Amen to the whole thing!
I have decided that for many people the god of their faith is their own lifestyle, which they wish to preserve at ANY cost, especially if the cost is to someone else.

Gaye,

Many foods whether consumed a lot or not have killed people.

Are you saying God changed His mind about man eating meat? By your comment you're suggesting that, but God is all knowing, yes? How does he not know people will eat meat?

The bible is written by man, men who didn't know a lot about anything in the world around them.

While I believe in a divine being, I don't think the bible is a word for word perfect telling of God's will. It really can't be, it lacks too much for it to be so.

It's a guide at best, and much of it as the article suggests is written for a specific people during a specific time period considering their limited understanding of the world.

In the bible, as the article suggests homosexuality isn't actually regarded as wrong or right, because homosexuality wasn't even a concept until what... the 1800s? I believe the writer's article is pretty sound. They probably were trying to survive in a hostile environment and that meant "not wasting their seed". That's a far different concern that actually the concern people have for homosexuality.
The insights the writer has are supported in history and even as he says it in the article, supported in the text of the bible. You've stated nothing, and shown nothing to support your comments.

You think stoning children and killing women of sexual assault is ok and right simply, because the bible says?

Children who are not stoned do not automatically go out and become horrible citizens. That's a huge generalization. It is also true that not every child who is spanked responds well to that either. Some become twisted as a result and are volatile citizens.

But stoning isn't discipline; it's execution. If you stone a child, s/he isn't going to grow up to be more obedient; s/he isn't going to grow up at all. So, either it's a metaphor, in which case it's all a metaphor, or it's not, and we're to execute disobedient children. You can't have it both ways.

perfect.

I will pray for God to remove your ignorance Gayle

Do you remember the part where we are not supposed to judge? He will judge us and we are supposed to love and care for each other until such time as His judgement.

No religion is based on knowledge. Every one is based on superstition of some sort.

I can't believe you just compared animals to humans (sex with an animal). You should really desire to retract your entire post...it's an embarrassment to you.

I never punished my children and they are outstanding young men. No One is talking about sex with animals- to even bring that up when talking about gays who love each other and want a legal commitment is extremely judgmental and very much a slippery slope.

I have a better take on Romans. Here is a email I sent Kim Clement:


Dear Kim,
In my heart I do know you to be a man of God because of the fruit that God brings in your walk and the truth. God has touch my heart through your message and healed many areas of conflict with what is going on in our country. In watching and listening to your programs in the last couple of weeks I can now see that the Spirit of the Lord is beginning to remove the veil to open your eyes to the vial going on in this country politically, socially, and morally. And it doesn’t have to do with homosexuality, abortion or the liberals. It does however have to do with the conservatives, mainstream churches and politics that use it to oppress the people in the name of God. The Word of God can be used to bring bondage or to bring liberty. It depends on the motive behind the person using it. You can clearly see the darkness in this country and its not coming from the liberals. Isaiah 58:9 (read the context of the passage). The biggest downfall of Israel at this time was the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, fault finding, haughtiness, and lies about one another. The same can be read in Ezekiel 16 comparing the sins of Israel to the sins of Sodom. And now I see it in mainstream church with its new bride called politics. I have seen this happening for years and now it’s coming to a head. Another favorite finger pointing passage is Romans Chapter 1. When you read this passage you have to keep in mind, who wrote it (Paul), to whom it was written (the church not the Romans), Why or what prompted Paul to write the book, what was the motive that Paul wrote the book.

In Romans 1:21; “they think up foolish ideas of what they think God was like and a result was their minds became dark and confused.” And Paul goes on to what they were like or what they were pointing their finger at. You would think that Paul was writing about the Romans however when you read Romans chapter 2 starting in verse one keeping in context with chapter 1 you will find the point that Paul and the Lord was trying to drive home to the church in Rome. “You may think you can condemn such people, but you’re just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. And we know that God, in his justice will punish anyone who does such things. Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God’s judgment when you do the same things? Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?”

Can we be more Christ like to one another?

Kim, the way the church is heading morally we need to bless Israel. And pray true morality into the United States of America. Bless us Lord.

Back to “In God we trust”.

Austin - Thanks for your post. It took me 30 years to realize I was gay, and you name the challenging reconciliation work that must occur within ourselves and the church. This is God's work, for sure. I wish you every blessing in the world.

I've come to think that homosexual acts were prohibited because they were unclean--as in literally unclean. Let's face it, in a world without modern toilets, sanitation, toilet paper, condoms, etc. anal sex was simply dirty and could cause disease--as it still can today if safe sex is not practiced. This thought can be seen in the removal of women outside normal society during their menstruation. Furthermore, the Israelites were trying to survive in the Promised Land, and therefore needed their population to grow and be separate--and non-reproductive sex doesn't accomplish this.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on this.

The separate dishes , dairy and meat had to do with the dishes and utensals. Most were made of clay or wood and would retain particles of the food the held. If you store dairy and meat in the same container you get Botchialism (sp) "Not Kosher" would save all the writing I just did!

Regarding your final comment on the Levitical Law, "If one rule is irrelevant today, they all are because we're not in a position where we have to worry about our survival the same way." If this is true then the verses before and after Leviticus 18:22 which mention adultery, child sacrifice, and beastiality would all be irrelevant as well, since survival isn't a concern. This seems to be quite detrimental to what you said because I think we all think those things are wrong. It feels like people here, including the author, simply don't accept the Scripture. But then I don't understand all the effort to explain it if you don't give it authority or believe it is from God anyway. Why try to explain it unless it is true, but if it is true, then why not accept it?

That is a good point and likely true. Today it's pretty much irrelevant. Although, much of what the bible says to do or not do, many Christians simply ignore it on their way to judging and controlling others. I am Christian, but some of my fellows like to cast stones.

It is tough to address these subjects in few words. Because the Christians want to see scriptural justification and the non-Christians want you to get to the point. I'm working on a term for the gap between. If you attack it straight on it's called a polemic. But if you namby-pamby there's no call to action. But let's keep trying...http://genesisfix.wordpress.com/

Responding to CatholicGirlGoneRogue above:

The Bible's accusation against Lot's daughters is a blatant attempt by the writer to rationalize rape and child abuse. Lot raped his daughters, and -- as happens all too often today -- the family and religious community made excuses to protect the family breadwinner and religious hero.

Many verses in the Old Testament call for rape victims to be persecuted.

An admittedly harsh view of these verses: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

It's unfortunate that conservative Christian commenters on this page remain unwilling to condemn the Bible's immoralities, including but not limited to the affirmation of rape, slavery, genocide, tribal bigotries, and a great deal of historical inaccuracy and self-contradiction.

I applaud those folks on this page who have the courage to hold the Bible accountable for its errors and shortcomings.

"Many verses in the Old Testament call for rape victims to be persecuted. "

Really? Why didn't you bother to cite even one of them, rather than just pass on hearsay?

- confusion, confusion, confusion? Yes, it is, to those who are perishing.

"The Bible's accusation against Lot's daughters is a blatant attempt by the writer to rationalize........"

NOT So. Please observe: 2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"Many verses in the Old Testament call for rape victims to be persecuted....."

".......the Bible's immoralities, including but not limited to the affirmation of rape, slavery, genocide, tribal bigotries, and a great deal of historical inaccuracy and self-contradiction."

Would you be so kind as to cite a chapter and verse for even one of your claims / assertions?

Whether or not you do, know this friend, that the Lord Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price on the cross of Calvary, for your sins as well as mine: any who will come to Him, so that you might have eternal life with Him. AND
John 3:15 that you would have life more abundantly (you can look that one up yourself)

@ Wilbur Trascas:
" ".......the Bible's immoralities, including but not limited to the affirmation of rape, slavery, genocide, tribal bigotries, and a great deal of historical inaccuracy and self-contradiction."

Would you be so kind as to cite a chapter and verse for even one of your claims / assertions? "

You would like a chapter or verse for even ONE of these? I'll try to do better than that. ;-)
Take the first eleven chapters of Joshua. The Israelites come in to Canaan, and under Joshua's leadership, conquer all the cities and slaughter all their inhabitants. I'd call that genocide. It's even genocide ordained by God--Josh. 11:19-20 "There was not a town that made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all were taken in battle. For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD had commanded Moses." The Bible clearly says that God hardened the Canaanites so that the Israelites would HAVE to destroy them. God's "hardening" of people's hearts is also seen in Exodus when God hardens the heart of the Pharoah. Exod. 10:1-2 "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his officials, in order that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I have made fools of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them--so that you may know that I am the LORD."

As far as historical inaccuracy goes, almost NO biblical scholar believes that the conquest narrative (the Israelites invading and conquering all of Canaan) found in Joshua actually occurred. For one, some of the cities specifically mentioned in Joshua as being destroyed were either extremely small, unfortified cities or completely uninhabited at the time of the supposed conquest (e.g. Jericho and Ai). It's actually FAR more likely that the Israelites were once Canaanites themselves (as strange of a concept as that may seem). There are even parallels between Yahwism (worship of Yahweh, or God) and Canaanite religion, such as similar descriptions of Yahweh and the Canaanite gods El and Ba'al (yes, I said Ba'al). The Canaanite religious epics that are part of the Ugaritic Texts even use similar writing techniques as the Bible, such as parallelism. For a great book that explains all the evidence and more, see "What Are They Saying About the Formation of Israel" by John J. McDermott.

Self-contradiction? There certainly is plenty of it. Much of the Old Testament/Hebrew is blatantly against any sort of relations with the Canaanite peoples or foreigners (a contradiction in itself as many of the Canaanite groups mentioned were supposedly wiped out by Joshua...). Take a look at Numbers 25. A man named Phinehas kills (by running them through with a spear) an Israelite man and the Midianite woman the man had taken as his wife. God praises Phinehas for his zeal and blesses him with a covenant of perpetual priesthood (this is used by many white-supremacist and neo-nazis groups as justification for their beliefs/actions--creepy stuff). Relations with Canaanites/foreigners are supposedly bad because the foreigners will cause the Israelites to stop worshipping Yahweh and turn to Ba'al and other Canaanite gods. Now take a look at the entire book of Ruth. It tells the story of a Moabite woman who is a good person, ends up marrying Boaz, an upright, god-fearing Israelite. Rather than leading Boaz to worship Canaanite gods, Ruth turns to Yahwism (1:16 "...your people shall be my people, and your God my God.") The Israelite people even go so far to say that Ruth is better than seven Israelite sons (the perfect number), and she's MOABITE woman. Oh, and here's the kicker: Ruth's son is the father of Jesse who is the father of King David. So Ruth, the Moabite, is Jesus' ancestor. Are the Canaanites/foreigners really all that bad?

The Bible HAS to read with the historical context in mind. I'm currently taking a course called "Introduction to the Bible: The Bible and Imperial Politics." It's probably the most interesting class I've ever taken. And I've learned so much. What's important to remember is that the Bible was written while various powerful empires were in power--primarily the Persian Empire (Hebrew Bible) and the Roman Empire (New Testament)--and these empires had a huge influence on how it was written. Things like the genocidal God depicted in Joshua and the sadistic God depicted in Deuteronomy 28 (if the Israelites don't follow all the laws depicted in Deuteronomy, God will send a nation to oppress and lay siege to them. For lack of food, the Israelites will be reduced to cannibalism, specifically eating their own children, and women will hoard their own afterbirth to eat. "And just as the LORD took delight in making you prosperous and numerous, so the LORD will take deli

@Wilbur: .....................yawn.............................

