The Truth about the Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality...its ok?

Introduction





What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Should the Church allow the blessing of homosexual marriages/unions? Should a homosexual in a committed relationship be ordained a priest or even consecrated bishop? What about tradition? What should I tell my friends or relatives who are gay? Must they remain single for their whole life? We all have pondered at least one of these questions at some time or another.





This study is the end product of much research, dialogue, and prayerful reflection. A few years ago this study began when I decided that I need to know once and for all what the Bible says about homosexuality. I would like to share with you a study of the six Bible verses that have often been used in reference to homosexuality, as well as explore homosexuality within the context of Christian tradition.





Regardless of whether or not you are a Bible scholar; whether or not you can read Greek; or if you know everything or nothing about Christian tradition, you will be able to follow this study of: The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality.





Terminology





Homosexual





The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same,” and the Latin term sexualis, meaning “sex.” The term homosexual is of modern origin, and it was not until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) New Testament was the first translation to use the word homosexual.





Sodomite





There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy” or “sodomite.” A Sodomite would have been simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite would have been an inhabitant of Moab, though the word sodomite does not show up in biblical Greek or Hebrew. Any translation of the Bible making use of the words sodomy or sodomite are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.





Looking At The Bible





There are six Bible accounts that have been used in recent years in reference to homosexuality. These include:





Genesis 1-2 (Creation Account)


Genesis 19:1-9 (Sodom Account)


Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 (Holiness Code)


Romans 1:24-27 (Letter of Paul)


1 Corinthians 6:9 (Letter of Paul)


1 Timothy 1:10 (Letter of Paul)





Passage I: The Sodom Account (Genesis 19:1-9)





The story of Sodom is an appropriate text to begin with, as it has taken a central role in the study of homosexuality. We must understand the context of this account. God, according to this account, sent two angels to warn Abraham’s nephew, Lot, about the approaching destruction of Sodom. If we stop here for a moment we will see that even before sending the angels, God intended to destroy Sodom. Whatever the reason for the city’s destruction it had to do with the sin of Sodom before this event.





So, the angels came to the city of Sodom and Lot welcomed them to his home and prepared a meal for them. Then a grouping of men surrounded the house and asked where the angels who had come to the house were. They basically shouted, “Where are those men who came to your house? We want to have sex with them!” Lot refused but offered his daughters instead, giving the reason: “Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. Don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof” (19:8). The crowd of men insisted on what they wanted and tried to break through the door. The angels ended up pulling Lot into the house and blinding the crowd.





First of all, in interpreting this event we must take into account the entire situation. Whatever is happening here it is a form of rape. The crowd of men wished to sexually assault or “gangbang” the angels. The situation is also sewn through with appalling violence. Many assert that Lot’s offer of his daughters instead of the male angels implies that homosexual sex would have been worse than heterosexual sex, but Lot himself gives his reason for his action: “Don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” In our time, this does not make sense at all, but in Lot’s day, hospitality was a nearly sacred concept, and it is that distinction that Lot expresses: the visitors are his guests.





Nonetheless, if we were to accept that the distinction is gender-based, we could only conclude homosexual rape of angels is worse than heterosexual rape. To use this story to condemn loving and committed homosexual couples is unfounded and truly stretching this story outside of its historical framework, but that is exactly what has happened. As Jeffrey S. Silker, in reference to such distortion of this text, wrote in his article in Theology Today, “David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba does not make all heterosexual expressions sinful!”1





An interesting (dis)connection to this story:





In the 1508 Wyclif translation of the Bible into Middle English, the Greek word arsenokoitai () in 1 Corinthians 6:9 was translated “synn of Sodom.” Wyclif’s own interpretation was that arsenokoitai had something to do with the Sodom story, though nothing is implied as such in the New Testament text. The author could very well have written “sin of Sodom” if he had wanted to. If your Bible translation has “sodomites” on that list in 1 Corinthians 6:9 it is because of Wyclif. We will look more closely at the word arsenokoitai below in our study of the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy texts; however, it is remarkable to see how the story of Sodom, filled with rape and violence, has taken such a central role surrounding the topic of homosexuality and more precisely in the development of the word “sodomite” as what it means today.





Important Term : arsenokoitai ()





This Greek noun is formed from the joining together of the Greek adjectival prefix for male (arseno-) and the Greek word for beds (koitai). Literally then it would mean, “male beds.” It is found in 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. This is the first appearance of the word in preserved Greek literature and outside of these two verses this word does not appear at all in the Bible.





The meaning of the word arsenokoitai in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is debated. Because of the obscurity of this word and the lack of outside sources to shed light on its meaning, we must derive its meaning from the text.





Passage II: 1 Timothy 1:8-10





“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…” (RSV)





Let us keep in mind that the word translated as sodomites is the Greek word arsenokoitai. Right now we should ask, “What exactly does this word mean?” Often when writing lists, common things are grouped together. Looking closely at 1 Timothy 1:9-10, we can see that there are what I will call ‘structural pairs’ that are reflected below in the English as well as in the Greek–the original language of the New Testament.





1 Timothy 1:9-10 (RSV) – English


Row A: lawless and disobedient


Row B: ungodly and sinners


Row C: unholy and profane


Row D: murderers of fathers murderers of mothers manslayers


Row E: immoral persons sodomites kidnappers


Row F: liars perjurers…





1 Timothy 1:9-10 (RSV) - Greek


Row A: anomoi kai anupotaktoi


Row B: asebesin kai amartwloi


Row C: anosioi kai bebhloi


Row D: patralwai mhtralwai androfonoi


Row E: pornoi arsenokoitai andrapodistai


Row F: yeustai epiorkoi


As you will notice there seems to be a relationship between the words in each row. The chart below illustrates that the words in each row are either synonyms or closely related in some manner:


Row A: lawless %26amp; disobedient = two synonyms


Row B: ungodly %26amp; sinners = two synonyms


Row C: unholy %26amp; profane = two synonyms


Row D: murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers, manslayers = three types of murderers


Row F: liars %26amp; perjurers = two synonyms


But what about row E? What do “immoral persons, sodomites, and kidnappers” have in common? To answer this question beyond a shadow of a doubt, we will need to explore the Greek. The three Greek words present in line E are: pornoi (), arsenokoitai (), and andrapodistai ().


Some commonly read Bible translations include the King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), New King James (NKJ), Revised Standard Version (RSV), and New English Bible (NEB). These words were, respectively, translated in the following manner:


pornoi arsenokoitai andrapodistai


KJV: whoremonger “them that defile themselves with mankind” men-stealers


NIV: adulterers perverts slave traders


NKJ: fornicators sodomites kidnappers


RSV: immoral persons sodomites kidnappers


NEB: fornicators perverts kidnappers








As we see there is no clear-cut agreement as to what these words mean, though the above translations agree on the general sense of such words. To determine the precise meanings, we will use a lexicon. A lexicon is a scholarly dictionary used to determine the meaning of biblical words. A search through the online Greek lexicon available at searchgodsword.org gives the following information on the Greek term pornos, which is the stem of the word pornoi, the first of the three words:





Pornos derives from the verb pernemi meaning “to sell” and the following three definitions are given:


1. a male who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire


2. a male prostitute


3. a male who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator





Andrapodistes, the stem of the word Andrapodistai, the third word, returns the following definitions:


1. slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer


a. of one who unjustly reduces free males to slavery


b. of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them.





Arsenokoitai, as previously indicated, is made up of the Greek words for male (arseno-) and beds (koitai). In Greek, the word koitai, literally meaning beds, is commonly used as a euphemism for one who has sex. Arseno- is an adjectival prefix, thus literally we could translate this as “a man who has sex” or “male bedder.”





We have, first of all, a male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. The New American Bible offers a footnote that might shed some light on the historical context of the time:





“The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamus…” (New American Bible)





It was a common practice in that men of Paul’s time would have slave “pet” boys whom they sexually exploited. Dr. Ralph Blair explains, “The desired boys were prepubescent or at least without beards so that they seemed like females.”3 Today, this practice is referred to as pederasty. Regardless, we know the pornos is a prostitute.





Keeping this in mind, let’s look back at what we have so far: the enslaved male prostitute, the “male-bedder” (arsenokoitai), and the slave dealer. This contextual dynamic leads one to understand arsenokoitai as being the one who sleeps with the prostitute—the man who literally lies on the bed with him. It is as if Paul were saying,


“male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave dealers [who procure them].”2 Not only does the syntactical and historical context point to this understanding, but also the very literal sense of the word arsenokoitai itself: male bed.





If this translation of arsenokoitai is correct, it should also make logical sense where it is also used in 1 Corinthians 6:9, either confirming or refuting this understanding of arsenokoitai.





Passage III: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10





“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (RSV)





The term translated “sexual perverts” above is actually two different words. The first word is malakos, which is the singular form of the word malakoi, and the second term is arsenokoitai. Some commonly read translations include…











malakos arsenokoitai


KJV: effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind


NIV: male prostitutes homosexual offenders


NKJ: homosexuals sodomites


RSV1952:  homosexuals 


RSV1977:  sexual perverts 


RSV1989: male prostitutes sodomites


Jerusalem Bible: catamites sodomites





The term malakoi, as an adjective, literally means “soft.” In Matthew 11:8 it has been used as an adjective in reference to John the Baptist’s clothing. In this text, however, it is used as a noun and its meaning is debated. Does our understanding of arsenokoitai as revealed in 1 Timothy 1:10 as “men who sleep with male-prostitutes” make sense next to this word malakos which is translated by both NIV and RSV as male prostitutes? The Jerusalem Bible even translates the term malakos as catamites, those young soft prepubescent “pet” boys mentioned earlier. The syntactical and historical context of 1 Timothy 1:10 reveals the meaning of the word arsenokoitai as men who sleep with prostitutes, and the fact this also fits the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 seems to confirm that we have found the meaning of these obscure words. It makes perfect sense that Paul would rebuke not only the prostitute, but also the “male-bedder” or the man who sleeps with that prostitute.





As we see, these two verses are about this practice of prostitution and possibly pederasty, but what about Romans 1:27. It clearly says, “…and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” Is this not clear enough? There are no obscure Greek words. How are we to understand this?








Passage IV: Romans 1:24-27





24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,


25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.


26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,


27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)


To understand what Paul is writing about we must look at the event as a whole and not isolate a mere portion of it. Each verse in this story gives us a glimpse into the situation.





Verse 24: “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.” If we are painting a picture, it begins with the image of LUST.





Verse 25: “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Now there is a LIE as well as IDOLATRY involved (i.e. worshipping something other than God).





Verse 26: “God gave them up to dishonorable passions…” Now DISHONORABLE PASSIONS are presented. Looking back at this now we see this as a situation of lust, lies, idolatry, and dishonorable passions.





Verse 26 and 27 continue: “Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…”





Looking at the men first will help to clarify the passage: “The men likewise gave up natural relations with women…” It is easy to overlook what this is saying because of the interpretation that has been ingrained into our minds through poor teaching, but read that carefully. They gave up natural relations with women, and then had sexual relations with on another. There is a movement from point A (having natural relations with women) to point B (giving it up, and having sexual relations with other men). The word translated as “gave up” is the Greek word aphente () meaning: to give up, leave behind, forsake, or divorce. How can you give up something you do not have? How can you divorce something you are not bound to? These men, we see, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality (natural relations with women), and were consumed with passion for one another. Women did likewise. As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals filled with lust and engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature.





