Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,153,183 members, 7,818,588 topics. Date: Sunday, 05 May 2024 at 07:22 PM

Gay Churches - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Gay Churches (2435 Views)

Many Churches Are Still Following The Law Of Moses. / Rich Churches, Poor Members / Which Is The Most Powerful Spiritual Churches Or Prayer Houses In Nigeria (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Gay Churches by LiquidMind(m): 3:06pm On Sep 28, 2006
I remember talking to one person which turn out to be a lesbian. She said she goes to a church where they accept homosexuals just as long as they worship God.

I thought that was great that after so much religious bashing, gays can still have their faith with the religion they love best.
Re: Gay Churches by Olumide7(m): 4:21pm On Sep 28, 2006
Remember, God Created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Re: Gay Churches by TayoD(m): 4:46pm On Sep 28, 2006
What guides the churches you mention? Is it the Bible or just another Book?
Re: Gay Churches by Lokoluv(f): 4:54pm On Sep 28, 2006
DATS CRAP,BULSHIT COS AM VERY SURE U RE GAY tongue[color=#000099][/color] MY WIL U GET UR SILLY ASS OFF DAT SYSTEM N DO SOMETNG REASONABLE WTH UR LIFE?
Re: Gay Churches by Lokoluv(f): 5:00pm On Sep 28, 2006
dat why ur mind is liquid in otherwords, filledup wth water ;d ;d ;d
Re: Gay Churches by KDK(m): 6:40pm On Sep 28, 2006
@ Liquidmind,
Repent of sodomy my friend. angry
Re: Gay Churches by Seun(m): 6:53pm On Sep 28, 2006
Why do people bother with Christianity when it doesn't support their lifestyles?

Fornicators and adulterers are guilty of the same hypocrisy. If the religion doesn't suit you, drop it!
Re: Gay Churches by tafari(m): 8:32pm On Sep 28, 2006
@seun, i totally agree with you.
Re: Gay Churches by LiquidMind(m): 9:13pm On Sep 28, 2006
I am not a gay or a fonicator,


I AM A HOLLY MAN THAT LIVE A HOLLY LIFE STYLE IN A SEX CRAZY WORLD cool
Re: Gay Churches by kiki(f): 10:12pm On Sep 28, 2006
well personally i don't see anythin wrong with gays going to church as long as they serve the lord
cos i don't get wat yall tryna say that they are sinners or wat everyone is a sinnmer and remember the bible said not everyone that calls me lord will eneter d kingdom of God so i don't see anything wrong with them being in church
Re: Gay Churches by Lokoluv(f): 11:14pm On Sep 28, 2006
am not judgn anybody but 4 cryn out loud they shuld do sometng noble
embarassed.thumbs up seun
Re: Gay Churches by Nobody: 10:02pm On Sep 29, 2006
The Bible says in the last days,men would have itching ears and heap up for themselves teachers that would tell what they want to hear.
I wonder if they rip out the areas in the Bible against homosexuality?

Chist died for homosexuals too but does not want them to remain in that pathway.
Re: Gay Churches by kiki(f): 12:31am On Sep 30, 2006
Jesus died for all sinners and don't want us to go to that part again but we still sin don't we
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 5:43pm On Sep 30, 2006
'god' made adam and eve not adam and steve? Question: Who made Steve?

Why would any gay or lesbian embrace a religion that hates not only homosexuals but everyone else - including its own members? Might as well embrace Islam, another male religion that despises non conformity and desires autonomy over every human soul. The bible states often commit no sin yet christians are the leading light in hypocrisy and living a sin filled lifestyle whilst looking godly on sundays and other days of the week when they meet up with their fellow hypocrites.

If god loves everyone- why is it that the majority of people in this forum who claim to be christian- cannot do as their god apparently does?

<sniggers>
Re: Gay Churches by kimba(m): 5:36pm On Oct 01, 2006
LiquidMind:

I am not a gay or a fonicator,


I AM A HOLLY MAN THAT LIVE A HOLLY LIFE STYLE IN A SEX CRAZY WORLD cool

LiquidMind:

I remember talking to one person which turn out to be a lesbian. She said she goes to a church where they accept homosexuals just as long as they worship God.

I thought that was great that after so much religious bashing, gays can still have their faith with the religion they love best.

A holy man that finds it a great idea for gays to still have their faith with the religion they love best?
Which failth do gays have in the first place?
what do you call their religion?

You yourself you have a serious problem, which migiht be greater than that of gays/lesbos.
Re: Gay Churches by izoneb(f): 6:56am On Oct 04, 2006
MIZIEYA:

God made Adam and eve not Adam and Steve? Question: Who made Steve?

Why would any gay or lesbian embrace a religion that hates not only homosexuals but everyone else - including its own members? Might as well embrace Islam, another male religion that despises non conformity and desires autonomy over every human soul. The bible states often commit no sin yet Christians are the leading light in hypocrisy and living a sin filled lifestyle whilst looking godly on sundays and other days of the week when they meet up with their fellow hypocrites.

If god loves everyone- why is it that the majority of people in this forum who claim to be Christian- cannot do as their god apparently does?

<sniggers>

GOD made Adam,GOD made Steve.He didn't put them together.He made Eve from and for Adam.NOT Steve.
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 1:16pm On Oct 04, 2006
i[b]zoneb: The flaw here of course is that not everyone believes your god made anyone let alone anything. My belief system states that male and female were made at the same time and given the choice to enjoy relations (sexual or otherwsise) at their own discretion. In fact if you look at varying African Religions take on creation you'll find that there were more than one persons existing upon Terra Firma.

As an aside- you'd best be sure your husband or boyfriend isn't on the Downlow,

If your religion professes love (agape) to humanity- it might be an idea to put it into practice and throw your preconceptions in the air. Even the Jews don't believe christian or islamic faerytales.

Modern genetic science has shown that homosexuality is the natural state of being for some human beings. If that is truly the case, and I believe that it is, based upon the scientific studies posted upon the Internet by actual genetic scientists connected with prestigious Universities, then it is God who is responsible for the condition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition of heterosexuality. To say that homosexuality is deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistake.

