A lot of thinking going on in your article. Here is my thought. As much as you like shrimp and like pork, even today, doctors are still saying that fish without fins tend to be scavengers and cannot be totally cleaned. The overconsumption of pork has killed many people. It wasn't God's original idea that man eat meat. Lastly, still today, a man is unable to carry a child. In order for a gay couple to have that child, they must go to a woman to get it done. The command that God gave was to go and increase. That was His perfect will. It would be very very good for people to read what the early church fathers taught. They were a lot closer to Jesus in time. Why did they teach what they did regarding homosexuality? Regarding "HELL", which Rob Bell seems doesn't exist. Because of sin, and His great love, He does let us choose His way or not. As for stoning a disobedient child, the principle still stands today. We get to see it in its opposite window. We see the results of a parent who doesn't discipline the disobedient child. That child trains the ones behind because his disobedience wasn't dealt with. Even though man wrote the bible, one of the central tenants of the faith is that men were inspired by God to write. We have had many years since Christ walked the earth but we should always investigate what was taught by the people who actually gave up their lives for their belief system. Many who walked with Christ taught what they heard from him. We need to stop trying to make wrong right. God has put on the inside of every man that inner knowing of what is right and what is wrong and saying that homosexual behavior is wrong is not gay bashing. Is it bashing to say that people who enjoy sex with an animal are wrong? Is it RIGHT to say 'well this is just a part of who they are." Why is sex with animals still regarded as wrong but sex with same sex changed and is now right. New Testament said that there is homosexuality for a reason. It is allowed because of sin in the earth and man's desire NOT to RETAIN the KNOWLEDGE of the creator in their lifestyle. That would mean submitting to HIS authority.

I agree with our inner right and wrong. I am a christian, and I have alot of gay/lesbian/bisexual friends. I dont judge. But at the same time I dont 100% agree with it. But its not my place to say a word. However, I do think that we know whats right and wrong. Plenty of people endure judgement and criticism in their lives. But those that know they are in the right, they dont waste time trying to justify or make bonified excuses for their choices. Nomatter how bad someone dogs them. If its completely right, why try so hard to convince people its ok....idk... But likewise, cant nobody tell anyone how to live and shouldnt try. Its stupid. I personally think we should all just be happy and get along. <3

Comparing homosexuality with beastiality? Really? You are both vile and cliche.

Please stop and consider what you've said: "God has put on the inside of every man that inner knowing of what is right and what is wrong and saying that homosexual behavior is wrong is not gay bashing."
Well, god makes perfect children, in his image. Some of those children KNOW in their hearts that they were born homosexual or lesbian. Pure simple love, just as clear to them as yours apparently is to you. As a child and teen, it was never anythibut exactly how God made them. They KNOW inside exactly what is right and wrong, and for a homosexual man, a woman is all wrong. Open your eyes to God's love. We know INSIDE too. He made us whole, and in his image too.

You may want to note how an animal cannot consent to sex with a person. That kinda puts it in a WHOLE other bin from homosexuality. So it is considered "wrong" because it is abuse, plain and simple.

Gaye, you seemed to have lost your entire argument when you spoke about children being stoned.

Gaye M - You are a fool and an ignoramus. Thanks to your throwing your stupid vomit so early in the comments, you guaranteed 95% of the people commenting are going to argue with your stupidity. Thanks, you ruined it for me. I am not even going to read the commenting, because you just took it to the level of knee-jerk, rather than any kind of intelligent discussion.

The bible tells you not to eat pork and shellfish because they didn't know about under-cooking and food allergies. Look twice and twice again and then research the historical context of the bible.

"God has put on the inside of every man that inner knowing of what is right and what is wrong"

God may have made this knowledge accessible, but that hardly means that everything people decide to condemn in His name is condemned by Him. Go back 50 years and you can see pictures of the sad fools who thought Jesus didn't want people of different skin colors going to school together, let alone intermarrying.

Ummm, the whole not-eating-pork-and-shellfish thing? That's actually more of a food safety thing than "God's Law". Ever gotten food poisoning from poorly cooked ribs or shrimp? The recent salmonella outbreak in tomatoes? Exactly. Such things were rife at the time so it made sense to avoid such foods as were likely to make you sick.

Now, does having sex with someone you love, who just happens to be of the same gender or transsexual, cause such illnesses? Apart from STD's, of course.

Also, how often do you wear polycotton? Cotton-linen blend? Play American Football? Use contraceptives? Work on the Sabbath? Say "God-dammit!" when something goes wrong? Not kill your kids for not cleaning their room?

Yeah. Think on that one from the naughty/stoning step...

Gaye M. I love it how you pretty much fell right into what this article talks about as being wrong with opponents of homosexuality.

You claim that everyone inherently has the knowledge of what's right and wrong? Well isn't it just lucky as sin for you that you happened to be a member of the faith that has a rule book to tell you (just in case god forgot to put his moral compass inside you).

You talk about how the people writing the bible were inspired by god...if I wrote up a gospel myself right now and told you god inspired me to write it would you believe me? Probably not. But are you saying that god just suddenly decided to take a 2 millennia break from inspiring someone to tell the world about his will?

Also, there are over 100 rules for how to live your life that were dropped when they added the new testament. Are you saying god got it wrong the first time? If you're saying that god meant for it to be changed because it didn't apply the same way anymore then why haven't we gotten a new prophet in the last few centuries to tell us how his will interacts with all the new things in this world?

There are so many parts of the bible that contradict other parts. When talking about Job one might point out that god shows a lot of pride (a deadly sin) in the way he goes about things. He stops protect Job (a good man) simply to prove a point to satan. If god knows everything then doesn't he already know how it would turn out? Then the only reason for him to do it was to prove he was right...and that means that he ruined good people's lives to prove a point.

I don't know about you but if this were describing a person here on earth I wouldn't want to even be friends with him.

You can believe whatever you want...but please don't be so closed minded about it that you look down your nose at other people. I hate to bring it up, but if you were raised in the middle east you'd most likely be muslim and you would believe that just as much as you believe what you're espousing now.

The single biggest reason you believe this (whether you want to admit it or not) is that you were raised this way (most likely) and/or you had some profound experience that caused you to seek religion (again just going with likely scenarios but I don't know you so I can't say for sure). If it's done some good in your life then great, good for you. But don't be so naive that you don't even admit that your belief system is one of many, and while you may have faith that yours is correct, none of you know for certain any more than anyone else. So please don't use it as an excuse to say and do whatever you feel like and not accept any of the responsibility for it.

Jerry:

You have some inherent problems here. While God may have told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, I didn't see anything that said *all* men and women had to do so. Or would you condemn those who never marry and procreate? And what about couples who marry with the explicit intention of never having kids? Or can't because they are 60+ years old? If all of that is OK, then same sex coupling can't be wrong based on the "procreation only" argument.

You also have no clue about evolution. First, humans did NOT evolve from apes; chimps and humans share a common ancestor about 4-ish million years ago [together they share a common ancestor with gorillas about 7-ish million years ago]. So neither humans, nor apes were there.

But, that said, it is quite possible for a sub-group of a species to become genetically isolated enough to evolve differently from the main group such that the main group remains largely unchanged. So your question of "why are there still apes" could be *easily* answered with: there were not enough external pressures on their population to require adaptation.

Finally, I see no conflict with being gay and accepting Jesus as lord and savior. Jesus never talked about being gay or having abortions. He did do a LOT of talking about taking care of the "least of my brothers and sisters"...

For the first thousand years of Christianity, there were no religious marriage ceremonies, it not being any concern nor a matter of the church, but there were secular public ones based on the Roman pagan way of an oath publicly said from one partner to the other. If one male wanted to have a male partner he had only to pronounce publicly in front of the other male and one witness that he would "adopt" him and the mate would then have rights of inheritance (even before one's wife). Only Christian priests were required to be married in the church. Up until in the eleventh-century Byzantine Empire, marriage pronouncement was almost always based on the Roman pagan model, a public oath to one's female partner. Marriage was still not a religious matter. "The relationship between husband and wife and their legal posterity is not part of the Law of Nature, but of the State," from an eleventh-century manual of Byzantine law. Because of the Christian abhorrence of sexual matters, most religionists viewed matrimony not as the mode God chose to people the world, but simply as a control for human stain and weakness: "marriage is the remedy for concupiscence (sexual lust)." Impure couples would not be pure enough to enter a church until 30 days after the union was consummated. Sound familiar? Very similar to the "Toe'vah" impurities of Leviticus laid down in the old Jewish laws made to the Jewish Priests for allowing or not allowing prayer privileges in the Temple. Toe'vahs were cutting one's beard, getting a tattoo, wearing clothes of two different threads, eating pork, eating shrimp, laying with a menstruating woman, man lying with man, the giving of birth impurities and others, notwithstanding and allowing for the inadequacies of the multiples of translating editors from Hebrew to Greek to English or other language translation errors or omissions. Translation is an imperfect art, truth is in the eye of the beholder. To the Hebrew Priests, Toe'vahs were considered "impurities" for the privilege of prayer in the temple, and were not "abominations," as listed in some translations.

That also brings me to the misunderstandings on Sodom. The event takes place among desert peoples. In the desert during Israeli times they must be hospitable to strangers as it could be on a basis of life or death in the harsh realities of the desert. The Hebrews themselves have weighed in on this and the actual affront to God was the Denial of Hospitality to the strangers in their town. Scripture demonstrates extraordinary concern for the welfare of strangers. God carefully instructs His people that strangers must be treated with hospitality, justice and righteousness. Emphasis on hospitality, being scrupulously careful not to practice inhospitality, permeates Jewish law.

God contrasts the hospitality of Abraham with the inhospitality of the men of Sodom, Genesis 18-19.

God commands the Jews not to treat strangers with inhospitality.

“Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” -Exodus 22:21.