Why would men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: “Context is everything.” This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account there are a number of men and a number of women. Both an accurate reading of this text, and a little historical knowledge would identify this situation as an orgy, wherein everyone is filled with lust and “dishonorable passions” having sex with whomever however. But why would Paul be talking about orgies? A little Old Testament research uncovers the pagan practice of “sacred sexual orgies.” Baal was the Canaanite deity that was worshipped with sexual orgies on Mount Peor in Moab, a pagan practice with which Paul would have been familiar. With this contextual understanding let us read this story again:





“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 for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.“





Anyone who isolates verses 26 and 27 to condemn homosexual relations as unnatural is interjecting their own prejudice into these verses and reading this letter entirely outside of context. Even if we were to isolate that phrase it could only be used to condemn heterosexuals who go against their own heterosexual nature and engage in homosexual activity. As Peter J. Gomes, preacher to Harvard University, further clarifies in his book The Good Book, “It is not clear that Saint Paul distinguished, as we must, between homosexual persons and heterosexual persons who behave like homosexuals, but what is clear is that what is ‘unnatural’ is the one behaving after the manner of the other” 3 (italics mine).





So far we have looked at all three of the New Testament scriptures used in reference to homosexuality as well as the Genesis narrative about Sodom. That leaves us with two other scriptures that are mentioned when this topic is brought up: The Creation Narrative (Genesis 1-2) and Leviticus 18:22 (%26amp; parallel verse 20:13).





Passage V: The Creation Narrative (Genesis 1-2)





This is a story about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!! I have heard and read that in so many different places. The fact is that it was Adam and Eve. In The Good Book, Gomes writes the following pertaining to the creation narrative:





“…the authors of Genesis were intent upon answering the question ‘Where do we come from?’ Then, as now, the only plausible answer is from the union of a man and a woman…The creation story in Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship. It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem” (pages 49-50).4





In other words, Adam and Eve is the only relationship that would make sense for this specific account. It is a story about creation, and only a procreative (i.e. hetero-sexual) relationship would be appropriate for this particular story. If someone, in spite of this, were to base his or her opinion of homosexuality on the Creation story alone, their stance would not only be out of context, but also based on a weak argument.





That leaves us with two Leviticus laws: Leviticus 18:22 %26amp; parallel verse 20:13.





Passage VI: Leviticus 18:22





Some common translations of Leviticus 18:22 include:





KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”


NIV: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”


Living Bible: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.”





In any serious study of Leviticus 18:22, one must look closely at the historical context of this law. The book of Leviticus is a part of the Hebrew Law and contains everything from commandments for men not to shave the edges of their beards (Lev 19:27); orders not to have intercourse during menstruation (Lev 18:19); not to harvest different crops in the same field (Lev 19:19); as well as numerous dietary laws.





In order to understand this verse we will look first at the Hebrew Law and how it relates to Christians, an issue the early church faced when Gentiles were being converted. Second, we will look at the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus as a whole, and how this is a part of the Holiness Code. Finally, we will end this section with a careful examination of Leviticus 18:22.





THE LAW:





The early church was faced with the question of whether or not the Hebrew Law applies to Christians. Many Gentiles were being converted to Christianity, yet they were not circumcised, nor did they follow the Law that God had given to the Israelites. It was through the observation of the Law that Jews considered themselves justified before God. In reading Paul’s letters to the Romans, the Galatians, the Corinthians, the Colossians, and the Hebrews we find a consistent claim that “no one is justified before God by the law” (Galatians 3:10). Paul writes the following in reference to the law:





“Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (RSV Romans 7:4-6).





“Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian [i.e. The Law]. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (RSV Galatians 3:23-26).





Other New Testament Scriptures on the Law include: 2 Corinthians 3:6; Colossians 2:13-15; Hebrews 8:8-13, Romans 10:1-4. In the second chapter of his letter to the Galatians he confronts Peter who has been forcing Gentiles to follow the Jewish law (Galatians 2:14), and he goes on to boldly assert:





“We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (RSV Galatians 2:15-16).





Paul was even persecuted for this deeply held conviction that as Christians, we are no longer held to the Hebrew Law, but are justified through faith in Jesus Christ.





If we are “not under the law” does that mean we can lie, cheat, steal, etc.? In Romans 6:15 Paul answers this question himself, “By no means!” Didn’t Christ himself in Matthew 5:17 say that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? So what is the fulfillment of the law? Jesus was once asked, “Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). The fulfillment of the law is love. Paul would later echo this idea in Romans as he wrote:





“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (RSV Romans 13:8-10).





THE HOLINESS CODE:





There are over 600 laws in the Old Testament and the book of Leviticus contains many of such laws. The book of Leviticus is a part of what is described as the Holiness Code, which was given to protect the Israelites from idolatry and to distinguish them from pagan cultures.





Leviticus 18 begins, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Say to the people of Israel, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God...’” (Leviticus 18:1-4). This introduction of Leviticus 18 clearly maintains that these laws were given to distinguish them from the ways of the people in Egypt and those in Canaan.





The Old Testament, as has been mentioned, was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament (circa 200 B.C.) from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the “version” of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as “abomination” was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:


1. a foul thing, a detestable thing


a. of idols and things pertaining to idolatry





This also seems to point to the idea that this specific law has to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites. It is probably referring to either the sacred orgies involved in the worship of the god Baal, or some other form of idolatry.





ABUSIVE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS:





KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a women; it is an abomination.”


NIV: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”





Translated literally from Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 reads: “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.” The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more coherent English translation. For example, one can insert “as the” or “in the” after the first lay as showed below:





“And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.”


“And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman.”





Even if we accept the NIV or KJV translations, (KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”) we still must understand the historical context of how a man laid with a women, for this is the qualifier of the phrase. Some affirm that this law is quite straightforward. Clearly from the previous sixteen verses, we know that these laws are written to men. Thus, some may say, this law forbids men to “lie with”, or have sex with, other men. This interpretation is flawed as it entirely ignores the phrase “as with a woman.” These four words cannot simply be understood to refer to lying sexually, since that is already indicated in the Hebrew word translated “to lie with.” If the above interpretation were what the author means he could have just written, “Thou shalt not lie with a man; it is an abomination.”





“As with a woman” must have been added for some reason, and we must understand the context of this law to understand it fully. The status of women in that time was much lower than that of men, and women were even considered property of the men. This belief regarding gender relations is rejected by most of the Christian church today, but in order to make sense of this specific Jewish law we must keep in mind this context in which it was written.





Rabbi Arthur Waskow explains, “The whole structure of sexuality in the Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate female.”4 In other words, women were obedient to men, and men in that time would have been dominating and controlling in sexual encounters. The woman did what the man wanted and how the man wanted it. For a man in a sexual encounter to be treated in that way, within the Jewish culture of the time, the man would have be taking a lower status, as well as being sexually dominated and controlled. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered in that culture. This, however, is exactly how men would have treated the male temple prostitutes—in a controlling and abusive manner, and also is how individuals would have been treated in the sacred sexual orgies with which Baal was worshiped. They would have lied with other men “as with a women.”





Conclusion on Leviticus 18:22





As we see, this law isn’t as simple as it appears. First of all, we know from Paul’s writing that we have “died to” and are “discharged from the law” (Romans 7:4-6). We also know that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). Second, we understand that Leviticus is a part of the Holiness code, which was written to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites and Moabites. Lastly, we see that Leviticus 18:22 has to do with abusive cultic practices, and says nothing pertaining the issue we are faced with today—that of loving and committed homosexual relationships.





Scripture Study Conclusion





As we see, the Bible really does not fully address the topic of homosexuality. Jesus never talked about it. The prophets never talked about it. In Sodom homosexual activity is mentioned within the context of rape (raping angels nonetheless), and in Romans 1:24-27 we find it mentioned within the context of idolatry (Baal worship) involving lust and dishonorable passions. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 talk about homosexual activity in the context of prostitution and possibly pederasty. Nowhere does the Bible condemn a loving and committed homosexual relationship. To use the Bible to condemn such a relationship, as we see, involves a projection of ones own bias and a stretching of the Biblical text beyond that of which the scriptures speak. Historically, however, the Bible has been taken out of context and twisted to oppress almost every minority one could imagine including women, African Americans, children, slaves, Jews, and the list goes on. Do we truly understand the greatest commandments? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (RSV Mat. 22:36-40)





Church Tradition %26amp; Marriage





Tradition, however, has held that marriage is a sacrament designed for a very specific purpose. The following is taken from the article Homosexual Marriage by United Methodist clergyman Tex Sample:





“To address Christian homosexual marriage, attention must be turned to the tradition of the church, and here I am indebted to the work of Daniel M. Bell Jr. St. Augustine is the major figure in the teaching of the church on marriage. For him marriage is an office, a duty in which one serves the church and the larger society. This office serves three ends. First is the procreative end, which is understood by Augustine as raising children for the Kingdom of God. It is not primarily having children of one’s own in a biological sense. The second end is the unitive end in which couples learn faithfulness to each other and to God and become thereby witnesses to an ‘order of charity.’ The third is the sacramental end, which for Augustine relates more often to the indissolubility of marriage.





“These three ends are sustained in the later Middle Ages. While Augustine sees marriage as serving to restrain lust, in the later Middle Ages a more positive view develops in which marriage contributes to growth in holiness…





“The point is that marriage in the Christian tradition serves a number of ends: procreation, fidelity, sacramental, mutual support and companionship, mutual society, and loving companionship. What is striking is that all of these ends can be met by homosexual marriages, even the procreative end when the procreative end is understood as raising children for the Kingdom of God and not primarily as a function of nature [a biological function]. On these grounds, it is appropriate for gay and lesbian Christians to be married in the church, and it is not in violation of Scripture or tradition.





“The objection to this argument by some Christians is to raise up Mark 10:7-8 where Jesus states that “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” The argument is then made that this is the only form scriptural marriage can take. The issue addressed in this passage, however, is divorce. Jesus is responding to a hard-hearted test of his authority. Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text. Moreover, it is uttered by a single Christ who did indeed leave his mother and father to engage in his Incarnate mission. So long as we are dealing with a single Christ who left father and mother for a different reason, we must be open to other possible options, especially options that fulfill the ends of Christian marriage traditionally understood.





“In conclusion, biblical teaching does not address a host of same-sex practices, among them homosexual marriage. Moreover, the ends of marriage as understood in the tradition of the church are ends that homosexual marriage can fulfill. So the issue in the confirmation of a bishop in a homosexual relationship is not whether he or she is gay, not even whether he or she is a practicing homosexual. The question is: is he or she married to this partner, and if so, does this marriage meet these ends.”6











The “Sacrament” of Sex





There are those who would say that this topic is really much simpler and just comes down to sex. They might ask, “Isn’t the inherent function of sex procreation, an end which homosexual sex does not fulfill?” The 1958 resolution of the Ninth Lambeth Conference (the worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops), on the subject of intercourse wrote:





“Sexual intercourse is not by any means the only language of earthly love, but it is, in its full and right use, the most revealing…It is a giving and receiving in the unity of two free spirits which in itself is good…Therefore it is utterly wrong to say that…such intercourse ought not to be engaged in except with the willing intention of children.” 4





Sex within marriage can fulfill two divine functions: the procreative and the unitive. With regards to these two divine ends of sex (i.e. the procreative and the unitive), if you cannot fulfill one, does that mean you should not do the other? It is like asking, if you are sick and cannot go to church should you not pray? If homosexual sex can fulfill one of the two divine ends of sex, is that not reason enough to bless lifelong homosexual unions/marriages? Interestingly enough, The Roman Catholic Church, as well as most other churches, permits the marriage of infertile couples, as well as the marriage of women past childbearing age, both of which close the possibility of procreation. As Boston College Professor of Theology Charles C. Hefling, Jr. summarizes this beautifully: “Sex can be productive without being reproductive.”4





Conclusion





As we have seen, Scripture does not really have much to say about homosexuality. Furthermore, we have come to see that homosexual sex within a marriage can fulfill one of the divine ends of sex (i.e. the unitive), and that such a marriage also fits within the traditional Christian understanding of the sacrament of marriage—an image of the fidelity and love between God and His church. I would like to leave you with a short story adapted from an oral rendition by Natalie Graber:





Once there was an old man who had to carry water up the hill from the river to his house each day. One of his water jugs, however, had a crack in it, so that, by the time he arrived at the top of the path, most of the water was lost. His neighbors laughed at him: “Why don’t you buy a new water jug?” Even his wife criticized him: “Why don’t you buy a new water jug?” But the man said nothing.