Rabbi Ted Alexander (Conservative) says that "This is the way God has created them, and if God has created them this way, I'm willing to give them the blessings. Furthermore, anyone who has any hesitation to give blessings to same-sex people should not say the Sabbath Psalm, 'How great are Your works, oh God,' because that includes everybody."

Within the Torah parashiot of Achare Mot-Kedosheem is found the verses that have been used for at least two thousand years, by Jews and Christians, to persecute a portion of the human population. These are:

Leviticus 18: 22 states: “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.” Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is an abomination.

This verse, and Leviticus 20: 13 (in Parashat Kedosheem) are verses in the Hebrew Tanakh (Bible) that are supposedly thought to mention a possible form of male homosexual activity.

One thousand years after these verses were recorded in Leviticus, during a period of historical time when Jews were in contact with a European Greek culture that had an openly promiscuous sexual modality, the very first Talmudic references to homosexuality as a perversion are recorded.

The question is, is this referring to homosexuality as a form of an expression of love between two males who live in a monogamous relationship together? Or, is this referring to homosexual liaisons between men who basically are not in a committed relationship, but are just being sexually permissive? Or, is our text referring to PRIESTLY, and not to the everyday rank and file Israelite's sexual practices? Or, is the text referring to an inability of a person to control their sexual urges by telling them to "get a hold of your emotions, control your bodily functions?"

Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice.

The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity.

All Jewish halakhic authorities agree that nowhere in the Torah does Torah prohibit homosexual sexual acts by women.

In the 3rd century CE, the Talmud records that Rabbi Huna (the miracle working rain making Rabbi) tried to legislate against lesbians being able to marry a High Priest, a Cohen, but his colleagues ruled against him (BT Yevamot 76a). They said that it was not permissible to prohibit what the Torah permits.

If the Torah was referring to homosexuality in general, why would it just address only male homosexual activity and not also female homosexual activity?

In March 2000, the 111th Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, representing The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, (Reform), passed a Resolution On Same Gender Officiation whereby they resolved to support a Reform Rabbi that would perform same gender marriage rituals. They also supported the right of Rabbis to choose not to perform same gender marriage rituals.

As a Jewish Flexodox Rebbe, I commend the Reform Rabbis for taking this important step towards full Jewish religious equality in our communities. I pray for the day when the other communities of Jewish thought; Conservative, and Orthodox, also follow suit.

In the San Francisco area, and, I suppose, other areas of intellectual progressive thinking, some Rabbis belonging to the Conservative movement have begun performing same-sex marriages. Rabbis of the Renewal and Flexodox areas of Jewish thought are also performing same-sex unions.

In the following article, I intend to record my reasons for my belief that the two prohibitions in the Torah that have been thought to prohibit homosexuality, do not in all probability do so, despite reams of Rabbis writing in support of the prohibitions.

Rabbi Hayyim Palachi writes that: “, the Torah gave permission to each person to express his opinion according to his understanding, It is not good for a sage to withhold his words out of deference to the sages who preceded him if he finds in their words a clear contradiction, A sage who wishes to write his proofs against the kings and giants of Torah should not withhold his words nor suppress his prophecy, but should give his analysis as he has been guided by Heaven.”

Rabbi Palachi notes that even though Rambam wrote with Divine inspiration, many great sages of his generation criticized his work. There are numerous examples of students refuting their teachers: Rabbi Yehudah ha–Nassi disagreed with his father; Rashba disagreed with Ramban; The Tosafists disagreed with Rashi. Respect for the authorities of the past does not mean that one cannot arrive at an opposing opinion. (See Hikekei Lev, vol. 1, O. H. 6 and Y. D. 42.)

Rabbi Marc Angel (an Orthodox Sephardi Rabbi, and past President of the Union of Sephardi Congregations, and past President of the Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America) writes: “Diversity of opinion is a reality well recognized in Jewish tradition.

The Talmud (Berakhot 58a) records the ruling that one is required to make a blessing upon seeing a huge crowd of Jews, praising God who is Hakham ha–razim, who understands the root and inner thoughts of each individual. “Their thoughts are not alike and their appearances are not alike.” God created each individual to be unique; He expected and wanted diversity of thought.” Seeking Good, Speaking Peace.

Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden both gave their opinions that “a student should question their rabbis’ teachings as best they can. In this way, truth is clarified.” (See Aseh Lekha Rav, 2: 61 and She’elot Ya’avetz, 1: 5)

Rabbi Halevi further quotes Rambam (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 23: 9), who states the principle that En le–dayan ella mah she–enav ro’ot – “A judge has only what his eyes see.” In other words, a judge must base his opinion solely on his own understanding of the case he is considering. No legal precedent obligates him, even if it is a decision of courts greater than he, even of his own teachers.”

In Judaism, we teach that ALL the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and that even the most future Responsa of a future Rabbi was included in that Revelation.

We do not change the past teachings arbitrarily, but examine the present needs, look at all the past teachings on the subject, closely inspect the inner–meanings of any textual materials that are relevant to determine if we can deduce a new and “the true” meaning of the texts, and with a prayer towards the concept of unifying the Jewish people so that they last on into the coming generations, we do what needs to be done.

The Torah records the injunction against adding to or taking away from the intention of the Covenant relationship, (Deuteronomy 4: 2 & 13: 1), lest the nature of the Covenant relationship take on different meaning. The Rabbis needing to make sure that every ruling and judgment hang on at least a thread of Torah Law, strive to keep the ruling within Torah halakhah (the way).

In relation to this, let us examine the text of Leviticus 18: 22 “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.” Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is an abomination.

First, on the basis of the teaching in the Sifra, on Leviticus, (Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael), "Rabbi Ishmael says: The Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules (Rabee Yishmael omer: B'shalosh esrey midoth haTorah nidrasheth)," I am not convinced that the biblical passages (here in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13) refer to homosexual activity that is within a monogamous, stable, and loving relationship. I am not convinced that the Levitical text is referring to homosexuality at all.