Actually, Gaye, the word 'Hell' comes to us almost directly from the Norse people (Hel and her domain were identically named, and she was in charge of all dead people who had not died heroically in battle - her realm, while cold, was not inherently cruel). As to the rest... Well, you'd have to get your history from more than one source to know this objectively, but at about 600 b.c. Israel was sacked by Babylon. All males above at least the age of 8, and maybe down to birth, were killed, as were all women above childbearing age. The temples of Solomon and David were destroyed, and so was the Ark of The Covenant, and all it held therein, and every known copy of the Torah (that's the first five books of the Bible) were destroyed. Those books as they exist today, are a rewrite, done by the sexually enslaved women of Israel while they were held in captivity by the Babylonians, over a 65 year period. We have this from the records of the Bible, the records of over a dozen countries whose peoples witnessed it, and the remaining records of the Babylonians themselves. We will NEVER know what those first five books (if that's all that were there) REALLY contained, and as Christians, surprise, we don't need to. All we really need to pay attention to as Christians, are the words and deeds of Jesus the Christ. I don't recall, in my 42 years of intense Bible study, reading where he once asked someone who they were sleeping with before he talked to them, taught them, forgave them, or healed them. Can YOU find such a passage - anywhere in your New Testament? Oh, and don't point at Revelation - John was having a vision, not talking to Jesus, who had been dead for some time at that point.

Your argument has a lot of holes...for instance, go forth and multiply...there are a lot of heterosexuals that have medical issues that prevent them from having their own children. Does this mean that they are sinning by being in a relationship that cannot produce children? Should a person who is infertile not have the right to enter into marriage, because he or she can not procreate?
Next, it's in the bible which meat you are allowed to eat and not...so if you believe in what the "early church fathers" taught, you have to agree that, even if we were meant to be vegetarians at first, that God did not say we couldn't eat meat...but I don't even understand what your argument has to do with this issue. I know a lot of people who eat pork, myself included, and they are very much alive. So the jump in logic that says that pork kills is a moot point.
Third, yes...men wrote the bible and they were inspired by God. But as the author points out, those who wrote the bible did not speak English...English did not exist. So...were the people who TRANSLATED the bible also inspired by God? And what does it mean to "be inspired by God"? I am inspired by Whitney Houston's music....does that mean that my interpretation of it is how she intended it? Or if you take it as meaning that God wrote through them, like they were somehow channeling the Lord, so it wasn't THEM writing, but the Holy Spirit, then you can not deny that it is NOT true of those who translated it, and so mistakes have undoubtedly been made, as we are all fallible. The author already gave a few examples of those translations/interpretations that are incorrect. It has nothing to do with the BIBLE being incorrect, but with the translations and interpretations being incorrect. I would add the word "Toevah" does not mean "inherently bad" as the word "Abomination" implies. Instead it means culturally taboo or foreign...just as in America one might say eating snails is a French custom...we don't do that here. If it truly meant "abomination", they probably would have used the word "zimah" which is more in line with something intrinsically bad.
The difference between sex with animals and same sex relations is that in a homosexual relationship, 1) the people are born that way...I've never heard of anyone professing to be born attracted to animals rather than humans and 2) the sex is consensual. A dog or a horse can not consent to having sex with you, so it is the equivalent of rape, which IS wrong according to the bible.
And...as for the church fathers being a lot closer to Jesus' time, that's exactly why we need to re-examine it...for the same reasons this author states...we now have science, more information about how the world works. So things that used to apply do not apply in our current time. If you want to go back to the way things were when the "early church fathers" taught, you are going to have to go back to a time of blood letting and "humors" rather than bacteria and germs. You will have to go back to a time when medicine was considered witchcraft. We do not live that way now because we have more information about why it was THOUGHT to be bad, but turns out it wasn't.
And as the author pointed out, there was no concept of "sexual orientation" when the bible was written...so how can the New Testament say there is homosexuality for a reason? It is more likely that the behavior you are referring to in the new testament has to do with prostitution, rape, or idolatry...not homosexuality.

Holes, my friend....big gaping holes that you can not fill when there is so much evidence to support exactly what this author wrote.

Summer, I would like address your statement that you do not agree 100% with homosexuality. I have always found this one of the most ridiculous statements made regarding homosexuality.It is akin to saying "I disagree with blue eyes", or " I don't agree 100% with tall people". Sexual orientation is not a choice. It is a fact some people are not in any way attracted to the opposite sex. When I hear people make comments such as that it make me think the only way they would truly be accepting of a gay person is if the denied their sexuality and need for human companionship. If they either chose to be celibate or enter into a sham heterosexual marriage. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but that is what I think of whenever I hear that statement.

AMEN!!!

Gayle M - your comments remind me that the reason Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians/14-34. that "[t]he women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak ..." was because they just didn't get it. You don't get it and should keep silent.

None of those who walked with Jesus were not around when the bible was written down. If they passed it down without the written tradition, I cannot even imagine how many versions made it to the 150 or so years later when whoever decided to write it down. And when you say god put itn inside every man to know what is right and what is wrong do you mean a chistian god to christian people or christian god to all people, or A god to all people? 'Cause you know, every culture has its own set of rights and wrongs.

Gaye M
Sounds like you are advocating stoning disobedient children. I guess if we were still killing disobedient children we wouldn't have over population of the world to contend with.

Joe,
He won;t hear you....unless you are one of his disciples, having accepted the risen Lord, Jesus Christ, repented of your sin, and truly believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead...then and only then will you be in communication with God. Otherwise, futility.

Gaye M, I think u missed the whole point!

Gayle said, "Even though man wrote the bible, one of the central tenants of the faith is that men were inspired by God to write."

True. Both Shakespeare and Neil Peart, among many others, are my inspirations to write. Because I know neither man personally, however, I cannot claim that, by being inspired by them to write, I am writing the words that they would want me to pass on. FWIW, the Christian God, Allah, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, and Buddha have also inspired me to write. In no case do I presume to know exactly what my muse would want me to share with the world.

Gayle also said, "... we should always investigate what was taught by the people who actually gave up their lives for their belief system."

Do you realize that this statement includes homosexuals and transsexuals (who are not all men, contrary to your statement about homosexuals needing a woman to procreate... sometimes they need only sperm, as do the straight wives of straight men who have low sperm counts; the reverse is also true; and then there are those who adopt because they cannot have a biological child... but I digress), Muslims, Jews (including Jesus Christ), soldiers of more countries than I can count (regardless of their faith systems), leaders of more countries than I can count (see previous parens), peace activists, people who seek freedom in their own lives, states, countries, etc., more religious leaders than I can count (" "), and... meh. More PEOPLE than I can count gave up their lives for their beliefs, Gayle. I can only hazard a guess that your statement includes all these people in addition to Christians of varying denominations. If not, I strongly suggest you re-evaluate and critically consider your posts before hitting the "Submit" button.

Unless you're a troll. Then the game changes a touch. If so, bravo for obtaining your goal so successfully!

Wow you didn't read any of his research at all, did you? God commands that you love your neighbor as yourself and I'm certain that command was more important than populating the earth. By the way, in case you haven't noticed we're approaching a global population of 7 billion now so I don't believe that there's any worry that humanity is going to die off soon. I think we're far more likely to become extinct as a result of too many people than too few. The church believed that interracial marriage was a sin and an abomination til the 60s. I don't believe you can cherry pick bible verses to live by the way you are. Either the framers of the bible did not understand human sexuality and psychology or they did. You can't say some of the things involving sex and marriage were divine but some weren't. You either do your best to exemplify the love of God or you disgrace him and the sacrifice his son made by presuming to speak for God.

Darlene, you show your ignorance of both the Bible and science. The animals were not given as food for man. Man was only given fruits , vegetables, and seeds to eat in the garden (Gen. 1:29-30; 2:16). They were not told to eat meat to supplement their diet until after the flood (Gen. 9:2-4), when the environment radically changed.

And science has proven no such thing. That first "study" was debunked when it was peer reviewed.

Furthermore, we are all sinners by nature, as we inherited that from Adam and Eve after the fall, yet we are all called to repent and turn to God. With man, this is impossible. With God all things are possible.

Well said : ) God bless you for speaking the truth!

I'm a gay teen who was raised Christian. I've done a lot of self-reflection and decided that though I was raised Christian, I never really believed in God. That said, I do believe in morality and many Christian values. And a lot of what I learned growing up in the church still influences me, for better or for worse. When I realized I was gay, I ignored it and figured it was a phase. That was 6th grade. After a couple of years, I realized that sexuality wasn't a choice or a phase, or anything that could be changed. It's something we're born with, whether we like it or not. I knew I had to accept that as the truth and try to move on. I'm still struggling to do so; it's a daily battle. Being raised as I was around a family and community that denounced homosexuality, I've had the idea that homosexuality is wrong ingrained into me for as long as I can remember. Because of that, I have moments where I convince myself that I'm not supposed to be the way I am; that I'm sick or an abomination. It's like an internal war of acceptance and self-hatred. I hope one day to move past it. Anyway, I'd really like to thank you for writing this article, because it helps set some common myths straight and will hopefully help LGBT Christians and religious members in the future who might go through something similar. Maybe in a few years the church will become more accepting. We can only hope.

I'd also like to thank you because this article will help a lot of misguided parents and family members find understanding. I've been struggling to find a way to reconcile my family's religion with LGBT acceptance. As most people will agree, the two are pretty unpopular. However, that does not mean they are not incompatible. As you have said, a life in the service of God is about loving others, not condemning or judging them whether or not they are sinners. As Gram from Dawson's Creek said, "The Lord above will be the one to judge him as he will judge all of us...Let's save judgment for someone much more experienced than you." Unfortunately, I hadn't had much luck finding articles that proved the Bible's true intentions and meanings - so how was I supposed to talk to my mother about why I'm alright the way I am? This article is the answer I had been looking for. It's great. It's irrefutable, and it's in-depth. It's very well written.

