condemn a homosexual without feeling like a hypocrite whereas perhaps he couldn't on an issue like helping the poor, marital faithfulness, etc. Food for thought.
Hi Ian.
There may be food for thought in what the article says about the attitude of some christians towards homosexuality, but apart from that I reject wholly that argument. He is still insisting that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is sinful, and that will always be rot to me, and, I believe, to God as well.
Christopheranton dear, I think people equate homosexuality with promiscuity and that is why they are so judgmental. I'm just guessing and grasping at straws trying to understand the concern and hatred. We know that homosexuals, now that they don't have to hide so much, are not loosy goosy, any more than heterosexuals. I'm curious as to what part of homosexuality it is that the condemners don't approve of. Is it the "being in love with the same sex part" or the way they have sex? Heterosexuals practice anal and oral sex with each other more often than not and nobody is spying in their bedroom, at least I don't think so. I think if we look to science and brain chemistry, we can see why some men feel more feminine and some women feel more masculine. Men and women both have male and female parts but they are less dominant in the makeup, however, hormones can be more dominant even if the parts don't match. I don't think God makes mistakes and I think He approves of everything that He made. If a person has a clear conscience in what they do, then no person can say it is wrong or right. We live in different times now than the scriptures were written. If we went around sacrificing animals as they did back then during the Leviticus writings, we would be jailed and scorned. It would be an abomination to do that in this age. I love shrimp and pork, but I would be considered unclean if I ate that during Moses's time. I try not to eat meat now, due to my love for animals, but if I slip, I doubt that God will send me to hell for it. But if my conscience condemn me, well, I'm doomed. Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, we need not anymore ask our neighbor what is right. The Holy Spirit dwells within us to guide us, therefore, if our conscience does not condemn us, what right does another person have to condemn me? I want to meet the human that has a heaven or hell to put me in. Other than a prison warden and even that is temporary.
I am happy that Ian Boyd, and others are so concerned about God's word and honestly I have nothing but love for them, even though I am human and get angry. I pray they will come to understanding and obey God's commandment to love thy neighbor and work out their own soul salvation as you and I have to do. I have enough of a hard time keeping myself on the right track and resisting evil to worry about what the next person is doing in the bedroom. If two consenting adults are responsible with their actions and are not harming anyone, why should I care? That includes all sexuality, even prostitution. LOL. By the way, most of the gay couples that I know, and there are many, are so monogamous, straight laced, and perfect acting, that I can hardly bare to be around them. Now there are a few, that are single and like to have a good time but even they tread on the border of stick in the mud. And then I have Ben, who is a story and a half. remind me to tell you in private how that we started out as enemies, because he said my dog Mini was ugly to my son as they were walking the dogs. Mini is far from ugly, although gay, well bisexual. But anyhow, Ben was hanging with his friends after labor day wearing plaid shorts, a white jacket with fake fur and gawd awful shoes, I walked up to him and told him I was calling the fashion police. I informed him that is is not proper to wear white after labor day and he agreed with tons of laughter. We became the best of friends and he was so cute that he decided to let me try and make him Miss gay USA. He practiced for hours in my basement walking in my hooker boots (just terminology) but while I was going cross country with a native American friend of mine, Ben went to jail. I haven't seen him since. He is going to be a key character in the soap opera. And once again, I have wondered off of subject. But have you thought about the soap proposal any?
I hope all is well and that you are getting organized in your new home. It must be so exciting and I am so happy for you. I am thinking of moving again, myself. Oh how I dread the packing though. Peace, love and hugs to you my friend.
Hi lisadpreston.
I think it is the fear of minorities that drives the prejudice against homosexuals. The same can be said about gypsies, or black people or jews. A lot of the gay people share the same revulsion at their own nature as some straights do, and a large many more are afraid of being found out as gay.
That is why the openly gay people are only the tip of a very big iceberg. For every gay person who is "out and proud" there are about ten who are hiding, either because they are married, or afraid of famoly disaproval.
That is one reason why "cruising grounds" are so popular. They bring sexual satisfaction, and anonmity.
I think God allowed homosexuality, because it was an evolutionary imperative. Homosexuals in nature were probably needed, to limit population growth, and to have males to defend the tribe without prejudice.
That is my feeling on it anyway. Study of animal society might confirm or deny this idea.
I think Ian and co put far too much emphasis on sexual sin. It is their addiction to "creation order theology that causes that. If they realised that Genesis is an allegory, and started looking at the world as it really is, they would feel differently.
I still think that the idea of a gay soap is a good one. I will e mail you in the next day or so about it, and then we can discuss ideas.
Hugs to you, and thanks for all your valuable help and support.
I've backed away from the back-and-forth of these comments some weeks ago, but I still see updates on the discussion from time-to-time. I left this particular consideration of the issue because the handling of the matter seemed nearly cartoonish to me - rather than actually hearing some one who holds a view that is not your own and honestly considering that other perspective, routine and lame clichéd posturing seemed to be the course. For me, this is not about rigid old fashioned people fearful of change and anything different vs open-hearted brave souls who just want to be accepted for who they are - aside from all the personal matters and social agendas there is an issue here that should be recognized, received, and practiced either one way or the other . . . there is a right and a wrong here regardless of how any of us feel about it.
If it is right and good for people to enjoy same sex relationships then it's terribly wrong for others to hinder then - if it's wrong and bad for people to enjoy same sex relationships then it's wrong for people to assert that it's right and good and to condemn others for opposing it's acceptance. All the aggressive hostility and defensive posturing doesn't examine the real issue at all.
lisadpreston ~ certainly there are many who are judgmental of others and I imagine some who do indeed "equate homosexuality with promiscuity" . . . and . . .
christopheranton ~ certainly there are some people who are uncomfortable, and so hostile, toward homosexuals because of a "fear of minorities" . . .
. . . but certainly there are many people supportive of homosexuality who are just as judgmental and who equate any opposition to homosexuality with an ill-informed religiosity that fears any change - and certainly there are many people supportive of homosexuality who are just as prejudice against anyone counted to be an orthodox Christian or political conservative. The point being, just as there are many supportive of homosexuality who are thoughtful people, not on any band-wagon agenda, who own a well considered philosophic premise for advancing that same sex relationships are right and good, there are likewise many who oppose homosexuality who are thoughtful people, not given to knee-jerk reactionism, who own a well considered philosophic premise for advancing that same sex relationships are wrong and bad.
Do you oppose right-wing Baptists simply because you are prejudice against right-wing Baptists, or do you have well conceived and sound arguments against the ideas they advance? Many who count same sex relationships to be wrong and bad are not prejudice against homosexuals or fearful of minorities and change, or judgmental. christopheranton, you relate the current homosexual issue with the race issue; I grew-up in an area and at a time when I was bused to school in an effort toward integration, the era of 'White-flight'. Homes in a Black neighborhood were far cheaper than homes in a White neighborhood, which meant that if your White neighbor in your White neighborhood sold his house to a Black family the price you could get for your own house would plummet.
I saw people, who were not racist, struggle with not wanting to loose the life-savings they had in a home they invested in and took great care of and not wanting to treat anyone unfairly . . . I'm sure others, not dealing with the concerns these people had, easily just saw them as prejudiced.
Now, there are two different ideas before us with your hub; one is simply the homosexual issue, is it right or wrong and can people hold one view or the other legitimately without the assumption and charge of being judgmental & prejudiced - but the other, of course, is your assertion that the Bible and Jesus, etc, do not condemn same sex relationships but in fact champion same sex relationships.
Unfortunately what happens is when people make the very reasonable and demonstrable argument that, whatever the truth may be about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality might be, the text of Scripture is clear that homosexuality (like adultery, pride, gossip, etc) is condemned by the God of Abraham, Jesus of Nazareth. You can, of course, reject God and His word and you can call 'right' what He declares is 'wrong', but you can't reasonably say that the text doesn't say what it observably says. And the resulting retreat to the notion that those who disagree with you hate homosexuals, are bashing, are prejudiced, are judgmental, fear minorities, etc, is a ludicrous absurdity to watch.
I don't at all even a little hate homosexuals, I'm not bashing, I'm not prejudiced, I'm not judgmental, I don't fear minorities, etc - but it's clear that your argument that the Bible affirms homosexuality is forced and far more whimsy than any manner of scholarship. I honestly hope that doesn't sound as unkind or harsh as it sort of seems to sound to me, it's not my intention at all to practice any manner of belligerence to you - but your argument is like if the Klan would assert they are actually trying to help Blacks . . . the facts are all simply screaming in exactly the opposite direction.
Now these were excellent points. I like the population control theory as it makes so much sense. God only let strong people be minorities. Be grateful for His love and respect. I know that you are.
I have learned so much from the dialog in this hub and have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions. I have had to do a lot of thinking and scriptural thinking which was good for me. I have learned how others think, which I had not ever encountered before and seem so dark ages to me. I truly learn from you and your fearless topics in the hubs you write. You are courageous christopheranton and I admire you, adore you, and look up to you. I am so glad that I found you.
Hi Mickey Sr.
I,m not goint to even try to answer all the points you are making, because this discussion is going round in so many circles, it is beginning to resemble a spring.
I am not qualified to comment on the race issue, as I was reared in Ireland during the fifties and sixties. There was no race issue there at the time. Prejudice against anyone based on the colour of their skin, or their sexual orientation is wrongheaded. This includes calling something sinful, when it is only a person acting out their God given nature. I exclude those whose actions do harm to others, or are cruel to animals, i.e pedophiles, rapists, or those who engage in bestiality.