Rabbi Ishmael states as his fourth method of Torah exposition: When a generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies ("Miklal u'frat"wink. The generalization is the text "A man shall not lay with a man, " The specification is the text “, as you would with a woman.” Thus, I am of the opinion, based upon the location of the prohibition within the biblical text and the content of the texts themselves, that the texts have been grossly misunderstood.

I think the texts are really referring to sexual promiscuity, which is the use of others, including relatives, animals, and members of the same sex, to satisfy the animal urges of sexual lust, not sexual activity in a positive modality. The clue is the words “, as you would with a woman” and it’s relationship within texts prohibiting incest, and sex with animals.

It is not the normal homosexual practice for one man to lie with another man as though he were laying with a woman. In fact, if a man was thinking of his sexual partner as though he were a woman, and not a man, it would not be a homosexual relationship, as one of the parties involved is PRETENDING that the person he is laying with is a woman. It is actually a permissive sexual situation where in the first man does not have control over his sexual emotions, but uses others to satisfy his sexual desires. The Torah warns this kind of person that certain types of sexual behavior are not permitted.

Secondly, the Torah begins chapter 18 by having YHVH–God state “I am YHVH your Creator–Force! You are not to follow the practices of Egypt where you lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs.”

What were the "homosexual" practices of the people living in Egypt and in Canaan in the 14th century BCE? The practices being referred to are those of cultic promiscuous sexual behavior.

According to Philo (1st century CE Alexandria, Egyptian Jewish philosopher); "They (the temple priests) would apply themselves to deep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for WOMEN did they violate the marriage of their neighbors, but also men mounted males, Then, little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, " (On Abraham, Chapter 26, pages 134-136). This is, again, a substitution of the male body for a female body in male to male sexual activity. It is not homosexuality.

The passage in Genesis 19 that is used to give the nomenclature of sodomy to homosexual sex, (from the 17th or 18th century BCE) actually does not refer to an act of consensual sex or even to homosexual sex at all, but to an act of sexual degradation and male rape, as also does the passage in Judges 19: 22. These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring.

The male prostitutes of I Kings 14: 24, 15: 12, II Kings 23:7 (proscribed in Deuteronomy 23: 18) are described in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 54b) as providing homosexual sex. However Targum Onkelos reads the text in a way that shows they provided sex to the FEMALE visitors to the Idolatrous temples. Thus, there is some question in the Targum Onkelos if these male prostitutes were providing homosexual sex or if they were providing heterosexual sex to women.

In any case, the male rapes of Genesis and Judges, and the promiscuous male sexual activity of I & II Kings does not describe monogamous, loving and caring homosexual relationships anymore than the case of Lot’s daughters incest describes monogamous, loving and caring heterosexual relationships.

Now let us look at the internal evidence, the words “toeyvah hee,” translated as "an abomination" or “a disgusting perversion.”

The word toeyvah is used to describe three categories of actions in the Torah as “abominations" or "disgusting perversions.” These are laws around idolatry (as in Deuteronomy 17: 4), laws around the eating of forbidden animal species (as in Deuteronomy 14: 3), and laws around the male sexual prohibitions, (as in Leviticus 18 & 20), which include incestuous relationships, bestiality, and same sex substitution.

I found the word toeyvah (or a form of the word) used over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).

It is used 26 times in the Torah; 2 times in Genesis; 1 time in Exodus; 6 times in Leviticus; 0 times in Numbers; and 17 times in Deuteronomy.

It is in the Major Prophets 57 times. 5 times in 1 & 11 Kings, 3 times in Isaiah, 8 times in Jeremiah, 1 time in Malachi and 41 times in Ezekiel. It is not found at all in the Minor Twelve Prophets.

In the Writings, it is found once in Psalms and 25 times in Proverbs. The rest are scattered in Ezra and II Chronicles.

Now, as to the laws around idolatry, considered a toeyvah in Torah, there are many in the Jewish community that see in the depiction of the Christian Trinity idolatrous views, but they represent a minority opinion. Most Rabbinical halakhists do not see the Christian concept of Trinity as idolatrous.

Even the Mormon–Christian view of God as having a body of flesh and bone does not qualify them as idolaters in the eyes of most halakhic authorities. There are certainly no authorities within mainline Judaism that would consider any of the Christian or Moslem faiths as “a disgusting perversion or abomination.”

The eating of forbidden animal, bird and fish species, as well as eating a kid cooked in it's mother's milk is considered toeyvah in Deuteronomy 14: 4, as well as the eating of blood (forbidden even in the early Jewish–Christian community, see Acts 15: 20 & 29. It was changed in the early Christian community by virtue of a “revelation” from the leadership of the group. Seventh Day Adventists and many other biblically food observant groups would disagree that the Vision of Peter was intended to annul the laws prohibiting the eating of certain meat and fish species. Their opinion is considered the MINORITY OPINION).

However, we Jews do not obligate any other religion to the observance of the Torah laws, which were given specifically to the Jewish people and their descendants, including converts. This is with the possible exception of the seven Noahide Laws, and there is dispute among the halakhic authorities as to which seven laws non-Jews need observe IF they are indeed required to observe any Torah laws at all.

Actually, It is a shame that some unenlightened people use the passage in Leviticus to "prove" homosexuality is wrong, since the rabbis in the gemara (tractate Yevamot) specifically say that that passage refers to an androgynous - not to male-male sex.

Since the rabbis' interpretations are the basis of halakhah, anyone claiming that Judaism is against homosexuality based upon that passage is simply incorrect.

Among Jews, none in the Reform, Renewal or Reconstructionist communities would say of those who do not observe the biblical Kosher laws, that they were doing an act that was “a disgusting perversion,” even if it was an act of eating pork or shellfish. (At least, they would not say it publicly). More of the Jews in the above movements would be likely to refer to the eating of any animal, even a kosher animal as a disgusting perversion, due to their misplaced missionary zeal for vegetarianism.

Our second parashah Kedosheem, includes the verse that the Nazareener Rebbe, Jesus, called “The Second Commandment” (Matthew 22: 39), “You must love your neighbor as yourself, I Am is YHVH (God).” (Leviticus 19: 18b).