Lastly, I want to apologize. The church is not the only discriminator. Like many other LGBT people hurt by the church's generally intolerant viewpoint, I have often judged those who affiliate themselves with the church to be hateful and ignorant towards LGBT people. I often assume that because a person is religious, they probably automatically think of me as a perverted abomination. I'm not proud of this, of being just as guilty of stereotyping as the people I find fault with. Logically, I know many Christians do not agree with the Church on this subject, and are often accepting and supportive of LGBT people (it's not often you find a straight, Christian advocate, especially in the rural areas where I live). And yet I am always truly suprised when I come across a religious advocate. I, too, must fight my tendency to judge others. I don't wish to be a hypocrit. I, too, should love others without judgement or reservation.

Thanks once again, and God bless you.
Austin

Beyond the article itself, I think I found your comment to be the most inspiring. :)

Austin, you are amazinginspirationalwise as a fellow gay teen raised Christian I too have grown to hate myself for who I was, it's people like you who remind me that there is nothing wrong with me, and that there are others experiencing my journey. You also show that love is the most important thing for both parties to consider, which only leads to acceptance.

Much Love,

Kyle

My nephew from a very young age acting very much like a little girl instead of a little boy. He wanted to play with barbie dolls, wanted to play dress up like his sister, would wear my heels around the house, etc. My sister bought his brother and him "boy" things to play with thinking he'd come around and be like his brother. I knew. I knew all along that this was a very special young man. In his teen years, he tried to date a girl. It didn't last. I knew. He now lives with another man and is extremely happy and fulfilled. This was not something that he "chose". The signs he showed from a very young age - before he even understood sexuality - told the story. He grew up in a family of 8 and is the only one who is homosexual. They were not beaten, abused or mislead. He grew up in a loving Christian home. I do not believe for one minute he "chooses this sin." To all LGBTQ men/women, my sisters/brothers, may you find peace in life to be who you are. <3

Austin,

Congratulations on being able to come to terms with your sexuality and have such a level head about reconciling the faith you grew up in with who you are!
I'm a straight female and I grew up in the Baptist church. I can't say I relate to your struggles at all but I witnessed others go through many of the same struggles. The older I got and the more I learned about humanity, history, and science, the harder it was for me to maintain my faith. I consider myself a theist now because I can't reconcile the idea of a loving god to the god of the bible.
My transition out of the church was painful for me, mostly because I felt a very real loss. It was similar to finding out Santa wasn't real but worse. I also don't want my family to worry about me. My cousin "came out" as an atheist and my aunt worried herself sick over it. I don't want to have that happen again.
If you ever feel down about who you are, check out the It Gets Better project.
My heart goes out to you and others like you who have such a huge struggle over who they are. You are not less of a person because you're gay :)

Simone

Well, I know that many Lutherans receive the mark of a cross on their forehead on Ash Wednesday. Some of them give up something for Lent as well, though I do admit that that tradition does seem to be primarily Catholic.

I am United Methodist and we do ashes as well.

Not just Catholics. Some Protestant denominations, such as Methodist, partake in ash Wednesday and lent.

Sarah, as a Presbyterian, I was taught the Apostle's Creed in catechism.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Amen

Perfectly said with so few words.

Your thoughts have mirrored mine, and that surprised me. Many of the ideas you have, have also occured to me, but I did not think that at any time, a minister would also have these thoughts. I look forward to reading more of what you have to say...you may win a soul for Jesus with this article. I love God. But have not been a big fan of Jesus's followers. Your openess leaves me feeling good about God, and Jesus and his followers. Thank you.

The biblical reference to Genesis 22: 20-21 is an error. It should be Deuteronomy 22: 20-21.

Homosexual acts were prohibited because they don't produce children. What people need to realize is that these books in the Old Testament were basically a survival manual for a community that was finding itself in conflict with others and frequently "on the run." The whole point of the various injunctions is to ensure the next generation.

Take the dietary injunctions for example. You eat some bad beef, you might get sick. Eat some bad pork or shellfish and you could die, hence the rule to not eat those meats. The injunction against mixing meat and dairy falls in the category of preserving your resources. Both meat and dairy are good sources of protein. If you're eating them together, you're more likely to run out sooner.

Also in the category of preserving your resources is mixing fabrics. It is unnecessary, from a standpoint of survival, to wear clothes of various fabrics. Use one fabric to wear and the other(s) for bartering or for clothing in the future.

The injunctions regarding keeping oneself clean are self-explanatory when you're in close quarters and need to worry about lice, scabies, etc.

Now onto the sexual injunctions. The acts that are prohibited are ones that don't produce offspring such as masturbation, sleeping with a woman who is menstruating and homosexuality. As mentioned in the blog post, people at the time thought sperm was it so you didn't want to waste it. People also used to think men had a finite amount of sperm, making being wasteful with it problematic. Of course we know now that isn't the case.

All this is to say that these injunctions existed in a very specific context for a specific group of people, people who had an interest in preserving resources and ensuring the next generation as a means of their very survival. That said, it's ridiculous to exhort people to follow the same rules (or rather carefully selected ones) today in 2012. 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.

@ Brian, I would love to quote you on this.

Just curious... Do you have references and verses to back any of that information up? I'm not doubting you, I've just never head a lot of that before.

Thank you for writing this and for the extensive research you did.

I was always confused with that whole thing about Sodom/Gomorrah. I was angry when LOT wanted to give up his daughters to the townspeople -- like they were an object. And then...the whole incest thing with the daughters spiking Lot's wine and sleeping with him.

Confusion, confusion, confusion.

islam calls for rape victims to be killed to this day..

i'll keep it simple, i am only concerned with what god expects from me, i am a sinner, and i am also forgiven, by god's grace. I love god first, and love myself and everybody else second. thats it, nothing else. I try not to offend by sinning but when I do, I pray for my forgiviness.Most of all I pray for all of us.

@Wilbur: The link's right there in his post. Hard to miss. There are the citations of verses you seek so fervently, lots of them. Try not posting hogwash about how chapters and verses haven't been provided when the link is right there, staring you in the face. Don't click it, you might learn something.

There is also Exodus 21:22, that says if 2 men fight, and cause a pregnant woman to miscarry, but she doesn't die, it isn't murder. Most interpret this to mean the Bible is pro-choice, since the death of an unborn child is not murder.
So many things taught to us as children to be "God's Will" are really just other people's opinions and misinterpretations.

@ Wilbar Trascas

The actual article above references sections of the bible for the "scripture" you're asking for regarding women, rape, slavery, etc." So I don't really feel that the commenter really needs to repeat it.

Besides, you clearly know so much, why don't you point them out? They're there. The bible was written by men regardless of divine inspiration. It is fallible if it is written by man.

Back in college, my humanities professor (Richard Friedman of "Who Wrote the Bible?") pointed out that in the story of Lot in Genesis 19, the term used for the crowd who wish to harm the guests is not men in the "a multiple of only male-folk" but men in the "a group of people" - in other words, our best translation would be "people". the word for "a group of menfolk" is used in other parts of P's Genesis (the story of Lot is ascribed to the source called P) but not in this story. So, in Friedman's interpretation of the original Hebrew, there's nothing about homosexuality in Genesis 19 at all.

I have been looking forward to this article since you mentioned working on it several days ago. Please accept a very personal and heartfelt "Thank you!" You have beautifully and succinctly summarized the scholarship regarding these verses in a way that is compelling, entertaining, and truly honest. I will be asking family members and friends to read and consider these words as we in North Carolina approach a destructive and unnecessary anti-gay ballot initiative which may make all domestic partner benefits and potential civil unions impossible and interfere with parental rights in a state which already prohibits same-sex marriage. I love you, Mark Sandlin.

Brilliant. Thank you.

There is also an issue in Romans 1 as to how much of it is rhetorical and how much of it represents Paul, though the scholarship doesn't appear to have tackled it specifically. But the beginning of Romans 2 has a vocative (ὦ ἄνθρωπε), as though he is responding to someone else's views (which introduces the verse you cite about judging others).

Darlene, you "know a lot straight christains who beat their wives"? I certainly hope you have reported them to the authorities...

In the Bible I look at the prophets, servants, and the people's lifestyles. Yes there were cucubines but nowhere is there an example of same sex marriage.

And is there an example of interracial marriage? Or marrying outside of your faith? It's just a book... a collection of writings cobbled together into a "holy" book. It has been revised and otherwise changed throughout history. It's not "THE" word of god.

What if the disciple Jesus loved was really his lover? What if David and Jonathan were lovers? What if marriage was for political and reproductive considerations? What if love between men was known and accepted, but not considered a matter that required marriage?

Dee Dee, are there any examples of Space Shuttles in the Bible? or 747s? Submarines?

"Why would a church that spreads the word of a loving God, condemn love?"

Where does the church condemn love?

The church also spreads the Word of a JUST God. God is love, and God is Just. Everyone loves the former attribute, hardly anyone admires the latter attribute.

Dear Res_Ipsa, in response to your comment: for one thing, you said, "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 ..." Yes, of course that's true, but of course opposite-sex couples engage in anal sex all the time, so if God was interested in prohibiting that specifically, it's pretty obvious he would have made sure it was forbidden for anyone to do. But he didn't, so the whole argument based on anal sex falls to the ground. And in any case, it doesn't seem like you've had very many frank, open talks with GLBT people, because otherwise you'd know that (just as with heterosexual people) there is not just "one way" to engage in intimate relations. (I'm assuming you knew that was the case regarding heterosexual sex.) Lots of GLBT people don't even engage in anal sex. (And GLBT women in particular! You seem to have been thinking only of male-male sexual relations, which seems peculiar if you were going to make comments about same-sex relations in general.)