The logic of a loving God is that He should treat all people equally, and not " move the goalposts" for those of a minority sexual persuasion. If that is what He has done, He can not be a loving God. I believe He has not done that. I also remain convinced that careful study of scripture, taking in the context in which it was written, and understanding of the original meaning of the words, will bear me out. There really is little else I can say.
Just let people live their lives unmolested. It's best.
I dont condemn "straights", or tell them that their sexual habits are sinful. They are unfathomable to me, but Hey! Live and let live. That is my motto.
I will only say this about Right Wing Baptists in The United States. Some of them are responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder in Africa. That is not a very Godly way to operate.
lisadpreston.
God bless you and thank you for the great comments you have been putting on this hub. You really are a great friend and a lovely lady.
I'm glad you found me as well.
christopheranton ~ "I will only say this about Right Wing Baptists in The United States. Some of them are responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder . . ."
If some of them are and some of them are not, and if some Presbyterians and some Muslims and Asians and homosexuals and brown-eyed, etc, people are responsible for some manner of wickedness while some Presbyterians and Muslims and Asians and homosexuals and brown-eyed, etc, people are not responsible for that same manner of wickedness, then how is asserting that 'some right-wing American baptists are responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder' not a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark?
I mean honestly, think about it for just a moment; if I announced that some gays are responsible for child molestations wouldn't that rightly be perceived as a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark? Some gays undoubtedly are responsible for child molestations, but as some certainly are not and as some right-wing American Baptists and some Presbyterians and Muslims and Asians and homosexuals and brown-eyed, etc, people undoubtedly are while others are not, then what point is made by announcing that some of any particular group stand guilty of something that some of any group stand guilty for? Isn't it not making any real point at all but merely evidencing a biased, prejudiced, bigoted view of the specific group isolated for the accusation?
And christopheranton, this is my main point in returning here to comment; both sides and all involved have their share of biased, prejudiced, bigoted individuals, both sides demonstrate narrow-minded, ill-informed, knee-jerk reactions - and both sides have level-headed, thoughtful, caring people who simply see things differently. Because someone has come to a personal conclusion on same sex marriage that differs from your view doesn't automatically require that this person must be attacking you, homophobic, fearful, narrow-minded, Neanderthal (or even dark Ages), bigoted, judgmental, etc, etc.
The whole contemporary notion of 'thank you for supporting me' simply misses the mark of the legitimate investigation of ideas. Not just the concern of this hub and discussion, but in many matters we have moved from an interest in what the objective truth actually is to a party spirit of 'if you don't agree with me then you are attacking me'. What does 'support' have to do with it? If some one agrees with me I don't take them to be 'supporting' me - I take them to have come to think a certain way about a certain issue, likewise if they disagree with me I don't take them to be 'attacking' me - I take them to have come to think a certain way about a certain issue. For me, this whole 'thanks for your support' reveals a detachment from seeking truth and a bias toward a specific party spirit.
Mickey Sr.
When you can point out to me instances of when gay organisations bankroll prejudice, and homophobic legislators, like the right wing christian organisation ,The Family, is doing with David Bahati in Uganda, then, and only then, can you insinuate that I am being bigoted in my views.
Equally, when I decide to thank somebody publickly for their support, as I have just done with lisadpreston, it is not for you to comment on the validity of my doing so. As I recollect, I am the writer of the article that has inspired all these comments. If I want to pay tribute to someone for what I consider to be valuable support, that is my entitlement. It is my comments section after all.
I never cease to be amazed by people. People read what they want to read, they hear what they want to hear, they have no understanding of the bible but claim to be experts. I'm not casting my pearls before the swine anymore on this issue. Peoples minds are made up regardless of what evidence and reasonable arguments are presented. I never get into religious debates for this reason and I can't believe I did on this hub. I guess I had to speak my mind when I saw how rude, and unChristianlike with insults, the commenters were to my friend. It is sad when you have to defend yourself for saying thank you in a comment to a friend on your own hub. But then, I am not surprised. People with no real control, try to control everything and everybody. I apologized to the person that I got rude with (because I am a real Christian and try to practice what I preach and when I am wrong, I am woman enough to admit it) and we have reached an understanding.(The person was kind enough and Christian enough to forgive me).
I had never heard your explanation of homosexuality from the perspective of the scriptures and the people you mentioned. Whether I believe it or not, it was interesting and an intelligent person loves to view all perspectives. I don't believe all theories in science, but I find them all interesting and learn from exploring them. A closed mind will never learn anything. We have seen many examples of that.
Since BIG BROTHER is watching, I will communicate with you more privately. I wasn't aware that hubpages was a religious organization and all conversation was limited to bible talk. Many are breaking the rules.
love you!
christopheranton ~
c > "When you can point out to me instances of when gay organisations bankroll prejudice, and homophobic legislators, like the right wing christian organisation, The Family, is doing with David Bahati in Uganda, then, and only then, can you insinuate that I am being bigoted in my views" <
But your remark ("responsible for fomenting hatred, and murder") was not addressing 'The Family', you were addressing "Right Wing Baptists in The United States". Again, if I announced that some gays are responsible for child molestations, and I was actually talking about a very specific organization, wouldn't that rightly be perceived as a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark?
c > when I decide to thank somebody publickly for their support, as I have just done with lisadpreston, it is not for you to comment on the validity of my doing so" <
I'm not commenting on your public 'thanks for your support' to lisadpreston - if you feel that she supports you and/or your views and you appreciate that then by all means you should thank her. My point was on the contemporary concept of how we (whoever) disagree with each other . . . if I write a hub on the Trinity and someone posts in comment that they believe the idea of the Trinity is a man-made doctrine and is not Biblical, I don't assume that they are attacking me or are Trinity-a-phobic, or own some secret fear of things that come in threes, etc - I take them to simply see things differently than me.
Likewise, if someone posts that they do agree with me and count the truth of the Trinity to be crucial to right Christian thinking I don't take that to be them supporting me but simply as sharing their own view that, this time, happens to be one I agree with. When we insert all these conditions of 'attack' or 'support' it (seems to me to) assumes that those who see things differently than we do are our enemies and out to get us, etc. When I see you (or whoever) thanking another poster who agrees with you for 'supporting' you, it seems to me to imply that if I disagree with you then I must be 'attacking' you - and I'm not at all, I don't even know you.
Of course you can see this differently, and of course this is your hub, etc, etc . . . I'm only sharing with you my own perception that this 'supporting' and 'attacking' premise over simple disagreements seems to me to insert a personal component when we are talking about ideas not each other (I am anyway).
lisadpreston.
Thanks again for all your support. I'm glad that something I said was of some help to you.
Mickey SR.
I,m glad you mentioned The Trinity. This was a belief that caused many peopole to be persecuted in former times.
The mistaken belief, that homosexual practice is sinful, is resulting in oppression and murder on a grand scale throughout the world today.
That is the point that I am trying to make. That is a statement of simple fact not, as you imply, an exercise in bigotry.
Whether you want to split hairs, by calling these people who go to Africa from The United States to bankroll politicians promoting execution for gays, Baptists or Evangelicals, the fact is that they are promoting judicial murder of, an already oppressed, minority.
This is not in accordance with the will of any God I know.
Oppression, based on the biblical interpretation that to be actively gay is sinful, is not just confined to christian societies. It also underpins the law that condemns homosexuals to death in many muslim countries as well.
It truly is a pernicious belief.
christopheranton,
c > "The mistaken belief, that homosexual practice is sinful, is resulting in oppression and murder on a grand scale throughout the world today.
That is the point that I am trying to make. That is a statement of simple fact not, as you imply, an exercise in bigotry." <
I never said, suggested, or implied that recognizing that some people who practice a hostile oppression against gays base their belief that practiced homosexuality is a sin on the Bible, or that some people who believe the Bible presents practiced homosexuality as a sin and then practice a hostile oppression against gays is an exercise in bigotry. You either missed my point or find it difficult to stay on point - again, and honestly; if I announced in some hub I wrote that 'some gays are responsible for child molestations' wouldn't you rightly perceive that as a biased, prejudiced, bigoted remark?
c > "Whether you want to split hairs, by calling these people who go to Africa from The United States to bankroll politicians promoting execution for gays, Baptists or Evangelicals, the fact is . . ." <
Why not call them 'The Family'?! That's who you said is doing this. This astounds me - your whole discussion here is about how and why the hostile oppression of a whole group of people comes to be, and you suggest that the hostile oppression of gays comes from people imagining that the Bible condemns homosexual practices when it in fact affirms homosexual practices. However, I believe the Bible clearly and undeniable condemns homosexual practices yet I count the hostile oppression of any group of people to likewise be just as condemned in Scripture and I have no personal inclination or desire to see gays hostilely oppressed.
Meanwhile you appear to count it reasonable to indiscriminately lump people into a group that you (understandably) condemn based on the merest linguistic similarities. It's astounding to me that one who feels a sense of being oppressed because he is numbered among a particular group can so easily include people in reprehensible groups who simply and factually not part of that group.