If you don’t wish a thing done to you, do not do the same thing to another. It creates karma that is returned to you eventually.

How you judge others is the same measuring stick that becomes the judging stick of yourself. It is easy to judge according to strictness. It is judging with love and leniency that is difficult.

Rabbi Hillel stated it in this manner to a proselyte, “Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. This is the whole teaching of the Torah, all the other words are commentary on this verse.”

Rabbi Akiba declared that “’You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ is THE fundamental rule of Torah.”

Rabbi Ben Azzai said that this “Law of Love” is the fundamental rule of the Torah provided that it is lived in conjunction with “This is the Book of the Generations of humanity. In the day that God created humanity, in the likeness of God created God human kind.” (Genesis 5: 1) As all of human kind are created in the intellectual Image of the Divine God, they are entitled to being treated with love and respect.

In fact, verses 34 & 35 (of this same chapter 19) states that “The stranger that resides with you shall not be treated differently than the home-born of your own people. You shall love him as yourself; for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not use a different set of rules to judge him by, nor will you differ in your measurements and weights."

With these verses as our guide, I cannot understand why Jews cannot live with Arabs in Israel; why the so-called "Religious" cannot live with Gays and Lesbians in respect; why Americans cannot live with Central American migrant workers and other “resident aliens” in our midst. Can we not see the rainbow of humanity of which we are a part as One Human Race? Can we not understand that we are part of a rainbow of religious paths that are all a part of the Oneness of God? (Micah 4: 5).

This chapter 19 of Leviticus also forbids us to oppress our neighbor, or to rob him, or to hold his wages past the day he is supposed to be paid, excerpt from "A Heterosexual Jewish Rebbe's View on the (Supposedly) Homosexual Texts in the Hebrew Bible" Written by: Reb Gershon Caudill, the Ecokosher Rebbe
[/b]
Re: Gay Churches by TV01(m): 1:59pm On Oct 04, 2006
Hi MIZIEYA,

Lengthy post and I don't have the time to respond to it all just at the moment.

MIZIEYA:


Modern genetic science has shown that homosexuality is the natural state of being for some human beings. If that is truly the case, and I believe that it is, based upon the scientific studies posted upon the Internet by actual genetic scientists connected with prestigious Universities, then it is God who is responsible for the condition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition of heterosexuality. To say that homosexuality is deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistake.

But with reference to the portion quoted above, "Modern Genetic Science" has done no such thing. Nor has it made and substantiated any such claim. Unless of course you can show differently.

God (in Chrst) bless
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 3:38pm On Oct 04, 2006
tv01,

If you're too lazy to read the whole post, and yet expect me to qualify a query, think again Missy.

Re: Gay Churches by TV01(m): 4:21pm On Oct 04, 2006
Hi Missy,

MIZIEYA:

tv01,
If you're too lazy to read the whole post, and yet expect me to qualify a query, think again Missy.

I did read the whole post. As I thought I made clear, I did'nt have the time to research and answer everything point, but in order to kick off the discussion, I started with my first point of difference.

Do I detect evasive action?

God bless
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 5:18pm On Oct 04, 2006
[b]Evasion? now you're dreaming.

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.

One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified (7). Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful (7). The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality (cool. As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a Ò52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men (cool. These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and PillardÕs by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a personÕs sexual orientation (cool.

Looking at the results of many of the other studies I have discussed, it seems a little strange to me that the student of homosexual siblings who were both male and female came up with similar result as the studies that looked exclusively at male homosexuality. Hamer's study, along with others, have tried to located a gene that influences female homosexuality, but they have been unsuccessful. More importantly, the region of the X chromosome that very possibly could influence male homosexuality does not influence females in the same way. Female heterosexuals merely pass the gene sequence on to their sons. Knowing this, it seems odd to me that there would be such a high percentage of male and female homosexual siblings. This suggests that genetics are responsible for homosexuality, we have a long way to go before we completely understand the gene loci that determine sexuality.

Aside from the scientists who are researching the topic of homosexuality and genetics, there are many other people who have concerns and vested interests in the topic. The information that is being discovered has been used by people in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, there are members of the gay community who are very excited to find that the life-style they live is not entirely a choice that they made, as homophobic people often like to believe. Some homosexuals feel that if the world realizes that homosexuality is something people are born with, just like the color of your skin or your eyes, then people will begin to be more accepting of the homosexual life-style (5). However, on the other hand, there is also a group a people who believe that if homosexuality is in fact genetically linked, then there should be a way to genetically alter homosexuals in order to make them "normal" (3).

References

1) Genetics and Homosexuality, from the Gene Letter

2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible, by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine

3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995

5) Homosexuality and Genetics, one person's views

6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold"

7) Genetics Press Cuttings, from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London

8 ) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate

9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation?, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait, a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory

11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes, an article posted on QRD

12) Genetics and sexuality, a news report

[/b]
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 5:30pm On Oct 04, 2006
[b]The Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.

Bibliography

* Allen, L. S. and R. A. Gorski (1992). "Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89: 7199-7202.

* Bailey, J. M. and A. P. Bell (1993). "Familiality of Female and Male Homosexuality." Behavior Genetics 23(4): 313-322.

* Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993). "Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation." American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

* Bailey, J. M. and R. C. Pillard (1991). "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation." Archives of General Psychiatry 48(12): 1089-1096.

* Cherry, J. A. and M. J. Baum (1990). "Effects of lesions of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the preoptic/anterior hypothalamic area on the expression of androgen- and estrogen-dependent sexual behaviors in male ferrets." Brain Research 522: 191-203.

* Hamer, D. H., S. Hu, et al. (1993). "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation." Science 261(5119): 321-327.

* King, M. and E. McDonald (1992). "Homosexuals who are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands." British Journal of Psychiatry 160: 407-409.

* LeVay, S. (1991). "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men." Science 253: 1034-1037.

* Macke, J. P., N. Hu, et al. (1993). "Sequence Variation in the Androgen Receptor Gene is Not a Common Determinant of Male Sexual Orientation." American Journal of Human Genetics 53: 844-852.