Secondly, you said, "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." Whether that's true about the Israelites' population needs, nonetheless same-sex relations don't somehow reduce opposite-sex relations. (Actually, in most cultures around the world through history, most same-sex interactions have actually been on the part of what we'd call bisexual people, who were married to the opposite sex and raised children, while having various dalliances or relationships with others "on the side", whether of the same or opposite gender.) In any event, the bisexual and same-sex orientation that God creates in ALL loving things (sexually reproducing one's, obviously) --- researchers in the life sciences now consider that there is no species in which same-sex behavior does not occur --- has been abundantly documented to provide a whole range of value: from reducing tensions among individuals and communities, to actual reproductive value. (For example, among the black swans native to Australia, some 25% of all lifelong mating pairs are male-male. They commonly bring in a female third partner to produce viable eggs, then boot her out and raise the young themselves. Cygnets raised by male pairs are themselves statistically more likely to survive to adulthood to raise young of their own --- that survival advantage thought to be from having been raised in the more competitive environment of all males.)

Likewise, in various human societies around the world, same-sex people or relationships have in no way always been seen as somehow abnormal or wrong: Samoan culture values gay men as valued family and community members, who provide additional male mentoring and "big brother" roles for children; while some Native American societies have always seen GLBT people as specially gifted by God.

So the "abnormal" view, popularized through the (really uninformed) views held across much of the church (and Western culture that it influenced), not only isn't the Bible's own view, it is of course not the "one, true, correct" cultural view.

C. Robert what you have posted is very plain and simple. Don't understand why people don't get it they continue to focus on the law in the Old Testament but totally forget what Jesus done by dying on the cross. We are under grace now and that is a far better plan. We all have sinned and will continue to sin but it is God's grace that will cover us.

Just on a personal note. I feel like just because I don't believe the why gay and lesbian folks the we are being attacked with wordy post trying say what I believe the bible to say is wrong right. In the end we all will have to stand before God as our judge and account for our actions here. Just saying!

First of all, you say animal behaviour is equated with savagery. Because penguins push other penguins over cliffs, male lions will kill other males lions then steal their wives and rape them. I must say I wasn't aware lions performed marriage ceremonies. That is very interesting indeed. I hope PBS does a special on that soon. But I digress. I'm curious, have you ever watched the news or read a newspaper. 9/11 I'm pretty sure that was perpetrated by humans. The Holocaust--that was also humans. Slavery-also done by humans. All those gang murders and carjackings and burglaries you hear nightly on the news--all committed by humans. The recent shooting in Colorado, also perpetrated by a human.

It does amaze how the majority of humans can look at animals and dismiss them all as being savage and violent but fail to see that humanity is just as violent, actually, probably more violent. Anyway on to my next point.

So you don't want to use the fact that homosexuality has been found in every animal species ever studied to say that gay is ok. Because animals are savages of course. But I think you are missing the point. Many of the religious love to say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural, found nowhere else in nature. It only exists because some people are deviants or damaged or whatever. The fact that it does exist in every single species studied show that it is in fact 100% natural and normal. Your argument that if we accept that we also have to accept murder and rape, etc., is silly at best. One has nothing to do with the other.

Do you think that humans do not currently commit murders, or rapes, or violent acts of any kind? At least when animals do it it is about survival. Humans o it for pleasure. People like Mike Vick who torture dogs for sport. Or people who set cats or dogs on fire. You won't find that in the animal kingdom. Animals have never dropped an atomic bomb on another country either. Hmmmm

The Old Testament is actually the Jewish Bible and called the Tanakh. It contains the Torah which contains the commandments. There are 613 commandments not just 10. The Tanakh that the Christians have is a badly translated Christianized version of the Jewish Bible. You cannot understand what is meant by these commandments without the benefit of the Oral Torah which serves to interpret the 613 commandments and includes the Talmud. The Jewish people keep the Tanakh in its original Hebrew and study it along with the interpretive texts. The problems arise with Christianity because the two religions are in disagreement almost completely. To be Jewish is to follow the commandments which includes the laws of Kashrut (kosher laws) and the laws of taharat ha-mishpachah (family purity). To be Christian is to not follow the commandments. What do I mean by that? To believe G-d could bleed and die is against a commandment. To believe G-d could take human form is against a commandment. To believe someone else can pay the price for your sins is against a commandment. To worship on Sunday instead of Friday to Saturday is against a commandment. To not fast on Yom Kippur is against a commandment. To eat a lobster is against a commandment. To make up a prayer as you go as Christians do is against a commandment. To kneel in prayer is against a commandment. For a female to sing solo and not as a group is against a commandment. For a woman to touch a man even as a handshake that she is not related to is against a commandment. (I could go on for a total of 613 but I think you get the picture.) If you only pick a couple of commandments to follow and ignore the rest what is the point of that? If they are all G-d's commandments how do you get to decide which ones count and which ones don't? These commandments are the process to lead a Jewish life which is why Christians break most of them because they are not Jewish and the two religions are incompatible theologically. Judaism is not just a belief system it is a comprehensive way of life with its own set of rules and practices which affects every aspect of life. It sets forth who you can marry, how to observe the holidays and Shabbat, what to do when you get up in the morning, how to treat other people, animals, how to conduct business, what you can and cannot eat, how to treat G-d, etc. These rules are known as Halakhah. The basis for Halakhah is the Torah which contains the 613 commandments. Halakhah is literally translated as "the path that one walks." The commandments outlines a way of life. If you understood all of this you would also understand that hating and judging and trying to hurt someone else by taking away rights or humiliating them breaks some commandments as well.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecy written of in the OT. The coming Messiah has come...and He is the atonement for sin...period. He is God, and God is in Him, just as he is in all of us who accept Him. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am." You must deal with this or face eternity separated from God. Bless you.

Well Stephen if you take The Bible seriously, word for word, I pray to God you do not eat shell fish, any animals with split hooves who chew cud, and if you have children you better stone them for not honoring you or their mother. Am I right?

*scratching head whilst looking thoroughly puzzled* Hmmmm... (I won't even guess at the meaning of "false hope"!)

So, Stephen, the author of the article in question is (a) not serious about the Bible, (b) has twisted the "true" meaning of biblical text to promote his particular viewpoint, and (c) blasphemes because he has taken the time to look closely at the verses referred and to correct the widespread MIS-interpretations in common usage today.

A lack of seriousness would be better ascribed to any and everyone who takes the easy way out by listening to and accepting the interpretations promulgated by modern-day preachers. Protestants were called Protestants and were persecuted precisely because they insisted on the right to personally interpret the Bible, rather than blindly accept the Catholic Church's pronouncements on scriptural meaning. (And, of course, the Church had not a whit of a self-serving agenda... did they?)

The words we find in the KJV Bible were written originally in Aramaic with multiple translations into Greek, Latin, English, etc., thereby introducing layer upon layer of translation error rendering the Word of God far distant from its original context and meaning.

I find it amusing and amazing that modern people who have the ability to read, to think, and to arrive at an understanding of texts written thousands of years ago are judged as blasphemers merely because they have the good sense to make sure their interpretation of ancient language fits what was meant by the original authors and not to simply accept erroneous translations designed to promote a particular viewpoint.

By the way, the word, "sin" means "to miss the mark," as in archery when the arrow fails to hit the bull's eye. It strikes me that those who "sin" by blindly accepting another's (mis)use of scripture, might do well to improve their aim by standing a bit closer to the target.

I don't think that placing the bible in historical context is suiting an agenda. Also, false hope for what? Salvation? Is salvation so exclusive that only we humans can decide who should have hope for it?

We're just tiny little mortals. We don't decide who does or does not get into the heaven. If you're truly a Christian, you wouldn't be so quick to say that this is false hope. Salvation is offered to all mankind.

We are not one to decide what God's plan is. We can only look to our own experience and knowledge and assume. It's impossible to know for sure; all we have is faith. Let every man have his own faith, and stop being telling people that they aren't allowed to have any because you don't agree with what they're saying. It's rude and unChristlike.

I agree with Res about the sanitation aspect. I have long thought that the prohibitions in Leviticus were for sanitary reasons. Pork probably spoils more easily in the hot climate than the approved meats, for example. As you read through them, you can see a health-based reason for most of them in that place and time.

That's exactly what Ruth and Res were arguing against - that the prohibitions in place at that time were likely for very specific reasons that no longer exist. We have refrigeration, therefore we don't need to avoid pork and shellfish. We have sanitary products (and a little compassion, hopefully), and therefore no longer need to banish menstruating women to a tent away from the "clean" population. Offering a potential explanation for a practice is not the same thing as condoning it. And acknowledging that the conditions which produced those practices no longer exist is the whole point of this article.

Leave the judgment to God. Period.

"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, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

That's good! It's says a lot but they will turn it around as well just waits see!

You know, your comment would be more credible if you actually addressed specific arguments set forward in the article. Frankly, you just appear hateful right now

And you're begging the question. What's your point? Both sides are claiming the other twists scripture to their own ends or claim that scripture supports them. Both claim to want to see truth and condemn sin. Both sides state their belief firmly. I don't agree that generally broad brushing a topic by saying "I don't agree with this approach and believe oppositely" is hateful. I am SO SO SO tired of people throwing out the hate word the moment you disagree with them. "You don't agree with me, therefore you hate me." What kind of reasoning is that?? That's someone trying to win an emotional war instead of lovingly and thoughtfully either trying to convince someone of their position or at least respectfully disagree.

Wait...So loving someone of the same gender is no different than murdering someone?

And you don't condone either one. We are in a very sad state when we are unable to condone love. When two people meet, fall in love, cherish each other, make a commitment to each other, we should celebrate. Love is good, this world needs more of it.

Jesus said otherwise.

Revelation 2:6 (NASB95) ‘Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

With all due respect, it is not up to you to condone or disapprove of anything. It is not up to any of us. I suggest that we all take from scripture what we must to live our own lives in accordance with our own interpretations of God's will for us and let others do the same.
To love God is to trust him to be the only judge that matters.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is for God to do. Ours is only to love the person (even the "sinner" designation, I would argue, is God's alone to make).