Why not call them 'The Family'?! That's who you said is doing this. You identify yourself as a 'Christian' don't you? Should we say that Christians are bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays? You're a middle aged guy aren't you? Should we say that middle aged guys are bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays? Why not say 'The Family' bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays, that's who you said is doing this? christopheranton, it's your view and approach here that promotes bigotry and oppression, not mine. Certainly you would agree that there are Baptist groups wholly separate from 'The Family' who give their attention and use their resources to provide aid to others in need - it's not Baptists who are bankrolling politicians promoting execution for gays, it's 'The Family' (who happen to be baptists and men and American and brown eyed and wear suits, etc, etc) . . . again, if I (in a certain context) said 'some gays are responsible for child molestations' that would be a bigoted, prejudiced statement because some (many) don't and some heterosexuals do, etc.
You need to recognize that someone can disagree with you about the Bible affirming homosexual practices, and even disagree with you about homosexual practices being sin or not, etc, and still 'support' you as an individual, wish you well and desire to be your friend, etc . . . because I believe differently than you on some points doesn't mean I want to oppress you or hate you or fear you or am your enemy. If you take all I've said here as another perspective, as me sharing what it is I believe, etc, and not as an attack from an enemy (simply because we see things differently), and if you stay on point, I think you could see that what I'm asserting about bigotry and castigating a whole group, etc, as valid and not at all contrary to what you in fact think as well.
Christopheranton, I have never seen the original text that the bible was translated from nor the original writings of Moses and other authors of the books, nor would I understand the Hebrew or Aramaic language or print even if I did see it. I was wondering if you had and could it be possible that certain words and phrases were translated incorrectly? Could it be that some things were added due to wanting persecution of certain groups of people that were hated? Therefore perpetuating hate in the use of holy scriptures? We have learned that certain books written by biblical men and women were left out of the bible simply because the writings were opposed to the general thought of what the church wanted the people to abide by. True meanings are oftentimes lost in translation. Just curious.
Mickey Sr.
If you cannot see the connection between the low level prejudice, you profess, and the excesses practiced by christians in Africa, there is very little more that I can say to you.
I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me, but when the theological position that that person holds leads to death and destruction, then I have no scruples about criticising them.
I dont believe that you are a bad person. I just hold that you are promoting a false view of what The Bible really says on the practice of homosexuality, and that the view you hold, has lead to much great evil.
lisadpreston.
If you check out this link, it may help to answer your question.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html
Mickey Sr. you might benefit from reading it too.
christopheranton,
c > ". . . the excesses practiced by christians in Africa . . . <
So now they're not even 'Baptists', it's 'Christians' who are promoting execution for gays in Africa? christopheranton, you identified the culprits as 'The Family', I honestly don't understand your willingness to broaden your accusation from 'The Family' to 'Baptists' and now to "Christians' - are you promoting execution for gays in Africa, you're a 'Christian' aren't you?
Calling this kind of generalizing "low level prejudice" are asserting that other's prejudice is far worse strikes me as ludicrous - I suppose that I, personally, would prefer that someone accuse me of doing some evil I've had no part in simply because I'm a Christian than to have them promoting my execution simply because I'm a Christian - but if they know who the real guilty party is and they know that it's not me, I wouldn't call it "low level prejudice" when they accuse me anyway.
As I said, why not say 'The Family' is promoting execution for gays in Africa instead of saying Baptists or Christians or Frenchmen or brown-eyed people are promoting execution for gays in Africa? If you feel that you've been the victim of any manner of bigotry and prejudice, I honestly don't understand how this seems ok to you!?
c > "I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me, but when the theological position that that person holds leads to death and destruction . . ." <
christopheranton, honestly, you need to stop and reflect on your stand with this - you're conducting yourself like
the Fundamentalist I imagine you count to be unreasonable in his arrogance and reckless in his judgmentalism. Please consider this honestly:
You're saying that holding the theological position that homosexual practices are condemned in Scripture leads to death and destruction, because, undoubtedly, those engaging in behavior that leads to death and destruction toward gays agree with that theological position. But how is that different reasoning from the Fundamentalists who say (for instance) that it's wrong for Christians to drink alcohol?
The Bible says it's wrong to get drunk, it doesn't say it's wrong to drink, in fact, there are passages in Scripture where drinking is observably not frowned upon at all, and passages where drinking is even suggested. But because, with some, drinking leads to drunkenness, some Fundamentalists construe that since drunkenness (which is wrong) comes from drinking then drinking is wrong - but there are, of course, many, many people who drink and do not get drunk . . . it's not drinking that's wrong - it's drunkenness that's wrong.
christopheranton, I hold the theological position that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible but I do not at all in any way promote the execution or any manner of death and destruction for gays. As a Christian (who has been forgiven so much myself and been called to love my neighbor as myself) I instantly assert that I stand more opposed to the execution or any manner of death and destruction for gays than anyone.
christopheranton, I don't know you (so of course I could be totally mistaken), but it appears (to me) that you have so much personally invested in the ideas we're talking about here that you're not looking at this with an objective, analytical logic . . . it's like, if I were a drunk, I would be arguing 'Does the Bible really say we shouldn't get drunk? Aren't there other things far worse than getting drunk? Besides, when I'm drunk I love everyone, so . . . and everyone who's telling me to stop drinking is just being mean to me and attacking me'. Meanwhile, all those not so personally close to the issue are thinking 'Of course the Bible says we shouldn't get drunk, it's observably stated all over the place . . . and, we're not being mean to anyone, we're simply stating what we find to be clearly presented as the truth in Scripture, we're not attacking anybody'.
lisadpreston,
l > "Could it be that some things were added . . . certain books written by biblical men and women were left out of the bible simply because the writings were opposed to the general thought of what the church wanted the people to abide by. True meanings are oftentimes lost in translation." <
lisadpreston, you're reading books or listening to teachers who are resting their conclusions on very poor scholarship. The ideas you've presented above are demonstrably inaccurate. The oft repeated argument of so many is, 'how can we trust the Bible, certainly over the many centuries and the many revisions it has been altered again and again, and some men surely must have deliberately inserted or removed portions to support their own doctrines so as to control the people?', etc, etc. However, it can generally and publicly be demonstrated archaeologically, historically, and textually that the Bible we have today is virtually the same Bible that Christians originally had.
The men who copied and later translated the ancient texts of Scripture believed they were handling the very word of God, every page was numbered, every line was numbered, every word was numbered and every letter was numbered, and portions were exchanged from copyist to copyist to check the '234th page, 17th line, 5th word, 3rd letter' to make sure it was the same letter as the original . . . these men would write 'God' breaking the pen after the 'G', then a new pen after the 'o' and another after the 'd', they held the text to be so holy and of divine origin that they did not want a pen used to write 'God' to then be used for any other word. We have extant letters, sermons, commentaries, etc, from 1st century men, men who were intimate students and companions of Peter and John, etc, with enough quoted passages of Scripture to construct the entire New testament and nearly all of the Old Testament - and it is the same Bible text we have today.
And there are no secret lost books of the Bible - people have used this misrepresentation to sell books for generations. The Gnostics were an early religious group that believed they possessed a special secret knowledge ('gn?sis' means knowledge) and they promoted their religion by aligning it with Christianity. They sent out numerous writings that they attached apostle's names and Christian teachings to, including 'The Acts Of Thomas', "The Apocalypse of Adam", "The Gospel of Judas", etc. Some, with an agenda and a willingness to skip thorough and honest investigation, assert that the Gnostics were an early Christian sect and that all these 'lost books of the Bible' have been recovered in their ancient texts - these books were known and were never part of the Bible, and when you read them it is clear that they are nothing like the actual Bible that is the Bible.
There are very poor translations, and there are some translations that are better (more accurate to he original texts) than other translations . . . but, honestly, whatever any of us believe in our hearts about the Bible, God, Jesus, Christianity, etc, is one thing - but it can be demonstrated archaeologically, historically, and textually that the Bible we have today is virtually the same Bible that Christians originally had.
Mickey Sr.
I agree that you are not personally murdering gays, but the position you hold regarding the sinfulness of gay sex is lending comfort to those who do.
If you really are interested in finding out what The Bible really says on this subject, read the article in this link.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html
They put it a lot more eloquently than I can.
Oddly enough Mickey Sr, I find myself in complete agreement on the issue of the gnostic books. Most of them were written over one hundred years after the official gospels as well.
You are totally right to dismiss them as spurious.
christopheranton,
c > "I agree that you are not personally murdering gays, but the position you hold regarding the sinfulness of gay sex is lending comfort to those who do." <
So, again, do you fault people who have wine with pasta or a beer after mowing the lawn because they are "lending comfort to those who" are drunkards? Do you suggest that we prohibit free speech because that right is "lending comfort to those who" advance ideas we disagree with? Should we restrict gays from marriage because recognizing same sex marriage is "lending comfort to those who" who practice spousal abuse or divorce or commit adultery, etc?
We should believe what is actually true and practice what is actually good and right - we shouldn't believe whatever appears to generate our more desirable results or practice whatever seems to us to lead to what we perceive as a more favorable consequence. My reasonable and responsible grandson is not permitted to take an aspirin with him to school because some unreasonable and irresponsible kid might try to sneak drugs into school - that is not only ludicrous but is an evil in itself . . . the Bible cautions us against calling what is good 'evil' and calling what is evil 'good'.