One day, he said to them, “Come with me,” and led them, skeptical but curious, down the path that ran from his back door to the river.





“Almost every day,” said the man to his wide-eyed companions, “on my way to the river, I scatter seeds. On my way home, water leaks from my precious jug to nourish them.”





To their amazement, the entire left side of path was in bloom. A riot of color—flowers of every hue and tone— made the path a paradise.





Is not homosexuality similar to that second jug? It may appear broken from one individual’s limited and restricted perspective, but truly what appears to be “brokenness” is indeed a hidden virtue. Could one even imagine that the jug is not necessarily “broken,” but rather God, out of abundance and creativity, created more than one type of jug for more than one purpose?





On another note, we accept that it is true that we are not only spiritual and mental beings, but also physical and sexual beings. Does it make sense then that a large percent of God’s children should live in denial of a fundamental part of who they are? Should this group be forced to live without the affection and intimacy that comes with committed partnership? Nonetheless, that is precisely what is happening. Homosexuals in the church are not only among the most marginalized groups, but are often victims of violence or driven to suicide because they cannot make sense of their sexual feelings in the light of what they believe or are told their Bible says. Or because of a lack of understanding of what the Bible truly says (or doesn’t say) they are, more often than not, driven to leave the church.





The Church needs to embrace and support this group of people, not despite scripture and tradition, but in light of scripture and tradition. The doors of the church need to be opened and human prejudices set aside, so that we can truly live according to the law that Christ taught us. The problem, however, is rooted in fear and lack of awareness. Gomes concludes, “The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community, and its abuse of scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable.”3





For homosexual and heterosexual Christians alike it is imperative to know what the Bible says about homosexuality, as both groups desire to live according to the direction of the Bible, as understood through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With looming constitutional amendments in opposition to homosexual marriage, and division in the larger Church surrounding this issue, it is our responsibility to be as informed as possible. It is my prayer that we may set aside our fears and prejudices and open our minds and hearts to the truth which the Holy Spirit longs to make known to us all. I offer this study as one seeking that truth. May the Spirit of peace, which surpasses all understanding, guide our hearts and minds as we continue to prayerfully consider this issue.

The Truth about the Bible, Christianity %26amp; Homosexuality...its ok?
"D'oh!"
Reply:No it is not wrong. If it is in someones genes or hormones than it could not possibly be a "sin". I think some christians are way to wrapped up in sin. Why is that? Is it because they have a guilty consious? Report It

Reply:Seems like someone is twisting the Bible to make it work for their benefit. I'm glad they didn't chose kjv...god as best answer or I'd have to print it out as a book and distribute it. Report It

Reply:can you summarize this and ask it again i don't feel like reading all of this lol
Reply:Signs of the times we live in. It has been like that all the time now it is open like Revelation. Romans 1 Man with man and woman with woman. Admonation to God.
Reply:you're post is toooooooo long. but here:





Love is never evil in the eyes of God. Hatred is.





The Bible says it’s wrong.





The Bible says a lot of things and the most important gospel is love.





On the question of homosexuality the Vatican still believes it to be a sin, although the direction is to hate the sin and not the sinner.





It is my view that the issue is more a matter of love, than sexuality.
Reply:Although I'm not a Christian, and I didn't read the whole thing you wrote, but I thank you. It's good to see some Christians who don't see us as "sinful".
Reply:Of course its not okay. Throughout scripture, the only acceptable form of sexuality is heterosexual within a heterosexual one man/one woman relationship. There are no gays, bis, cross-dressers or otherwise in the bible. That fact alone should send people a message but the problem is that people want to twist scripture to fit their alternative lifestyles so they can have their cake and eat it too.
Reply:I am a Protestant Conservative Fundamentalist King-James-Bible-Onlyist minister, and while the Bible condemns all forms of fornication, I do not believe there is ANYTHING in the Bible which condemns homosexual identity, homosexual love and marriage, and sex within that marriage. But here is what I DO see in the Scriptures.





Unless born with some handicap that prevents it, every human on earth has a sex drive, created by God at the foundation of Time. In its original creation the sex drive was perfect, its purpose being an internal, natural force to draw two people together for a unique bond, making the two into one being through the sex act - which we call a covenant union, or "marriage". The sex drive, in and of itself, has no consciousness. Rather, it is a function of the body to provoke Man's consciousness, firstly to encourage joining with a mate, and secondly to ensure that the people in a union would continually bind themselves together, to sexually "come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency," 1 Cor 7:5.





The introduction of sin into the world by Adam has corrupted this primal sexual force into sexual lust, which only knows that it is hungry and must be fed. Generally, though every person is different, the more a person is exposed to sexual situations (be they directly or indirectly) the more the mental/sexual stimulus provokes the sex drive.





A person who has surrendered his or her life to Jesus will endeavor to bring that lust under control through the power of the Holy Spirit and will direct that desire to its proper function: the maintenance of unity with one other person.





But the person who has not surrendered to Jesus will give in to sexual lust through fornication and adultery. And the more they feed it, the more powerful it becomes, until the person is first overwhelmed by it, then taken over by it, and finally begins to justify it, as do all addicts of every sin and vice.





The object (males or females) of the basic sex drive's desire will determine an individual's sexuality: heterosexuality or homosexuality. That is, even before the sex drive determines that it wants to be actively engaged with someone through the sex act, it first determines to whom it wishes to be engaged - to a male or a female. This is called SEXUAL IDENTITY.





A majority of people are under the mistaken opinion that a person's genitals automatically determine to which sex that person would and should be attracted. They believe that if a person is born with a penis he will automatically be attracted to females, and if a person is born with a vagina she will automatically be attracted to males. Although the majority of humans tend to follow the phenomenon of Hetero-sexual attraction, there is no biblical mandate which says that this is so, or that it SHOULD be so, in all humans. In fact, Jesus’ chastisement of the Pharisees on this very issue in Matthew 19:3-12 clearly proves that it is NOT so.





As science clearly proves that every human is formed of the same matrix (union of sperm and egg in a womb) by a combined selection of chromosomes and hormones at the mercy of the individual’s DNA, it is utter nonsense to presume that every female will be attracted to males and every male will be attracted to females just as it is nonsense to presume that they all would have the same hair color, eye color, skin color, height, weight, shape, body type, facial features, beauty, fingerprints, temperament, personality, left or right handedness etc.





When the sex drive determines its object of attraction (i.e. males or females), it then combines with a person's emotions, feelings, personal tastes and the natural drive for a unique companionship, to determine what KIND of male or female he or she is attracted to. This itself is a person's "attraction". It has nothing to do with "lust". For example, one heterosexual man may be attracted to larger bosoms on a woman, while another heterosexual man may feel that large bosoms are completely unattractive. In another scenario, one man may be attracted to a hardy and strong willed woman, while another man may find such a woman to be not to his liking at all, in favor of the more delicate and submissive type. There are so many combinations that even the most thorough compatibility questionnaires fall short.





The point of this being, that a person desires a mate which is suitable to their tastes, which compliments the parts of them that they possess, and fills the void of that which they does not possess. And so it was in Eden, when Eve was brought to Adam as being everything that Adam was not, and a compliment to everything that he was. Their sexual identity determined that the other complimented and fulfilled them, and then sex united them into one complete being.





This is exactly the same situation for homosexuals. A homosexual man does not find in females those things necessary to compliment and fulfill him the way it does for heterosexual men, but finds them only in males. And a heterosexual man does not find in males those things necessary to compliment and fulfill him the way it does for homosexual men. This is not psychological malfunction; it is merely reality. While heterosexuals do constitute the majority among humans and animals, majority does not determine "right or wrong". The majority of the earth's population is right handed (left-brained), yet this does not mean that the minority of left handed (right-brained) persons are "wrong".





A typical heterosexual man is repulsed by the idea of an intimate union with males and a typical homosexual man is repulsed by the idea of an intimate union with females. Their sex drive, attraction, emotions and feelings reject one gender or the other because that gender is incompatible and does not compliment nor fulfill them. All of the feelings and emotions that a heterosexual man or homosexual woman has towards a female, a homosexual man and heterosexual woman feels towards a male. It is the result of a combination of a zillion factors, from genetics and DNA, to the sex drive, mental make-up, emotional make-up, and personal taste of the individual, all of which are unconscious, natural things.





That is not to say that a heterosexual man might not engage in sexual intercourse with a man, or that a homosexual man might not engage in sexual intercourse with a woman. In fact, Leviticus 20 and Romans 1 speaks of this as men who "also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman", "men leaving the natural use of the woman", and women that "did change the natural use into that which is against nature". Uncontrolled lust and a lack of resistance to temptation generally lead to such activity. Sometimes, with heterosexual males it is a matter of curiosity, and with homosexuals it is a matter of peer/parental pressure. The chances of a homosexual man perversely having sex with women, or a heterosexual man perversely having sex with other men, can also be raised if a person has been inappropriately or untimely exposed to same or opposite sexuality, such as by molestation, rape, pornography, seduction during a weak moment, etc, because a door to something that they otherwise would not have naturally involved themselves with has been opened - though the results greatly depend upon the mental make-up and inner fortitude of the individual. Since no two people are alike, no two people have the same results or react the same. Those same exposures which might cause one heterosexual man to have sex with another man may, in another heterosexual man, cause the opposite to occur and that man may become overly addicted to sex with women. A multitude of results could occur.





I've known heterosexual men, who have been deeply hurt by a woman, to find solace in the safety, camaraderie and like-mindedness of males, and therefore drawn to the idea that the comfort they found in sex with women can be found in sex with men without having to worry about the trauma they endured from a woman. A common result is that he sinks further and further into depression because, what first appeared as comfort, is later realized to be unfulfillment because it is not his true nature. Then, as it happens when religion rears its ugly head, when he has come to his senses and returns to women he suddenly thinks that he is a "healed homosexual" (though he was never a homosexual to begin with) and tries to use his situation as evidence that all homosexuals can change.





Likewise, I've known homosexuals, who are so terrified of the disapproval of their parents or society, that it overwhelms their own sense of self-preservation and dignity, and they go so far as to marry with the opposite gender and parent offspring; and all this without regard to the fact that, not only are they deceiving their spouse who thinks that they have their mate's whole heart, but they will end up causing their spouse and children grief when they can no longer silence their true nature to continue the charade, which will then force them to break Biblical law by divorcing.





A right handed person may learn to write with his left hand, but he will never be left handed; and when he returns to writing with his natural right hand he cannot then say that he is an ex-left handed person and that therefore all left handed people can change, because he was never left handed to begin with and will never know what it is like to be left handed regardless of how much he wrote with his left hand. A right handed person is left-brained, and a left handed person is right-brained. So no matter how much a left-brained person writes with his left hand, he will never be able to make himself become right-brained. Likewise, no matter how much heterosexuals engage in same gender activity they will never be a homosexual, and a homosexual will never be a heterosexual regardless of how many opposite gender encounters they have or how much they become brain washed by "ex-gay ministries" or the church or psychiatry into thinking that they are heterosexual.





However, when a person does contrary to his rudimentary nature, such as a heterosexual engaging in homosexual sex or a homosexual engaging in heterosexual sex – for whatever the reason - the Bible says that they are leaving their nature and this constitutes abomination.





Sex is a precious gift from God, demonized by many through false religious piety and abused by many through lust. Sex, according to Scripture, has one chief purpose: to unite two people into one entity. Yes, children can be produced through sex, just as a piece of art can also produce millions of dollars. But the purpose of sex is for unity, just as the purpose of art is for beauty.





According to the Bible, sex – not ceremony or legal recognition – creates and solidifies a marriage. For example, in Genesis Abraham took Hagar as a wife, not by ceremony or regard to any government license, but by having sex with her. Because sex instantly creates a marriage covenant, God has strict laws governing it. But why is He so strict about it? Why does God care if you have sex with different people? What’s the big deal? Why does God seem to want to spoil the pleasure of sex? Actually God WANTS you to enjoy sex; He wants you to revel in the pleasures that He created to accompany sex. He created us to experience and enjoy all of the wondrous sensations that come with sex. However, He created sex for a reason, and therefore all the pleasures of sex are lawful to God only when they are achieved lawfully – that is, through the union of marriage, which is a LIFELONG covenant.