I do not need you to condone my behavior and I lack the authority or desire to condone or disapprove of yours, too. Presuming any such authority only makes one's own cross heavier to bear. My own life is challenging enough without worrying myself about how you live yours, frankly.

I love you as a neighbor without judgment and I ask humbly for your judgment free love in return, but that is all. Your approval is really unnecessary.

@Dee Dee In the Bible (American Standard Version) 1. Samuel 18.1 (right after David slays Goliath) "And it came to pass ... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." But they had to part, because Jonathan's father, Saul, was jealous, because the people favored David over him. When David later hears that Jonathan has fallen in battle, he laments, saying "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women." Since David also had wives and concubines, he was clearly bisexual, as most people were in those days. Not only does God not smite David for loving Jonathan, but he goes on the make him King of all Israel. So clearly God loves bisexuals :)

Great article. It's always good to examine the facts. This can help clear up some issues for people willing to hear, but of course many other people aren't interested in researching or hearing facts to find out what's true--they feel that what they already believe must be true, and look for pseudo-facts to bolster their feelings; if they don't find any such pseudo-facts, they just stick to their guns. Some people even seem to feel that one of the wonderful things about their chosen religious texts, is that those texts can be interpreted the way they choose, and that therefore it must have been meant to be that way.

It's likely Paul knew the apparent contradiction he was engaged in, when he judged people guilty of sin if they judged other people--he was offering a circular argument. He was both demonstrating that he, too, is a sinner, merely by having to make the observation, and he was also trying to ensure that other Christians, if they considered themselves true believers, couldn't get away from the same idea. It was a way of hermetically sealing the concept, thus further boosting the Jesus franchise.

The attempt to be cute or funny in this article, grossly takes away from the subject. It is actually distracting.

LOL!!!

Actually, the humor was what kept me engaged in the article.

http://www.omim.org/entry/306995

This covers the link to specific probands implicated in male homosexual behavior. Additionally, it covers the literature review on the subject, and it is likely that (as in the case of many other complex behaviors) it is a mutifactorial genetic expression dependent upon several other markers (also referenced in the review). Science doesn't lie, people do; especially people arrogant enough to speak on behalf of god.

You now speak for God and who disappoints him? Aside from the fact that He's disappointed in us all to some degree. I mean...Really??

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

Ironic that you would attack him for making opinionated statements that might sway peoples' beliefs while making an opinionated statement meant to sway peoples' beliefs. If you choose to love as God loves then consider loving all unconditionally without judgment. Love the sinner, not the sin (I feel myself quoting the original author) is just an unChristian as any other sin. Please try to work harder at actually having the beliefs that you claim to have.

I think you're right..with the sanctity of marriage under fire by those who are legally given the right and the divorce rates for straight couples being MIGHTY high for the sanctified, providing legal marriage for people who actually want to commit to someone in a truly loving relationship might bring down the divorce percentage and give certain straight people with nothing to do than to get married...a goal to aim for...being in a truly loving relationship.

of course because we all know that it is only gay people who commit adultery. no straight person in the history of the world has ever done that!!!! idiots!!

Josh, every point you make was clamoring for release as I read through this paper. If I were to express my own response to this article, it would say the very things you have already said so well. Thank you.

I feel sorry for you...the logic behind this article is sound.

I feel that you're just plugging your ears and screaming "LALALALALALA I DON'T HEAR THIS!!!" because you've read the truth. You've read something you don't agree with! Oh dear.

Thumbs up, Cassandra.

Wonderful article, research, and schlorship!! Unfortunately, I plowed ever so slowly through the very passages you mention, during the summer of 1975 when my 20-yr-old baby brother came out to me. I knew virtually nothing about the subject and I wanted to learn! I thought the bible might be a place to start but even consulting w/ my then husband, a Jew by birth and spirit, who had taken Greek @ college, did not help because there ARE no specific descriptions of nor prohibitions against what we in th 20th & 21st centuries understand to be homosexuality. By the way, Jasmine, Stephen, and Dee Dee, just because you have been TOLD by parents, churches, etc. that the bible states homosexuality is wrong, it foes not mean that information is correct! It seems quite strange to me that you actually accuse the writer of "blasphemy!" He is not in any way "twisting" scripture to suit his thinking! He is, in fact, using the mind that God gave him to use known theological scholarship of the original Greek to show a more concise and correct interpretation. As w/ the writer, Paul has always been much easier for me to
understand than Leviticus! We are all sinners, therefore
Judge not lest ye be judged! The bottom line is that the bible was written by human beings, over a Jesus was ALL about not judging, and loving your neighbor as yourself

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work."

New Living Translation

You do know that the Law is composed of three parts right? There is Jewish Ceremonial Law which involved the requirement of sacrifices. Jesus' death on the cross ended the need for sacrifices and thus the need to follow this portion of the law. The second portion is the dietary restrictions. This was made null and void by Jesus Himself in a vision to Peter in Acts 10:9-22. The reasoning behind this passage is beyond my field of research but is connected to God considering the Gentiles and not just the Jews as part of His people. The third part of the law which includes the sexual restrictions part has not and will not be dismissed. Many of those requirements are still kept such as not marrying close relatives and sex with animals. So homosexuality is thus linked with incest and bestiality, both of which are sins and most people (even non-Christians) would agree.

Finally, the point that people had concubines, multiple wives and such in the Bible is not meant to champion these beliefs but to show the devastation they cause. The multiple wives of Solomon led him away from God. The incest of Lot created two of the biggest enemies in Israel's history. Even Hagar and Abraham clearly expose the problem resulting from this sin. You will notice that God never condones it. It is widespread and dangerous. If you need one more example let's go with Rachel and Isaac. The dual marriage created many terrible problems including Isaac's favoritism and attempted murder. I believe the Bible speaks very strongly about this issue. I also believe that the Word of God commands us to speak up about it. In I Corinthians, Paul lambasts the church in Corinth for accepting sexual sin (not homosexuality in this case) in the name of grace. Here's the passage: (chapter 5)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[

The problem with the "Judge not" and "God does not make mistakes" line of argument is that it is clearly and easily falsifiable. God made murderers - was that a mistake? Judge not the thief - really, you're ok with people stealing from you? Before someone says "you can't compare homosexuality with those immoral acts", I'm not comparing, I'm just proving these arguments false. Once you accept the premise that Homosexuality is a sin or immoral, all those arguments fall apart.

I guess the blog nesting only goes so deep, so I'll reply to myself.
@Juli: You have achieved the ultimate moral relativism, which is really being totally amoral. For you to say that you couldn't judge someone who murders is abhorrent. You didn't quite say that, you said you wouldn't judge someone who "dreamed of" doing so. I'm not sure where the distinction is with you (probably there isn't one, based on your statements), but we all think about or dream of things we know are wrong and wouldn't actually take action on. The moment we act on them, we're either saying we think we're right or we don't care whether we're right. Society has ways of dealing with that.

Let me ask you, if you wouldn't judge a murderer, would you be one? Is it ok for one of these unjudged murderers to kill you or your family? Being amoral is really hard, I don't understand how either a self-interested or right-seeking person can take that path.

Excellent article thank you

Man, you could come up with an argument to justify just about anything! 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. So, if we are to believe that the Bible is inspired and written by God through man, wouldn't God know pretty well exactly how everything works in His creation? In fact just as a quick note on your statement about the people's incorrect understanding of the sun and earth, read through Job again. He states that the earth moves around the sun. He seems to have an understanding of the heliocentric nature of our planet.

Matt, in your rush to judge Jasmine's statement, you forgot to be offended for the liars, thieves, and adulterers compared to murderers as well. God does not hold any sin above another except blasphemy and rejecting His free gift of salvation. Telling a tiny white lie is as bad as murder in God's eyes; any sin is falling short. It doesn't matter if you miss by an inch or a mile, you still missed. Trying to make it to Heaven any way other than through Christ is going to fail.

I won't be surprised to see gay people in Heaven. A gay man is no worse than a straight man looking at pornography. Heck, most gay sex is done outside of marriage, right? It's no different from straight sex outside of marriage. The Bible speaks on that as well.

As far as being gay being a choice or not, the science actually is under dispute. The very same man who did the study most claim said himself that his results were inconclusive based on the closeness of his numbers. there was no big gap to suggest an actual difference. Biblically speaking, denying our flesh (you know, that side of ourselves that determines sexual appetite) is a pretty big thing. Deny yourself, take up the cross and follow Jesus. The flesh is full of desires that we need to resist. As a straight man, I have the urge to go out and get as many partners as I can. That's what my flesh wants. However, I'm happily married and I have to resist that desire of my flesh.

Heather, I feel very sad for you! You are one lost soul!

Amen and amen

Blood letting did not originate from the Bible. In fact, that "outdated document" said that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11).

Nor does the Bible blame all disease on demons. In fact, the black plague was brought under control when someone got the idea to quarantine from reading the Torah.

The Sabbath rest is fulfilled in Christ, and will one day be ultimately fulfilled (Heb. 4:7-11).

Justin said, "As far as being gay being a choice or not, the science actually is under dispute."

The science is not under dispute. In December 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The American Medical Association (AMA) has adopted the APA position and all AMA professional policies include a prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the well-researched and well-considered professional opinion of American psychiatrists and physicians, in and of itself, homosexuality is neither pathological nor abnormal. This means that, in and of itself, as a sexual orientation, homosexuality is both normal and healthy. Every AMA psychiatrist and physician has a professional and ethical obligation to conduct their practice in accordance with this policy. While a layperson may hold a differing personal opinion, that opinion does not qualify as either a valid or rational argument – that would require a mountain of contrary peer-reviewed published research. Minus such evidence, no argument can be made against the normalcy and healthiness of homosexuality as a sexual orientation.