Excellent! The best article I've ever read on the subject. Thank you so much for all the work you put into it.

Wow! Thank you! This make all kind of sense.

Hmmmm . . . the whole context of the story of the cities of the plain had to do with finding 10 righteous men (bargained down from 50 originally). no?

I am just a sinner, who believes in God and I know that I am in charge of my life and not in charge of judging others. I have plenty of work to do when it comes to the reading of the Bible. I do appreciate the research done in this article. I will now read the many verses I have missed that are quoted in this article. I do believe love conquers all.

AMEN!! to this!! So sick of hearing he or she is going to HELL because they are NOT living the CHRISTAIN way. I know a lot straight christains who beat their wives. Cuss the Lord. and countless other things. MY fav. line is GOD DID NOT MAKE JUNK!! So The Lord Loves ALL his CHILDREN. NOT just the straight ones. Wake up People!!!

Well, I've got abusive men living on both sides of me. One's wife has had to call the police twice and was hospitalized once. I have called the police when I witnessed the neighbor on the other side kicking his wife after he had pummeled her to the floor. Both men have invited us to their churches, sing in their church choirs and "talk" Christian nonsense at neighborhood parties. Oh, mat I add that we live in a community that is over 85% Christian and college educated middle class. Charming Christian men.

Thank you!
I was raised and married in Methodism, raised my children and became a licensed pastor in the United Church of Christ and have done much research. You have done an excellent job of making it all clear and concise. I do not understand why, as Christians, we continue to teach and preach stories we know are false. So much misinterpretation and so little education.

Actually, wasn't Moses' marriage interracial? Marrying outside of your faith is talked about specifically in the New Testament, with advice on how to win over the non-believer, so it was tolerated. I don't agree with your point, but that aside, your two example are both erroneous.

Maybe because at the time the definition of marriage was "the contract by which one man passes a daughter-property to another man to be his wife-property for the purposes of mixing the families" which kinda implies procreation.

Over time, the definition of marriage included other property rights along with just owning the woman in question. And as women gained more rights, marriage again changed definition to include various shared property rights of the couple, power of attorney, etc. By today's definition, there is no reasonable excuse to exclude same-sex couples.

Couldn't thank you enough for a voice of reason. Why would a church that spreads the word of a loving God, condemn love?

That all depends on your definition of just... If you truly view the religious belief regarding sexuality to be just, then it is also just to execute a woman who is not a virgin when she marries. I hope you have no sexual assault survivors in your family, as you would be attending their funerals. Masturbation was viewed in the same light as homosexuality... If your children were ever disobedient, the just parent must stone them to death.

I much prefer the Saviour who was sent by His JUST Father. The one who condemned the religious elite for living by the letter of the law rather than the spirit...

Although you make good points I would have to agree that you generally misinterpret the Bible, show a lack of research and you chose your worldview according to a easily refutable argument with Science.
To start off you claim that, like many Jewish rules, homosexuality (abbreviated as H from here on) was made to keep clean, like rules against pork and certain sea-food. First off, you have to keep in mind that not only were Jewish rules for sanitation, but also morally wrong acts. For example a woman was often stoned for sexual intercorse before marriage, this was nothing to do with sanitation and in the New Testament later on dismisses this rule (He without sin cast the first stone). Also the sanitation rules were dismissed later on by Jesus (when he confronted I believe John or Paul about eating the pork and other "unholy things to eat" and told him it was alright) where-as the H rule was never dismissed eliminating it as a candiate for a rule over the concern of health. To end the first argument there are New Testament scriptures that say that H is wrong (I Cor. 6:9, 10).
Your second argument about H being natural and therefore acceptable is made through Science, therefore shall be refuted through Science ;). It's simple really if you justify H through animal's behaviors then you have to justify murder, rape, robbery, etc. because of how often animals do this as well. Lions murder the male lion, kill its babies then rape it's wife and forces the lioness to become his wife and have his babies, penguins shove each other off a ledge to test the water of predators. I don't see any arguments anywhere to the justification of any of these acts because animals make morally wrong decisions. Animalistic behavior is synonymous with savage for a reason. Also you seem like a Bible believer so I'll end this last statement with how upon the acceptance of sin the world became corrupt so to base our morals upon a corrupted world should seem like a bad idea to you.
Just in case you aren't a Bible believer if you say that H is ok because animals do it then other things (murder, robbery, etc.) are ok because we are both categorized as the same line of nature. So to say H is ok because cranes do it, but say murder isn't because cranes don't do it is ridiculous to say because what gives us the right to chose what actions we categorize as ok based on our decision of what which animals do it. Also I realize that I'm not the best author — I do better when I talk, not type — so if I confused you with that last statement disregard it.
Finally I would like to say that I don't support H, but either way I love homosexual PEOPLE because God loves us all, and my goal is to glorify God and the only way to do that properly is to represent him properly. I don't believe in murder, rape, robbery, etc. either. I wrote that just in case so that way Christianity isn't misrepresented any more than it already is.
E-Mail me if you'd like to continue (C.Robert.Palmer@gmail.com). Sincerely, a Christian that studies his faith.

I think it's sad that you would post something like this and give false hope. But even worse than that, is that you would defame the word of God to suit your own agenda. You bending the scriptures in the way that you have, is nothing short of blasphemy. I wish people would take the bible seriously and not like something to decipher when it's convenient.

Lina, you should check out covenants in the bible before bringing the law into this covenant of grace.

Geez, you are the very person to whom this article was addressed. I understand only too well how you have been conditioned to think Michael is a sinner doing the devil's work. Sad, but true.

I am curious, do you know the actual statistical differentiation (variance) between the ancient texts we have? Sure, there are minor differences, but actually looking at the difference word for word would change your mind. "Layers and layers" is a misrepresentation considering the vastness of the texts we have.

Acts 17:11

Yeah Ruth, I see your point. I think we should also make you stay in a tent in the backyard when you're on your period, for sanitary reasons of course.

In a quick response to Res_Ipsa about unclean sex, and that "anal sex was simply dirty", you should perhaps research 'sex for fun' vs 'sex for procreation' as found in much of history, including (as per some scholars) during biblical times - procreation used the front, and just-for-fun used the back.

Apart from that, we've seen much of this information before, but it's nice to see it in one concise place. Well done!

Amen!

Stephen, I could not have said this better myself. Sin IS sin..homosexuality is no greater than lying, cheating, stealing or murder. Do I love all of them yes, just like God does. Do I condone their behavior, no. God is faithful to forgive and cleanse from ALL unrighteousness WHATEVER it is. I really want people to read the Word of God with the revelatory anointing from the Holy Spirit and stop trying to find scriptures or twist them to sow seeds of confusion or enable their sin.

You are the type of person this article is talking about.

Gosh, Jasmine, I feel so "loved" after being compared to murderers. You forgot pedophile, though.

I dare you to read the article with an open mind free of a lifetime of rhetoric about how horrible and gross and sick gay people are.

Secondly, I don't ask you or anyone else to "condone" my love life. That's between God, me, and the person I love.

Thanks for putting all of this together, Mark. There are a number of resources online that I'm sure you're aware of, but it's always good to have another voice.

I have to echo @Don Burrows in his comment about Romans 1; and how no matter what he means, it's really just a reflection and not really a commentary about anyone's particular behavior (it's in the past tense too) but being used to set up Romans 2, and the critique to not be hypocritical. Which I find delightfully useful in addressing anyone who wants to interpret a pitifully few bible verses as justification for systematic persecution.

If you're really that easily distracted, you might consider Adderal.

It's not the complete dismissal of bible verses, related to, or in addition to as side or supporting views, that gets me confused; or the suggestion that others do the same, because he has read them for us and we can take his word for it.

It's not the disproved view that you have no choice, and that people are born gay and, therefore, implying God must be either responsible or sympathetic. In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error.

It's not the implied ignorance of the authors due to their lack of 'scientific" knowledge and ignorance of the subject of sexual orientation, and by association with said authors, the views written on sexuality have diminished or no validity concerning us in modern, "civilized" days as this.

It's not the serious authority issues that ooze from his words that get me. Although, I do feel sorry for a guy whose job is to be subject to God, and he doesn't take too kindly to what God says. kinda makes you glad you're not around the water cooler with THIS guy on Mondays, ya know?;)

What gets me is that this guy is a PASTOR and is spouting these lies as truth.

The act of homosexuality falls under the larger category of adultery. That is the ONLY limitation that God put on sexual issues. The perversion of the Sodomites was a side point to the larger, and more important issue of sex being reserved for marriage between man and wife.

The bashing and hatred of ANY group of people, regardless of sexual orientation, ethnic background, race, etc...is just as bad as the sin of homosexuality in my opinion. We are told to love others as we love ourselves. The hatred of gays is as unfounded in love as the very act of homosexuality, itself.

We must proudly champion God’s love toward the homosexual without condoning his or her behavior. Let His love shine through us, and may we all be examples of the morality God desires.

Having said that, I am concerned for the people under this leaders' care.

Progressiveness is not wrong, or to be shunned; but a complete 180 of Gods' view of the matter and a penchant to make wildly opinionated statements as truth, and feed it to those who may be stumbled by it, is a dangerous place to be.

1 Cor. 8:8-10 refers to Paul addressing the subject of food sacrificed to idols,but the lesson is to not do (or say) anything that could be a stumbling block to your brother.

I fear for this poor man, but love him all the same as someone who has a wrong view in the current situation; but through subjecting himself to the will of God can save not only his own soul, but the souls of countless others.

It is you, and your simple kind, who are disappointments to God. I pity you.

Steve,

The pastor actually gave pretty sound reason and evidence to support his claims. You have not.

I figure if we give the right of marriage to gay people, we will have less issues with this "adultery" piece. *smile*

@Josh McCanless: "The perversion of the Sodomites was a side point to the larger, and more important issue of sex being reserved for marriage between man and wife."

Which wife would that be? And what of his concubines? I suppose I too have my blind spots. I only hope they are not as deep and wide as the ones I see in your logic.

So which is it? They've read the truth and are being disingenuous or they don't agree that it's the truth? You can't have it both ways. Disagreeing with something that is not truth is not the same as plugging your ears. That's called "discernment" or "shrewdness". I'm not commenting on my position, just on your ad hominem attack (I think you're wrong, therefore I'll disparage and mischaracterize you, hoping to shame you into being quiet or make myself feel better by belittling someone with whom I disagree).

Agreed. The author is interpreting the word, just like the church does, or anyone else for that matter. I don't feel as if he's twisting it...everything the author said makes sense. A lot more sense than the church makes, let me tell you.

Stephen, Jasmine, and Willie ---

Finding out what the Scriptures actually say --- both in the languages they were written in, and what they meant in the cultural context of the times (that is, how the people who first read them would have taken the message) actually IS "taking the Bible seriously" (Stephen) and "reading the Word of God with the revelatory anointing of the Holy Spirit" (Jasmine). It is the deliberately uninformed views that are actually "defaming the Word of God" (Stephen), "twisting Scripture" (as both of you said), or "deciphering [the Bible] when it's convenient" (Stephen).

And Willie, that passage you shared (2 Timothy 4:3-4) is true of course, however since what Mark has presented here does happen to be "the truth" and "sound doctrine", then it's pretty obvious that where it also says "myths", you must be referring to the gay-bashing myths that so many in the church have spread for so long. Right?