The first time that you have sex with someone, according to Scripture, YOU ARE MARRIED to that person in God’s eyes. Therefore, each time afterwards that you engage in sex with someone else, you are committing fornication (because you are having sex with someone you are not married to) and you are committing adultery against the first person you had sex with. Sex is a private thing to be enjoyed only between you and the mate you have chosen for life. That is the only way that it is lawful in God’s eyes.





Ideally, we marry someone because we love him or her, not because we have great sex with them. Many of us often put the cart before the horse by thinking that we should first live with someone and have sex with them BEFORE getting married to determine whether the person is a compatible choice. This is NOT biblical and is abhorred by God because we have then made the pleasure of sex the standard of our marriage. Once you have sex with someone you are automatically married to them; so then it is backwards to assume you are having sex FIRST to see if you want to marry that person. What you are doing in fact is called fornication. Sex is the act of marriage; it is not an experiment to determine compatibility for married life. Sex is a wondrous gift from God, yes, BUT SEX IS GOD’S WEDDING GIFT.





Before we gave our hearts to Jesus, when we were in the world, we did whatsoever things our body lusted for. But now that we are in Jesus, we are commanded to bring the will of our bodies under subjection to the will of Christ. We are clearly told in the New Testament that fornicators and adulterers will not enter the Kingdom of God. It doesn’t matter how much we try to reason away our actions because no reason justifies the violation of the Word of God.





So what should we do? The answer to that is very easy, though fulfilling it is a bit more difficult. The answer from the Bible is that we must abstain from fornication, and that if we wish to enjoy the pleasures of sex it must be only within a lifelong covenant union. And there is one more biblical stipulation added to this: the mate we choose must be of the biblical faith. We cannot just pick anybody we want. If we mate with someone who is not a faithful believer in Jesus, then the marriage is doomed from the start, and our own relationship with Jesus will be in great jeopardy. An unbelieving spouse will want what the world wants, while a believing spouse will desire the things of God. What business has light with darkness? Jesus Himself said that the Faithful are the children of God, but that the unbelievers are children of the Devil. So what business has a child of God with a child of Satan? None whatsoever.





In many ways the church condemns homosexuals because they think it is nothing but an excuse for unbridled sex. As far as the worldly gay community is concerned, this is not far from the truth, just as it is in the worldly straight community. Without Christ there is nothing to govern one’s passions, because each person will do what is right in his own eyes. As Christians we have a responsibility to keep ourselves pure from the things of the world, to die to the lusts of the flesh daily, and to do all things to the edification of our pure and Holy Father in heaven. Paul says that our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. Let us not desecrate His temple with fornication and adultery. When the Holy Spirit comes to His temple and sees us enjoying the sexual pleasures of marriage, let us be sure that we are engaged in those pleasures with the partner we’ve chosen to stay faithful to for life; and not only will the Holy Spirit be pleased by that faithfulness, He will also bless it.





Now, about Sodom and Gomorrah: by far the biggest scriptural weapon used by both the religious AND secular communities against homosexuals and homosexuality. Common thought is that God destroyed the cities because they were full of homosexuals. That assumption is made because the men of Sodom attempted to rape the angels sent to inspect and destroy the cities.





Let's put this into perspective. The Bible says that there were a total of five major kingdom cities - Admah, Sodom, Zeboiim, Bela (Zoar), and Gomorrah - which were to be destroyed that day. Now, it is highly unlikely (if not impossible) that five kingdoms were populated with nothing but homosexuals. Even in this day and age, where the world has about 6,000,000,000 people, the Religious Right denies that there are even the 10% of homosexuals in the world that has been promoted by the Kinsey Institute on Human Sexuality. San Francisco - the gay capitol of the world - counts less than 50% of its population as homosexual, and are we to believe the church's interpretation that five major cities were populated with nothing but homosexuals? In fact, the church has utterly ignored a tremendously significant point made earlier in this biblical story. When the kings of the east conquered and captured these five kingdoms of the plain, the Bible says that they took the men AND THEIR WIVES, whom Abraham and his servants rescued when he found out that his nephew Lot had been captured too. These were not cities of gay men!





Furthermore, the church has taught that the entire population of the men of Sodom where gathered at Lot's door to rape the angels. But according to the biblical text, this is absolutely false. The text says that the men of the city came to Lot, but this could not be ALL the men of the city because after the angels blinded the men at the door, they say to Lot,





"Hast thou here any besides?


son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters,


and whatsoever thou hast in the city


bring them out of this place."


- Genesis 19:12





It is obvious then that the entire population was not at Lot's door, but merely a group of lascivious men. Then, two verses later, Lot leaves his house, goes out into the city, finds his sons, his daughters and their husbands, and warns them to flee. But they didn't listen to him simply because they thought he was loony.





What's more, the doctrine held by the church is rather a backward theory. The angels did not destroy the city because of the actions of the men at Lot's door. That event was merely the "last straw", so to speak. Before the event even occurred, the angels had already come with the express intent of destroying the five cities.





Gay rights activists, and even some "gay churches", have said that the cities were destroyed because they violated the Laws pertaining to the treatment of strangers. I wouldn't count on that either. Why? First, we only have one example of this mistreatment, which only occurred in Sodom. What of the other four cities? Second, because God is EXTREMELY patient with the wicked (read the book of Jonah for example), and you'd have to do more than just treat strangers rudely to get Him to obliterate five whole cities off the face of the earth! It is God's will that NONE should perish, according to His Word (and I'll take His Word for it). Those cities must have done something REALLY evil for Him to say, "Because Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me." Abraham begged God to spare the cities if He found JUST 10 righteous people in it - but there wasn't even 10. NOT EVEN 10! THAT'S how bad they were.





Let's cut right to the bone and see what GOD actually said was the reason He destroyed those five cities:





"Behold, THIS was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom:


pride,


fulness of bread,


and abundance of idleness was in her,


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."


- Ezekiel 16:49-50





"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah,


and the cities about them in like manner,


giving themselves over to fornication,


and going after strange flesh,


are set forth as an example,


suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."


- Jude 1:7





Looks to me like they burned in their lust - and got burnt! We'll examine the Ezekiel verse first, since it clearly claims to list the very reasons for the destruction of those cities.





We do not see anything here that even remotely resembles the issue of homosexuality. We see that they committed "abomination", but it should be noted that there are over 100 abominations listed in the Bible - and I've no doubt they committed every single one of them. Two of their sins was haughtiness (arrogance) and pride, which were the very sins that caused Lucifer's downfall.





In the above verse from New Testament epistle of Jude, we see the term "going after strange flesh". This of course refers to the angels, which are not human, whom the Sodomites attempted to rape. They are spiritual beings - the opposite of human flesh. In the Old Testament, Aaron's sons were destroyed by God for offering STRANGE FIRE on God's altar. The word "strange" in both cases refers to something otherworldly, alien, foreign, not human nor of human design, opposite. (The strange fire that was offered by Aaron's sons was most likely demonically conjured up by sorcery learned in Egypt.)





It is also interesting to note that the Greek word for "strange" used in Jude's verse is "HETERO" (opposite), which is the total opposite of "HOMO" (same). In other words, the men of Sodom went after DIFFERENT flesh - not the same flesh. So regardless of any interpretations of this verse, it is still completely impossible to apply it expressly to homosexuals.





I'm sure we all agree that rape and fornication is completely ungodly and clearly forbidden in Scripture. No one's arguing there. None of us dispute that the men of Sodom who wished to do harm to the angels were wicked, for indeed they were. Still, some ministers, because of their presumption that the cities were destroyed for homosexuality, have implied that the "fornication" mentioned in this verse refers to homosexuals. That, of course, is their way of grasping at straws as a last resort to defend their biased position in regard to this verse. Fornication is fornication - straight or gay. The Bible does not make a distinction, here or elsewhere.





Most probably there were homosexuals living in those cities, for there are homosexuals in every land and in every walk of life; and it's almost certain that there were people there who violated the Laws mentioned in Leviticus 18 %26amp; 20 - heterosexuals who slept with other men. Yet even that is conjecture because the only true evidence we have for anything is from that which the Bible offers. But search high and low and you will find nothing in this story that refers directly or indirectly to homosexuals.





We are not told of the accounts of the angels' visits to the other four cities. Apparently Sodom was the last on the list, and most probably it received the most "coverage" in the Bible because it was were Lot, Abraham's nephew, was living. Those who would say that Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality neglect the fact that there were FOUR other cities who were destroyed with Sodom. Are these homophobic ministers telling us that God destroyed all five cities because of the sins of one city? We are told CLEARLY in the above verses exactly WHY all five cities were destroyed and they had nothing to do with homosexuality in particular.





The point is that these cities were completely wicked in every imaginable sense of the word - and if creation has become corrupt, hasn't the Creator the right to put an end to it?





About "Sodomites": Since this word is used ad infinitum by the church as their holy version of the insulting street slang "fag", let's look closely at what the Bible has to say about it. There are only four verses in the Scriptures which use the word SODOMITE:





"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a SODOMITE of the sons of Israel," Deuteronomy 23:17





"For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also SODOMITES in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel," 1 Kings 14:23-24





"And he took away the SODOMITES out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made," 1 Kings 15:12





"And (King Jehoshaphat) walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places. And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he showed, and how he warred, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? And the remnant of the SODOMITES, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land," 1 Kings 22:43-46





The Hebrew word, which the KJV translates as "Sodomite", is "Kadesh". As a reader of the Hebrew language, I know and understand the definition of Kadesh. In fact, the word was once so popular and well known that there were several cities which bore this name. But don't take MY word for it. Here's how the famous Strong's Concordance of the KJV translates this word:





"a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. a [male] devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry; - Sodomite, unclean."





So literally, Kadesh refers to male prostitution in pagan religious rites. By the very Hebrew definition of the word, we see that it does not refer to a homosexual, but rather, male religious prostitution heterosexually and/or homosexually - since the Bible makes NO mention of either (which is another flaw in the anti-gay interpretation of this word).





The context of the verses above also verifies the Strong's Hebrew definition. In EVERY case that "Sodomite" occurs in the Scriptures, we see it coupled with idolatry or prostitution - which is exactly what a Sodomite would be involved with. A Sodomite is the male equivalent of a female temple prostitute, used for sexual rituals and orgies to false gods, such as Dionysus, Bacchus, Baal, and Dagon. Men would have sex with Sodomites - not because they were homosexual, but because they believed that that was the offering demanded by the god to who they offered their sex offering. They believed that the energy built up during the sex act was some sort of spiritual energy, and they believed that there were two different types of energies they could achieve to offer to their god - one with a female, and one with a male.





Because so many people incorrectly believe that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, "homosexual" is assumed to be the definition of "Sodomite", and it is from this assumption that the newer term "Sodomy" was invented (referring to anal sex). However, the Hebrew word “Kadesh” does not mean “Sodom”, “Sodomite”, or “Sodomy”. The King James translators simply used the word Sodomite as a way to label the debaucherous behavior in the verses where the word is used. It’s a bit like using the word “Nazi” to sum up all the behavior of a tyrannical ruler. In Hebrew, “Sodomite” would be “Sedomiit” (pronounced sed-om-eh-eet) - not “Kadesh”, as the text uses. The translators did not err by using “Sodomite”, because “Kadesh”, when clearly defined in English, is rather vulgar, and the translators used polite common speech by saying “Sodomite”. Sadly, a very WRONG definition has been applied to that word.





It is interesting that the church claims that this definition is a twisting of the Scriptures, when in fact it is the church that has altered the meaning of the English word to suit personal bias. I am always amazed that, with all of the scholarly wisdom among pastors and ministers of the Church-at-large, this word is taught to mean something it does not mean. That is a clear indication of personal bias among the clergy, which is then inflicted upon the rest of the Body of Christ.