It always amazes me that 'people' conveniently forget that Religious writings, from the Bible, to the Koran were early forms of laws and ways to control the masses, and get the masses to 'behave' in an appropriate way for the day, to ensure the survivability of their communities at that time.

There are many quite frankly ridiculous and unbelievable stories written in these religious books which people apparently believe. It never fails to amaze me that so many people in the world 'live their lives' letting these teachings influence them so heavily. Teachings which have also been misinterpreted over the years coloured by peoples own agendas and bigotry.

One of the most stand out crazy stories the Bible wants folk to believe is the imacculate conception and the Virgin Mary. I would ask that if a female friend came to you in the present day and said they were a virgin but they were pregnant, you would think one of the following things, A) She is lying B) She has had IVF (Idont think IVF was around when Jesus was born) C) She is crazy and delusional

So given that there is no way any reasonable person could seriously believe that their friend was a virgin but pregnant, I find it really difficult to accept that any reasonable person could believe that the same was true of the Virgin Mary. So if this 'story' about mary is obviously an exaggeration and not to be taken seriously, how can peopole be justified in thinking that the rest of the bible/other religious teachings should be taken with anything other than a pinch of salt and a healthy amount of scepticism....

Cassandra - If you really don't understand the argument, we probably can't puruse this line of reasoning very far. It's a normal logical approach that says "Let's take the results of a particular assumption and see where it leads us. If the results are ridiculous or lead us to problematic issues, our assumption is wrong." My assumption is that many people are applying the scientific method or science to morality. I showed that it led to problematic issues - which you appear to agree with. Therefore the assumption that the scientific method (and inference therefrom) must have flaws. To be more explicit, to state that homosexuality exists in the natural world, therefore its normal or morally acceptable in the human world leads you to a bunch of contradictions and stupid statements. So don't do it, arguing morality through the scientific method is easily falsifiable.

Ok John, here is the thing: When Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong frequently go to the "well, it's not natural because you don't see it in nature do you?", argument whenever they want to justify their position without using their religion. So pointing out that it does indeed occur in nature, in fact in every species studied, is a valid scientific point.

I believe your arguments are really applicable to philosophy not science. Again, statements such as, "To be more explicit, to state that homosexuality exists in the natural world, therefore its normal or morally acceptable in the human world leads you to a bunch of contradictions and stupid statements. So don't do it, arguing morality through the scientific method is easily falsifiable.", are just plain silly and off point. You are referring to a behavior. Rape or murder are behaviors that negatively affect others. Those are behaviors or reactions not a part of your core being. Sexual orientation is innate and does not harm anyone. It is as inextricable from you as your eye color, hair color or height. It is not a behavior anymore than heterosexuality is a behavior. And it harms no one. Some people may not like it but they are not harmed.

Let's also remember that morality is subjective and I believe is better left to the philosophers. An example of that subjectivity, Christians believe our morality comes from God. Right? That would be the same god who asked Abraham to murder his own son to prove his faith and loyalty. To me it is irrelevant whether God intended for him to actually do it or not. I think asking a man to kill his child for any reason is about as immoral as it gets. I have had many Christians disagree with me.

Well there you have it Cassandra, we agree on a lot of points in your last post. Science is not a terribly good tool to evaluate Homosexual _behavior_ or legislation about said behavoirs. I'd never argue that orientation is a sin, although I think it is part genetics, part envrironment. I am friends with a set of female twins, one of whom is quietly gay, while the other is ostentatiously heterosexual. That's neither here nor there with the sin or social issue though.

I think you're agreeing with me (?) that ethics / morality (a sub-branch of philosophy dealing with "What is right? What ought I to do?") is the appropriate discipline here, not a scientific listing of what behaviors are observed in the animal kingdom. That was my whole argument. So the moment you start evaluating "rape is wrong, murder is wrong, homosexual behavior is not wrong" you're involved in an ETHICAL argument. It's subjective. People have different opinions. Your ETHICAL evaluation that it does no harm is just your moral evaluation. I am not required or inclined to agree, and that does not make me a bigot or idiot. It means that my subjective opinion differs from yours, regardless of the source of authority - in my case, social health and generalized religious backing, in your case, the way I personally see it.

Your argument about Abraham clear drifts into morality. The whole start of this part of the blog is a thread discussing how Doug states "The science is not under dispute", where I am asserting he is making a clear categorical error of using science to evaluate moral behavior. My points stand, I have trouble understanding why you don't get that.

This is great, but I think the biblical case that has to be unravelled is Genesis 2. The woman for man thing. This is where Karl Barth got hung up, and I think the undercurrent of the creation story rumbles along underneath us. Would love to read some engagement of this.

Did you know there were actually TWO creations? :)
In Genesis 1, God created man in His image. God is spirit, not flesh and blood, so it was the spirit and soul (male and female created He them) that God created in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, we see the physical creation of man from dust, and God breathed life into him, and man became a living soul...God joined male and female **in one flesh**, and what GOD joins together let no man put asunder (till death do they part). So...in Matt 19 and Mark 10, Jesus was giving a spiritual answer to a carnal question...a very specific question about divorce between a man and a woman. Jesus wasn't talking abut flesh and blood "man" and a "woman", He was talking about the spirit and the soul joined in one flesh. When one sees this, it makes it clear that Paul wasn't a misogynistic fellow, but rather understood that our souls (egos) should submit to the spirit, because the spirit seeks after God from whence it came (wives submit to your husbands), that the preacher should allow the spirit to lead, rather than preach from his soul (ego)(will not suffer a woman to teach), and so forth. If the wife/soul is allowed to seek it's own pleasures, it will be separated from the husband/spirit).

Sorry, this is a very short (and somewhat complicated) answer compared to the rather extensive lesson, but hopefully you will see that neither Matt nor Mark was referring to "one man, one woman" marriages, but was about the spirit and soul within one flesh....

I always thought it odd that Jesus would talk about Adam as having left mother and father to cleave unto his wife.... :)

Justin, your whole argument went completely out the window when you stated that "most gay sex happens outside the marriage". That is one of the most ignorant statements ever. In my 30 years of marriage to my partner, I have never once even considered going outside my marriage....gay couples are no different than straight couples. We all want the same thing and that is commitment, love, honor, respect, and happiness. There are gays who stray, just like there are straights that stray. People are human. Stop generalizing all (or most) gays and remember,don't believe everything you think.

He's not saying that gay people are more prone to cheating. He was merely referring to the fact that gay marriage is illegal in most parts of the modern world, and most certainly in most (if not all) of the ancient world when those verses were written. If gay people can't get married, then of COURSE they'll be having extramarital sex! What other options do they have? *facepalm*

Agree with your point here. It is impossible for gay couples to have sex within the institution of marriage by definition. Until the definition of marriage legally changes. Which it has not for most governments.

Paul should be of no concern to people who profess to be Christian. Paul's teachings are not he same as those of Jesus and in some cases are seriously opposed to them.

For example,
Matthew 22: 37-40
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Inspired word of God from Paul? I'd say not at all. I believe Paulinism is a fraudulent version of Christianity.

I'll stick with Jesus, who was silent on the matter. Those who wish to regard homosexuality as sin are welcome to do so, but that is between you and your God.

Oh I see, you're trying to convince the other side by juxtraposing two items that are not at all related in an extremely offensive manner. That's sure to win your side. Sort of like folks attempting to demolish Chick-fil-a with crude and derogatory abuse for simply having a different opinion.

Oh, bravo. I am won over by your loving attitude and logic. Really, I have rarely seen a more self-defeating post. I'm not sure whether to feel shame towards you, or simple sorrow.

If you're replying to me, I was commenting on her implying that Jesus and God the Father were having some sort of sexual relationship. So I'm not sure how your comment follows.

Surely you have read many apologetical approaches for dealing with the strictures of Leviticus, such as moral vs ceremonial or "for the Israelites at that time to single them out as a nation". Isn't it enough to say "If you're a universal literalist, you have some issues to deal with. If not, I don't agree with your apologetics." Is that the two horns you would like to present? Fine, I pick (b). You don't agree with my apologetics. This doesn't prove either one of us wrong. I still think homosexuality is a sin and that the very words gay marriage are a contradiction in definition. I also think not loving God with your whole heart and mind and soul is a horrible sin that I'm guilty of nearly every second. But I'm a forgiving and forgiven kind of guy, there's no active hate involved. It is what I believe, though.

Cassandra - so you're requiring everyone to have the same beliefs and views about LGBT rights (or anything for that matter) as you? Besides your mischaracterization and generalities about his position, which are simply "Not supporting the gay agenda but instead the traidtional views about marriage" (don't even try and bring up that Ugandan thing, that is about rape and purposeful HIV infection), he has the right to impose his VIEWS (religious or not) through the same venues you do - what he supports with his money and how he votes. Do you want him to deny your right to spend money on or vote for pro-LGBT issues? I don't want to deny you that right by running you out of business or with generally abusive treatment. Discuss and convince, lovingly. That is not at all what I see in the anti-CFA flaming. It's "How dare he believe that! Burn the witch!"

Cassandra - I still think most of your argmument is full of contradictions. Remember, this part of the thread started with Anita implying Jesus and God the Father were having sex, simply to be insulting and derisive, and I compared that to the current treatment of Cathy in the anti-CFA flap. I'm not saying Christians are perfect in the reverse regard, just that's it's wrong and counter-productive for either side to be doing it. You also both state that Cathy has a right ot his opinion but that he doesn't have the right to impose his religious opinioins (views) on others. That is a flat outright contradiction. Of course he has that right, as you have the right to impose your viewpoint. We all have that right in this country, it's called the democratic process. We get enough people to agree with us and we find a legal means to accomplish our goals. And I support the right to boycott, but as a meanspirited attempt to ruin someone's life and livelihood - no, I do not support that. And in this particular spat, I don't see how buying chicken to support a person's right to his opinion can be compared to having gay couple kiss outside of a store. The latter is offensive and borderline abusive "in your face" stupidity. I would say the same about heterosexuals organizing a kissing event outside of a pro-gay or gay-owned establishment.