Also, Estraven is right on in responding to Dee Dee: David and Jonathan were bery obviously bisexual. (I've taken his declaration of love for Jonathan, in his eulogy of him --- "your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women" --- and suggested to some straight, Christian male friends of mine, who were trying to dodge that David was bisexual, that they make that same declaration, word for word, to their very best male buddies. And if they DIDN'T get their butts kicked over it, to please let me know. So far, no takers.)

Also, the famous example of the centurion and his beloved servant (whom Christ healed) lines up perfectly with the utterly common practice in the Greek/Roman world, of slave owners frequently being in loving, same-sex relationships with one of their servants or slaves. And of course, in that scene in the gospels, the whole town knew and loved the centurion, and both they and Jesus would have known perfectly well the kind of relationship he would have had with his servant --- and not only did they plead with Christ to heal the servant, but Jesus clearly shared their love and healed him.

People who insist on taking a simplistic, face-value reading of the Bible as though that is the direct, utter revelation to them from God are actually not honoring the very God from whom the Bible originates: Christianity has always been a thinking religion (at least, among those who took it seriously), because believers recognized what Christ said when he was asked what was the greatest commandment in the law (and many rabbis of the day agreed with this view): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, MIND, and strength". Some Christians seem eager to do all except the "with all your mind" part --- because that requires that we use the brains God gave us, in their faculty of critical thinking which is the way we understand how the world works and how to survive in it. God requires this; but many people don't realy want to obey it, because of course critical thinking immediately challenges everything we think, or think we know. That's the exact reason that the church in Galileo's day got their robes so in a bunch over Galileo's finding that it's Earth that orbits the sun (and not vice versa), because they had been dug into a simplistic reading of Scripture, in which it appears very plainly to say that it's the sun that moves, not Earth.

So if anyone is going to take a simliarly simplistic, "I'm just going by the plain truth of the Word" view regarding same-sex or bisexual relations, then I expect them to be consistent with that approach to Scripture, and also take a stand that Earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around us. Since, after all, it's only "secular science" that showed that our simplistic reading of Scripture was wrong --- not even any examination of language or culture in the Bible, as Mark has been doing here.

So what of it, biblical literalists --- are you going to stay consistent, and also maintain that the sun orbits Earth? Are you going to teach your children that? Are you going to approach your kids' schools, and require that this view be taught there? If not, why aren't you willing to revise your theology and doctrines --- as even the church did about Galileo, sooner or later --- and recognize that God's truth is not always identical with our ideas, views, interpretations, or doctrines?

That's really the problem: people so easily mistake their *interpretation* of God's Word as if it were identical with absolute truth revealed from God. Galileo recognized that problem, too: in his famous rebuttal to his critics (an essay called "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", available in most anthologies of his writings), he pointed out, "We hold that the Scripture is true, and that the creation is true; and obviously two truths cannot contradict each other. If, therefore, after having carefully examined the created world, it *seems* to contradict Scripture, then it is neither Scripture that is wrong, nor the created world --- b

Oh, how convenient that the bible insists on its own infallibility. I guess you better stop eating shrimp then, eh?

Sorry, I inadvertently hit the submit button when I wasn't done w/ my comment! What I was trying to say is that
The bible was written by human beings, over a very long period, in an age without the benefit of all that has been learned over the ages! God gave us minds to continue to learn new things and often what we learned showed us mistakes in our thinking which were then corrected! The earth is not flat, for example! Wow, can you imagine what a jolt THAT caused?'

Bottom line, If you profess to be a Christian and judge your fellow man, you are going against God's laws....to
judge not lest ye be judged and to love your neighbor
as yourself. In the long run the greatest of God's laws
is LOVE. Jesus was love personified. He loved all people he saw as marginalized. Tell me, if he were here today, how do you think he would appear? I doubt the "Christians " who use the bible to judge gay people (among others!) would recognize him! I suspect He would appear as a homeless person, sleeping in a box under a bridge! He might even appear as a gay man (or woman, for that matter!) Or I can envision Him as a 99% organizer, or perhaps as a woman breast cancer survivor walking for Breast cancer research! One thing I'm quite sure He would NOT do is return in gold and silver robes, shouting at those who may not have taken Him as their personal savior (and I'm sorry, I really don't understand that line because if you have chosen to be a Christian, then you have chosen to follow the teachings of God as Jesus has told us! Surely that applies to every Christian?!).

As for homosexuality, God does not make mistakes, period. Our 21st century science has proved this beyond a reasoable doubt. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is not a mistake, it is not a "sin!" It is most likely genetic and it often runs in families as it has in mine. My son, who majored in History and Moral Philosophy at Dartmouth, is a caring teacher who has made a real difference in the lives of his students, and he is gay.

It's interesting to note that very few of the passages referred to in this article are in any way part of original texts. Much redaction, editing, and rewriting (with purposes beyond our grasp) have occurred during the past several thousand years. Just translating from one language to another extinguishes virtually all linguistic nuance. And to truly understand the old texts, capturing nuance is critical. Since it is so rare, perhaps using the Bible to explain anything in the modern world is an exercise in futility. No matter what the Bible does or does not say on the issue, it is safe to assume that homosexuality was as prevalent then as now. Perhaps more so, since women were much more apt to be unavailable until marriage.

@ Justin,

I tend to think if the bible were written by God it would be in first person

If God literally took man over to "write" the bible, an entirely unnecessary act for God to do, because God is God, then it would be first person.

Man wrote the bible, divinely inspired yes, but it is filtered through the men of the time. You're ignorant in saying otherwise and while the reverend for this story backed up his statements with science, history, and scripture YOU have not.

For a detailed analysis of how the Bible does support GLBT participation and rights...

RECLAIMING QUEERS
http://dmergent.org/2011/10/07/reclaiming-queers/

Two problems with your argument. Just because a large group of sinners decide to call something "normal" (meaning, scientifically, that it is within the statistical realm of not being >2 standard deviations of what most people exhibit or do) does not make it normal in the way most people mean it, nor in the way religious people tend to view a fallen humanity would mean normal.

Secondly, to say that a layperson cannot offer a valid or rational argument against an opinion or research is pure nonsense. In both your arguments you're equivocating, first around the meaning of the word "normal", than around the word "valild / rational."

Finally, do we want to subject morality and religion to science and the scientific method? I would suggest it has limited applicability. You could come up with arguments like "It is not abnormal in many species to murder their own kind or steal their food or steal their mates, therefore it is normal for the human animal to do so." I have a problem with that.

I hit the FB "like" button as soon as I read your comment about the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody ever expects). I love a good sense of humour and especially a Monty Python fan! Humour aside, this was a well written (if long) article. It took me a while to plow through and comprehend it all, but it really clarified the Bibles stand (or lack of one) on homosexuality. As someone who grew up in a conservative Baptist church and now has many gay friends, it was extremely helpful. Thank you!

I agree. While assuming Mark has given valid translations and contextualizations (things I am in no way competent to critique) are correct about the Bible not condemning homosexuality, that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't have something to say about what ought to be. The statement in Genesis 2 seems pretty normative, especially about making "a companion for him who corresponds to him," and "this is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife and they become a new family." (NET) I would like to see a similar explanation of these verses.

Of course, if one's orientation is in part determined by nature, as it seems in part to be, then even a normative argument for heterosexuality, without the back up of an argument explicitly against homosexuality (which Mark seems to demolish), would be pretty weak.

Thank you Mark. I am so grateful for this article and the research you have done to make such a difficult topic understandable.
GOD LOVES EVERYONE. WE SHOULD TOO.

Well said, Brenny (I couldn't find a "like" button). Further, I keep holding back from typing "you can't fix stupid" because I think it would be rude of me to say so..so I'm glad there is no 'button' for "you can't fix stupid" for some of those people of blind faith. I wonder if we can get a 'you can't fix stupid' button installed....

Thank you Mark. After growing up for years in the Evangelical Christian world were EVERYTHING was a sin and one was hell bound on a freight train it is refreshing to hear a message from the Bible of Love and Non-judgement. Your article shows your deep commitment to both of those ideals and I loved every word of it. Thank you for the research behind it.

@Justin, regarding your statement "The Bible is fairly clear as to what is and isn't acceptable to the Lord. You're supposed to be a pastor, right? Yet you seem to deny the Bible's divine authorship by claiming that the people didn't have science back 5000 yrs ago" I think you seem to have missed the point. The Bible was written by God, right? Did God also translate the Bible for us so that we could read it in our modern day languages? No. In fact I think the author of this article covered the fact that English did not exist even in its most primitive form when any part of the Bible was first written down. God may be infallible, but man most certainly is not--and translation is never easy--especially not when using words that don't exist at all in any other surviving text.

Brenny, where do you live? Across America, gay marriage is not allowed in most states, therefore, most sex would happen outside of marriage, correct? There are a few states that allow it, I believe CA and VT just changed stance, Ny I think as well, and HI has for a while IIRC. But the majority of the US doesn't allow it, and as an American, that is the perspective from which I speak. I don't know the laws of the rest of the world.

Alexandra: When comparing the KJV, the version upon which many others are based, against the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was found that it was accurate beyond any reasonable doubt. And as I said in my original statement, he could argue his way into any belief he wants. If you turn around and claim that the authors didn't know any better (which is what Mark said), or that it got screwed up in translation because English didn't exist, you can turn Christianity into a buffet: pick what you want, skip what you don't want because the world has changed and God's word is no longer relevant...He uses the same logic to say Hell doesn't exist and everyone will go to Heaven. Hell wasn't a word and therefore it doesn't exist. Fornication wasn't a word and neither was pornography, but we know that adultery is wrong and so is lusting after someone to whom you aren't married. Murder wasn't a word back then either, so let's go kill someone!

As someone else already posted: There will come a time when the people will turn from the truth seeking out teachers who tell them what they want to hear. That day came a looooooong time ago.

Absolutely glorious. A perfect summary of every FACTUAL argument against intolerance towards the LGBTQ community. Man is not God.

Thank you !!! Well said

You can find flaws in the Bible. Yes. Our society continues to embrace sexual perversions. Most gays have many mental problems and most people do not know the lifestyle of gays.

You know of the mental instability of homosexuals because you suffer from the same problem(s)?

"methinks thou doth protest too much." Two things: if you really believe that homosexuality is "normal" and acceptable behavior and still believe in a God, you must also believe He has a really mean sense of humor. Second, at this point in time, the only group of people being "bashed" and discriminated against in any way are Christians. Talk about hate? The meanest Christian can't hold a candle to the gay community and the awful things they say about Christians. I do not doubt for a second that if they could they would impose midieval types of torture (and may do so in the future) on anyone who has the audacity to suggest they believe homosexual behavior is wrong. They have made it abundantly clear that they are not content to "live and let live", they want to FORCE everyone else to say it's normal and it's the same as hetero marriage, etc. We are close to having a society that is totally defined by sexual behavior. Oh yeah. The "gay pride" parades do a lot toward helping people like me be more "tolerant". Not.

Thanks

AGREE! AGREE!! AGREE!! you hit the nail on the head my friend about the HATE that gays have against us as Christians....I have experienced it more than once and it sickened me but made me realized how lost these souls are and caused me to pray for them and myself to be strong in my beliefs which are scriptural.....this blog has twisted the scriptures as far as I am concerned....May God have mercy on us all!

Hmm,where are all the American Christians beaten and murdered for their practices over the past 50 years?