* Tuttle, G. E. and R. C. Pillard (1991). "Sexual Orientation and Cognitive Abilities." Archives of Sexual Behaviour 20(3): 307-318.

* Whitman, F. L., M. Diamond, et al. (1993). "Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets." Archives of Sexual Behaviour 22(3): 187-206.[/b]
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 5:33pm On Oct 04, 2006
Re: Gay Churches by TV01(m): 11:41am On Oct 05, 2006
Hi Missy,

Thanks for the response.
Again quite lengthy, and again I took my time to read through it all.

Let me reverse quote some of the post to you;

Study 1
From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist.


Study 2
Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified

Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful


Study 3
Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality. As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.


And so on and so forth. Blind me with science and dizzy me with words, but your sources themselves admit that there is as yet nothing conclusive.

So as you can see its at best conjecture, supposition and hypothesis, nothing concrete, nothing absolute. If there is a gene, a sequence of genes or even a readily identifiable gene locus, it would be clamoured from the rooftops.

Did I say conjecture? supposition, and hypothesis? That's just diplomatic me. The Holy Bible calls it vain imaginations, the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

Man is a fallen creature, body and soul/spirit. The fall has caused physical (genetic) as well as spiritually corruption. Even if such a gene could be identified, it would change nothing. Man in his original God created estate did not have homosexuality in his make-up.

Doubtless the search will go on for this elusive gene. And doubtless the homosexual lobby will deploy all the "scientific", sociological and any other kind of evidence they can muster to force their case for normalising what the bible calls a perverse lifestyle.

The Lord Jesus Christ died to free us from the power of sin. Homosexuality is sin, The Lord can and will free those who believe from the power of sin.

God bless.
Re: Gay Churches by izoneb(f): 3:17pm On Oct 05, 2006
@TV01 God Bless you for your time and response.
@ the world,God have mercy!
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 5:00pm On Oct 05, 2006
Perhaps you failed to read the information properly including the rescource materials out of the three posts.Selective highlighting doesn't work for me. I refer you once again to the bibliography section.

Using christianity and its pseudo deity doesn't quite move the earth for me - since they are less credible than your reading skills.
Re: Gay Churches by Nobody: 8:36pm On Oct 05, 2006
TV01 thanks but why bother?
There is a homo gene says miss thing, hurray!!!.
Now it's Gods fault?

Since Biblical times there have been homosexuals remember sodom and gommorrah where the word sodomy originated from.
There is nothing new under the sun,the scriptures say.
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 11:12pm On Oct 05, 2006
Babyosi:
1 Since Biblical times there have been homosexuals remember sodom and gommorrah where the word sodomy originated from.
2 There is nothing new under the sun,the scriptures say.

Mizieya:

1 You need to firstly check the 'sodom and gomorrah" account. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

2 Homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals have existed in every culture long before the bible or even judaism existed.

3 Lets explore 'new under the sun' - I'd say transsexuality is relatively 'new under the sun', and similarly the internet, Drug Barons, Crime Lords, Newspapers, a Media! 419 scams,visa, passports, Greencards, Marriages for visas, television, radio, aeroplanes, space shuttles and space stations, playstations, Mobile Phones, computers, plastic, bullets, guns, tanks, - you know I believe the list is definately not inexhaustive- clearly the List wasn't in existence in the biblical era or indeed before it therefore there are such things as new under the sun.

<says disgustedly>Get a valid point.
Re: Gay Churches by Nobody: 3:11pm On Oct 06, 2006
MIZIEYA:

Babyosi:
1 Since Biblical times there have been homosexuals remember sodom and gommorrah where the word sodomy originated from.
2 There is nothing new under the sun,the scriptures say.

Mizieya:

1 You need to firstly check the 'sodom and gomorrah" account. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

2 Homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals have existed in every culture long before the bible or even judaism existed.

3 Lets explore 'new under the sun' - I'd say transsexuality is relatively 'new under the sun', and similarly the internet, Drug Barons, Crime Lords, Newspapers, a Media! 419 scams,visa, passports, Greencards, Marriages for visas, television, radio, aeroplanes, space shuttles and space stations, playstations, Mobile Phones, computers, plastic, bullets, guns, tanks, - you know I believe the list is definately not inexhaustive- clearly the List wasn't in existence in the biblical era or indeed before it therefore there are such things as new under the sun.

<says disgustedly>Get a valid point.


obviously you've never read the Bible if you don't know the singular reason Sodom and Gommorah was destroyed.
Can't help ya
lesbianism will lead you to straight to destruction.
Flee while you still have a chance.
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 4:28pm On Oct 06, 2006
[b]Heaading for destruction:Rapists, bigamists, hypocrites, men on the downlow, AIDS and 419 Scams, a machete wielding muslim or christian and so on could lead to hell - Your point foetus?

Are Bible translators truly free?

The answer is no. They have never been free to translate the Bible as their understanding of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek dictated. One famous example was the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. The translators were pressured into attacking "witches" where:
The original Hebrew text in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) discussed women who used spoken curses to hurt or kill others.
The original Greek text in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) discussed people who murdered others through the use of poison.

In modern times, the pressures are from economic considerations, not by royal commands.

Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), shows that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result.

The New International Version (NIV) currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:


"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."


The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:


"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.


Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:


"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean.


By reading various translations of the Bible, generations of Christians have been conditioned to expect this verse to condemn all homosexual behavior -- or at least all male same-sex activity. They expect that it will be morally condemned as "an abomination" or at least as a "detestable" act. But this new translation does not prohibit male to male sexual behavior; it only limits where the act can be performed. And it does not say that this conduct, if done on a woman's bed, is to be morally condemned. It only says that it is ritually unclean, like coming near a dead body, or eating shellfish, or getting a tattoo. The readers would assume that the translation is defective and that the translators were distorting the original meaning of the passage in order to be politically correct and not offend gays and lesbians. The readers would be disinclined to buy the Bible. Thus, a truly accurate Bible would be a financial failure, and would never see the light of day.