Again, your reasoning is illogical and unsound because you are starting with an already defined premise that must be kept intact, you begin with an already assented to idea and then try to shape evidence and argument to suppose what you already think - evidence and argument should inform what we understand to be the truth, what we already regard to be the truth cannot inform how we consider and measure the evidence and argument.
c > "Oddly enough Mickey Sr, I find myself in complete agreement on the issue of the gnostic books" <
That should seem odd at all . . . it's not (or shouldn't be) like you are on one team and I'm on the other, always and only to disagree on any and everything - we should both be seeking authentic truth and, certainly, see some things differently but agree on much as well. What we've both posted here about the Gnostic books is simply the factual truth, there's no reason it should appear odd that we both agree on the facts.
Christopheranton- I will read the link. I was just curious about certain word translations because even in translation of words that are not biblical, the true meaning can be lost. Not intentional but because of cultural differences and just matching in general. I'm just trying to explore all avenues and not make concrete decisions about things that I'm not totally informed of. I'm still confused as to how a good person is born homosexual, without any say so in the matter, yet a few scriptures say it is wrong. It doesn't make sense to me. I would like to think that God starts everyone on a level playing field if He is to judge their actions. It is this type of thing that causes me so much turmoil in my soul regarding religion. I did get more understanding from your other hub in which you explore this issue in more detail. The eunuch from birth explanation was quite enlightening. Thank you again.
I did read the link and thank you so much. That certainly answered my question. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mickey Sr.
"Again, your reasoning is illogical and unsound because you are starting with an already defined premise that must be kept intact, you begin with an already assented to idea and then try to shape evidence and argument to suppose what you already think"
That is precisely what I feel you are doing, but you seem to be only capable of seeing these failings in other people, and are blind to them, when they are in yourself.
Have you read the article I have linked to above? Or are you unwilling to consider the notion that your long cherished notions might be proven false?
If you are as logical, as you say your are, put it to the test, by considering evidence, that you seem so far not to have even considered.
Dont take my word, only, for what I say. Read what a real Bible scholar has to say about the Bible and homosexuality. You may be enlightened. You will certainly be surprised.
Thanks for reading the article lisadpreston. I hope it answered a lot of your questions.
I am encouraging some others to read it as well.
christopheranton,
M >> "Again, your reasoning is illogical and unsound because you are starting with an already defined premise that must be kept intact, you begin with an already assented to idea and then try to shape evidence and argument to suppose what you already think" "That is precisely what I feel you are doing, but you seem to be only capable of seeing these failings in other people, and are blind to them, when they are in yourself." <
I try to be alert to just that, I am earnest in my interest to never look for support or application or encouragement when I study Scripture - I look for the truth that is being presented (and if in that truth I find support or application or encouragement, or conviction & admonishment) then my desire is to adopt that truth as my own. christopheranton, I didn't originally, and don't now, come to the Bible with an agenda, I have no preference I hope to find validation for in Scripture - I believe it is revealed eternal truth and I simply want to know it and believe it and live it . . . whether it condemns or affirms homosexuality, or capitalism, drinking, benevolence, adultery, etc, etc, etc, I have no stake in, if I found the Bible to affirm homosexual activity then I would happily affirm homosexual activity.
As for who is being illogical here; you said 'The Family' is responsible for promoting execution for gays in Africa, then you started saying Baptists were promoting execution for gays in Africa and then that Christians were promoting execution for gays in Africa. All I'm saying is, why slander Baptists generally and Christians generally if you know that it's 'The Family' that you are bringing your accusation against . . ? . . to defend that kind of generalization by labeling it "low level" prejudice is an unsound argument. And then to fault me because a perfectly reasonable and Biblically supportable understanding I have is twisted by some to defend their own evil, when you admit that your part here was a "low level" prejudice, is astoundingly illogical.
Again, should I advance that drinking is wrong, when the Bible does not say it's wrong, because when some people drink they drink too much? My view is sound and defensible - your assertion that your own prejudice is ok because it's not as bad as other's prejudice is unsound and indefensible. Logic is fully on my side here. I know that not everyone who drinks is going to get drunk and you know that not every baptist, and certainly not every Christian, promotes execution for gays in Africa - and so I don't assert that no one should ever drink, but you have asserted that Baptist and then Christians promote execution for gays in Africa (or, we both know that not everyone who holds that the Bible condemns homosexual conduct acts in violence against gays, etc) . . in my argument 1 + 1 = 2, in your argument 1 + 1 just doesn't add up - your reasoning is illogical and unsound.
Mickey Sr.
If you are that devoted to truth, how is it that you appear not to have read the article that I linked to for your enlightenment.
Are you afraid that your erroneous interpretations of The Bible might be proved to be just that?
The early Christians were prepared to go through tortures for the sake of the truth. Are you unable to even read an article, in the same cause. Here is the link again.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt83726.html
I doubt if your logic will continue to support your position, after you have read it.
But then I suspect that logic, and devotion to any sort of truth, plays little part in your reasoning, despite all your protestations.
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."Isaiah53:3
Christopheranton, that brought a tear to my eye. His suffering spirit lives in so many that are scorned.
Thanks lisadpreston. I can only agree with you here.
MickeySr, I just noticed my name in one of your comments above. Your statement regarding what I presented is off mark. If you would actually read instead of condemn, you would have read that I said I was wondering something and then I asked a question. In fact 3 questions. You don't know what in the hell I read or who my teachers were or are. You presume too much without all of the information. Also the questions were directed to the writer of the hub. Don't put words in my mouth and say I don't trust the bible. I have no preconceived ideas regarding anything. I am trying to learn, unlike you. Personally from your statements, I think you're an idiot and I wouldn't believe anything you said regarding God or Jesus even if your tongue was notarized. You are the typical closed minded hypocrite that caused me to quit going to church. Stay out of my conversations, they are directed to the author of the hub. He is actually a learned man. Thank you.
Thanks for coming in there lisadpreston. I was finding him a bit heavy going myself. He makes pedantry look like hippyism.
As always your support is really much appreciated.
lisadpreston,
I am very sorry if in the midst of back-and-forth discussion confined within a limited space and manner of expression I was not careful enough in how I presented myself and my understanding of things - it was not at all my intention to misrepresent you or 'put words in your mouth'. I honestly make no assumption about you and fully and easily recognize that I don't know you at all.
The ideas you expressed are very common and popular, and many today adopt these views after reading or listening to men who exercise very poor scholarship - I should not have addressed that circumstance as I addressed you personally, of course I do not know what you read.
As far as my comments being "off the mark" with what you said, I understand that you were asking questions - but you also made what appeared to be a statement and not a question when you said ~
"We have learned that certain books written by biblical men and women were left out of the bible simply because the writings were opposed to the general thought of what the church wanted the people to abide by"
. . . and I was responding to that primarily, asserting ~
"people have used this misrepresentation to sell books for generations" and then addressing the matter of the Gnostic material - an assertion that christopheranton in fact agreed with saying "You are totally right to dismiss them as spurious".
lisadpreston, I understand we see this differently, I recognize that we disagree - but I'm not sure what I've said that demonstrates to you that I am unwilling to learn, an idiot, and the typical closed minded hypocrite that caused you to quit going to church . . . you must admit that there is, in your evaluation of me, a bit of assumption on your part as well.
We see this particular matter differently, and I don't doubt there are other issues on which we might disagree - but I am not unwilling to learn, I am not an idiot, closed minded hypocrite . . . and very frankly, I would be interested to know exactly what I've said here to suggest I am the miserable brute you paint me to be?
Again, I should have been more circumspect in my phrasing and I do genuinely apologize for offending you or troubling you in any manner - I have no interest to do that will try to be more careful.
christopheranton,
c > "He makes pedantry look like hippyism" <
. . . could it be that such a loopy, but not unsound, perception is sensed because I am a hippie and the understanding I advance is outside the mass lunge to be in with the popular trend (as authentic hippies are inclined to be), and so it appears to those in the rush to own the new 'approved' view to simply be pedantic?
Believe me, I fully recognize that what I'm presenting here can easily be taken as mere narrow-minded clinging to some safe and known past value system . . . but I am not 'anti-gay' and I do not hold the view I do because of any ill-informed fear-based disdain for boys kissing boys - I have well-considered, honestly deliberated over, serious reasons for owning the view that I do. It is biased knee-jerk reactionism to easily catalog me as obviously a narrow-minded neanderthal because we haven't come to the same conclusion about this.
Good answer there Mickey Sr.
Mickery Sr.
I dont think you are a neandarthal. But I do think that the views you hold, re homosexuality and The Bible, are dangerous.( You probably feel the same way about mine).
Your opinions are dangerous, because they are the very ones that have underpinned the oppressive actions of fanatics for the last fifteen hundred years or so.
If the mainstream churches would come out and declare that active homosexuals are as worthy in God's eyes as their heterosexual brothers and sisters, Christianity would finally come of age.
I believe it will happen in the next few decades, and I hope I live to see it.
christopheranton,
So do you believe and assert and actively promote efforts that I be oppressed? I assume not, and so, I count myself to advance opinions that are far less inclined to oppress than you do - it is bigotry, bias, generalization, etc, that promotes oppression, not simply owning a different understanding on some issue than another holds, and you are practicing that kind of bigotry, bias, and generalization against me and those who see things as I do.
christopheranton, you seem to have a single notion that any and all must fit into if they take the Bible to present that homosexual practices are not approved but are condemned by God . . . my assumption is, like just about every thing else, there are folks on both sides of this matter who are deliberative and narrow-minded, honest with the evidence and biased, loving and mean-spirited, etc. I absolutely, fully, and happily agree with you that "active homosexuals are as worthy in God's eyes as their heterosexual brothers and sisters" and I know that there are many church camps that stand on that very ground.