Good article. I disagree with parts but I think the main purpose I do agree with and that is we cannot spend our time and energy focused on hating sin. (homosexuality is clearly sin) but we must focus and spend our time on love. Our purpose in the world is to love and be loved. It is what we are made for. the 2 greatest commandments love God, and love each other. All other commandements are based on these 2 principles.

seems evasive...rather than hitting the arguments head on you attempt to explain away everything in advance...so because we eat shrimp etc. the alleged prohibitions of homosexual sex don't obtain...because paul agreed to slavery (apparently) then it is obvious he is wrong on everything...if it were just temple prostitution then why is man-woman sex not mentioned?....would love to hear good arguments, haven't yet dammit...

Great article, Mark. Thanks so much for putting forth information that is so well informed by the work of God-given brains. Anyone that you minister to is lucky to have a pastor so open to the leading of God's direction of love and mercy.

Oops, looks like my really wordy comment was too long. Here's the rest of it:

But of course, those of you who think will have been aware that that's not true. The Bible is spectacularly reliable in the things that matter most, but Galileo's findings didn't destroy Christianity; evolution doesn't somehow disprove the Bible (actually evolution, including that vestigial tail you're sitting on and all, is one of the most elegant and powerful evidences FOR God imaginable); and same-sex orientation (and relationships) are not only not condemned in what the Bible ACTUALLY says, it mostly isn't addressed at all ... except, again, in some places (David, and the centurion) where God actually smiles upon it. As, of course, he does with all that he creates.

Do what you can to keep reasoning with the objectors; but it took a couple of decades or more, for me, to let God's incessant hammering away with truth and fact chip away my preconceptions, foolish assumptions, and just embarrassing ignorance. So it's likely to take a while for some of them, too. The sad thing is that, when (like them) we're so busy rejecting fact and truth, really what we're doing is (rather frighteningly) fulfilling the Scriptural warning that some (like the objectors) will not want to hear truth, but "will not endure sound teaching". Keep sharing truth with them; in time, God can and will sink his Word through even the hardest heads and hearts, as he did with me.

I am not surprised to read the praise of this article, calling it "excellent research" and the like.

Unfortunately, it is simply not true. It is not 'excellent research'. Nor is the hyperbolic praise explainable simply based on the bad habit on the Internet of heaping excessive praise on articles superficially read.

No, the explanation is worse than that: people are applauding the article because it tells them what they want to hear, not what is true.

Let me take one example, the superficial and misleading analysis of the Greek word 'malakos'. This example alone will be good enough to see how bad this article really is.

First of all, is is a major error, if not something worse, to claim to offer an analysis of this word without also analyzing the word is is so closely paired with in this very passage: 'arsenokoites'.

For just as in English, "knife and fork" makes it clear that you mean 'fork' the utensil, and not a fork in the road, so here in this passage, the use together of 'arsenokoites' and 'malakos' eliminates the possibility that these words mean ANYTHING other than the two men who take the two different roles in the abominable act. One takes the role that is traditionally considered more male and dominant, the other the role considered more passive and 'female'.

Much ink has been spilled claiming these words mean something else, such as 'trader in homosexual prostitutes' or 'pederast', but no: there really is only one possibility for each of these words in this passage. It is a condemnation of the very same abomination condemned in Lev 18:22.

Now just in case you reject that explanation, there is another way we can follow the philological method and reach the same conclusion: by reading the commentaries of the Greek Fathers on this and very similar passages, where we find the same thing: the words are read to refer to men committing homosexual acts, and the reason given for the condemnation has NOTHING to do with any assumed practice of domination or of prostitution.

No, the testimony of the Greek Fathers -- who knew this kind of Greek VERY well -- is universal: it is the act itself that is condemned, it is NOT a condemnation of prostitution.

One can find this in, for example, The Paedogogus of Clement of Alexandria.

Looking back over the article again, I find yet another example of a poor mockery of proper procedure when analyzing the meaning of Greek expressions. Why, in this instance, Sandlin seems to not even be aware of how he contradicts himself!

But contradict himself he does, when he says on the one hand, "The word is arsenokoitēs and it means “male prostitute", but then on the other hand, he admits, " it is only found two places".

How did you miss the contradiction? if it is found "only in those two places", then HOW can you justify your certainty that it has to mean "male prostitute"? You cannot, since this meaning does not even follow from the roots of the word, nor is it testified to ANYWHERE in surviving Greek literature.

But it gets worse: without admitting that Sandlin had no grounds for his certainty in the first assertion, he blithely goes on to propose a great number of alternative readings, not ONE of which is supported by the etymology, not ONE of which is supported by the commentary on these verses, commentary written by native speakers of this language.

Again, the native speakers are unanimous: in this passage, 'arsenokoites' means the man lying with another man, 'malakos' means the one taking the 'passive' role in the act.That this is the right meaning is confirmed by the native speaker Clement of Alexandria, in Paedogogus Book III, Chapter III.

You gotta love circular logic.

"Across America, gay marriage is not allowed in most states, therefore, most sex would happen outside of marriage, correct?"

So homosexuality is a sin: because most gay sex is done outside of marriage because we don't allow gay marriage because most gay sex is done outside of marriage because.....

The best part in this whole article was "Jesus made it clear that we should not put ourselves in the place of playing God and that, unlike far too many humans, God welcomes and loves us all equally."

(I'm sure this will be too long to fit in one post, so I'll split it up.)

MJ, you write very eloquently, but you're embarrassing yourself by displaying some pretty basic ignorance on some sexual matters. There are also some rather strange remarks you make, regarding Genesis (and matters which you seem to think are related), which I'll get to a little later.

First of all, your entire opposition to [I'll just say here, for the sake of argument, "... to whatever it is that both Leviticus and Paul are objecting to"] seems to rest on, or revolve around, anal sex between men. Yes, it is a valid point that the Greek terms "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" may well correspond, more or less, to what in Europe to this day are still referred to as "active" and "passive", and in this country more often as "top" and "bottom". (For those who aren't sure what those mean, they refer to, in the act of anal sex, the penetrator and the penetrated.) Although, contrary to some things you said, there is plenty of sound scholarship indicating that even in that case, the terms may well refer to male prostitutes (whether at a temple, or elsewhere) and their male customers, etc.

However, you're missing some glaringly obvious facts:

(1) There are, and always have been, a great many people who participate in male-male sex who want nothing at all to do with anal penetration. And, of course, it would be laughable to suppose that that's the "only" way two men can engage in intimate relations --- any more than the classic "missionary position" would be the "only" way that a woman and man could likewise engage in intimate relations. And in fact, most of the biblically-based objections that I've read against same-sex relations base their arguments likewise on the act of anal sex. So, apparently, any other kind of sexual activity between men would be all right, otherwise it seems fairly obvious that (if any kind of male-male sex were being prohibited) ANY form of sexual dalliance between males would be prohibited, and clearly it isn't.

(2) Plenty of male-female couples engage in anal sex all the time, so again, obviously it can't be the actual act of anal sex that is being prohibited; otherwise, the prohibition would extend to everyone, but again, of course, that's not the case.

(3) Sexual acts between women aren't even alluded to in Leviticus, nor anywhere else in the Hebrew scriptures for that matter, even though of course female-female relations have been around as long as the rest of humanity (and all its variations on relationships) have been around; and also of course, neither the Israelite people, nor certainly God himself, would have been unaware of that fact, so if the Levitical prohibition is supposed to be against same-sex relations in general, it doesn't follow that relations between women wouldn't also be called out specifically, instead of being entirely overlooked.

(cont.)

(part 3)

But even more, your comments entirely dodge past all that I brought up regarding how God creates a variety of sexual orientations (and relationships) all across nature. Many Christians live in either ignorance (which you don’t have the excuse of now, having presumably read it in these comments) or flat denial that there even is such a thing. That’s really foolishly ignorant. The reason I brought up Galileo (oh yeah, you dodged my reference to him, too, and his own words, with their obvious implications for the current topic) is that, as he saw --- and I shouldn’t even have to be bringing this up again, if you had responded to its mention before --- we don’t get to foolishly tailor our ideas about nature (creation) based only on what we think Scripture says; if observable, and verifiably, facts about nature “seem to contradict Scripture” (Galileo’s words), then of course, as he pointed out, it’s neither Scripture nor nature that are wrong, but only our views/interpretations that are wrong. That’s such basic and obvious logic, that it doesn’t seem it should even have to be brought up. And it’s to the embarrassment of the Roman Catholic church that it took the better part of 400 years for it to officially declare, in effect, “Oops, we were wrong and Galileo was right, after all”. Likewise, it’s an embarrassment to any in Christianity today to blindly dig in to one or another of their own interpretations of Scripture, when observable and testable facts of the created world --- that is, facts which God provides us, as he did Galileo --- fly right in the face of our interpretations. But that’s what you’re insisting on doing.

As I mentioned before: variations in sexual orientation --- and often, the close, bonded mating relationships that go with them --- occur regularly across, as far as we know, the whole of sexually-reproducing nature, both humans and the rest of the animal world. That is God’s good creation, not “aberrant” in any way. but actually contributing positively to life (as I also gave at least one specific example of, there are many others for any who care to look into it: here’s one good starting place, with its sources and references for those honest enough to follow up with them, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals ).

In other words, shame on you or anyone else for both embarrassing yourselves with willful, foolish ignorance (about both Scripture and God’s creation), and at the same time trying to use that ignorance to condemn God’s good creation. Just as the church saw and repented of its foolish ignorance about Galileo, sooner or later it will likewise see and repent of its foolish ignorance about the variations in sexual orientation that God creates, in humans as well as in other living things.

(cont.)

Sorry, Roger, the ignorance is yours. What you mistake as ignorance on my part is no such thing, it is a refusal to commit the same offense you commit in your reply, speakingly boldly about things that one should remain silent about.

By doing this, you show that you have no concept of the ethics of the use of the power of speech described in the Bible, e.g. speaking indirectly and using euphemism where things should not be said directly.

I am aware, for example. of the claims you advance from Wikipedia. But I did not try to refute them for several reasons, one of them being as described above: these things should not be spoken about so directly. But also because it is really not relevant. You think it it relevant only because you confuse "something that happens IN nature" with "something that is natural". They are not the same.

BTW: nothing in your long and indecent diatribe refutes the Biblical point of view that marriage is between a man and a woman, nor that the ideal is monogamous marriage.

Oh, one more thing I should not allow to rest unchallenged: it is simply not true that "there is plenty of sound scholarship indicating that even in that case, the terms may well refer to male prostitutes".

No, NONE of that so-called 'scholarship' is sound. Every bit of it is as completely worthless as the 'science' supporting the tobacco companies in the 60s or the 'science' of Lord Monckton claiming to refute global warming.

I know this because I have been reading Greek since 1980, so I have a good feel for what is sound philological procedure and what is not: the arguments claiming that it means "homosexual prostitute" are not (yes, I have read some of them).

Unfortunately, such pseudo-scholarship making pretentious arguments based on the Greek is rife among Protestants -- and have been since long before this controversy. But you would be hard pressed to find even a single Greek-speaking priest to agree with these arguments, especially if he is well trained in the older forms of the language, too.

And finally, once again, the testimony of the Greek Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria shows that the condemnation of the act has NOTHING to do with the fact that it was commonly practiced by prostitutes. Anyone who claims to do a scholarly study on these words without reading Clement is simply lying.

Now about this claim (e.g. from Cathy) that Paulinism is different from Christianity: it was not so long ago that the overwhelming majority of Christians realized this claim was so wholly without merit, it rarely even got serious discussion. But nowadays, this disastrous misconception is raised far too often, without any serious support.