We are so far apart on our opinions here as to not be worth pursuing. I will allow the public to make its judgement.

Intentionally kissing with the _intent_ of disgusting and in-your-facing of your opponent is reprehensible. What next? Gay sex on a Chick-fil-a table? To which Christians respond with straight sex in public places? Please, your past the bounds of propriety.

I find your accusation of not understanding your side of the issue offensive. I think I understand your side very well, and I simply disagree. As I have said in other posts here, I am sick and tired of being labeled ignorant and a bigot for simply having a different opinion and social agenda. I don't think we can agree to disagree, because I don't really think either of us can grant that the other side is "reasonable". I'm willing to say I understand your viewpoint and simply don't think it's "best" or the most truthful or beneficial viewpoint or approach. You want to relegate me to a barbaric idiot who can't understand what he's reading. Let the reader decide.

Case in point..100 years ago the word Gay had NOTHING to do with homosexuals. It had everything to do with being happy and ..well GAY!

in 2000 years, the word gay will mean _____ and they will have to figure out which meaning we're using..the 1800s version..or the 1900s version..how will they ever figure that out???

What you state as facts are actually opinions. Your label of groups that aren't pro-gay as "Hate Groups" kicks it off. Jumping to calling him a bigot and stating he is denying someone a right that a whole bunch of people believe is not a right is also simple opinion. You further dump scorn and make a subjective evaluation that his beliefs are simply a mimicing of a "5000 beliefs born of ignorance" which I suppose was meant to allude to 5000 years of biblical history, but whatever. My "burn the witch" is certainly hyperbole, but I assume you see my point - people are making him about to be a hateful bigot (the present day equivalent of a witch in my allusion) for simply having a legal difference of opinion. You employ the very hateful attitude and methods that you condemn in your opponent.

"If you re read my post you will see that I stated very clearly that he has a right to his opinion. He does not have the right to impose his religious views on me or anyone." As I stated above, this is a contradiction in your stance. He has done nothing illegal and is following the normal means that all citizens have to "impose his views" through the law or support of legislations, etc. He has that right, and so do you and without being subjected to hate speech like "bigot". It's what America is all about.

Thank you so much for putting so much research and intellectual integrity into this article . As a Christian who has felt so much like crawling under a rock to hide my shame , reguarding the simpleton stand that so many Christians take on this subject ) , I have no words to thank you for equipping us with an intelligent , Biblical response .(It is a mystery to me , why this perspective hasn't surfaced before now . It makes me sad that it took this long ... at the same time , I am very greatful for your invaluable share . I will definitely be doing my part to make sure it is shared with as many people as possible . Again , thank you very much !

"Across America, gay marriage is not allowed in most states,"

And Jesus said, give to God what is Gods, give to Caesar what is Caesars, which means if God does not prohibit gay marriage NO state has the right by Gods law. Nice try but you have just put man's earthly law OVER the law of the bible, as expressed in this article.

Thank you for this wonderful article!

Thought provoking article. Until I reached the point where the writer clearly interjected more of his own satire and emotion than truth and fact. One of the biggest struggles I have as a Christian woman, is when the Bible is quoted and misused out of context. Not only when the conversation of homosexuality comes up, but the most common.."money is the root of all evil."whatever" when in fact the verse states the LOVE of money is......so here, I see the point trying to be made, however, do a favor to your mind and read the before and after of the verses quoted. The meaning is different, when used in its proper context. I dont condemn. Thats not my place. We will all be expected to answer for our choices by our Creator. I have peace knowing that Jesus promised our salvation when we promise to follow him. We are not to decide who is saved. Christ is. I wish this article spent less time soapboxing the bitterness this gentleman feels from obvious years of turmoil from the world. I wish he truly knew that this world, is short lived and doesnt matter. God is love, and love is God. At the end of the day, the bible is the inspired word of god. As translated by man. If gods in your heart, you are in his grace. Period. It is pointless to argue homosexuality and god and the bible. By doing so you are allowing the enemy to win...by stealing your joy. Is that what you want?

This world is short-lived and does not matter? So should we turn a blind eye to starving children ? The mother who just lost her 19 year old son in Afghanistan? Should we even bother to arrest murderers, after all God will be judging them why should man? Should we not care about the outrageous numbers of people dying from malaria or AIDS in Africa? After all this world does not matter, it's the next life that counts.

And you know the lifestyles of gays..because you are gay and know all there is to know? Or because you heard about the crazy gays and think you know all there is to know?

I'm so glad you wrote this. Thank you! Matthew 22:38

Thanks. His snarkiness showed his bitterness towards others (not love) that disagreed.

I'm sorry - since when has there been a killing of someone because they're straight?

Since when was the love we are supposed to show based on how others treat us? What happened to loving your enemies? As christians, we aren't given the choice to hate - only to love.

This is such a hate-filled statement. I hope you don't call yourself a christian. Or if you do - you better get back on your knees and ask forgiveness.

What you are failing to see is that the hate that can sometimes - and I repeat - SOMETIMES come out of the LGTB community towards Christianity is born of oppression, and hate that is heaped upon them by a Judeo-Christian society from the time they come out, and even before. Most gay people know they are gay when they are young children (ask them!), and yet do not come out until they are teenagers or later for fear of judgment and ostracism, in addition to self-loathing from being told that they are an abomination all their lives.
if a group of people spit on your very existence, define you by your sexual orientation, abuse and intimidate you at every turn, and tell yo uthat your immortal sould is doomed to burn in eternal hell for something that is beyond your control, do YOU think YOU'D be happy, jolly "let's go get an ice cream!" towards that group? I think not.
Don't believe me? Go to Yemen and wear your cross about town, dress your wife in shorts and no hat, hold her hand as you walk down the street and kiss her in a photo, and see how you are treated.
Now imagine living like that every day of your life.

most of my friends are gay/lesbian and while i have witnessed many acts of HATE towards them i have yet to see any of them HATE someone for being straight. of course you think this blog twisted the scriptures but thats only because you have warped them long ago.

Lee, your comment presupposes that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive. As one such person, do you suggest I hate myself because I am gay, or because I am a Christian?

"The meanest Christian can't hold a candle to the gay community and the awful things they say about Christians"
Really? Ever heard of the Wesboro Baptist Church? Or perhaps you are actually a member

As a Christian, who believes what the Bible says about homosexuality, I find the actions and words of the WBC detestable.

America, it would seem, considers itself apart from the rest of the world? To look for hundreds of thousands of oppressed Christians you would have to look at Ethiopia, China, Russia {particularly before the fall of the Iron Curtain} Papua New Guinea... The list does go on. Many thousands have been killed for a faith far less militant than that of the American variety.

My advice to America would be to no longer dwell on your fears.

Eight men cost America four trillion dollars. Christians took up arms and marched east, countless lives have been lost. Fires and bombs at Abortion clinics... What should the rest of the world think of you? What of God's great Love?

Jesus proclaimed the peace of God to all mankind, not because we behaved correctly and had everything in order and he was well pleased, but because peace pleased him and he considered his death to be worth it. Peace between anyone and God, regardless of their right action or lack thereof. The only requirement was believing he died and was resurrected from death, and that his life replaced yours. His right doing attributed to each of us without regard for what we have done.

The most important thing is lost in endless debate over a topic that is needlessly expounded upon. Lighten up. Get to know Jesus for yourselves if find it so necessary to know what he thinks of your own behaviour. People cannot be changed aside from God's own power to change anyway.

I've tried so hard to change myself, it does not work. I have found more change in two years of telling God I'm not going to try to change anything, than in all the rest of my life. What does that mean? God is good, is what I think after considering all he has done without a dint of effort from me.

Yet you, America, you are so full of violence. How have you missed the entirety of the Gospel? Peace toward mankind. Peace.

Perhaps one might say: "But what about standing up for what you believe?" Indeed, I have never met anyone who has solved conflict with conflict, nor spread peace without having peace first themselves.

I hope that is helpful to someone. America shows such great promise, but is fraught with fearful (fear-filled) behaviour. America, I don't know what to think of you.

I sincerely wish that people with closed minds also came with closed mouths!!!!

A) When you spread hate, don't be surprised when comes back to you tenfold.

B) Nobody is trying to force you to DO or BELIEVE anything. You're free to continue being a bigot all you like. You just aren't going to be allowed to enforce your own bigotry through the legal system.

Really? Gays are the most hateful group saying awful things about Christians?Isn't the Christians who are saying gays are perverted, it is the same as terrorism, gay people have mental disorders. Gay people will be the cause of the of civilization. Oh and of course it is because of the gays that 9/11 happened and the Columbine shootings and hurricane Katrina and the recent shooting in Colorado. Oh, but is the gays who are hateful and intolerant. Oh how could I forget the medieval torture we are planning to do to straight people in the future. Nothing hateful about that statement.

Exactly how are Christians being bashed. When is the last time a Christian was tied to a fence, beaten nearly to death and left in the freezing cold to die simply because they were Christian? When is the last time a Christian was beaten after they left a church? Or had their house burned down or their car vandalized with anti Christian slurs? Telling you that you are not allowed to discriminate based on you beliefs is not bashing. It's called freedom. You have the right to believe what you want and live your life how you wish and so do I. WE are not a theocracy, if you want to live in a theocracy then might I suggest Yemen or Saudi Arabia. There you will be free to impose your 5000 year old beliefs under pain of death.

Why are so afraid of sexuality. It is such a wonderful part of our lives.

"Methinks thou doth protest too much"? This most certainly cuts both ways... no?

Absolutely spectacular! Thank you so much for this!

Homosexuality is not a sin. Did you read the article? Perhaps English isn't your first language?

Boy am I glad we pagans don't have to worry one bit about what is "sin" and not... Hail Frøya!