I think that because I stand on 'this' side of the issue, because I see the text of Scripture as condemning homosexual activity, I am (because of prejudice) assumed to hate gays and desire them to be oppressed in some manner (like regarding insurance, hospital visitation, tax, etc, matters). I don't have any notion even close to imagining that I, because I am a heterosexual, I am more worthy in God's eyes than you or any homosexual. At all.
But I think you can't see that and are confused about that because it is you, not me, who is practicing a narrow-minded bigotry - you are attaching your own assumptions to me as accusations against me.
christopheranton, I know that you, as a homosexual man, are not necessarily politically liberal, into fashion, promiscuous, 'fierce', etc, etc - my assumption is, like anyone I might meet, you might be smart or foolish, you might follow sports or soap operas, you might free-thinking or narrow-minded, etc.
I don't assume that because you're gay you must be open-minded, you must be heroically bold, you must be fair and honest, etc - your assumption of my view, that homosexual activity is condemned not affirmed in the Bible, seems to be that I must desire you be oppressed and that I count myself more worthy in God's eyes than you, etc . . . to me, the dangerous, prejudiced, narrow-minded thinking that leads to the oppression of others is coming from your assumptions of others not me understanding of the text of Scripture.
MickeySr.
I am not accusing you of bigotry. I dont know you well enough to make any assumptions about your personal character.
What I am saying is that, just as a house has to be built on foundations, the notion that homosexual practice is anathema to God, lays the foundation for all the prejudice and cruelty that grows from that base.
The saying that "God loves the sinner, and hates the sin" is rubbish when it is applied to people who are expected to deny themselves full expression of their God given nature, in order to fulfill some narrow criteria for what pleases The Divinity.
That, in simple terms, is my position. I have seen nothing in any of the comments here that persuades me to change it.
Hi christopheranton, hi MickeySr.
This hub has somehow become a routine part of my life. I will come back later to comment as I actually read through most of the earlier comments today. I had skipped most of them before, unless a certain word popped out at me or my name, just because I didn't want to be intrusive. I tend to think comments are for the author and reader mostly, and like to respect that. HOWEVER, this hub has caused quite a stir. There has been some good cross talk. I have to go over the comments again because it is so lengthy and I want to take notes. I cannot even believe that I need to take notes from a comment section. LOL.
Listen guys. Debate is good as long as our intent is to learn and discuss with respect and love. We are human and we will get angered, excited, offended, and sometimes downright mean! This is okay. We are allowed to be flawed. The important thing about passionate debate that I discovered is; that in the end or sometimes in the middle, our true spirit of God shines through and we humble ourselves to apologize when we are wrong. We all forgive the other, and leave from the table a little closer to God, a little more tolerant, a little more understood, a little more humbled, and hopefully a little more educated. This has been my experience and I believe it is the experience of at least a few of you.
MIckeySr, thank you for the apology. You are a bigger man than I imagined. All is forgiven. Now it is my turn and I am ashamed to say that this is the second apology that I have had to make in the comment section of this hub. I am sorry MickeySr for calling you an idiot. I was wrong to say that. Maybe I shouldn't have called you a hypocrite. If I conclude in my personal judgment that you are a hypocrite, please don't be offended. I respect you even if I disagree with you. I think I shall quit while I'm ahead, lest I give cause for a third apology.
christopheranton, you simply amaze me. Your humor and wit surpasses all. Your patience is divine, and I don't think I have met anyone who knows so much about everything. The knowledge you posses accompanied by wisdom just blows me away. I am forming this opinion from the accumulated hubs you have written, not just this one. This is admiration, not worship, MickeySr.
One more thing to say, then I promise I will leave.
MIckeySr, Mr.C does not need my encouragement, support, loyalty, or agreement on any topic he chooses to write about. This man can hold his own in any given situation. He doesn't speak about things that he hasn't researched from every perspective with an abundance of proof to back him up. He writes what he knows emphatically to be true because he is responsible. Not because of any personal bias in a matter. I honestly believe that Mr.C's character is true enough to say that homosexuality is wrong and a sin, if he believed it was. His faith in God, would just cause him to say, "Hey everyone, I am gay and homosexuality is a sin." I know God will remove this from me, etc., etc." But he honestly believes what is in this hub, therefore, he has no shame, no guilt, no agenda (other than to promote truth).
Now christopheranton, please have tea ready when we all meet in your parlour again. Or depending on what MickeySr's next comment will be, have a nice whiskey on hand for me! Cheers!
christopheranton,
I understand what you're saying, but my point is that I don't think it is holding one view or the other regarding the Bible's assertion regarding homosexual activity or believing that God commends homosexual activity or affirms it that lays the foundation for all the prejudice and cruelty perpetrated against gays - I believe it is prejudice and cruelty that lays the foundation for all the prejudice and cruelty perpetrated against gays.
If we look at prejudice and cruel actions perpetrated against anyone, we see that heterosexuals can be prejudiced and cruel against homosexuals and homosexuals can be prejudiced and cruel against heterosexuals, Whites can be prejudiced and cruel against Blacks and Blacks can be prejudiced and cruel against Whites, men against women and women against men, liberals against conservatives and conservatives against liberals, etc, etc. The common feature in all these circumstances is not what you understand to be God's position on homosexual activity, the common feature here is that some people, no matter what they believe to be the truth about something, some people are inclined toward prejudice and cruelty and some are not.
When you (whoever) assert that my mere view of an idea, the understanding I count to be the truth about something, when you assert that it is that belief or understanding alone that is the foundation of someone's prejudice and cruelty, then you discount my view without regard to it's genuine legitimacy, it is instantly invalid because of the ugliness you say it promotes. The validity of an idea is then determined, not by an honest and thorough investigation and consideration of the evidence, but an idea is determined valid on the basis of how the worst prejudiced and cruel individuals who assert it to be their view (whether they have any genuine comprehension of the real idea or not) act out their prejudice and cruelty.
But even worse, the true ugliness, the authentic harm, the real evil, namely prejudice and cruelty, is passed over as a mere appendage to an idea that simply differs from your own. christopheranton, I am living proof of the fallacy of your assertion; I believe your interpretation of the Bible on this matter is absurd - I believe the text is unavoidably clear in several passages, very suggestive in several other passages, and that the Biblical message as a whole simply makes no sense apart from the triune God making man in His own image, male and female, uniting them as one, and calling them to be fruitful, etc.
I believe God, in His word, condemns homosexual activity and does not at all affirm it - yet I do not and have no inclination at all to be oppressive or cruel toward gays, I am not prejudiced against gays, I love my brother and his partner and have great respect for the care and fidelity that they practice toward one another, etc, etc. My belief that God condemns homosexual activity does not at all suggest to me that I am more worthy of God's favor than Gays not does it at all incline me to any manner of prejudice and cruelty toward gays.
Now, you can say that, well maybe so for me but that for others it's different - but, what's different . . ? . . if we both believe homosexual activity is condemned but we don't both practice prejudice and cruelty toward gays, then it's not the idea, it's not our view that is promoting prejudice and cruelty - what's different is that they are prejudiced and cruel. The sooner we (this world) recognize that it is not merely seeing things differently from one another but it is the willingness to be prejudiced and cruel toward each other that is the evil, the sooner we will all stop speaking in terms of 'supporting' and 'attacking' someone's ideas and understand that ideas need to be determined to be accurate or inaccurate, not supported or attacked . . . and the sooner the true culprit, prejudice and cruelty, will be recognized the enemy of truth and peace.
You are right there lisadpreston. The comments section here seems to have taken on a life of it's own. This must reflect the importance that people put on the subject. The world would be a better place if issues of personal sexuality didn't have such overwhelming significance in theology. Still we must play with the cards we have been dealt. That's human life for you.
Thanks for all the compliments, but I am not possessed of such great knowledge as you believe, and I definitely have my prejudices. They shine through in some of my articles. I do try to maintain a balance in the views that I express, and I do maintain a healthy respect for the search for truth. I dont always find it however.
You can drink gallons of tea in my parlour, or whiskey, or brandy as well. You deserve all of them.
Rather than continue a debate that seems to be going round in circles,
All Things Bright And Beautiful Hymn
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.
Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colours,
He made their tiny wings.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all
The purple-headed mountain,
The river running by,
The sunset and the morning,
That brightens up the sky;
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all
The cold wind in the winter,
The pleasant summer sun,
The ripe fruits in the garden,
He made them every one;
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all
The tall trees in the greenwood,
The meadows for our play,
The rushes by the water,
To gather every day;
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all
He gave us eyes to see them,
And lips that we might tell
How great is God Almighty,
Who has made all things well.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.
That includes homosexuals, and their active sexuality.
Lovely poem. Just for the record, I don't agree with everything you have written about on hubpages. Is that supposed to make me not like you as a person and discredit everything you write about? I should think not. We all have our prejudices. Most people would have been offended and gone off on a big campaign regarding a statement you made in another hub about thinking that all Americans are traitors. Well, I'm American! I just chuckled when I read it and knew that you would have good reason for saying that.