And yes, it really is without any serious support. How could it be, when the putative author of both Luke and Acts, longtime companion of Paul, himself tells us that he could see no difference between them, in those famous words that Christ himself proclaimed Paul his "chosen vessel" for bringing the Gospel to the Gentile world?

Rather than angrily dismiss Paul as so many do now, the humble Christian reader will work hard on the passages that appear to contradict Christ or go beyond what Christ said, and learn how they really do no such thing. But this hard work requires renunciation of self, which far too many Christians do not even realize is one of Christ's commandments.

Yes, proper interpretation requires spiritual effort. For without it, we are all too easily misled by our treacherous desires, misled away from the true meaning of Scripture -- as well as away from a God-pleasing life.

Roger, don't forget that Israelite warriors circumcised the enemies they killed and kept the foreskins as trophies. THAT is pretty gross and disgusting. In fact, Saul was jealous because David had more foreskins than him. I think Mel had it right with an "R" -rated "Passion". Too bad his mind went bye-bye. Doing the whole Bible in the same style would open a lot of eyes. There are many disgusting parts of the Bible.

As far as science 5000 years goes, since they didn't have cell phones, computers, or cars, or the knowledge thereof back then, I guess we shouldn't be using them, eh? Since MJ thinks all the science we need was known then.

@feeder " Yes there were cucubines but nowhere in the Bible is there an example of same sex marriage."

Yes, but nowhere in the Bible is an example of posting comments on an internet blog either, yet here you are!

Besides, why do you imagine non-christians must be bound by the Christian scriptures? If you feel your religion prohibits gay marriage, then simply don't have one. Forcing others to follow your religion is what the Taliban does. Are you like them, are you?

I have to say that I am disturbed by the multiple references to David and Jonathan and their love OBVIOUSLY indicating a homo/bisexual relationship. Is it only men that can't admit to any kind of love between men as other than sexual? What about women? As a heterosexual female, I have deeply loved (and been loved by) a number of men, have been married, and would literally die for them. But none of them have ever loved me as much as my best friend of 40 years, another heterosexual woman, who understands me better and takes me completely for who I am with no unrealistic expectations. I would die for her as well. I could say the same about her as David said about Jonathan; would people assume we are bisexual? (Actually, they have, but they are wrong.) Maybe D & J were bisexual, but maybe they weren't. I know some men who would freely admit to such a deep love of another man without being threatened by others' false assumption of a sexual relationship. Get real.

I'm a Christian, a transsexual woman, and a lesbian (A bunch of fundamentalists, feminists, and "women-born-women" groups just killed some puppies because of the seeming contradiction of terms). That being said, I'm going to be biased as all get out on this topic. Here goes:

How 'bout we love each other, read the Bible in faith, and pray, and let the Holy Spirit lead us as individuals where S/he wants us to go concerning the scriptures. If one is a self-identified homosexual, let them read the word and come to their own conclusions about their faith and identity. If they are convicted of something, they will come to us and ask us for prayers and advice. If not, let it be.

I used to be on the opposite side of Mr. Sandlin on this issue, for fear of being hell-bound. That being said, since I came out of the closet and started my transition, I have never felt better. It is the second best day of my life, with my best being the day I was baptized as a member of a faith community in my town on September 25 of this year.

Another great article Mark. I liked your humorous touches as well. You certainly know how to get people into discussion whether heated or no. I am grateful for this info and will be using it in the future when I come into contact with a gay basher (which is almost inevitable considering the vote in NC coming up). I hope more people will read this article and look closely at themselves before speaking out against one group or another.

Gary-come to Greensboro! We would love to have you and your partner. Good Luck!

Although the material was not new to me and has been tackled years ago (Walter Wink and Daniel Helminiak come to mind)it was very succinct (not so terribly long either!), careful and another good essay on the topic. Thanks, Mark, for writing and posting.

Roger Smith, thank you as well! You were willing to post long and earnestly for all our benefit, though perhaps especially for MJ and the people whose lives his words may touch.

I think it just took almost two full hours for me to read the article and all the comments. For the most part, I tend to avoid these discussions because I find them just too disheartening. When I was in my late teens a Christian "friend" put a copy of Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth," in my hands, the better to scare the hell out of me. The stuff I read there was so out of sync with my experience of God and of other theological points of view I'd read (I've been a follower and student of the Rabbi Jesus since I was about 14 yrs old) that I undertook a serious study of the scriptures Lindsey cited and a whole new world of religious chicanery was opened for me. That's the "down" side. The "up" side is I was set on course to get as much education as possible with which to arm myself and those I loved (including and especially God and my neighbors)against religious bigotry.

All that to say, many thanks to Mark and Roger and everyone else who've joined the fray and continue to sit down and write in order to stand up for what they beleive, and have carefully researched to be true.

I've been a born-again Christian since I was seven years old. I grew up in the most conservative churches in the south and always wondered why I was so evil because I liked boys more than I liked girls. I definitely did not choose to like boys - because of the kids around me would have kicked my butt all over the place if they knew what was going through my head - even as a very small young child. As I grew up, I went to church every time the doors were open. I read the Bible, I took any chance I could get to get closer to the Lord because I had been taught homosexuals were going to hell and I certainly did not want to go to hell.
When I graduated high school I went to a large university hoping to find a girl that would make me straight. I met the most wonderful woman in the world and we got married right before I graduated. But it did not make me straight. I loved her more than anything else on this planet, but sex with her was a struggle because it just was not enjoyable to me.
i struggled all 26 years we were married. I went to two different Bible colleges and all kinds of support groups to try and change my thought patterns, my habits, etc. My wife knew of my struggles and did her best to be supportive and helpful. Two years ago I came out to my daughters...and they already knew.
M wife and I were married for 26 years and she passed away about a month ago. My life is not the same without her, but my sexual orientation has never changed because I WAS BORN THIS WAY!

You can debate science all you want - but for those of us who are born gay there is no doubt whatsoever that God made us this way for some reason. And you can hate us if you like, and use your Bible scriptures to condemn us as much as you want, but it won't change what God did.

I struggled for years with thoughts of suicide and self-loathing because I did not want to hurt God or those I loved so dearly. And you "Christians" who continue to promote your hateful rhetoric towards gay people have no clue how much damage you do. How many young people have to die or go through what I went through to open your eyes.
I serve a God that loves, in fact He loved me so much, He sent His Son to die on a cross for me. But you can't see past your hate to see the love.
God makes gay people too, DEAL WITH IT!

Really appreciated the article in its easy to read style, approachable humor, & common sense. I am a pastor & involved with many of those people who make up statistics about suicidal, self-hating , God-loving folk of all ages. I have forwarded this to them. Your approach, I pray, will be helpful & healing for them. Thank you.

Gary " I wonder at what age a heterosexual chooses..."
To answer your question sir there is this subject we have been working on throughout human history,its called science. The jury is still hung on the subject matter within the religious community, however us rational, logical humans take to it quite naturally. You should look into it. The scientists at their fancy laboratories have what they call empirical evidence, based on facts for the layman, that concludes that there is a gene in every reproducing creatures DNA that determines their sexual preferences. Therefore it is not a choice for anyone, ever. Just think, the odds of you Gary being born a homosexual were somewhere around 1:2.75. What would your life be like had you been? Take a look and you might find that there is beauty everywhere. Even in a picture of two men holding hands.

I appreciate the time you took to write this article. I am gay, made that way by God. But I wouldn't say that everyone that wrestles with the passages and comes to the conclusion that same-sex intercourse isn't God's best for a person is a "Bible Clobberer" or "hateful" or "oppressors" or "trying to play God" etc.

So everything you said about gay-bashing and God-sanction hatred I concur with...it is anathema to claim God's stamp of approval on it. But what are we who take the verses you explain with recontextualization, trajectories, or directions, or re-readings, etc, a little more applicable across the board suppose to do? I mean how can we respond in the most loving natural non-judgmental way and still read that orgasmic same-sex relationship isn't God's best?

I feel like we have to present a godly loving way for Christians to respond who still believe in isn't God's best, until they can wrestle to a clearer understanding (if they ever do).

I guess I would argue for the Bible a more appropriate response from "bible thumpers" (who will not stop seeing "a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman" as just that with no contextualization) rather than arguing the actual issue itself. But I don't know if we can encourage them in a more biblical response to the people if we label them with all kinds of pejorative accusatory names and cliches. Not that they may not "deserve" it, but shall we employ their tactics to overcome?

Rambling, I know. Sorry about that. Again thanks for your article.

We are in prayer for this minister and his flock. May God Bless You. The Lord judges all his children for their sins. Its not our job to judge each other. Pastors are held accountable for their flock. The Bible is to be used as a life manual not justification for our sins. God is not about religion but about our personal relationship with him. This article disturbed me because of the confusion behind it. Confusion is not of God but the Devil. He is very deceitful and will even use children of God to include Pastors to lead others astray. Read the word and the truth behind it, don't be complacent with God's instruction. Sin is Sin and none greater than the other. Same sex is sin just like lying, cussing, judging, pride-fullness and always will be no matter how the words are bent. I love my gay friends just the same and pray just the same but it is still sin just like my sins of road rage, and idolatry when my children have been put before God just to name a few.

Could you be specific about which verses 'prohibit' the rhythm method of birth control? Is it the one about no sex during the 'monthlies' or some other?
Thank you

Well, there's not a thing wrong with talking about it, and many of you on both sides have done that very, very well. There is something very important to remember, and that is: when we live our lives, we are not choosing everyone elses lifestyle. That's not really any of my business. It is also Judgement, and "Judge not, lest thee be judged". There was a fellow earlier who(among other things) said that he wouldn't be surprised if he saw gay people in heaven. It's somewhat trite, but it's a decent attitude - It's between the individual and God, not us and the individual and God. We must never underestimate the magnitude of God's power, mercy and justice. All things are possible with God. Our culture has become hyper-sexualized via media influences and obsession - sex sells and we've been selling the hell out of it. Carnality, lust and promiscuity/sex without love - Gay or Straight, this is not a pious lifestyle. Gay people cheat on each other, as do straight people. One thing that I also saw in all of this is that in-spite of persecution and judgement, many gay people STILL want to have a relationship with God. And frankly, if a homosexual wants to have a relationship with God, they don't need anyone's permission. Why should anyone be disenchanted from seeking communion with God? Furthermore, anyone who says homosexuality is a choice has latent homosexual tendencies: I am straight. I didn't choose that, I'm crazy about women, in fact, I need to keep that in check a bit. I try to justify my promiscuity and lust with various things in scripture - such as Solomon's not so subtle love of women in the songs he wrote describing their sensual beauty. I drink too much too, but Solomon, gifted in wisdom said "drink and be merry with your friends, for all else is vanity." But this is me trying to use scripture to justify my own life. In my heart, I know that I seek to be good in the eyes of God, and I fail. But I ask God for forgiveness, and for faith, and for wisdom. Homosexuals who want to be good in the eyes of God are just the same. There is no sin in love. And if you seek the truth, you will find it. So keep seeking, folks, with an open heart. Faith is a gift from God, and if you still have it even while being a rational person in a corrupt world; you can move mountains.