About Leviticus 18%26amp;20, which says:





"Thou shalt not lie with mankind,


as with a woman:


it is abomination."


- Leviticus 18:22





"If a man also lie with mankind,


as he lieth with a woman,


both of them have committed an abomination."


- Leviticus 20:13





I am NOT going to play word games here, but before getting to the heart of the matter, I want to make a clear point about the words of these verses themselves. Equally valid translations of these verses from the Hebrew would be:





"It is an abomination for a man that lies with a woman


if he also lies with mankind."





or





"A man that lies with a woman commits abomination


if he lies with mankind, too."





or





"If a man that lies with a woman also lies with mankind,


they have committed an abomination."





or





"If a man also lies with mankind, as he lies with a woman,


they have committed an abomination."





These sentences all have different word layouts, yet they all say exactly the same thing. Elementary school children learn how to do this because it is proper grammatical English to do so. Unfortunately, Christians have invented an anti-gay doctrine by trying to apply Modern English speech %26amp; reasoning to the Old English speech and word diagramming used in these verses. For example, in the Book of Acts the phrase "to fetch a compass" is used. In modern English speech %26amp; reasoning, this would mean, "to go and get a (directional) compass". However, that is NOT what the Old English of the Bible meant. "To fetch a compass" means "to travel in a circle".





Only a heterosexual man lies with a woman. Only a heterosexual man is able to ALSO lie with mankind AS HE LIETH with a woman. Why has the church, like the man in the picture above, utterly failed to acknowledge these important words? A true homosexual does not lie with women, nor has the desire to do so (unless he's going through some experimental phase or forced into it by peer/parental/religious pressure).





It is common knowledge in the secular gay community that many heterosexual men have sex with other men just to achieve sexual gratification. Many of these men are even married with children. They are not homosexuals, but due to their lust, often borne out of loneliness or dissatisfaction, many heterosexual men do not believe that a brief sexual encounter with another male is considered "adultery". Some men do this for the thrill aspect. For others, it is a power play, like wild animals. Some men see it as merely a way to release sexual tension, others find it easier to have a same gender encounter than having to go through the "hunt" with females, and still others see it as no big deal at all while reasoning it away as bisexuality. The sexual underworld is well hidden from a society that would never expect such things. But sexual activity between heterosexual males and those of the same gender is not only very real, but very common. And it is this very activity to which these Levitical verses refer.





Paul puts it in proper terms in Romans 1:27 (which you can read about on this site) when he says that these kind of men do these things because they burn in their lust. They "burn" to the point that they don't care who they are with as long as they have been "satisfied". Its not a gay or straight issue in their minds; its just pure lustful gratification. We hear of such things happening in the military and in prisons as well, where heterosexual men will fornicate with other men because of the lack of a female partner. And among the Middle Eastern societies, where women are relegated to property and excluded from the world of men, heterosexual men there are famous for their sexual contacts with each other. In fact, the British army, during their war against the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and 20th century, has fully documented this behavior among heterosexual men. Many British soldiers were also gang raped by Muslim soldiers as a common act of Islamic domination over "infidels".





Remember, we're not talking about young children who know at a young age of their inner attraction to the same gender - innocent people who have no idea what lust is, or even what sex is. In fact, most homosexuals admit that there was virtually no homosexual influence in their young lives that anyone could say was an "environmental factor", and merely having unattentive or overbearing parents didn't result in homosexual identity - else half the planet would be homosexual. These verses are talking about grown MEN who are blatantly heterosexual and attracted to women, yet burning in their LUST they seek sexual pleasure any way they can get it - in this case, with other men. This was a famously common practice among ancient Romans and Greeks, to whom Paul was writing. Long before Christians (wrongfully) applied the term "sodomy" to homosexual sex, it was widely referred to as the "Greek Position". None of this has anything whatsoever to do with persons who are mentally, emotionally, psychologically and physically attracted only to the same gender in the same way that others are attracted only to the opposite gender.





Note something important here. The Scripture doesn't say,





"If a man also lieth with mankind, as he WOULD lie with a woman...".





Neither does it say,





"If a man also lies with mankind, AS ONE LIES with a woman..."





These are totally different words and contexts than what Scripture actually says, and if the Scriptures had used either of these phrases there would be no question that it refers to any form of homosexuality, because, if those words were there, the verse would mean "IN THE SAME WAY that a man MIGHT lie with a woman IF HE WERE TO lie with a woman". But in fact it says "ALSO" and "AS HE LIETH with a woman", which clearly refers to a heterosexual who has been with a woman, but has left the woman for a man - exactly as Paul describes it in Romans 1. You will also notice that, among all of the sex laws listed around these two, ONLY THIS LAW goes out of its way to say AS WITH A WOMAN. It doesn't say





"Thou shalt not lie with thy father AS WITH A WOMAN,"





or





"Thou shalt not lie with a beast AS WITH A WOMAN".





It doesn't have to. We know exactly what is meant by "Thou shalt not lie with thy father," and "Thou shalt not lie with a beast" - it is referring to the sex act. So we can clearly see that the Law, by going out of its way to say "ALSO" and "AS HE LIETH WITH A WOMAN" in our subject verses, is specifically referring to heterosexual men - men who lie with women - who then forsake and betray their natural desire for women, for whatever reason, to also lie with other men. Such an act would surely be, not only fornication, but adultery, since a man has no business sleeping with a woman in the first place unless he were married to her. Note that the Biblical text does not say "as he lieth with WOMANKIND", but rather it says, "as he lieth with A WOMAN."





There is nothing here at all to imply a blanket prohibition of same gender attraction (i.e. the state of BEING homosexual), or a homosexual romance, a monogamous homosexual lifetime union, or sex within that union. Since the marriage bed is Holy, according to Paul, whatever a married couple does in bed is their right. While many people enforce their personal moral opinion on sex, there is no biblical prohibition on any particular sex acts between married persons. These verses speak plainly of perverted heterosexual men.





Something else which I find very interesting is the church's schizophrenic attitude regarding the Law. When asked why they do not obey the fourth commandment of observing the seventh day Sabbath, or, why they do not obey the biblical Kosher dietary laws which forbids the eating of bacon, pork chops, pork roast, sausage, shrimp, oysters, clams, lobster, crab, and rare beef, or, why they do not honor the Passover as Jesus and Paul commanded, most Christians will declare that the Law is done away with and that we are not under bondage to the Law. But when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, suddenly the Levitical law is brought into play. "Oh no, God didn't do away with THAT Law!" That form of reasoning is pure and simple bias inflicted upon the Scriptures by cafeteria Christians who not only pick and choose the laws that are convenient for them, but who then force their interpretation on the church - and upon homosexuals in particular. They want their cake and to eat it, too.





You might say, "Well, I don't hate homosexuals because we are all sinners and no sin is greater than any other." That at least is a good start, but it is still wrong. While it most certainly is true that we are all sinners and that no sin is greater than any other, the fact is that being homosexual, like being heterosexual, is not a sin in the first place and cannot be categorized as "a sin" because, as I have proven throughout this site, condemnation of homosexual identity cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Heterosexual Christians cannot use circular arguments by first saying that homosexuality is a sin without proof from the Scriptures, and then still insist that it is sin when no proof is found because they have isolated irrelevant verses and reinterpreted them. Doing so would be much like an Evolutionist who claims without proof that Evolution occured, and then insisting that the discovery of an arthritic pig bone is a missing link that proves Evolution!





A Christian also cannot begin with the argument that the Holy Spirit told them that it was a sin, because it is clearly written that "sin is not imputed when there is no law", and, "for where no law is, there is no transgression" (Romans 5:13 %26amp; 4:15), and therefore the Holy Spirit will tell EVERYONE what sin is - and not just secretly tell a few people what a sin is. Any Joe Schmoe can come along and say that God told them something, but if it is not supported clearly by Scripture, it is not to be believed. One of the loudest arguments against gay marriage has been that it is against the tradition of one man and one woman, to which the Bible responds, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions?... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition! ...Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN! For, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men! ... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep YOUR OWN tradition! ... Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which YE have delivered, and many such like things do ye!" (Matthew 15:3,15 Mark 7: 6-8,9,13). Paul warns us in Colossians 2:8 to "beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and VAIN deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."





Many people have said that, "Well, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn homosexuality, I feel inside my spirit that it is wrong." Not only is that view extremely subjective, but it violates God's words in Deuteronomy 4:2 which says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."





We cannot, as the Pharisees, come up with our own view on what we believe may be sinful to God and then inflict that view on others. Sin is an act against God - not us. Therefore God alone can say what is and is not a sin, regardless of how you FEEL about something. And if God has not declared something to be a sin, how dare any man say otherwise.





What about Romans 1?


It's best if we start at the beginning of the topical conversation that Paul is having with the Romans, instead of just jumping to verses 26-27, as the church is so fond of doing, because there is a lot more here than meets the eye. We'll go back a few verses and start at 18 and go to the end so that we have a CIRCUMSPECT view of what is being discussed. Gay Christians are accused of being "cafeteria Christians" - picking and choosing what verses we like and discarding what we don't like; so let's look at the whole menu and see if the church likes the results. For the ease of your eyes, I have broken it up into three paragraphs - but not one word is missing and this should be read as one CONTINUOUS STATEMENT:


___________________________


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them - for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, is clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made - even His eternal power and Godhead - so that they are without excuse; because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.





"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptable God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. WHEREFORE God also gave THEM up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts - to dishonor their own bodies between themselves, who changed the Truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature [created things] more than the Creator Who is blessed forever, amen! FOR THIS CAUSE God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another - men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet [suitable].





And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient: being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity [slander], whisperers [gossipers], backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection [normal brotherly love for your fellow man], implacable, unmerciful - who, knowing the judgment of God (that they which commit such things are worthy of death), not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."


___________________________


Why did I write all of that, and not just the key verses of 26 %26amp; 27? Because those two verses MAKE NO SENSE without the rest of the verses. Here we see blasphemers of the most wicked kind, whom God gave over to the lusts of their flesh BECAUSE OF their wickedness. A true Christian does not live a life wallowing in the things listed above. They certainly are not "haters of God", neither are they the ones who "did not like to retain God in their knowledge". In other words, these verses are not speaking of people who believe that Jesus is their savior. To the contrary - true Christians care about the Lord very deeply and seek to do the opposite of those things, whether gay or straight. These verses declare a punishment of sexual identity confussion on those who willfully deny the Lord and refuse to serve and worship Him and who do all manner of wickedness after they have learned the truth of His existence and identity. God turns such evil people over to a reprobate mind, to do things contrary to their own nature; specifically, causing a lustful man or woman to leave their own natural sexual identity.





Just as we saw in Leviticus, here are men who LEAVE the woman for men, burning in their lusts (i.e. who just want to satisfy their sexual appetite with whatever they can get). The natural attraction of these particular men is toward women; yet they leave their natural desire of the woman to be with other men. It speaks of sexual lust, not sexual identity. Heterosexual men are the ones in a position to leave the woman. Homosexuals are not. These men were not homosexuals, they were perverted heterosexuals who LEFT women to be with men.





Notice also in verse 26, we see women who CHANGED their nature. These are women who WERE HETEROSEXUAL by nature (that is, their inner attraction was originally toward males), but turned from being with a man to being with another woman. These are not homosexual women, these are perverted heterosexual women who left men to be with women.





And what about 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy 1:10?


These two verses use the terms "ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND" and "THEM THAT DEFILE THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND". Actually these terms mean exactly the same thing, and we know this because they are both are translated from the same Greek word: "Arsenokoitays"





First, the temptation will be (and the error of the church has been) to define these statements as we perceive them in today's American English. On the surface, the English words used in these verses can be used to refer to ANY form of abuse, including drug use, violence and the like. In this particular case, an understanding of the Koine Greek language of the Textus Receptus New Testament and the traditions of the time, is vital to the meaning implied. You cannot just apply what YOU WANT TO THINK the text means. Paul tells us that we must "study to show yourselves approved unto God." So let's study ARSENOKOITAYS.