You do have vast amounts of knowledge and you know how to find information, which is even more important.
I haven't seen any proof given for why homosexuality is wrong throughout this comment section, so I am firm at this point, that God doesn't condemn it. Case closed for me.
Hi lisadpreston.
I think I was being a little "tongue in cheek" when I made that comment about Americans. "One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter".
I think we are definitely both in agreement with your last sentence.
I knew that you meant no harm, but a closed minded person would have ran with that statement and formed a prejudice. Personally I thought it was funny because it had some truth to it and was courageous for you to say. I look forward to your next hub!
Cheers for that lisadpreston. I will have to write one this week. I have been a bit slack recently, what with moving etc. But I have no excuse now.
This is the funniest hub I've ever read. God supports homosexual? Big LOL....I agree with MickeySr. People tend to use and interpret Bible to support their own opinions. It happens to Christian and it also happens in other religions. And then, some people use it as excuse to condemn God and Christianity...
purewater26.
I,m glad you find the subject to be a funny one, and that you were able to "Laugh Out Loud".
Do you laugh when you read the accounts of the lies that are propagated throughout Africa, by Christians about homosexuals? Or when you read the stories of gays being brutally murdered by the same Christians?
Do you laugh when you hear of young Christian homosexuals in The United States committing suicide, because they are made to feel they are an abomination before God, by their fellows?
Did you laugh when you read about David Bahati, being sponsored by right wing American Christians to introduce a bill into the Ugandan Parliament to legalise the hanging of homosexuals?
Is your "funny bone" tickled by the sight of young people hanging from cranes in squares in Teheran, enduring slow agonising deaths from strangulation, just because they happen to have a minority sexual orientation?
If the answer to all of the above questions is "Yes", Then you are welcome to laugh at the subject of my article. If not, "Shut your mouth".
I hope you will be prepared to laugh as well when you are sitting in Hell, with your friends The Pharisees.
It's funny, Chris because you abused Bible to support your own ideology. You concluded something that are not exist from the verses that you used on your article, rather than believe what Bible explicitly wrote.
I never said that I'm agree with the ways of some Christians or other people (who claimed they were religious) treat homosexual. It was tragedy about what happened to some of them. What they did were wrong. I'm not deny it.
But, it doesn't mean that I should justify people's imagination and wrong interpretations on Bible. You have your right to write what you wanted to write. I have the same right to disagree.
You see...I didn't condemn you and homosexual people. I just wrote my simple opinion. And you condemned me to sit in Hell with my Pharisees friends. This was also funny when Christian wrote his opinion, people said he bashed or abused people.
purewater26.
The people who abuse The Bible are those who try to use it in order to make others feel sinful, and unworthy of God's love.
I dont see any passages that I have specifically abused.
There is plenty in "The Good Book" that is worthy of condemnation anyway, like the accounts of Joshua's campaigns in Canaan. The evils that lead on from that episode still bedevil the world today.
You dont have to agree with persecution to encourage it. You only have to concur with the basic premise of the persecutors.
The reason why The Nazis were able to persecute The Jews so effectively, was not because The Nazis were evil scumbags, but because there was an underlying anti semetism in european society.
The same evil forms the foundation of Christian attitudes to homosexuals.
The notion that "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner", is just a cop out for those who can't see that the real sin is the one that tries to force people to give up their God given right to express themselves fully, sexually and emotionally, because it doesn't fit into some very narrow interpretation of what The Bible says.
christopheranton,
c > "The people who abuse The Bible are those who try to use it in order to make others feel sinful . . ." <
But, you will agree that a significant point and purpose of Scripture is, while perhaps not directly to make people 'feel' sinful, a great degree of attention is given to revealing to us the fact of our sinfulness . . . right? If someone missuses Scripture in a self-serving effort to make themselves feel better than their neighbor by trying to make their neighbor feel more corrupt than he is or particularly wicked in a manner in which he is not particularly wicked, etc, then that an evil and is not serving God - but if someone directs our attention and their own to Scripture that does indeed condemn us as corrupt, wicked, sinners, then you do not find fault with that, do you?
And, you express your disdain for "people who abuse The Bible are those who try to use it in order to make others feel sinful" by asserting such conduct is "unworthy of God's love" - isn't that pretty much exactly the gospel message, that none of us are worthy of God's love and need forgiveness?
Let me ask you this, because, I am unsure - do you count the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and the only source of authoritative truth, or do you think some of it is valuable if we handle it properly but some of it is simply ugly and should be disregarded?
MickeySr.
I would say that a great emphasis has been put by some people on the parts of The Bible that emphasise our sinfulness.
Sin can be committed in a wide variety of different ways. Just as "one man's meat is another man's poison", so can one man's sin can be another man's pleasant indulgence.
I retain an open mind about the inerrancy of "The Good Book". I believe it was inspired of God, but it is not an accurate record of history, in every respect. Genesis, especially, is obviously allegorical. You must also remember that it is a very old book. Parts of it are almost three thousand years old in fact. The books of The Bible were primarily written for the people of it's time. They can only be understood properly in reference to the conditions, and attitudes prevalent at the time of their writing. That is why "Revelation" for instance, is understood to be about events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is not, as some mistakenly believe, a prophecy about the end of The World.
The references to homosexual activities have to be understood in the same way. There was Temple prostitution, both in the roman empire, and in Canaan. In some temples, sex with the priests was a form of worship. That is what was being condemmned; not the sex itself, but the pagan worship aspect of it.
The only recorded interaction between Jesus and an actual homosexual occurs when He cures the servant/lover of the centurion. There is no hint of condemnation there. Our Lord holds the centurion up as an exemplar of faith instead.
I dont think that The Bible is an ugly book, although it is difficult to see the edification to be derived from some sections of it, especially those parts of The Old Testament that relate the conquest of Canaan. But that is a different subject, and I have addressed it in a different article.
So many excellent points here Christopheranton. If this is the funniest thing purewater26 has ever read, then he or she doesn't get out much and will be roflao when they graduate to humorous readings. I am truly excited for him.
MickeySr., Don't you think that people DO use the bible to point out to others just how wicked they think that person is? Would you agree that the bible speaks of so much more than just how wicked we are as people? Mickey, we must consider the time and what the people were doing and going through at the time the scriptures were written. We know there have been mistranslations and misinterpretations of the bible. One I can think of off the top of my head, and it should be much more worrisome to us than whether a person is homosexual, and that is God and Jesus names. God's name isn't God. God isn't even a name, it's a title. His name was Yahweh. They called Him El Shadi, or almighty provider. But He revealed His name to Moses at the burning bush. Even that is a mistranslation. It should read Ayah Asher Ayah, spelling I'm not sure. The bible says it means I am that I am. It should read, I will be what I will to be. Then they have our saviors name as Jesus. He was born a Hebrew. The Hebrews didn't have a j or j sound in their alphabet. We didn't get a J in our language till the 1600's. No J, no Jesus. He came in His fathers name which was Yahshua. Meaning Yah is salvation. You don't translate peoples names, so there was error somewhere. Also, they put Genesis as the first book of the bible, which should have been inserted after Moses received a vision on top of Mt. Sanai on one of his three trips, of God showing him how he created things. You don't actually think it took God 7 days to create the creation do you? I hope God isn't that slow and needs more rest than I do. But He showed Moses in a breakdown of how it was done and that took 7 days. My point is that there are many things we don't understand or even know about. I doubt that they even had the word homosexual back then. If we go only by the bible then I guess that means that drug dealers are off the hook and there is nothing wrong with selling drugs to kids, cause I don't see the words drug dealer in the bible anywhere. We have to understand the times. God didn't seem to have a problem with Abraham having a wife and a slave woman, Hagar. He didn't seem to have a problem with men having a whole slew of wives, yet if we see a man having more than one wife today, we think he is a sicko or VERY OVERSEXED INDIVIDUAL. There was so much more going on at the time scriptures were written that we have to take things in proper perspective. It always seems that we are made to feel guilty over our sexuality. I blame the Puritans for that. In America, we have had their belief system shoved down our throats from day one. If something feels good, it must be evil. Sex is taboo unless you are properly married and what a bore that is too. It is still on the legal books that anal and oral sex is punishable by law, between a man and a woman, not just homosexuals. Every man I have known, Christian or not has always had the fantasy of being with two women. Women who are engaging in lesbian activity.
lisadpreston.
You certainly know how to say it as it is. I find myself in agreement with all you write. Except the notion that all men fantasise about having sex with two lesbians. That has definitely never been one of mine. LOL
Ha hahahahahahahaha, now you know that you do!!!!!!!!!!!
Fantasising about having sex with a lesbian's two handsome brothers! that would be more my style.
hahahahahahahaha. yes I know and maybe mine as well!
Excellent hub and important points.
Thanks peanutroaster for your kind comments. Much appreciated.
If you choose to be blind
if you choose to fool yourself
if you choose to perversely lust knowing of the implications
by all means do so
but do not tell me
that God made you so
don't tell me
God will love you nonetheless.
don't tell me
Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality.
Love truth,
love justice
walk humbly with the Lord
and repent.
Hi truthfirst.
How strange it is that someone with such an abysmal knowledge of scripture or history should have such a username.
A small point for your information. The connection between Sodom and Gomorrah and homosexuality was first made in the seventh century AD in a book written by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. That would only be around seven centuries after the last book of The Bible was written.