This is all very good, and I agree with the intent and the outcome... I just would like to push the issue of the law a little further. The Law is not just a bunch of nice rules that worked 3000 years ago. It's something far more important and perfect than that. Because we know God in our hearts, he can explain this to us. The trouble is not, is this or that a sin? The trouble is Christians fundamentally misunderstand what sin is and why the law exists. The first sin was eating from the tree, right? There we acquired for ourselves what rabbis call the evil inclination. The evil inclination is not evil, but it is our will to do, it encompasses both our right and wrong choices. If we decide whats wrong and right for ourselves, we sin. The law shows us that even when we choose right, we sin. Sin is not breaking God's law. Sin is choosing between right and wrong.. to will to do. But resting (as in Hebrews 4) in God's will to do and letting him choose what is wrong and right for each individual is righteousness. So if I eat shrimp or work on the Sabbath or whatever through God's leading and his dwelling in me, I don't sin in doing those things. Jesus came to heal us of our need to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action. As Paul said, I do not even judge myself. I love that ppl are standing up for the rights and freedoms of others in the name of Christ and I am right there with you. I just dont think you have to undermine the validity of Christ in written form to do so.

I've written several times on this topic before, and you've covered most of the points well. One thing to add is that the intentions of the Romans 1 passage was not as much about sexuality at all but about the cult of Cybele that was extremely prevalent in Rome.

Take a look at the entirety of chapter 1. Here's the order of topics Paul brings up:

1. Righteous will live by faith.

2. There is evidence of a Creator.

3. These "Christians" in Rome knew of the Creator and dismissed Him and worshipped the creation instead. Note the images they are worshipping - "a mortal human being" - one person, and many animals, and all of the animal symbols match up perfectly to Cybele.

4. Because of their earthly desires (the cult of Cybele was a fertility cult, so the earthly desire was fertility, which was linked to prosperity), God let them do what they wanted to do.

5. What's a natural requirement for procreation? Men with women, but "men abandoned natural relations with women" and everyone chose to try the homosexual rituals of Cybele, which were unnatural in the terms that they did not result in procreation. And the result? They were in "error" and they received the "due penalty" for it: no babies!

6. Not only were their efforts fruitless, but the cult led into all sorts of other sin. These were people who called themselves Christians who ignored God's instructions not to mix faiths (bring a false god into the spiritual relationship), but decided it was okay to look the other way and even approve of others doing it.

Of course this little article does not address the reasons Catholics and Orthodox believe that same sex sexual relations are outside of God's design.

Since both of these groups are not Sola Scriptura they would look at the arguments presented here and conclude it is just Protestants fighting over Scripture without anybody of authority to interpret it. And they would conclude this disagreement over Scripture just supports their case (as well as myriad other Protestant disagreements).

The reasons why Catholics and Orthodox reject same sex sexual relations is something they call tradition. To Protestants it would be called history.

The argument is from their perspective would be why should we accept a 50 year old interpretation of Scripture when the church for 2000 years has held the opposite. Are you saying that the church for almost 2000 years was wrong and we are just finding this out in the last 50 years.

Now I must be a heretical Protestant because I find this reasoning to be convincing.

So what is being said is that the Bible is wrong? 1 Corinthains 6:9 state:

"9 Do you not know that sinful men will have no place in the holy nation of God? Do not be fooled. A person who does sex sins, or who worships false gods, or who is not faithful in marriage, or men who act like women, or people who do sex sins with their own sex, will have no place in the holy nation of God." (NLV)

or

"9Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals," (GW)

are not right and that the Bible is wrong? Personally, I believe God, or Paul from which God gave him the words to say, is saying homosexuality is a sin. The Reverand isn't speaking the truth.

Romans 1:26-27 states:
" 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." (NIV)

There is something wrong when someone does not see that Paul is talking about homosexuality being a sin.

so if we can't "pick and choose" what we don't like, how do we possibly comply with all the bibles teachings? it has been raised previously, but why don't we stone our disobedient children? if the message is timeless, if it's morality is always current, why do we choose to ignore these? ok, jesus has removed the necessity for us to make these judgements on each-other, but wouldn't we still need to believe this was a RIGHT thing? I don't know about anyone else, but I find the idea itself abhorrent, as would any modern court. isn't it time just to admit that the bible was written by fallible men, without any special insight outside of there own time frame, inspired by god but not beyond the realm of making mistakes, in short not inerrant? isn't it possible that they did their best to relate something fantastic and beyond the scope of their(indeed anyones) abilities to completely convey? how many times did jesus get angry at his disciples inability to understand or "keep up" with his lessons? I think the simple reoccurring themes of love for god, each other, all things is enough to discern the way we should act. oh, and I think most homosexuals would be happy enough to be left alone by a good deal of christians.

I was contemplating other good reasons to accept gay people with Gods love after reading your article and had this thought;
If sexual orientation is SO important as the right wing makes it out to be, then why did God NOT include it in the 10 commandments? Maybe there were 3 tablets with 15 commandments and Moses dropped one as in the Mel Brooks movie?

Here's my problem, i don't believe that homosexuality is right, but just like in the article, the scriptures that say it isn't, are including in a looong list of sins. But that's just what they are sins! So don't try to find justification for your sin. It's wrong! Stop trying to find scriptures referring to your sin as wrong, simply because of how old the bible is, if we look up a scripture about smoking weed, OF COURSE you won't find it!
But nonetheless sin is sin. You can't get mad because someone is calling it outn homosexuals believe they are ok, but its is still a sin. And I highly doubt that LGBTQ's are repenting for their homosexual sins. Because they believe they were born like that and all this nonsense. You can born with more testerone than others or more estrogen than others but you are not born with a sexual orientation! Wtheck. I can't wait for Jesus to come back and set things straight. Just make sure you are repenting for your sins everyday everyone. I'm repenting after this post because I could be wrong, but Lord knows this is pure honesty from me.

I must say I have read articles containing the slant you have on this topic before. As a redeemed homosexual, I have to say I find it a bit troubling.

Today the world and God's children are at great risk. Many are taking God's Word and seeking to reshape it around self, rather than shaping ourselves around God.

Allow me to immediately point out that I was born naturally mapped to be gay. So does that mean that it's all good...since I was born that way? A lot of people were born with bad tempers and had natural tendencies to destroy or kill. So does that mean it's all okay since it came to them naturally? Obviously not.

We were all born with sinful inclinations. Homosexuality is only one.

So ... we have this incredible awesome loving heavenly father. He provided us His Word as a guide for our lives. If He loves us so very very much...which I believe He does; do you think He just wanted to keep it a secret that homosexuality is really part of His plan for us when everywhere same sex relations are mentioned it is on a negative connotation? Does He just love heterosexuals more?

Did He design heterosexuals for naturally functioning sex with all the properly designed equipment, but leave homosexual sex to use something simply designed for waste because He couldn't figure out what else to do for them? Not the loving God I know.

Are we so busy trying to figure out what we want instead of looking to what God asks of us? That doesn't mean that we have to look to be heterosexual. In fact there is no discussion of sexual orientation in His Word. That was brought on by modern psychology.

Our identity in Jesus was never meant to be sexual. Sexual identity is the result of Satan's deceptiveness and confusing our focus. Jesus provided sex as an intimacy which He clearly describes between a man and a woman. And yes you can read how men and women abused it and thousands were even put to death for their misinterpretations of its design.

In the modern age, due to the continued sexual focus and media blitz Satan organized, sex and sexual orientation has had a billboard effect on society today. Never would this have been in God's plan for us. Because it draws the focus to self ... instead of Jesus and living our life for Him.

Where I read about gay rights justification...I read about all the sins other people are committing... so as to justify the sin of homosexuality. God's plan for redemption doesn't work that way. It's not a matter of who is sinning less or more. It's about who is willing to live a life of self denial which He calls us to throughout His Word, and live a life for Jesus.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us who won't be in heaven. Then the good news tells us that "such were some of you." Not such "are" some of you.

The message from God today is one of love for the gay or homosexual. ... or any other sinner. He calls for us to acknowledge His truth. The price He paid for us with His blood. So that we would be drawn to Him, confess our sins, weaknesses and temptations and accept His forgiveness ... live in obedience and accept the gift of eternal life.

Jesus provides only two orientations in His Word. Being oriented to the world and all that it has to offer ... including rewriting His Word. Or living for Jesus and being oriented to the cross.

You may not be able to choose how you are born. But Jesus knew you while you were still in the womb and He offers you the power of choice. Everyone of us has the power to choose. Not always how we feel, but what will we choose as our behavior ... based on the knowledge He freely and clearly makes available to us.

It is my prayer that those like me who have lived in a gay/homosexual lifestyle... will invite the Holy Spirit to lead them in their study and open His Word. He promises truth. And He promises the truth will set you free.

No one has the right to tell you what to do. But if you ask Jesus...He will show you. Our God does not hide truth or His love. It would not be a loving God who would not represent loving same sex relations if that were in His plan for mankind. That would be a vengeful God.

Sadly, the writer is way off biblically. I don't know this writer, but assume he has good intentions. Even so:

1. He quotes Rob Bell as a like-minded authority. From Bell's writings, it does not seem he could be a Christian. When asked to explain the gospel, he gave an answer that had no Jesus, no cross, no sin, no repentance, nothing. Bell said this: "I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big."

There is nothing saving about those words. Therefore, as Paul said in Galatians 1, let him be accursed (1:8-9).

2. His view of Scripture is flawed. He bases his assertions on that fact that, "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality." That is a classic denial of inspiration used all the time by people looking for a way to promote sin and error. But God says, "All Scripture is God-breathed...." (2 Tim 3:16). A correct view of inerrancy demonstrates that Gen-Rev is authoritative.

3. Notice his flawed argumentation. His premise for arguing FOR homosexuality is this: the Church has pushed homosexuals away. So his authority upon which truth is based is not truth, but how people feel. Our goal is not to make people feel hated, to be sure. However, our goal IS to "speak the truth in love" (Eph 4:15), regardless how the audience receives it. We are not here to tickle ears (2 Tim 4:3).

4. His hermeneutics are flawed. He says that the Bible validates polygamy. His text for asserting his point is narrative, through and through. Hermeneutically, you cannot use narrative/descriptive passages to create a timeless precept. Instead, you must use prescriptive/commands. Nowhere does the Bible validate polygamy. And neither is an argument from silence acceptable. In fact, when looking at commands/prescriptive texts, it does the opposite (i.e. Deut 17, Eph 5). In fact, Gen 2 makes it clear that God's design is 1 man, 1 woman.

Whenever someone is flawed hermeneutically, this is going to have all sorts of disastrous results. If you haven't yet, I would strongly encourage you to take the hermeneutics study in CNI (or get Matt's notes or mine). I also teach a serminary-level course on hermeneutics in the church if you'd be interested. 2 guys are taking it right now.

5. His authority in the homosexuality issue is science. This is disastrous. He says: Sexual orientation? Not a choice. (There are those who still argue otherwise, but the science is clear, so I'm not even having that discussion).

So, if it comes down to science or God's word, he's going w/ God's word. I am willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality could be genetic. Even so, there is no verse that says, "Ok, you can sin if its genetic." In a sense ALL sin is genetic. We are sinful by nature. Even so, genetic or not, God calls us to repent and trust in Christ. In doing so, we get the Holy Spirit, who empowers us to overcome sin. No, we will not be perfect. Yes, we can be sanctified of sinful pattersn. I really want/feel drawn towards not wanting to share the gospel sometimes and towards lusting after women in my mind. Does that mean since, it seems like I can't help it sometimes, that I can go ahead and do it? No. The genetic argument, too, is flawed.

6. The exegesis of Romans 1 is so flawed, I don't know where to begin. He actually argues against himself. His point is that the word, "natural" is "going against who you were made to be." Exactly. Go back to Genesis 2 and we can see how God made us to be: 1 man, 1 woman. Jesus even restates that in Matt 19:4-6.