Although the exact definition of this word has been hotly debated among scholars for centuries, we do have a general understanding of the word. ARSENO means "a man/male", and KOITAYS means literally a bed for sex, and it is from this that we get "coitus/to have sex". It is a generic term referring to men who fornicate. It includes adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sex with a prepubescent child, whoremongering, prostitution, etc. - heterosexually AND/OR homosexually - that is, the sex of the other party isn't the issue; but it does not SPECIFICALLY or NECESSARILY refer to love/attraction/sex between two males; it is not an "anti-gay" term. I should mention here also that many modern Greek dictionaries also biasedly translate this word as a slang for "masturbation", while others translate it as "men watchers" (that is, someone who ogles men). However, Modern Greek and Koine Greek are practically two different languages. A Modern Greek man would have as much a difficult time understanding Koine Greek as a Modern American English man would have a difficult time understanding 8th century British English.





If you use an NIV, ASB, NKJV, Living Bible or other new age bible version, this verse may say "homosexual offenders", or something similar. This is utterly incorrect and a completely false interpretation of the KJV English and not based on any biblical manuscript evidence. Until the 19th century, not only was there no such word as "homosexual", but there was no word AT ALL for a homosexual. Heterosexual or homosexual identity was automatically implied by context, and a particular sexuality is in no way contextually implied in these verses. The use of "homosexual" in the new bible versions is purely a personal bias on the part of the authors. The problem is that most Christians are under the naive impression that a book that says "Holy Bible" on the cover must be a Holy Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth. For those of you who are unaware, the NIV alone has over 60,000 omissions, additions and alterations to the biblical text, and is translated from some of the most corrupted and scholarly-denounced manuscripts ever written (such as the Septuagint LXX, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). The NIV, in the book of Isaiah, even goes so far as to accuse Jesus of being Lucifer and cast out of heaven for blasphemy - so it is no wonder that these verses are corrupted as well. Why trust a Bible version whose authors not only hate God enough to tamper with His Word, but who personally hate YOU TOO! For more on this subject, and why you should only trust the KJV, select "Why Trust the KJV?" in the main menu. You'll find it more interesting a subject than you might first suppose.





1st Corinthians also uses the word "effeminate", which is often used against homosexuals. Anyone with an education in English grammar knows that effeminate does NOT mean "homosexual" - and neither does it's biblical Greek word, "malakos". The Strong's Concordance defines this word as "soft, i.e. fine (clothing), effeminate". The Webster's New World Dictionary of 1951 defines it as "having the qualities generally attributed to women, as weakness, gentleness, delicacy, etc. Unmanly, weak, soft, decadent." I, for example, am homosexual but I am not effeminate. On the other hand, Michael Jackson is a heterosexual who is highly effeminate. I know about as many heterosexuals as homosexuals who behave in this manner. In fact, only a small minority of homosexuals are effeminate. The main reason that most homosexuals have been able to hide in the "closet" so well is because they are NOT effeminate. Being effeminate is not a homosexual trait, it is an "unmasculine" trait. Jesus used this very same word when He compared John the Baptist's clothing to clothing worn in king's houses; those that live in king's houses dress effeminate (malakoi), while John's clothing was merely a ruff camel's skin. The daintiness and niceties of a royal court, where every luxury is indulged, is a perfect example of the biblical use of "effeminate".





To use these verses solely against homosexuals is totally in error, and is nothing less than an attempt to invent Scriptures to use against homosexuals. The sad thing is that, by attributing these verses to homosexuality, those to whom it is really meant happily continue on in there ways, content that the church (and therefore God) has nothing to chastise them for. We may not have control over who and what we are on a basic human level, but we do have control over how we behave; and the Lord expects us to behave in a manner which edifies HIM. He must increase and we must decrease, as John the Baptist put it.





We should be proud of who God made us to be. If you were created as a female, thank the Lord for creating you as a female and honor Him in your female body! If you were created as a male, thank the Lord for creating you as a male and honor Him in your male body! If God made you as a woman it was because He WANTED a woman, and if He created you as a man it was because He WANTED a man. Behave in a manner that properly edifies what HE wants. We were bought with the price of God's blood; we are not our own property.





But are there any BIBLICAL examples of real godly gay romantic commitments? Absolutely. David %26amp; Jonathan. And I'll prove it.





Were David and Jonathan lovers, or just really close friends? Well, that's been debated for a long time, but the only way to know for sure is to look at the story itself in the Bible.





But before we do so, I would like to mention a little tid bit that will help you understand the forthcoming information. There are two terms mentioned in the Bible which specifically refer to sex: "confusion" and "to uncover (a person's) nakedness". For example, to lie with an animal is called "confusion". To lie with your mother is to "uncover your father's nakedness". For a person to commit a sexual sin such as fornication is to "uncover your mother's nakedness". These can be found throughout the Levitical laws, in several combinations, pertaining to sex. Now, on to the topic at hand.





The relationship between David and Jonathan went far beyond that of "dear and close friends", or even "close brothers in the Lord" as some claim, it would seem. Their story begins in 1 Samuel 18:1-3 where we are told that "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul....Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." Now, this is the very definition of a marriage - two souls knit together in love, and bound with a covenant. Had this same event taken place between a man and a woman, no one would contest that it referred to nothing less than a marriage.





Though both of them LATER took wives (mainly because there would have been a need for an heir to the throne, of which BOTH of them were contenders), Jonathan and David were an "item" before other women came into the picture. So this would not be an argument in favor of the Levitical laws and Romans 1, which outlaws a heterosexual man who leaves the woman for a man. The women came later - so at the most, David and Jonathan both left the MALE for the FEMALE. And to be precise, David and Jonathan's relationship only ended because Jonathan was killed in battle. As you will see later on in chapter 18, David's marriage to his first wife, king Saul's daughter Michal , was a devious plot concocted by Saul to destroy David. The whole ugly affair with Michal was hardly an issue for or against same/opposite sex attraction and love; it was purely a political move, as we see the main issue was getting David to produce a royal heir with Saul's daughter - which David absolutely refused at first (after all, he was already bound to Jonathan, but as we all know David later had no problem with having multiple spouses). In fact, when Saul presented the idea of a marriage between David and Michal, Saul clearly stated that such a marriage would make David his son-in-law A SECOND TIME. Without acknowledging the marriage between David and Jonathan, those words would have no meaning.





Later, in 1st Samuel 20 we read that David was so afraid of King Saul, that he refused to attend Saul's banquet. Jonathan, out of his love for David, lied to his father the king about David's where-abouts to protect David. But Saul saw right through it all, and, KNOWING that his son and David were involved in a ROMANTIC and SEXUAL covenant relationship declared to him in verse 30,





"Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman! DO NOT I KNOW THAT THOU HAST CHOSEN THE SON OF JESSE (David) TO THINE OWN CONFUSION, AND UNTO THE CONFUSION OF THY MOTHER'S NAKEDNESS?!"





(Please note that it was SAUL who referred to their relationship as confusion - not God. Saul was no different in his personal bias than many Christians are today).





It is clear that King Saul knew EXACTLY what was going on between those two young men - and anyone else with eyes could see it too. The very words used by King Saul make it absolutely clear that David and Jonathan were indeed romantically/sexually involved with each other. This is confirmed by David's famous (and public) love psalm to Jonathan upon his death in 2nd Samuel 1:26:





"Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, PASSING [surpassing] THE LOVE OF WOMEN."





Please don't deceive yourself, nor patronize others, by insisting that this was merely a gesture of affection between two good friends. Heterosexual men - in ANY age - do not use such romantic and sexually charged words with one another; and they certainly wouldn't write love poems to each other. Try walking up to a straight man and saying those words to him.....then tell me how long it took for you to get up from off of the ground from his punch. In fact, I would like to note here for the record that before I wrote this piece, I spoke with several heterosexual men about it. Without telling them that I was quoting the Bible or explaining upfront what I was doing, I told them the words of this verse and asked them what they would think if a man wrote them such a poem. Every single one of them said that I would be implying that we had had a sexual or romantic relationship.





After the banquet, Jonathan runs to David and tells him to flee for his life from the king. The two men are so distraught over having to depart from each other that "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded," (1 Sam. 20:41). The meaning of the word "exceeded", from the Hebrew "Higdal", has been debated for many years, but one definition is absolutely correct: "to make large/enlarge". I will leave this to your own views as to what this could mean. Then, immediately following this, in the next verse, Jonathan makes reference to their Covenant. It is clear by the text that this was a very ROMANTICALLY intimate meeting between the two men, who were unsure as to whether they would ever see one another again.





To compound the proof of their ROMANTIC love, we later find David formally adopting Jonathan's children (though, as it is written, he was suppose to execute them as threats to his throne). Their relationship and behavior is consistent with what we would generally refer to as being married. David and Jonathan received not one word of correction or any punishment from God for their relationship..... but it is interesting to note that every female relationship they were involved with (and there were many!) was a complete disaster, bringing total chaos to the throne.





Say you are a court judge. The case is the People vs. David %26amp; Jonathan. The prosecution must prove that David and Jonathan were a married couple. Their case is that David was Jonathan's biblically lawful lover and therefore homosexuality is not forbidden. The defense says they were NOT lovers, therefore homosexuality is not supported by this story. (I am not a lawyer, so please pardon any misapplied legal terms).








The prosecution hereby presents to the court the following documented evidence, your Honor:





"The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." Evidence # 1st Samuel 18:1.





Your honor, the prosecution questions what kind of love this could possibly be if it is not romantic love....?





Objection; the evidence merely shows a close bond of friendship between the two men, not romantic love.





Your honor, we submit that the very style and wording of this evidence, if used to describe a man and a woman, could be taken to imply nothing less than romantic love. Only lovers have their "souls knit together in love". To suddenly redefine these words would be to overthrow our entire language. We will continue to read the evidence:





"And [king] Saul took him [David] that day and would let him go no more home to his father's house [Jesse's house]." Evidence # 1st Samuel 18:2.





Your honor, the prosecution questions why Prince Jonathan's own father, the anointed King of Israel, would insist that David, a peasant shepherd, live in the king's palace if not for Prince Jonathan's romantic love for David.





Objection, your honor; we the defense cite David's slaying of Goliath as the cause for the King's lavish offer.





Counter objection; we insist that the evidence does not show this to be an offer, but rather an express use of royal power by King Saul to keep David whether he wanted to stay or not. Furthermore, it is historically not customary for military heroes to be awarded, by enforced royal command and without the hero's consent, permanent residence in a king's high palace. Does not the evidence show that it was the intent of the king to not let David ever go back to his own home?





Your honor, is the prosecution insisting that the king kidnapped David?





No, your honor; we are insisting that David was brought into the royal home because the king's son had entered into a marriage covenant with him.





Objection! This is preposterous! There is no proof of this, your honor! It is an attempt by the prosecution to create phantom leads.





Your honor, we submit the following evidence to the court:





"Then Jonathan and David made a covenant because he loved him as his own soul; 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." Evidence # 1st Samuel 18:3-4.





Your honor, not only does the evidence show that the souls of David and Jonathan were knit together in love, but that as a result of that love they entered into a marriage covenant, with the Prince bestowing upon David even the very Royal Vesture and Sword. Is this not a masculine equivalent to giving a ring? What therefore can you make of this but a marriage?





Objection, your honor; the evidence shows that the King, soon after, presented David with his daughter, Princess Michal. If David were married to Jonathan, how then could he take another spouse? Adultery is strictly forbidden by Torah law and punishable by death. God only made ONE mate for Adam.





Your honor, let the record show that not only was David lawfully married to Jonathan AND Michal at the same time, but he also had several lawful wives at the same time. We submit the record of the Books of





1 %26amp; 2 Samuel


1 %26amp; 2 Kings


1 %26amp; 2 Chronicles, and


Deuteronomy 21:15.