[/b]
Re: Gay Churches by Nobody: 4:32pm On Oct 06, 2006
Good gay lobbyist.
You may convince man,but will God change his mind?
Homosexuality is sin in Gods eyes and you cannot twist that
Repent before it's too late.
Re: Gay Churches by MIZIEYA: 4:43pm On Oct 06, 2006
[b]

Your god doesn't exist.

And clearly neither does your mind.

THE BIBLE and the HOMOSEXUAL
© 1992 by Dean Worbois *

The Bible does not speak of gays. Nor does it speak of the earth orbiting the sun. Sexual identity was not a concept of biblical times.

It speaks of homosexual acts only when they are part of sacred prostitution, idolatry, promiscuity, seducing children, rape, or violating hospitality. It condemns all such acts, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or having nothing to do with sex.

Of the thousands and hundreds of words, pages, stories, laws, and commandments in the Bible, very few deal with homosexual acts. A little study of history reveals these references are fewer than we have come to believe.


- The Sodom Story -
Probably no story in the Bible has been used more to persecute homosexuals than the story of Sodom. By the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas had come to see all disasters of any kind as God's wrath at homosexual sin. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, collapsing buildings, runaway horses, women falling into ditches - all these and more were understood to be expressions of God's displeasure at "the wickedness of Sodom."

Yet in Old Testament times we never find references to the destruction of Sodom being equated with homosexual acts. For these references we must look to the last centuries before Christ.

In the two centuries before Christ, the Hebrews became better acquainted with the Hellenistic world as they traveled, traded, and settled in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. Heterosexual and homosexual acts were traditional expressions of fertility worship in the Hellenistic world. Having been raised under the Holiness Laws, the Hebrews found these practices offensive. Among the Hebrew's reaction to these worship practices we find the first texts equating homosexual acts with Sodom. There are also references to the iniquity of sexual acts between Hebrews and Gentiles ("your union shall be like unto Sodom and Gomorrah" [footnote 1]) and between angels and humans. The references to homosexual acts usually were concerned with the practice of sex with youths, which was popular in Greece as an expression of appreciating beauty.

By 50 AD we find the first time the sin of Sodom is associated with homosexual acts in general. In the Quaest. et Salut. in Genesis IV.31-37, Philo interpreted the Genesis word yãdhà as "servile, lawless and unseemly pederasty." Around 96 AD, Josephus first used the term sodomy to mean homosexual acts. From Antiquities: "They hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices."

Since Old Testament times did not equate the Sodom story with homosexual acts, what was the crime of Sodom - a crime worth the destruction of five thriving, wealthy cities on the fertile plains?

The crime was pride. And it was inhospitality.

We have to remember the Hebrews were a nomad people in a dry, hostile environment. Weather and suspicious neighbors made hospitality a matter of survival. Being welcomed in a stranger's home or tent could mean the difference between life and death.

Throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is held up as a lesson in wickedness that deserves utter destruction for reasons other than homosexual acts. Examples: Ezekiel 16:49 - 50, "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Isaiah tells of lack of justice. Jeremiah emphasizes moral and ethical laxity. The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin as pride and inhospitality; in Wisdom 19:13-14, we read ", whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them." In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride: "He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride." In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom and inhospitality: In Luke 10:10-13, Christ talks about cities that are inhospitable to his disciples. He warns: ", it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city." It's not until the very late books of 2 Peter (2:4) and Jude (6), that sex is considered a sin of Sodom. These books were written several generations after the deaths of the apostles and were talking about the transgression of the natural order of life when angelic and human beings have heterosexual relations - a major concern to the popular Stoic philosophy of the time.

Not only are there no references to homosexual acts when Scripture refers to Sodom, there are no references to Sodom when the Scriptures refer to homosexuality. There are several biblical passages we've come to understand as condemning homosexual acts. Not one of these gives Sodom as an example of the result of homosexual behavior. Considering how often Sodom was used as an example of the result of wicked behavior, it's apparent that biblical times did not see homosexual acts as the important lesson of the destruction of Sodom.

How did the lesson of Sodom become so identified with homosexual acts that the very word for one of those acts became Sodomy? The answer is in the Hebrew word: yãdhà.

Yãdhà has two meanings: "to know" and "engage in coitus." Of 943 times yãdhà is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. The Old Testament uses the word shãkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

Lot was a resident alien in Sodom. When Lot invited strangers into his home, the townspeople approached Lot and demanded "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (yãdhà)." Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.

The absolute sacredness of a guest was a principle well known to Lot. Lot also understood the way crowds give in to hostile acts against outsiders (see Judges 19:1- 21:25 for a similar tale of hostility to strangers.) So he protected his guests and refused to hand them over to the crowd. When the crowd insisted, he offered his two daughters as the most expedient diversion for a hostile situation [footnote 2].

For 2,000 years, until the last century before Christ, Israel understood the lesson of Sodom to be one of pride and hospitality.


- The Holiness Code and the Legal Code -
The Yahwist and Priestly authors tell of Moses giving the Holiness Code in Leviticus. They further credit the Legal Code in Deuteronomy to Moses, although these texts were found centuries later. Scholars generally agree that crediting Moses with delivering the laws of Deuteronomy was an attempt to make the Legal Code legitimate.

As the Hebrews settled Canaan, their leaders worked to keep the identity of Israel separate from that of the Canaanites. A principle way to do that was to emphasize the Canaanites' practice of idolatry. The Yahwist and Priestly authors of Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy equated sacred prostitution (an important part of Canaan's worship of fertility [footnote 3]) with idolatry. Prostitution - and any sex act not contributing to procreation - came to be equated with idolatry. When the Old Testament mentions homosexual acts it is usually in the context of male worshipers using male prostitutes in temples. In Deuteronomy 23:17 we find the main concern of the Hebrews toward homosexual acts: "None of the Israelite women shall become a temple-prostitute, nor shall any of the Israelite men become a temple-prostitute. You shall never bring the gains of a harlot or the earnings of a male prostitute as a votive offering to the temple of the Lord your God; for both are abominable to the Lord your God." In Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 the Holiness Code establishes the association of homosexual acts and idolatry. It specifically bans practicing the Canaanites' worship customs.