In this article's case, the saying is true: "For some men, straying from [truth] have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the law, even though they do not understand what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions" (1 Tim 1:6-7), and, "for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires..." (2 Tim 3:3).

Please reconsider the view above. It is not in-line w/ God's word. God is good, and through repentance and faith in Christ, he gives us the Spirit to see the truth. All are fallen and sinful. Our good, loving God saves by faith in Christ.

Eric, you claim that the church does not act unloving toward homosexuals; that it's just something "they" don't want to hear that makes them unloving. I disagree from my own experience. I was a very active member of my church and was bring the love of God to those I served. A group of new members came in and found out I was gay (I was not flaunting anything that would pinpoint the stigma). They did everything in their power to ruin my reputation, to discredit what I was called to do at the church and convinced the pastor to have me and my partner ostracized from the church. We did NOTHING to warrant any attention from our behavior as a gay couple because we didn't do anything inappropriate in front of anyone. However, this group in doing this broke about every commandment in order to see us removed. If that isn't unloving and hostile, I don't know what is. Until you get to know something personally about a gay person, you have no clue what you're talking about. Throwing out Scripture only separates you from getting to love others. Jesus was about relationships and He wants us to love others.

Thank you for writing on my and others behalf. It's a very painful thing to be told there is something wrong with something that is part of who you are. It's like being told you have the wrong skin color and if you don't change it, well then good luck in Hell. Even worse that the idea of Hell, is the hell one experiences when living in the shame and hopelessness that you are taught is what your worth. It's so painful to have to choose between God and sexuality when your sexuality, try as you may just does not change. I've read and explored both Christian perspectives regarding homosexuality. I understand that The Word kills, if Love is not the backdrop. In the end, all I have is my own experience. Eventually I had to go straight to The Source. I asked God that if this was something I needed to change about myself, then please show me the way.What I heard from God is this: "I am not in the business of changing a single speck of you. I created you and I love you just exactly as you are. Now love yourself." I have been working on that ever since. No easy task on my own but He keeps guiding the way. I don't hate myself anymore. I quit believing the lies I was taught, or at least I do not take them as seriously as I used to. One of my favorite thing about Jesus is that he never really got to angry with the people on the street. He became angry when dealing with religious people who disguised greed and bigotry as morality. True morality is not given by one person to another. It's given by God in a very intimate way. I know what God asks of me so I don't take it too seriously these days when a misinformed "Christian" tells me otherwise. The hard part is loving the people that appear to hurt me by attempting to govern my rights. But I am working on it. I am working on by continuing to ask for what seems fair while also letting the world process at it's own pace. I imagine that same sex marriage will be legal and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. God has always been a God of justice.

The greater perspective on this discussion is that people are arguing over the very elective nature of scriptural interpretation that started with Jesus, who chastised religious leaders for turning scripture into law. So those who throw down Leviticus or Paul or whatever condemnation of homosexuality they choose ignore the reality that Christianity has always been an evolving faith tradition. It's the bigots, zealots and literalists who try to fix things in time and define sin contextually rather than considering its traits as a relative phenomenon. Are we to castigate a mixed gender individual for being born that way? Or accuse a person of sin because their grade of sexual orientation slides toward the same sex? These are accusations borne of ignorance, and as in other "laws" about sin formerly abided in the bible, they should be discarded as anachronistic. Or is that too grown up a version of faith for some to grasp. Maybe so.

PSYCHOLOGY AND HOMOSEXUALITY

So many things wrong with this article and where to begin.... I will start here; you can't explain a behavior through science. What I come to find that science of biology or any other science (besides psychology, because it is serving its purpose of going into behaviors) contradicts itself and thus is invalid source in the whole homosexuality thing. The definition of Psychology is this,
"1) the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, esp. those affecting behavior in a given context.2) the mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group." So I am going to use psychology, When someone that STRUGGLES with homosexuality (Because they are not a sin), they have many of these characteristics in common and it's usually more than one of these four following characteristics. 1) Being over-sensitive 2) The role of the father and mother (What I mean by this is when the mother is over protective and the father doesn't really care) 3) Being Abused (Mentally, Physically or Sexually) 4) Puberty (When we are younger, we are searching for a role model for our lives, someone to go to and come alongside of us. But when said person doesn't get that person and hit puberty that want and need for a role model turns into something erotic. Because that need was not fulfilled before puberty.)
See we assume that said person were "born" this way, but since a lot of the things that are on the list usually happens when the said person is a kid, that is an false assumption being made.
And then let’s throw God into the mix. Why would he allow this? Well, we live in a fallen world. Adam and Eve let sin and suffering in this world, because of the disobedience. So that is why homosexuality and other sins exist. But God being so Loving, He sent his son on the Cross to save the world, not condemn it. And all will be saved that accept that gift and have a relationship with God.
But it still doesn't explain why? Well, see God is everywhere, and he is the alpha and omega, so God is beyond time. So God already knows what is going to happen. And let's bring in the sin nature, we all have sins that we struggle with more than others. But then you can argue "This is proof that we are born this way." Not Really. See, all sins are developed through imitating others and through life experiences.
Now let's bring this full-circle to culture today. Cultural assumptions are that the said person is "born" this way. Cultural assumptions say that you are this, if you struggle with this. Cultural Assumptions say you can't help it.
Well, I already address the born part. The said person is not a sin; see if they have a relationship with God, they are a Child of God. See, you may struggle with lying, but you don't call yourself a liar. It's along those same lines, they are both sin, but with the cultural today, it is welcomed to do both (Lie to get ahead in your career, to avoid conflict, etc. and with homosexuality being increasingly more welcomed every day.) And we can help it; there are practical steps to help. Go to counseling, tell your closest friends to keep you accountable, Pray and be reliant on God. I have personally see friends that struggled with homosexuality, have victory over it.
But then why do so many struggles with it? Well, to be honest, they may not see an issue with it or they might but they rely on themselves with trying to get rid of it. Because see, through the imitation of others and through personal experience, we brought ourselves to sins and said person to homosexuality. And let's attempt to stop sinning on our own shall we? So 99.9% of America lies. So my challenge for you is to stop lying. Period. Even little light lies to prevent feeling from getting hurt. You can maybe go 3 days tops without lying on your own strength, but eventually you are going to lie again. Then you may say "Homosexuality and Lying is not the same thing." If you go back to the beginning to the definition of psychology, it observes behavior. Homosexuality and lying are both behaviors, no matter how you spin it, thus the same thing. But when we legitimately rely on God, we can sin significant less, including homosexuality. Does NOT mean it’s going to disappear completely, but it becomes less of a hindrance to your life through relying on God. See, I will explain the justification-sanctification-glorification. When we accept a relationship with God, we are justified in front of God, thus Justification. We can come to God just as we are, but we are not expected to stay the same after we come to God. This is the process called sanctification. This is where we let God change us, according to his will. And through the changes we go to according to his perfect will, we are able to glorify God.

JUDGEMENT AND LOVE and knowing the difference.

So the main purpose o

Jacob...I don't struggle with homosexuality, at all! In fact, I'm quite good at it, at this point...maybe even an expert. For all the people you know who are struggling, tell them "practice makes perfect!"

Unfortunately, all of Christianity could be lumped into "why would you want to be part of something that hates you or condemns you", so that is not an easy out. As a Christian, I have to accept that God hates the evil that I do, even though he allows it. I "want" to hate evil and my own inclinations in that direction but find myself constantly doing bad things, as Paul says. People have to decide for themselves whether homosexuality falls in that class. I think it does, but I"m willing to be refuted. What is "bad" about homosexuality? It never (and the series questions and positions this point) results of itself in new life. Now we have to address "purpose" (continuace of species) vs. "preference" (I'm attracted to my same sex.) Who gets to judge that? I'm watching Battlestar Galactica with a similar question. Why are Cylon-equivalent humans any better or worse than humans? Don't they (and gays) have souls too?? But aren't they machines, subject to the vagaries of their "programming", like we talk about gay folks having?

Your good work should be a positive blessing to this issue.
Good job & Blessings!

I thought Jesus summed it up when He said quite unequivocally, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

After all, "Who are you to judge another masters servant?"

Reading this article and ensuing discussion has been very interesting as it has provided a variety of perspectives on the topic. The general trend of this conversation has seemed to be the morality of homosexuality, not the issue of legalizing gay marriage in America, so this comment may be slightly off-subject.

Regardless of one's personal opinions on the morality of gay marriage, it is difficult to argue that it should be illegal in modern American society. To quote the first amendment of the US Constitution (as is so often done), "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Arguments opposing marriage between two members of the same sex often base their opposition on religious ideas - for plenty of examples, see the above conversation on homosexuality. However, not all Americans live by the Bible, and it cannot be taken as the definitive word for secular law. Integrating a religious argument into American law seems to violate the first amendment, in that it helps to establish a religion as first in American society, or as one with compulsory allegiance. People would be required to accept a religious definition of marriage, which in America is not a purely religious act, as there is paperwork to be done at the courthouse. I have also heard many arguments about violations of the "sanctity" of marriage - meaning it's holiness or sacredness. Again, this is a religious argument.

Regardless of personal opinions about homosexuality, I find it difficult to justify the argument that gay marriage should be illegal in American society. Perhaps the concept violates an institution that is held sacred by a great majority of Americans, but then again, so does burning the American flag, and yet, the right to do so has been upheld by the US Supreme Court (see Texas v. Johnson - 1989). While the sanctity of the flag is not a concept frequently discussed in churches, it is certainly an ideological concept, as American school children pledge their allegiance both to the flag and the republic for which it stands. Some may find desecration of an American flag offensive and feel that it violates the sacredness that Americans hold for the flag and the ideas behind it, however that does not prohibit others from doing it. Some may find marriage between two men or two women offensive, but that should not prohibit them from doing it. While the United States may embrace many ideals that overlap with the teachings of major world religions, in this case, prohibitions against gay marriage based on the Bible's (or any other religious text's) definition of marriage between a man and a woman violate the first amendment of the US Constitution with respect to the establishment of a religion.

One thing that may help you is to know that Romans is a letter from a minister named Paul. Not actually god's word, but a human being interpretation of God's word.

I feel sorry for all the gay haters out there. When they die, they will have to explain to God why they HATED in his name.

Dward...everything hinges on consent. An animal cannot consent to a sexual act. Legally, minors cannot consent to a sexual act. However, two adults(or more) CAN legally consent to a sexual act. Therein lies the difference.

Great article! I am currently working on a similar piece and I learned some new things from your article, especially in regards to the Greek text, because my Greek is a little rusty these days.

Another point to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin is that Jewish law differentiates between acts of ritual impurity and sin. Killing someone is a violation of moral law - it is a sin. Eating pork is a violation of ritual law - it is not a sin, it just results in ritual uncleanness. The word "abomination" that is used in Leviticus to describe a man lying with a man as with a woman is from the root t'b, which is used in every other instance in the Torah to describe something that is RITUALLY impure, NOT a moral violation.

And I think we can all see that Christians have, by and large, rejected the Jewish ritual law. We eat pork and bacon (also described in the Torah as being t'b - detestable or an abomination), we can have sex while the woman is still ritually unclean from her menstrual cycle (during/for a week after her period), we wear clothes of mixed kinds of cloth, we plant different crops side-by-side in the same field, men trim their beards, etc. etc. etc.