We also submit Evidence # 2nd Samuel 12:8, that God specifically gave David his several spouses as GIFTS.





In addition, Evidence # 1st Samuel 18:21 shows that King Saul clearly states that Princess Michal would be David's SECOND SPOUSE! Excluding Jonathan, David had no other spouses at that time. If the king was not referring to Jonathan as being the first spouse, who then could David's 1st spouse have been? The Scripture makes no mention of anyone else whatsoever. The story takes him directly from tending sheep, to slaying Goliath, to meeting the king and making a covenant with Jonathan in the presence of the entire royal entourage and Israeli army. There is no other spouse..........





Do you see where this is going? Now add to this





King Saul's comments, in 1 Samuel 20:30, that he knew about David and Jonathan's romantic and sexual relationship.


Add to that David's adoption of Jonathan's orphaned children.


Add to that David's poem of love to Jonathan, where he specifically declares their love to be greater than that of a woman's. The picture is very clear.





So you decide. Were they lovers, or just "good friends"? Be sure you make that decision based on biblical facts, not on personal feelings.





About Gay Marriage:


I believe that God blesses the loving commitment of two people in marriage, regardless of their sex. But a Christian acquaintance of mine complained that this is faulty logic. In his view, a "marriage" consists of two people: one man and one woman. He felt that it was inconsistent of me to say that a marriage should be between two people if I don't think that they have to be of opposite sexes.





You may have heard this argument before. Essentially, this man was asking, "How can you justify saying that a marriage should be between two people when you've already thrown out the male-and-female aspect of it, as depicted in the Bible? You're only keeping part of the Biblical model, and you're throwing out the other part. Why not go all the way and support polygamy?" Here is my personal response.





First of all, this argument suggests that there are only two big conditions for a marriage -- that it have two members, and that they be of opposite sexes. It says that we are using "one part" of the model and not "the other part."





But there are many more than two conditions for a marriage that we could derive from Scripture! For instance, what about the age of the partners? If our only conditions were "two people" and "male and female," then even if we followed those conditions, we'd still be supporting relationships between a grown man and a young girl (since such a relationship has two partners, with one male and one female!) Obviously we do NOT want to support those relationships. So there must be something else going on here -- some other standard we can appeal to.





There are two ways we could approach this. One would be to begin listing all the supposed requirements for who can get married: "Two." "Opposite sexes." "Adults." "Human." And so forth.





The other way to approach it would be to look at what a marriage is, fundamentally, and what purposes it should serve. Based on that information, we can draw conclusions about who would be fit for marriage, and what the marriage should be like.





For now, let's take the first approach, where we list requirements. Our first task would be to compile that list. As we've seen, "two" and "opposite sexes" aren't enough. So where do we find all the traits?





A common suggestion is to look to the "Biblical model." In other words, we could look at the marriages mentioned in the Bible and try to figure out what they have in common.





But ultimately, we run into a lot of problems that way. Consider for example:





- We can't say "adults," since young teenagers frequently entered into marriages in the Bible, including Jesus' own mother.





- We can't say "two," since Old Testament kings had multiple wives, and this was not condemned by God. In fact, God referred to David's wives as a "gift" from Himself, contrasting them with the sin of his adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:8). God even provided rules for how to treat a second wife, rather than condemning the practice (Deut. 21:15-17).





- Until recently, many Christians would have added the requirement "of the same race." This also can be supported by looking at the "Biblical model" (Ezra 10:10-11, Neh. 13:27).





There's another problem we run into with this approach. When we look for examples of moral behavior in the Bible, we are limited to things which are BOTH supported by God AND practiced in the culture of that day.





If something wasn't practiced in the cultures where the Bible was written, then of course it won't appear (positively or negatively) in the Bible. For example, the Bible doesn't discuss open-heart surgery, sign language, or wheelchairs. If we were to determine that "speaking" and "writing" are the only two forms of communication mentioned in the Bible, and that therefore sign language is not supported by God, we would be making a false assumption. Of course, there were deaf people in Bible times, but they did not have the benefit of a universally recognized language of hand symbols as today's Deaf culture has. It wasn't practiced back then, so it isn't mentioned.





The same would apply to gay marriage. In Bible times, there was no gay marriage. All marriages were between men and women. There were some extra-marital sexual activity (including homosexual activity), and that was condemned. But there were no "gay marriages" to condemn or to support.





There were certainly gay relationships in Bible times, and some people believe that one or more of these relationships may have been mentioned in Scripture. However, here I'm specifically responding to someone who is arguing about marriage, and there was no institutionalized marriage for gay people in Bible times.





I showed why simply "listing requirements" for a marriage (such as the number of people or gender of the partners) isn't a good way to determine what makes a marriage.





But I also mentioned that there was another approach we could take. Rather than simply looking at examples of marriages in the Bible, condemning what we don't find and condoning what we do, we can look at the definition and purpose of marriage, and then extrapolate from that.





So what is a marriage exactly, if we leave out the part about who can be in one? Well, it is a committed, lifelong union. It involves a physical (sexual) melding, binding separate souls together as "one flesh." Essentially, a marriage is a permanent bond for as long as we are on the earth. It does not progress into heaven. [see Matt. 22:23-30.]





From what I can determine, a marriage has several purposes:





1) Companionship.


God said that it was not good for a man to be alone. It seems that we have, built into our nature, a desire for a unique kind of companion which is different from mere friendship. And even though the perfectly created Adam had GOD HIMSELF as a friend, who walked and talked with him, Adam was still lonely.


2) Unity.


The persons in a marriage behave as one entity. From a Christian perspective, this means they strengthen each other in their spiritual walk. This is the reason Paul did not want anyone to be "unequally yoked."


3) Procreative Stability.


Children are produced by sexual activity. Marriage means that the children would grow up in a more stable environment, rather than as the accidental result of someone's fling.





In addition to all of this, marriage serves a social purpose as well, but that purpose tends to vary somewhat depending on the culture.





So a marriage is a lifelong, exclusive, and totally unique relationship bound by both covenant and sexual activity. It is designed to best achieve the purposes listed above.





Notice that I've explained the idea of "marriage" without defining who is involved in the marriage. So now, based on this information, we can analyze the different potential configurations we discussed earlier and see if they're really fit for marriage.





First of all, what about an adult and a child? Can they form a relationship of this sort? Well, no, for several reasons. Children are below the "age of consent," and thus they cannot enter into a covenant relationship of any sort. They're not old enough to make that decision. The exact age at which this changes is dependent on the culture (which is how we account for the young marriages in the Bible), but there is always an age at which you become able to make that kind of decision. Before then, you cannot get married.





Also, an adult-child relationship has another huge problem. Presumably, the only reason such a relationship would exist is if the adult were sexually attracted to children rather than to adults. This automatically brings up a question: If the adult is only attracted to children, how can he form a lifelong relationship with someone who will only be a child for a few more years? In fact, groups which support pederastry do NOT support lifelong relationships for this very reason.





Besides this, a child's body is not sufficiently mature enough to handle sexual activity with a grown adult!





What about interracial relationships? Can they be classified as "marriages"? Absolutely. There is nothing about a person's skin color, ethnicity, or national orgin that alters their ability to form a lifelong relationship as described above with another human being of any race. An exception to this can be found in the Old Testament, where Jews were forbidden to marry non-Jews for religious reasons. In that case, the concern had to do with forming a bond between God's people and those who worshipped idols, thereby bringing idol worship into the Jewish community (which is exactly what happened).





And even here we find a loophole in this prohibition, for we see that Moses' second wife was a Cushite (black) woman; and when Moses' sister protested, she was instantly struck with leprosy from God for seven days.





What about polygomy? Can a marriage include three or more people? Well, if I'm going to consistenty apply the features of marriage I described above, I'd have to say no. Remember that our goal in marriage is a stable, unique bond. It provides unity by making its participants "one flesh." But when a man has multiple wives or a woman has multiple husbands, there is a necessary inequality in the relationship. It does not create unity as much as it creates division, puting the wives (for example) in competition with each other for their husband's affections. The procreative stability of the relationship is also undermined; if the father's attention is divided between multiple wives, each with their own children, the children will have a necessarily less stable environment.





Note that the Bible does not put it quite this way, but it does strongly hint at these problems. In the Old Testament, polygamy served a social purpose, and so it was permitted by God in limited cases (although I can't say that I totally understand why.) In Deuteronomy, God provides provisions for cases where "a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other" (Deut. 21:15, NIV) - a phrase which reminds us of the perils of bringing more than two people into a marriage. (Notice also the situation of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah in Genesis 29.) It is inevitable, I believe, that in such a case, there will always be someone "left out" or "less loved." Clearly, such a relationship cannot embody the traits of a marriage as I defined them above. And if a relationship does not fit the characteristics of a marriage, why would we call it a marriage?





Now let's apply the same standards to a relationship between two people of the same sex. I do not see any reason why two committed Christians cannot form a "lifelong, exclusive, and totally unique relationship bound by both covenant and sexual activity." Furthermore, such a relationship can provide companionship, unity, and stability just as well as any other, regardless of the sex of the partners. In fact, while I have not encountered any pederastic or polygamous relationships which come close to providing the traits of a marriage as I described them, I have encountered quite a few same-sex relationships which provide those traits better than many heterosexual relationships.





There is only one trait which I can imagine being called into question with regard to same-sex marriage, and that's the issue of procreation. Two men or two women cannot procreate, and isn't that one of the functions of marriage?





Almost, but not quite. Procreation is one of the functions of SEX. The function of marriage is to provide the stability needed for the children that result - which is why I listed trait #3 as "procreative stability" rather than "procreation." A gay marriage still provides that stability, whether there are children or not.





But still - there would be sex in a gay marriage, so doesn't that make it immoral, since the sex could not achieve the function of procreation?





Well, no. Sex, like many gifts from God, has multiple purposes. The Bible explicitly tells us that one of the purposes of sex is to provide a physical bond within marriage. This is still a valid use of sex, even when there is no chance of procreation. (Otherwise, infertile couples could not have sex, and older couples would have to abstain once they were past their child-bearing years.)





There are also those who have had to have their reproductive organs removed, such as with hysterectomies or castration, due to physical damage, cancer or other diseases, but their marriages are no less valid.





Gay couples are not unique in their inability to produce children. There are many causes of infertility, but that does not in any way lessen the importance or validity of the marriages in question. With that issue resolved, I see no reason to deny marriage to gay couples.





But what about "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"?





It has been my custom, when people use that tired old line that "God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve", to look them lovingly in the eye and say, "Yes, God made Eve for Adam .... but Steve for me." Because, in actuality, that is exactly what happened. Here's how.





First, picture the situation in the Garden. Moses points out in Genesis 2, that God saw that Adam was lonely and He said that it was not good. Stop and think of that for a second. Adam was lonely?! Here was Adam, 100% perfectly made, 100% perfect, made in the very image of God, with the very earth and all that is upon it at his command, and with God Himself as his friend who walked and talked with him. Adam (and later Eve) was the ONLY HUMAN IN HISTORY who ever stood in the full glory and presence of the Godhead and who looked upon the very face of God Almighty. He could do this, of course, because he was completely without sin.





Before Eve's creation and immediately after God announced that is was not good that the man should be alone, a very remarkable thing happened. It says that God presented all of the animals to Adam. Then it gives a strange reason why: "...to see what he would call them."





At first that doesn't seem too strange in and of itself. But there is a reason why God wanted to see what Adam would call each creature immediately AFTER He said that it was not good for the man to be alone. He was waiting to see if Adam would call one of them "wife"! To see if Adam would choose a mate among them!





Bear with me, because I'm about to show you something in the Bible that they NEVER mention in church, and you are going to see why the church is so wrong about their understanding of marriage and homosexuality and the Law. Look at this whole incident:





18: And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;


I will make him an help meet [suitable] for him."


19: And out of the ground the Lord God formed


every beast of the field and every fowl of the air,


and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:


and whatsoever Adam called every living creature,


that was the name thereof.