I am all for freedom of expression, but if you must spout your prejudices here, at least try to get a minimum of facts right.
May God bless you christpheranton . There is too much hatred being spawned into "Christians" today. I say it in inverted commas because many are led by the revelation of man not God. You can tell how much of Christ someone has in them by their fruits , that and how much they used a "worldy" dictionary to twist GODS word.
The truth of the gospel is that we are ALL sinners and need the salvation of Christ.
When we receive Christ into us we are told to die to self.God has revealed that it is not who I am in Christ, but who Christ is in me that saves me from hell.
Lisa is totally correct that God is so vast and almighty that HE does not need us to judge or to get the bible out to bash people with. We are all sinners without Christ , and God certainly does not need man as his mouthpiece , HE can judge a heart HIMSELF.
Would Jesus stay in his comfort zone of a church today and use the bible to bash people with . ? NO HE would be with the sinners and the unsaved helping them , and loving them and leading them to the father in LOVE When man lifts himSELF higher than God in his life he is backsliding .
I love you christopher and pray you continue to yield to God to reveal His nature to you.
In Christs love . xxx
Christinme.
What you are saying is very true. I wish there were more like you in the world.
God bless you and thanks. Your comment is much appreciated.
To say that the Bible doesn't forbid homosexuality is like saying Hitler was a wonderful man. I understand if you wish that homosexuality was not a sin, but don't you dare try and use the Scripture to justify what God is against. I rebuke you and your false article, and its foul how people are actually agreeing with you. It just shows how quick people will easily submit to foolishness.
mrcraigthegreat.
I notice from your comment that you don't use any passages of scripture to back up your view. This is probably because you sense that my superior knowledge on the subject can easily counter your deficient understanding.
I therefore conclude that your opinions are formed round your own prejudices, rather than any real base of biblical scholarship.
May God bless you and gift you with some real understanding, and charity.
I have a feeling that He will have His "work cut out for Him" though.
It is really sad that some men cannot see that we are All sinners. There are many things that God hates in a sinful world , including mans pride and self rightoeusness, but THANK GOD we have the blood of Jesus that brings forgiveness of sins if we repent to Him.
Hatred is against Christs character , He said the biggest commandment was LOVE. Even to love our enemies as ourselves as even satan knows how to love his friends.
It grieves my heart that the church nowadays is in such a mess. If Christian hates Christian what hope have unbelievers of seeing Christ in us. Have respect because we are all on different parts of Gods journey . We should be leading each other in love and truth .To hate is to murder in Gods eyes.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Is that clear enough for you mr. christinme? oh and by the way, if Christ was really in you, then you would know the scriptures
Hi Christinme.
Thanks for that wise comment. Your name is very apt and reflects well your character.
Hi Christinme.
Thanks for that wise comment. Your name is very apt and reflects well your character.
The sad thing is Christopher is that the man this was aimed at obviously did not read it and take it on.
We have Christ in us. Jesus, Jesus character is not one of judgement , He is mild and gentle and leads in LOVE
It saddens me when religious people scapegoat homosexuals, God hates ALL sin including fornication ( sex outside marriage ) and adultery ( more than one partner) . God hates ALL sin thats my point.
Jesus said to love one another . I believe we should merely point people to our Father in heaven so HE can reveal Himself to them. Man cannot reveal God , he has no words to explain.
God bless you from your sister in Christ.
Mrcraigthegreat. I do not understand where I have written that I agree with any sin . I can show love to christopher the author of this hub whether I agree with him or not. Jesus said the most important commandment was to LOVE. Sin is everywhere but THANK GOD we have Jesus. I do know my scripture but I only ever use it to lead someone in LOVE. Nothing on earth is for us to judge , we should praise and thank God for another Christian and lead them to our Father in heaven to teach them .
So so sad that man is raising him or her self above God on earth. God can show the TRUTH , a mystery that not even a man can explain.
I know I have Christ in me , do you? The bible is Gods Holy word of truth but HE is soo much bigger than the bible. And God does certainly not need man as a mouthpiece. All have freewill to accept Christ. BY bullying people all you are doing is leading them away from Christ.
I love you as a brother and urge you to yield to your Father in heaven and lean not on your own understanding.
mrcraigthegreat.
Do you recognise these laws from Leviticus?
19 “‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
I hope you are observing all these laws from The Bible. Otherwise you are guilty of great sin. Also remember that you should also remain standing when you are in the presence of the elderly. Do you do that?
I am pretty sure that you don’t observe all of those ordinances, (if you follow any of them). Yet you have the cheek to selectively use passages from the Good Book to castigate those who your own prejudices impel you to condemn. If you are unable to see the grave error you are in you have my sympathy.
Here is a final passage we all should remember.
Matthew 7:12
12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
God bless you.
Thanks Christinme again for your wise comments.
This passage is one I think we all need to remember as well.
John 7:53-8:11 in the Authorized Version:
7:53 "And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more".
Thank you for all your valuable help. I can see that you are a good woman. I'm sure God can as well.
It is not about me , I am nothing without Jesus. It is not about who I am in Christ but who Christ is in me .
To be full of Christ and Holy spirit we have to be empty of SELF .
May God bless you as you search for HIM .
Christinme, I don't believe that you are a strong man of God. You may be a man of God, but not a strong one. I know that the Bible teaches us to show love to one another, but do you know what it means to do it? Lets use the love of Jesus for example, just because a person says they love Jesus doesn't actually mean that they do. To love Jesus is to follow his teachings and walk in his image. Now I know that you view Jesus as gentle, but according to the scriptures, he is not. During his time on Earth, he didn't just go around preaching love and compassion, he preached with the anger of God in him. To be a real Christian means to condemn sin, and not tolerate it. The Bible says that to truly love God is to hate evil, and if you don't hate evil, then you don't love God(Psalm 97:10). All sin is evil, rather it be homosexuality or worrying, all of it is evil. If you really are a man of God, then you need to really look in the Bible and see how God really feels about this world. He is angry and this world is already facing divine Judgement. I will never cower before this world, because I am a REAL man of God who condemns all wickedness in the name of Christ, including the detestable act of homosexuality. You need to check yourself, because to truly love someone means to save them from dying in their sin. I love everyone just as the Bible commands, but I will always condemn those who practice wickedness, because I hate evil just as my Father in heaven. Jesus is not coming to bring peace, but he is coming with a sword to destroy this world(Mathew 10:34). Where will you stand?
mrcraigthegreat.
You really need to take your head out of your Bible and look beyond the narrow word. You are allowing your whole world view to become seriously warped. Do yourself a favour. Hide it at the back of your deepest cupboard and don't look at it until you have experienced some more of life. It's doing you much more harm than good at the moment.
BTW. I am still waiting for your reply to the questions I posed to you re Leviticus. I hope you are not running scared. That is the hallmark of a bully.
mrcraig the great have you not even truly read what I have written. I am a woman but I am not a great woman of God I am a Christian who has a close relationship with my saviour. I have no pride as who I am, only who Christ is in me . Can I ask if you believe in the true power of God, or do you believe the gifts of the spirit have ceased? IT does not matter really , I can leave you to your self righteousness. I know God is almighty and allpowerful to do what ever a sovereign God wants to. HE certainly does not need me as a mouthpiece. Jesus loved the lost in the world as HE would do and does do today .
I am not arguing with you anymore , I am not defeated but urge you for GOD to show you all things and do not lean on your own understanding.
God bless you . xx
I would like to second what you say in that last comment.
to christopheranton, i will respond to your Leviticus question. all i have to say is that i am aware of what they say and i am aware that God does not change. He is the same as he always was so i strongly believe in those laws, but dont try and turn this around to justify your view on homosexuality, because twisting the word of God around is a bad idea. and second, i will never take my head out of the Bible, because God word is how we learn from Him, and He commands us to be steadfast in His word.
to christinme I am sorry for mistaking you for being a man, and now I know why you are viewing God in a feminized way. I believe in the true power of God, but I dont think that you do. You believe in this "punktified" and feminine God that weak preachers preach about, but I beleive in the real God who is portrayed in the Bible. I believe in a God that is angry with how filthy people of this world are, I believe in a God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, I believe in a God who destroyed everyone except Noah and his family with the flood, I believe in a God that is not a respecter of persons, I believe in a God who creates hurricanes floods earthquakes tornadoes and thunderstorms to strike fear in those with weak hearts, I believe in a God who is coming NOT with open arms, but with a sword with blood dripping from it. That is the God of the Bible, He is mighty and great with all that He does, and I fear and submit to Him. Thats who I believe in because that is the real God and vengeance will be His
Ezekiel 16:49-50:
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good".
I really have not come across anyone with less understanding of The Bible than you mrcraigthegreat. Even the most elementary of Bible scholars knows that Sodom was destroyed for arrogance and disregard for the laws of hospitality. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it. The quoted passage, above, shows that. The belief that homosexual practice was the cause of God's wrath came from a book written by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in the seventh century AD. You are the one twisting the words of The Good Book. You evidently haven't got a clue how to understand it.
Furthermore, if you really have got so much respect for the Leviticus laws, how come you are pictured clean shaven? You should be sporting a full beard. There may be a "sword with blood dripping from it" pointing straight at your heart. Dont forget "the hair at the side of your head" either. It looks to me like it has been cut. If I can see it, the "Real God" can see it also and He doesn't like that. I cannot count the number of fabrics you have in your garments. You picture isn't clear enough. But "The Lord of Hosts" can. Make certain that you are within the permitted level.