"God created of Adam's body, a partner for him. It is the first time God created a human being to come out of a man's body. And... He created both Adam and his partner to be equal partners... both born adult. So, here we have an adult who came out of Adam. Both of them created equally out of dust. Nevertheless, a creation out of an adult male. Sounds sexual, doesn't it?" " Isn't it neat? First a man gave birth to another human body... as adults. But, in the new program, Man entered woman, came out as a man, but his way to live forever was going to be through that Y-line and that being coming out of the woman as a vulnerable, helpless baby?" It wasn't sexual,man has never given birth to another human being, Eve didn't come out of Adam, she was made FROM him...his rib, and Adam and Eve wasn't just two consenting adults, they were husband and wife, joined by God !

Jesus said this in Aramaic:
“For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” Matthew 19:12 Lamsa.
The Aramaic word m'haym-ne (plural) is translated as eunuchs here, but the root meanings of this word in this form are: trusted ones, faithful ones and believers. These "trusted ones" were also servants such as chamberlains. In addition, m’haym-ne meant homosexual males because they were trusted around women that were married or were not of their family. They weren’t a threat in committing adultery with another man’s wife nor in having pre-marital sex with the women in general.

The born eunuchs in the above verse from Matthew are referring to homosexual males. The second part of the verse says: "and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men;" These are the castrated eunuchs. Also, the eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men were those appointed by the king to be servants in the king’s palace. Some of these were prisoners of war, captives, and exiles (Isaiah 39:7 Lamsa). The third part of this verse should be read as: "and there are believers who made themselves castrated ones (or celibate ones) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." The word m’haym-na (singular) means: a homosexual, a castrated male and a believer in the Bible. The last part of the verse is referring to believers that castrated themselves (or perhaps became celibate) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

This is one of the best and most brillant pieces of written material on this subject that I have read THANKYOU..
I am a lesbian and a christian...I am proud of who I am...I was made this way by God Himself...

Stan Jones, the man who argues for reparative therapy for LGBT folk, even though he admits that most are not helped, but rather harmed by it. A great man to be referencing.

The only thing this man needs to admit, in my opinion, is that he is an idiot. Or maybe I'll ask him to do that tomorrow while I'm on campus at Wheaton, where he works.

I think you'll find the arguments in this post I wrote a bit ago relevant. I hope you'll find something in it that will help amplify your point. I *love* that you go back to the Greek and its historic usage in your explanations. If only more folks would do so!

http://arsskeptica.com/wordpress/2012/02/29/four-commandments/

I see no theologians ( anybody with a real clue what the hell they are talking about anyway ) on here with anything negative to say. Just the normal knee-jerk ultra-conservatives with the same old crap. He just proved you WRONG. GET OVER IT !!!!!!!

Thank you!

I will be linking this on my own site and sharing it widely.

PS- did you know there is an issue with your Facebook SHARE button? Doesn't work.

Em

I think this issue is indeed handled unbiblically by many christians that leads to segregation, isolation and marginalization. And the blood of Christ has atoned for those who truly believe, repent and are converted regardless of their sexual orientation.
HOWEVER:
The OPC just gets it right: "However, In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul uses four words to describe people who commit various sexual sins. First he uses a general word for those who sin sexually (pornoi). Next he speaks more specifically of those who break the marriage covenant (moichoi). Then he uses two words to describe those who engage in homosexual activity. The first word, translated in the NIV as "male prostitutes," comes from a root that means "soft," and hence refers to those who are effeminate (malakoi). The other word graphically refers to "those who lie in bed with a man as with a woman" (arsenokoitai). (taken from OPC.org)

Also interesting how a former gay rights leader quits homosexuality

http://www.wnd.com/2007/07/42379/

If it is a condemnation of rape, then why does it command people to kill the RAPE VICTIM? Does that make any sense? It says to kill BOTH MEN!

If Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out for not providing hospitality rather than threatening rape, that makes it even worse. These two cities full of people (of all ages, I might add, as cities always contain all ages of people) for having "bad manners" to their guests?

This is a book that's full of genocide and slavery. Entire nations are wiped out at the command of God, he tells them to go into cities and slay every living thing. He gives them rules for how to keep people as slaves, and even how to keep each other as slaves.

Christian's that take the Bible as dogma are mostly uneducated people who have not learned how to think for themselves. Try and tell them Adam and Eve did not exist as real people, they go ballistic.

So if a homosexual behavior is not an act of choice but a healthy expression of how you are made then how can you really find fault with someone who is born with a felt need or genetic tendency for any behavior.

People are "genetically wired" with a propensity for violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, sexual predation, pedophilia and a number of other behaviors that are destructive and unhealthy. Would the clear mind conclude that saying someone is "born a certain way" does not mean that acting on that genetic or psychologial predisposition is necessarily good for that person. My personal experience with 3 childhood friends who lived a homosexual lifestyle (2 died from AIDS and the third is strung out on drugs) and a reading of the latest CDC report on the dangers of male/male sexaul (MSM) acts leads to the simple coclusion that this MSM behavior is both unclean and unhealthy. I would much rather live a fulfilling celibate life than to expose myself and the ones I love to such a dangerous lifestyle. Forget the what the bible says and use your brains.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

: In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.

Loved you "take" on this. You added information that I hadn't seen presented that way before.

It is really sad that there whole books on the "Bible and Homosexuality" , hundreds of workshops, and all kinds of posting on Usenet, Goofgle, chat rooms that could presented only to have anti-GBLT /Religious Right ignore them.

Regarding Romans 1:26-28: huh? The passage says that the lust of men for men and women for woman, contrary to their nature, was a punishment for the sinful way they had been living. It doesn't say anything about the lust itself being a sin.

http://wordofawoman.com/2012/04/16/homosexuality-and-god-conclusion/

For further reading.

Here's a fairly strong analysis of Romans 1:26-27 that addresses a number of the points above. It concludes that Paul was in fact condemning homosexuality as a perversion of God's design for sexual relations in the passage.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf

I got one question, if there are no standards to marriage, and people can marry whoever they want in light of your position on men in the Old Testament being able to have concubines or several wives, IS IT ALRIGHT FOR A BOY TO MARRY HIS SISTER, OR FOR A MAN TO MARRY A CHILD AS THEY ALLOW IN ISLAM? MUSLIM MEN ARE MARRYING NINE YEAR OLD GIRLS. If we donot have some type of standard, ANYTHING GOES.

Well if the state and the people decided that fostering the family units that typically give rise to new citizenry was desirable and preferable, than they certainly have a reason. Legitimate? Admittedly debateable. But the state doesn't "have to" offer to change it's definition of marriage. I'm willing to recognize a right to unions with certain privileges as a legitimate social compromise to an evolving issue. I just don't want it called marriage, which has distinctly traditional religious meaning to me. The marriage bed, as it were, is where procreation is encouraged and recognized. Love is great, and we should all "love one another", but I don't think "romantic love" is a requirement for marriage. So this argument that we "love each other" and therefore should be allowed to marry kind of misses the mark for me.

Who gets to say what God wants? I get to say what God wants FOR ME, but I do not get to say what God wants FOR YOU. Right and wrong are relative terms and depend entirely upon your perspective.

Most fundamentalists only see black and white, good and evil. If it doesn't fit into their dogma, then it doesn't exist. Great article. To those who don't think so, please consider this: what would YOU do if YOU couldn't have sex with your spouse again? Would you really remain celibate to please your god or whatever it is you think that your bible says?

Of course you wouldn't remain celibate. Very few people, even the most devoutly religious who believe in chastity can remain celibate for any extended amount of time. And therein lies the crux of the issue: why does anyone get "married" and what's the point of it?

Here's my take: we marry because our bodies yearn for physical contact with another person. Most of us want the opposite sex. A few of us want the same sex. It's all part of the divine plan really. There's nothing wrong with those who want their own gender to have and to hold, any more than there's anything wrong with some people being left handed and others right handed. It's just the way things are. It has nothing to do with choice or lifestyle, sin or willfulness. We all want to be sexual, it's part of our very nature. So marriage affords an acceptable way for all of us to be sexual and not get ourselves or others in trouble. This is as true for straight people or gay people.

The only difference at all is that between straight people, the results of sexual congress can be a baby, tho not in all cases of course. And with some people, not at all, by choice or otherwise. And while the results of hetero marriage may in fact be children, in general, that's not why most people get married: they get married because they want to be physically sexual with someone they love, or possibly anyone who is willing to let them get close enough, love not being actually required. And marriage offers the people involved a way to be sexual and satisfied and no longer need they be generally concerned with sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies. Men, more especially I feel, graduate from being a general menace to society, constantly on the prowl for sexual gratification, to having someone they can cool their needs with legally, lawfully, and acceptably to everyone around them. While some single guys try to bed every woman they can snuggle up to, and often their friends and families are aware of this feat, married guys can do the same thing with their one wife every night and no one gives it a second thought. I don't. Do you?

This, I believe is the main reason folks get married: to settle down. Gone are the days and nights of sexual pent up frustration. The prowling is over. And while, yes, there are some who may continue to prowl after saying "I do" for the most part folks settle down and get busy being productive members of society, earning money, weeding their crab grass, painting their picket fences, and usually raising children. But as I said, children are the results of most healthy marriages, and some unhealthy ones, they usually aren't the cause (shot gun weddings notwithstanding) but children are not the results of all marriages, and everyone accepts and acknowledges this minor aberration with nary a thought or condescending glare. Okay, maybe "some" people glare condescendingly: mothers-in-law hoping for grandchildren perhaps.

Therefore, same-sex marriage falls into the latter category, tho even still, some same-sex couples can and do add children to their marriage. And why shouldn't they? Men who marry women often exhibit nesting qualities. Why shouldn't men who marry men? I think women who marry women shouldn't even be a question regarding nesting, no?

And so, therefore, what the heck is wrong with allowing gay couples to marry legally? They love, they work, they prosper, they build, they produce, and many of them care for and raise exceptional children. Why shouldn't they have the same protections that straight couples have? Gay couples have been known to live together for decades, and then when one of them dies, their families come into the house of their dead son and rape (original sense of the word) rape the surviving spouse of much of what was both of theirs. This surviving spouse often loses their home and much of what the two of them built together over may years and decades just like the years and decades of straight couples who were legally married.

It is unconscionable for us as a society to not recognize the legal status of gay couples. This has nothing to do with God or gods, sins or transgressions. Our nation is based on constitutional law, not the bible, good book as it may be. You want to live under the laws of the bible? Move to the Vatican City.

Why is it that those who accept same-sex marriage can live tolerably with those who can't, while those who don't accept same-sex marriage can't even live with the idea that it's legal?

Oh the "2 of 6" thing: I was my ex-wife's 2nd husband. She's on #6 now. The reference was to the character "7 of 9" in Star Trek.

@2 of 6: Of course, the Borg. Knew it was familiar. Thank you for your thoughtful and well presented post. We are almost in agreement. When you state that we should recognize the legal status of gay couples, I have eventually come around to agree with this point. However, I don't want to call it marriage, and I can't shake the feeling that it is sin. This is not a spiteful stance, but a recogntion, as you mention, that we live in a secular state and I don't have a reasonable stance that I'm comfortable with to dismiss the practice out of hand from a civic point of view. The point I'm unable to let go of is the religious and traditional meaning of the word marriage. Call it civil unions, call it exclusive legal partnerships, whatever, just don't call it marriage. It's a definition thing. You can say that 1.0000000001 is so close to 1 as to not make a difference, I just can't get all the way there and I'm not willing to round off on account of conscience.