(Now watch carefully!)


20: And Adam gave names to all the cattle,


and the fowl of the air,


and to every beast of the field:


BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND


AN HELP MEET FOR HIM.





Do you see what just happened. God paraded every creature before Adam, but among them there was not a creature suitable for him as a mate, to keep him from being lonely. No animal is sufficient for us as a comparable mate.





Immediately after this God creates Eve and brings her to Adam, and he says "This is it!!" Only something made in man's own image, of man's own flesh, can be suitable for man. So, just as only God's own image can be suitable as a mate for God, only man's own image can be suitable for man. Man was made for God, therefore only another image of God would be suitable to the image of God. Get it?





Now let's honestly ask the question. Why did God make Eve and not Steve? There IS an answer, and you will see why I CAN say "God made Eve for Adam and Steve for me."





Eve could very well have been made as a Steve. After all, if Jesus, who is God, is undeniably a male and He chose to create ANOTHER MALE (Adam) as His mate, wouldn't it make sense for Him to have given Adam another male? After all, males are the image of Adam AND God. Here is why the FIRST mate had to be a female. Because God foreknew that Adam would sin. Ta Dah! That's it. That's the whole reason.





You see, BECAUSE of Adam's sin and subsequent fall, he brought death into the world. Therefore, to maintain the human race, children would have to be born. Hence, Adam's mate would have to be pre-fashioned BEFORE the fall, by divine pre-knowledge OF the fall, to have the ability to conceive, carry and give birth to children AFTER the fall. The reason God didn't give Adam another male wasn't because two males together was wrong (else God making another male for Himself would be wrong), but because the race would have ended with Adam's death. God could not allow that to happen because He had to save His mate whom He loved and redeem him. God wasn't going to create a new mate for Himself. Adam was it!





Ready for the bomb? Here it is. Adam and Eve did not bear children until AFTER the fall!! Cain was their first child, and we KNOW that he was born long after the fall. We also know that Adam and Eve were having sex BEFORE the fall because "making the two one" was the whole point of why God gave Eve to Adam in the first place. She wasn't some pal that hung around and kept him company. Adam had God and all the animals (and most likely the angels too) for that. Eve was given to Adam for a unique, physically and emotionally bonding relationship. The purpose of sex is and was not originally meant for procreation, but for UNION.





It was in the garden that God gave the blessing (NOT a command, as it has been WRONGFULLY taught) to them to be fruitful and multiple, but it was not until after the fall that this blessing was put into effect. Can you imagine what would happen if two perfect, undying people gave birth to kids, and then they gave birth to kids, etc, and so on? The earth would get over populated because no one would die. There was no need for all those kids, anyway, because Adam and his mate were never meant to die. Children had to be born BECAUSE of sin. This is why they covered their nakedness. NOT because sex is bad or shameful in and of itself, but because the very act of sex was the very purpose for Adam's mate's existence, and now that act of sex , which was meant to unite them as one being in a holy and special way, will have to be used to bring more people into the world - BECAUSE OF SIN. Reproduction is now their SHAME. It is the very mark and sign of Adam's sin against God. Therefore they covered their shame and we, to this day, are commanded to keep our genitals covered for the same reason. Haven't you ever seen it written in Scripture that we are to cover ourselves "so that the shame of our nakedness be not seen"? It is the reason that we have a built-in feeling of shame to go naked before other people (at least, those people do who are not desensitized to decency). It is that shame which tells a child, once he reaches a certain age, that it is time to have mommy stop bathing him.





So God pre-planned Adam's mate to be a female - because of sin. Being female is not the cause of sin - the fact that Adam's mate had to be constructed in the form of a female was due to Adam's FUTURE sin, to bear children. If she wasn't a female, the human race would have ended.





HOWEVER, as you saw earlier, Adam and Eve's marriage CANNOT be the sole basis for determining the definition of marriage and who can participate in a marriage. For example, God only made ONE SPOUSE for Adam, yet God gave SEVERAL spouses to Abraham, David, Solomon, etc. etc.





Bear in mind that only EVE was specially created - and specially created FOR ADAM. This is not so with ever other female on earth. Every single human being who came AFTER Adam and Eve is conceived, created, carried, and born in exactly the same way. Both males and females are MAN. We are ALL "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh". The only difference between the male and female in their creation is that little extra shot of testosterone the mother's body gives to her baby to create a male. Furthermore, marriage and childbirthing is NOT commanded of us. We do NOT HAVE TO get married. To say that Adam and Eve are the only models for marriage would automatically imply that we MUST get married. But as we know, there were MANY godly persons in Scripture, such as Paul, who did NOT get married.





This is why I believe - or one of the reasons why I believe - it is not a sin for two males or two females to be together. A human is a human is a human. Whether you choose the male OR the female of our race, the point is that we are the SAME RACE - MAN. And even more to the point, the purpose for marriage is for UNION AND COMPANIONSHIP - not childbearing. Breeding children can be the RESULT of sex, but it is not the PURPOSE for sex. That's why it's preposterous for the right wingers to say that allowing two men to marry is similar to beastiality. Nonesense. We are talking about two human beings who are created in the image of God! None of us have suggested that we start marrying or having carnal knowledge with other SPECIES!





I remember one time, when I worked at a little calendar kiosk in a mall, we had romantic calendars for gays and lesbians. There were two young Jewish men (I knew they were Jewish by their yarmukas) who were snickering and laughing at the pictures of the men together. I approached them and asked why it was funny for two men to love one another. They said, "Because it is wrong." I said, "Really? But isn't it written in the Torah that God made Man in His own image and that God made Man to be His bride? God also said in the prophet Jeremiah 31 that He was Man's husband. Are you then saying that God is wrong for choosing another male for His mate?" They said, "Uhhh.." I said, "Furthermore, how can you find Man's appearance to be repulsive if Man is made in God's image? Are you then saying that God's appearance is repulsive? I think you need to rethink your theology, gentlemen." They were speechless. Absolutely speechless.





There's something more to this though. Something the anti-gay folks fail to take into account when they say that being gay is a learned behavior and that we can change. First, let's give them credit that they at least understand that, yes, it is absolutely possible for a heterosexual to have sex with another of the same sex. No question there. It is also true that a heterosexual man, for example, can find himself in the arms of another man because he is hurting inside, or because of loss or lack of female love, or because he needs that masculine affection he didn't get from his father or other male figures as a child and now as an adult that need for affection has translated into sex, or because he is scared of women, or because something happened to him such as molestation which opened his mind to that type of activity. Totally true. Undeniable.





However, THESE types of men are NOT true homosexuals, therefore, YES, they CAN be healed of their hurts and revert to their NATURAL heterosexual drive. These were men who, WHATEVER THE REASON, "left the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly," Romans 1:27. These are the men who "ALSO lie with mankind AS WITH WOMANKIND," Leviticus 20:13.





But how do you explain homosexuals who do not fall into any of those categories? Even concluding that I am gay because, say, my father was distant from me, how do you explain this inner most feeling that can look at an attractive man and be totally aroused by him and totally UNaroused at the sight of a beautiful female. How do you explain the feeling that says inside you that everything about masculinity and the male is attractive in an emotional, romantic and physical sense but NOTHING of femininity and the female is attractive to you? How do you explain my being repulsed by the mere thought of sexual contact with a female in the same way that a straight man is repulsed by the thought of sexual contact with another male? The devil's influence? I think not. The answer is, because that is who and what I am, just as surely as being caucasian, Scottish, right-handed, brown haired, and green eyed, is who and what I am. Why does everyone seem so determined to separate our sexuality from being a part of the rest of our identity? Certainly heterosexuals conclude that their heterosexuality is part of their identity and they would insist that they were born straight. I don't know many heterosexuals who say that heterosexuality is a learned behavior or the cause of environmentals! If it were that simple (which it is not) then you COULD say that sexuality is a choice.





In addition, no two people are attracted to the same thing, and it is vital that we understand that attraction is NOT the same as lust. Heterosexual men are NATURALLY attracted to the female. It has nothing to do with lust. Now, different heterosexual men are attracted to different types of women; but it is the feminine aura about a female, or the female IDEAL, which attracts heterosexuals. It is the same for homosexual men in their attraction to other males. The point is that no two people are alike, therefore no two people are attracted to the same thing, and it is foolishness to assume otherwise. When it comes to any two consenting non-related adult human beings, there is NO BIBLICAL LAW which prohibits their union. And as it is written, Where there is no law, there is no sin.








God bless you,


Rev. Jim Cunningham


King James Bible Ministry


GayChristianSurvivors.com
Reply:Thank you so much I have done some of that research myself and I am happy that someone is putting the truth out . You are a saint.
Reply:Dude, chill.





Couldn't you find a better place to post your paper from your comparative religion class?
Reply:Well Done! Couldn't have said it better myself. BTW It wasn't the temple of Baal in Paul's time it was the Temple of Diana. The People of Asia Minor still worshiped the Greek gods. Diana being their favorite for reasons of sexual lusts.





Forget these people. Christians will never understand their bible property they refuse to look at it in the Greek. They refuse to look at it any other ways but their way. If one thing is wrong with it than it cannot be holy and God Breathed Scripture and just rumblings of senile men who spent way too long in the dessert. Keep it eventually someone will listen and Christians won't hate gays as much. Your work is admirable.
Reply:Friends, whether or not it is righteous in God's eyes for you to mis-apply scriptures for your own means, judge for yourselves. The fact is undeniable, however, that the Word inspired of God nowhere mentions an acceptable same sex relationship. No matter how you spin it, 1 Cor 6:9 lists men who lie with men as unrighteous persons.


God's original purpose included the union of man and woman. Are you so naive that you wouldn't think the Devil would try to malign that union? Open your eyes and see that he is leading mankind and its self-assuming ideals off into destruction.
Reply:You seem to have researched.
Reply:so do you like gays or not
Reply:OR





You could just watch the Life of Brian.





I'm really sorry, I don't mean to be rude and this is a great deal of information, but it's way too much, WAY too much. I hope you get some great answers, though, because as I said, it's really interesting. It's just a lot to read in one sitting.





Best of luck,


Jovovo
Reply:Hi!


This is very thoughtful and detailed; it seems like you're really searching. I don't think I will have an answer for you because I believe God has already given us the grid through which to strain all questions -- and He alone is the answer.


However, I believe it is important to note that Christians (en masse) don't hate homosexuals. Another thing to ponder is this : if God, in His word, said not to lead a homosexual lifestyle, why would He create someone to be that way? He wouldn't. There are some definites -- I'd be careful not to major on the details. After all, reason with revelation = faith. Reason without revelation = well, something unreasonable :-) God bless!
Reply:I read most of what you wrote but I am not sure if you are saying that being gay is a sin. In my opinion it is a sin. I think ppl are gay because of their hormones, meaning that the guys have too many girl hormones and the girls have to many guy hormones. And sometimes they don't feel loved by the opposite sex. Did you write all of that? It's really long but I enjoyed reading it.
Reply:oh my god...can you just get straight to the point next time? i can't answer your question, because it would take too long to read it.
Reply:The Bible is clear about God's view of homosexuality. Don't get it twisted. And anyone who is not married is a fornicator - period. So if you are practicing homosexuality, you are a sinner in God's eyes. There is no biblical provision for same sex relationships. But 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 says that anyone who practices sin can attain to repentance. Or it might be 2 Corinthians. I'll check.
Reply:marriage is a man and a woman exchanging vows, not a man and a man. or a woman and a woman.


you can 'interpret' or bend words how you like.


gay and marriage is b/s


gay and 'how god made you' is b/s


get back in the closet where u belong. burn in the firey depths of hell





jukey B spot on!!!!
Reply:u omited bi-sexuals


and they are in the first scriptures
Reply:That was waaaaay too long!


God makes straight and gay people---so they are both okay.





Also--God didn't write the Bible---it is the story of Him and His Son





Men wrote the Bible and added all of their prejudice against people----Read the Sermon on the Mount to find out how to act.

family dentists