Here is another quote for you.
Matthew 7:5.
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".
Don't forget that one.
God bless you.
Again mrcraig the great , you have unfortunately mis read my words again, I was talking of Jesus Christ , The SON of God who died on the cross to save us ( Christians) from The Fathers wrath . I feel pity for you that you are twisting my words against me . I have said that ALL men sin and GOD HATES ALL SIN but THANK GOD HIS SON DIED FOR OUR SINS. I was talking about Jesus character. HE really wound the scribes up the same as I appear to be winding you up. I am happy for this as it proves that Christ shines from within me, I am nothing but an earthly vessel for Gods work.
May I again implore you to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before you read the word of GOD. To read the bible with the incorrect spiritual guidance is a very dangerous thing to do. Lean not on your own understanding but yield to God the sovereign I AM to reveal HIMSELF to you. As you do not even mention Christ i fear that you are not a Christian at which point we will never agree . As Christians we acknowledge that God is angry at the world but there is saving grace in Christs blood shed for us . You can know all the scriptures word for word but without the Holy spirit inside they are worthless, and NOTHING will stop the JOY of the LORD within me and no fiery arrows that satan fires my way will steal my salvation as I have the shield of faith that Jesus is who His Father said He was and He died for us when we were still sinners to save us from Gods wrath.
Christinme, you do realize that Jesus Christ and the Father are one don't you? you are making it like they are separate or something. the trinity means that the Father, Son and Spirit are ONE. when I acknowledge one, I am acknowledging all, because I believe in them all. I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus, and I thank the Holy Spirit like the scripture says. in Mathew 10:34, Jesus states "I have not come to bring peace on Earth, but a sword." That's my Jesus, and I suggest you read the book of Revelations so you can see what Jesus is really about. Jesus is the one who is going to destroy the world, and I fear him. You say I am misguided because I represent the Lord with strength and true knowledge of the scripture, but I can't get angry with you. I am constantly guided by the Holy Spirit and that is why I am strong in His word, so your weakness of heart is what makes you believe in a weak version of God. But I love you because you are my sister and I love christopheranton because he is my brother and I am sorry that we view God in a different way. but I view Him in the mighty and angry God that the Old Testament and Book of Revelations talk about, because a weak and gentle God doesnt deserve to be feared and praised. Jesus is the Lord of the old testament, so you should wake up. To christopheranton, I see that you are still trying to justify homosexuality, so hopefully this verse in the NEW testament will wake you up. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "do you not know that the unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God? do not be deceived. neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites. 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." Those are not my words, they are Gods. Please know that I am not trying to judge nor condemn you, I am just speaking the Word. I am your brother and I love you, so I dont wish to argue anymore. Live your life as you please. God Bless:)
Hello MrCraigthegreat. I concede that we are not going to agree on anything to do with this issue, although I should point out that the term homosexual is only an invention of the 19th century. It does not appear in any translation of the Bible before that date. However, rather than continue with what is becoming a very fruitless argument, I am deciding to agree to disagree which you. We are all God’s children after all. With God's grace we shall all meet in Heaven.
OKAY, I want to speak my views. Now I am a homosexual BUT I believe it is a sin, I can not help my ways and I beg God every night to love me and keep me as a son. I am a Christian and btw WE DO NOT JUDGE. I am 17 and I married a 53 year old man last September, he's a billionaire so he made it legal for us. I love him with all my heart and I adore him, he's my L.O.V.E. but I can't help feeling quite sinful and ashamed, being Christian that I am it's a situation that is a bit twisted for me, it's not fun. Anyway this is it, I have nothing more to say, God bless you and keep healing the world everyone, God bless!
I leave you to your anger and self righteousness mrcraig the great . I wonder how many people you have actually help to harvest for the Lord. Not many i guess with all your hate and anger. Jesus was angry at the scribes who just studied the word. Whilst the scribes were making people seem small and bullying people with the word , Jesus was out doing the work of His Father. And yes i do understand the trinity . Sorry that you hub has been overtaken by a mere scribe and bully christopher .
Thanks for reading Carlo. I don't feel that you have got anything to be guilty about and neither does God stop. The notion that homosexuality is wrong is based on an incorrect reading of Scripture. Continue to live your life as you are leading it. I hope you are very happy. You are very fortunate to have found somebody that you can love, who also loves you. God bless you. He does love you just as you are.
Carlo, I believe that we ALL sin , it is human nature but Jesus blood brings forgiveness.
" God will come and wrap his arms around you, IT wouldnt be too much to love you as HE found you. You may feel like your too far gone but HE will love you like his only SON, HE will come"
You are blessed with such a humble heart Carlo, dont ever change but lean on the LORD for ALL your needs.
Hi Christinme.
I suspect that Craig has issues in his own life that he needs to work through. That is probably why he's adopting such an aggressive attitude to his fellow Christians. The best any of us can do at this stage is to pray for him. At some time the real love of Christ will act on his life. Then we will see a completely different person.
I have read your passages in Samuel and would like to point out the following.
1. The term kiss being applied to homosexuality is unfair. I kiss my father on the cheek and many do so in a manner of endearment unrelated to sex. In the new testament, the term kiss is used when Judas betrays jesus. This is just a social practice and not explicitly gay. Its conjecture to assume "mouth to mouth love".
2.One in spirit can refer to friends and stating "yeah, that sounds a little gay" does not make it so.
3. The act of disrobing (by the way robes were not the only articles of clothing worn)and offering your weapons toward an individual is often a sign of servitude or forfeit. Hence a covenant.
4. The "fall to the ground" verse can be taken like this. He fell to the ground, did the bowing thing and then kissed, and cried. It does not state, he fell to the ground with Jonathan and they kissed...as much of a romantic scene you may desire, the script states otherwise
5. Your Naomi and Ruth evidence is a bit flawed given that Ruth married one of Naomi's sons and then later Boaz (who is a guy). The whole first chapter of Ruth is Naomi referring to Ruth and her other daughter in law as "my daughters" and Naomi crying for a husband. It does say Ruth clutched to her but is this erotic? No. Just the endearment of a daughter in law to a loving mother figure.
6. Genesis chapter 9 has God stating to abraham that "were there 10 people that were righteous he would not destroy Sodom. However, he does and only spares lot. Now in a town of many, isn't it possible that a few were "just gay guys?" why were they not spared?
7.Your dismissal of the book of leviticus needs to answer this. If there was no problem with it, why bring it up? Just a thought. Also, the sin is not flower placement, its flower placement for pagan purposes.
8.The multicolored coat comment is a cheap attempt at a joke I presume. Only in recent modernity has a rainbow been a sign of homosexuality. You are trying to define the past with modern definitions in pop culture. Rainbows have been a symbol of peace long before the pride parades.
9. Speaking about definition, did you know that adulterous originally meant any immoral sexual act and not just cheating on a spouse. The bible condemns "the adulterous" on many occasions.
10. The "All Loving God" line...you really have to be careful about confusing God's love with human's love. If God was the human version of love ("whatever makes us happy") then there would not be a hell or any punishment or any sacrifice of Jesus for that matter because we would all be doing "whatever makes us happy" and not what is right. Think of it as a strict parent.
11. Yeah, that condemnation thing goes for Jesus to. Jesus never went against old teachings, he extremified them, only getting into trouble when stating he is the lord of the sabbath (Blapshemy!). As for his arguing with the pharisees, he was a whole lot like a rabbi (the future pharisee) and did what they did every day at the temple. Argue scripture. In the end his teaching do not accept others in total peace. After all, you'll still be going to hell. His teachings reflect a form of passifism that basically states, they are wrong, but how can you expect them to follow you if you are not willing to see your own faults? (aka Be concerned with YOUR salvation). After all, Jesus does state that he was there not to bring peace, but a sword. This in turn means, that should we willingly be confronted with questions on our fate, we must speak our understood truth as christians, not accept everything. Jesus is not some hippie, he is a stern Jewish religious leader with policies that take the old law to the extreme (don't cheat on your wife? well, DON'T EVEN LOOK AT ANOTHER WOMAN. Don't murder? WELL DON'T LAY A HAND ON ANOTHER). Its pretty hard stuff to follow, but it is true.
12. To better make sense of the previous point, think of this. If I harm a homosexual, not only is he condemned, but I am condemned as well for trying to be the judgement of God (a kind of blasphemy). This would be solving a sin with a sin. All I can then do is let that person be as is,help him when necessary, but should he ask me wholeheartedly if what he is doing is ok, I will regrettably have to say yes. This makes following God seriously hard, is is most likely why people either dilute or avoid christianity because it allows no real room for just doing whatever makes you happy.
If I were there I would buy you a sandwich.
• I don't propose at the moment to go into a great detail regarding answering your very detailed post, but I will give you this link which you are welcome to check out for yourself regarding Joseph and his amazing coat. It doesn't go into a lot of detail does give us food for thought.
• http://queering-the-church.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/
If you are ever in this area I will happily accept a sandwich from you.
Druid Dude Level 4 Commenter 13 months ago
To know means to have sexual relations with. In the story of Lot, he is told to "Send them out to us, that we might know them" is generally considered to mean just that. I voting you up, not because I agree, but because it is a good hub; well written, concise. You state your position strongly. Peace