The concern with idolatry was not the only cultural or historical consideration of the Hebrews when dealing with homosexuality:

1) According to Genesis, God chose the Hebrews as his children. Eternal life with God was something God's people did, not something each person did themselves. To be a part of God's eternal covenant required marriage and bearing children. To be sterile, or to not bear children for any reason, was one of the greatest curses a Hebrew male could suffer. It cut him off from the covenant of God.

2) The Hebrews were a small tribe surrounded by big and powerful neighbors. There was a desperate need to be sure every seed became a member of the tribe. To "cast your seed on fallow ground" was a serious crime, whether that casting be outside of the tribe or in nonreproductive sexual acts.

3) The concept of the absolute dignity of the male was central to Hebrew values. In nomad societies, where life is hard and the tribe must always move with the needs of the herds, the male is always revered for his aggressiveness and dominance. These qualities are needed for protection and survival. The gods of these societies are always male, while agricultural, settled societies often have female as well as male gods. Also, the Hebrews understood procreation as being purely the doing of the male. The visible semen was the entire baby - the fertile seed. Females were understood only as incubators for this seed [footnote 4].

The absolute dignity of the male was revered by the Hebrews, even to the extent that virgin daughters were offered when that dignity might be threatened. The homosexual act of anal intercourse was an affront to this dignity, undermining the Hebrews' patriarchal society.

4) In biblical times, anal intercourse was used as an act of contempt, domination, and scorn. The Egyptians used sodomy on their beaten enemy to demonstrate domination. There were stories of Egyptian gods using sodomy to demonstrate that they had the right to the inheritance of other male gods [footnote 5]. Homosexual acts outside the temple were seen only as violations of the sacredness of the guest: acts of violence and inhospitality to others.


- The Letters of Paul -
The New Testament has three main references to homosexual acts. These references are not found in the disciples' accounts of Christ's teachings. Rather they are found in the letters of an early convert. Paul sent these letters to early Christian communities: the Romans, the Corinthians, and to Timothy. Paul's philosophy, his reaction to foreign culture, and his understanding of Jewish history all influenced these letters.

The disciples were mostly simple fishermen. But Paul was highly educated, especially in philosophy. Stoicism was a popular philosophy in the first century AD and Paul was one of its avid teachers.

"Reason" was the soul of the Stoic world. God was seen as logos (reason) spread through the heavens. Nature was not instinct, but reason expressed in biology. To "live according to nature" (meaning reason) was to become united with the divine. Whatever distracted from living the reasonable life was evil: the passions of pleasure, pity, sorrow, desire, and love were irrational and, therefore, unnatural. Affectionate and sexual relationships were "unnatural" because they bred passions.

Some results of Christian Stoicism were: Monks separated themselves from society to achieve the ideal state of emotional indifference. The male became the soul (natural reason) of heterosexual relationships while the female became the body (unnatural passion). The Eve story became symbolic of temptation and lust. Females were seen as mutilated males, this "accident" often caused by warm winds blowing at the time of planting the seed. Christian philosophers declared that Christians entered marriage only for the reason of having children. St. Augustine came to identify any sexual pleasure or attraction as sinful passion, saying the "normal exercise of the will" would have the husband lie calmly on his wife and procreation would occur without disturbing the hymen; the semen would enter through it the same way menstrual blood flows from a virgin [footnote 6].

This is the same Stoicism Paul was teaching when he wrote letters to early Christian communities.

Culturally, Paul was raised a conservative Jew in Palestine. The society he had been raised in was shaped by the Holiness Laws and he did not understand much of the worship of the Hellenists. When he traveled to Asia Minor, Greece and Rome as a Christian, he reacted to the foreign cultures with shock and contempt.

Paul's understanding of Jewish history was shaped by the teachings of Hebrews who themselves were reacting to Hellenistic society. As we've seen when considering the Sodom story, about 300 years before Paul's letters the Hebrews were giving new meaning to traditional stories. Paul took these new meanings as tradition.

Paul's letters consider homosexual acts to be the result of idolatry, reasoning that only when abandoning the true god for idol worship could a person abandon what Paul considered sexual "nature." His main concern was idolatry, not the sexual acts.

Considering Paul's Stoic philosophy, his shock at Gentile worship practices, and his understanding of idolatry, it's surprising he condemned homosexual acts in so few of his many letters to Christian communities - and only in brief passages.

Even then, Paul's use of Greek makes his messages very confusing. In fact, one test of whether a passage was truly written by Paul is whether the Greek is used in confusing ways.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, he used malakoi, which literally means "soft" and was used in moral contexts for "loose" and "lacking self control." In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and in 1 Timothy 1:10, he used arsenokoitai, which was the first time the plural noun had been used.

In Romans 1:26, Paul called homosexual activity para phusin. The English translation is usually: "against nature." But Paul's understanding of "nature" was based on Stoic philosophy, and is not the understanding we have today. To Stoics, "nature" was reason. Paul always associated the word "nature" with cultural heritage and religious teachings. In Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians he refers to Jews being Jews by nature, Gentiles being uncircumcised by nature, and all of us being children of wrath by nature. Paul saw nature as a condition of social training in 1 Corinthians, 11:14: "Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" When he uses para phusin, Paul seems to use a Stoic term based on "nature" in the place of the Old Testament word toevah. Toevah was the concept of what is not proper according to Jewish law and custom.

At the time of Paul's letters there were names for people who did homosexual acts (arrenomanes, kinaidos, paiderastes, paidophthoro, pallakos and others). Paul never used these words in his letters.


- Scripture and Homosexuality -
Considering these cultural and historical facts, it's surprising Scripture has so few references to homosexual acts. What's not surprising is that these references always condemn homosexual behavior.

But Scripture never condemns homosexual behavior by itself. It is condemned when practicing idolatry or sacred prostitution. It is condemned when promoting promiscuity. It is condemned when forcing violent rape or seducing children. And it is condemned when violating a guests' right to dignity as a male.

Also, Scriptural references only speak of homosexual acts - not homosexual people. Not until the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (revised from the King James version in 1885) do we find references to homosexuals themselves. These occur in translating the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" in Paul's letters. Never is the issue of homosexual behavior between loving, homosexual partners addressed in Scripture. The reason is simple: biblical cultures did not have knowledge of homosexuality as a psychological identity. In biblical times homosexuality was known only by the acts people committed, not as a sexual personality. A person born heterosexual assumed homosexual acts to be something people did for dominance or in perversion of their inner identity. Scripture and Homosexuality


- Scripture and Sexuality -
In the creation stories of Genesis we find two different reasons for sex. The first reason is given in the writings of the Priestly tradition. In Genesis 1:27-28 we read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, " In this account, written about 550<ETH>500 BC, the purpose of sex is procreation, pure and simple. Mankind came forth male and female specifically for being fruitful and multiplying. The Old Testament's need for children (population and union with God) and Paul's letters teaching Stoic philosophy both rely on this reason for the creation of sex. And they rely on reserving sexual acts for this reason only.

The second reason was written by the Yahwist author. Here a male is formed of clay and placed in the garden of Eden. "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helper meet for him." (Genesis 2:18) In this account, sex is created for companionship and to cure loneliness. This account was written about 950 BC, so is much older than the Priestly tradition found in Genesis 1.

In biblical terms, then, we can accept our sexuality as either for the purpose of procreation or for the purpose of mutual love and fulfillment. Most of us, of course, have always been glad it provides us with both.


- Jesus and the Homosexual -
There is a different treatment of sexuality between the Old and New Testaments.

In the Old Testament, contact with God was passed through the blood of his chosen people. Marriage and children were the way the covenant with God was gained and passed on. The new covenant of Christ, however, was passed by a love even stronger than conjugal love - and much more fertile!

The New Testament also emphasized resurrection, which led to belief in personal immortality. Survival beyond the grave no longer was associated with bearing children.

Different sexual lifestyles entered the new covenant with God. Sexual abstinence and celibate communities became common expressions of Christian living.

In the Act of the Apostles, 8:26-39, we see the first time the Holy Spirit recruits members to the new covenant from the sexual outcasts of Israel. The Spirit leads Philip to encounter the Ethiopian eunuch, who is baptized into the Christian community. The Lucan author of this account is showing how the Holy Spirit formed the first Christian community. He emphasizes the fact that outcasts were included in the new covenant with God. First he tells of including the Samaritans. Then the Ethiopian eunuch was welcomed to the covenant.

The New Testament was written in Greek. At the time, Hebrew, Greek, and the translation between them used the term eunuch two ways: literally, meaning the castrated; and symbolically, meaning those who do not marry and/or bear children.

Jesus was the first to recognize sexual outcasts as worthy of God's kingdom. He and his disciples were discussing marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:12 when he said: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." [footnote 7] This quote from Matthew is the closest biblical reference we have to our current understanding that homosexuality is a psychological identity, rather than just physical acts. For Christ to have known this in biblical times is a testament to his inspired understanding.

Jesus brought a new covenant with God, not only to the children of Israel but to all mankind. It is a covenant of loving your neighbor as yourself, and raising a joyful noise unto the Lord. The communities established by his disciples, who knew and quoted him, accepted all the outcasts of Israel and understood the Genesis account of sex as the gift of companionship as well as procreation.

This fulfills the prophecy of the Messiah. In Isaiah 56: 2-8, the eunuch is predicted to inherit a special place in the house of the Lord and the sons of strangers are predicted to take hold of the Lord's covenant. Verse 7 predicts: "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."


NOTES

[footnote 1] polemical addition to the Testament of Naphtali, 70-40 BC.


[footnote 2] In telling of offering Lot's daughters, the Yahwist author of the Sodom story again uses the word yãdhà, this time specifically to mean heterosexual sex: "I have two daughters which have not known man (yãdhà); let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."



[footnote 3] In fact, sacred temple prostitutes were an important part of worship throughout the classical world, possibly including Mary Magdalene.



[footnote 4] Only male homosexual acts are condemned in the Holiness Code: there is no mention of female homosexual acts.



[footnote 5]] There is an argument that after the flood Noah's son Ham laid claim to Noah's ancestry of all men by dominating Noah through anal intercourse. This would explain the Israelis' conviction against homosexual acts. The story after the flood (Genesis 9:18-27) was rewritten and we may never know the Yahwist author's original account. Interestingly, the revised version gave Noah's curse for this act not to Ham, but his son Canaan - at a time when Israel's survival was mostly threatened by Canaanites.


[footnote 6] By the time of Aquinas, Christian Stoicism had so completely identified sex with sin that unclothedness - even when bathing - was known to damn the soul forever. Until the Reformation in the 1400's, Europe was known as "the Continent that didn't bathe for a thousand years ."



[footnote 7] Jesus never spoke specifically of homosexual acts or relations. Scholars consider this quote one example of the New Testament use of eunuch to mean all sexual outcasts.

Other notes:

NOTE: Biblical quotes are from the King James Version (translated in 1611) or The Complete Bible: An American Translation (1939).

For a much deeper understanding of the relationship between the Christian church and the homosexual, please read John J. McNeill's The Church and the Homosexual. (Beacon Press, 25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108.) This Jesuit priest suffered at the hands of the Nazis when his infantry division was captured in 1944. With the same courage he has dedicated himself to awakening the church to the homosexual's contribution to Christian communities.

The vast majority of my understanding on this subject has come from The Church and the Homosexual, and I refer you to this book if you have any questions.


* © 1992 by Dean Worbois
Copies of THE BIBLE AND THE HOMOSEXUAL and COMPOSING THE TESTAMENTS available printed and bound in 3.5 X 8.5 booklet format. Quantity discount prices. For a sample send $3:

Dean Worbois
PO Box 8182
Boise, ID 83707-2182

Worbois534@aol.com

Send E-Mail to editor@postfun.com
© PostFun 1995 All Rights Reserved




[/b]

(1) (2) (Reply)

VIDEO - Delivered From 39 Demons At T.B Joshua's Church London / Your Thoughts On Jehovah Witnesses / Where Is Sonoflucifer?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 226
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.