This was a fabulously written piece! My daughter, who is 15, traveled with a church to San Francisco this past summer to feed the homeless. She left the church after dealing with a constant barrage of youth slinging sexual epithets at the LGBTQ public on the streets of SF. The youth pastors own son was encouraged in his use of the word "faggot". My daughter, who has been home schooled her entire life, was so saddened and disheartened by their behavior. Sadly enough, on the same trip, was the daughter of a lesbian woman who was constantly forced to swallow, "Your mother is going to hell". She spent many a night crying to my daughter because the words were so hurtful. Thank you for writing this as it has given my child much useful "ammunition" for the future.

This comment will be mainly for the relative few here who are following the biblical commands to "test everything; hold on to what is good", and "let everyone be quick to listen [read, in this case], slow to speak ..." I notice that the great majority of people here clearly aren't reading the article at all ... not in the sense of actually carefully considering, thinking about, let alone researching, what has been written ... but seem mostly to be reacting reflexively, as if one or more buttons in them were pushed by the "h"-word or things related to that. Their comments talk right past clear and thorough statements in Mark's article, not to mention clear and thorough study of God's Word as it was originally written (to the best of our understanding).

They don't, in fact, seem to be interested in anything at all except in proclaiming what they have already been convinced of ... even though, again, if these people are Christians (I don't know, only God knows their hearts), you'd expect them to at least be *attempting* to obey his Word and "test everything" (which, of course, includes everything we've thought previously, not just everything we're reading or hearing now), and "be quick to listen [read]".

So this is for those of you who actually ARE doing those things ... carefully thinking, considering, researching, and listening. You'll notice that none of those who object to this article (or to its main premise) have responded at all to the pretty lengthy two comments I posted earlier. (And it's not like I feel left out ... "Boo hoo, they're ignoring me!")

For example, nobody responded (and if I missed something in someone's comment, I apologize ... I'm trying to read those carefully, too, out of respect for those who took the time to comment) to my references to both David's (and Jonathan's) bisexuality, nor to the beautiful scene in the gospels where the Lord healed the centurion's beloved (probably his lover) servant; no one responded to my description of how all the rest of God's (sexually-reproducing) creation also displays naturally-occurring (that is, God-created) sexual orientations and often bonded mating relationships across the whole spectrum, from straight to bi to gay (nor, especially, how that's observed, in both human and animal communities, not to be an "aberration", but to have positive values for the communities); and nobody responded to my discussion of Galileo vs. the biblical literalists of his time (which is exactly the same conflict as is going on today, it's just a different topic), nor especially my suggestion that, if they want to insist on reading the Bible as literally as that, they ought to reject Galileo's findings as well, and teach their kids that the sun and the rest of the universe orbits Earth. (That also means, no more Weather Channel, with its "secular science" that ascribes the weather to observable physical phenomena, and doesn't give God any credit for it! Of course, for my part, I see no conflict between the two at all, nor did Galileo of course. God does his work in a universe that we're able to observe and test ... oh yeah, that's the scientific process too: "test everything; hold on to the good".)

So for the rest of you, those who obey God by listening, thinking, testing, researching, and examining, once again you'll notice that the objectors don't appear to do ANY of that; they don't bother to examine, let alone follow up on, the pretty careful research into Scripture (including its original languages, and the cultural or historical context of the times in which God had it written, which of course is how the people of the time would have understood it), they just talk right past that and repeat what they've been told elsewhere (or may have thought for themselves). But that means they're also not "testing everything" in those things, either.

Granted, it's hard to change your mind when facts shake or challenge things you've held firmly, or devoutly believed, for a long time. I've been a born-again Christian for 50 years, and a serious theology student and have engaged in various sorts of ministry at conservative churches for a lot of my adult years, and for a long time I was as firmly convinced of the same things that these objectors believe, as they are: that same-sex orientation (let alone behavior) is a sin; that you have to take the Bible literally, at face value, at pretty much every point (Adam and Eve, and all); and that if you DON'T do that, somehow it's all connected so integrally that, like pulling the wrong pieces out of a Jenga puzzle, you'll undermine the gospel, and your faith (or the truth of the gospel) will utterly collapse.

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

thank you so much!

Re: Justin's comment: "Yet you seem to deny the Bible's divine authorship by claiming that the people didn't have science back 5000 yrs ago. So, if we are to believe that the Bible is inspired and written by God through man, wouldn't God know pretty well exactly how everything works in His creation?"

To say people didn't have our scientific knowledge 5000 years ago is not in the least to deny divine authorship. Rather, it upholds God's infinite understanding of the capacity of the divinely-created human mind. God knew that 2000-plus years ago the human capacity for understanding creation as it really is was limited: 1 Corinthians 3:2 "I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready,
..." Little by little, God feeds us greater understanding as God increases our capacity. Because God is the wisest teacher, we now have a level of understanding of homosexuality's place in creation that ancient peoples could not possible have comprehended. God gave them the understanding they were capable of, and gives us more. To insist on sticking with the ancient level of understanding is to deny God's continuing sovereignty over all creation, including the human mind.

I have to point out: it is not true, as R. Smith seems to claim, that one must be a Biblical literalist to believe that God's law condemns homosexual activity.

On the contrary: the real situation is so close to completely the other way around, I am surprised Smith would even bother with the claim. For what is really required is the deep understanding of the Creation accounts, and of the overall trend throughout all of Scripture, the trends concerning the right and wrong use of our natural energies. This is what is REALLY required to understand why it is condemned so strongly.

So what is this deep understanding? It is the realization that each of the separate creation acts in Genesis is a setting up of a division in nature, a division that Man is commanded to overcome, uniting what is divided. Thus, for example, in his body, man unites the material creation with the intelligent creation. For the only other intelligent creations are the angels, and they have no material bodies.

But Man has this calling from God to unite more than this. He has the calling to unite the earthly paradise with the rest of the Earth, unite Earth with Heaven, and even male with female through chastity (not through what you might think the obvious way).

It is the last union that the homosexual act radically renounces. That is what makes it so evil.

Furthermore, it should be clear from the overall trend that the only licit (under God's law) outlet for this natural energy is the obvious one, between a man and his wife. If this is not clear from the Pentateuch (where many wives and even concubines were allowed), it should be clear from Proverbs, where the putative author has many wives, yet waxes profound in his praise for monogamous marriage.

Actually, this is a good example of how the right use of that natural energy is assumed in Scripture to be marriage: the command is given to the male reader of Proverbs (face it: in those days the reader was always assumed to be male) to avoid the pleasures of other women and delight in the breasts of "the wife of your youth".

It could hardly be more clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

What a bunch of bs 2 timothy 4:3 for the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine instead to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. It is not for us to decide if what the lord commands is kind or proper

(part 2)

Meanwhile, your remarks about Genesis are really pretty strange --- regardless of anyone's view on biblical literalism. You said this:

"For what is really required is the deep understanding of the Creation accounts, and of the overall trend throughout all of Scripture, the trends concerning the right and wrong use of our natural energies. This is what is REALLY required to understand why it is condemned so strongly.

"So what is this deep understanding? It is the realization that each of the separate creation acts in Genesis is a setting up of a division in nature, a division that Man is commanded to overcome, uniting what is divided. Thus, for example, in his body, man unites the material creation with the intelligent creation. For the only other intelligent creations are the angels, and they have no material bodies.

"But Man has this calling from God to unite more than this. He has the calling to unite the earthly paradise with the rest of the Earth, unite Earth with Heaven, and even male with female through chastity (not through what you might think the obvious way)."

Those are really some of the strangest views on Genesis I've ever read, although they sound very much like they derive from some rather abstruse philosophical views on the book. I don't deny that it's a very interesting, somewhat esoteric take on Genesis (and on the role of humankind in nature, and so on) --- but outside of some more esoteric traditions in, say, the eastern (Greek) church, or perhaps in some Hebrew kabbalistic traditions, it would be remarkable to find many commentators who took that view: that humankind's role is to somehow unite what was divided.

Rather, the overall Christian view through most of church history has been the overall unity or harmony of God's creation, with any division coming in as the result of sin (division between us and God; division among humans; conflict in our minds, emotions, or other inner nature). So to be frank, I can't even accept your views as having any kind of validity.

Among the many problems with those views, there is not the slightest evidence in all of Scripture that humans were set the task of “uniting” anything in nature (including in ourselves), only of the basic things that God later reaffirms through the rest of the Book: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic 6.8, which of course paraphrases principles found in “Love the Lord your God, love your neighbor as yourself” and the Golden Rule --- which are all simply different ways of saying the same thing). On the contrary, since you said that “each of the separate creation acts in Genesis is a setting up of a division in nature”, actually all of Scripture depicts the whole creation as a single act of God overall (although with myriad specific details, obviously), and that when he was done with it, he pronounced it good. That’s not the picture of some intentionally divided thing, that humans somehow have to remedy.

(cont.)

(part 4 and final --- yay!)

Oh, and one more point! Neither you, nor most others who pose those uninformed arguments, refer to another obvious fact: relationships. Or (if you are in a male-female marriage) is your marriage just a convenient, socially-validated excuse to have sex? I’m willing to bet that most people reading this, if they are in a female-male marriage, did so because they actually loved that person, wanted to give their life to them, wanted to build a life together with them. Likewise, if any of you were to say to your spouse, “Honey, when we got married, it’s not like I ‘loved’ you; I just wanted a socially acceptable way to, you know, get it on!”, then we could probably count in microseconds the time it would take for your spouse to (rightly) kick your butt out of the house for good.

Shame on the hypocrisy of those who harp on and on about same-sex sexual relations, but steadfastly refuse even to consider the matter of actual relationships --- again, which God provides, and joins his living things in, both in same-sex and in opposite-sex pairings. The callous people who try to enjoin GLBT people to simply live celibate lives --- while they themselves may be happily married --- are the some of the most base of hypocrites, denying others the love and happiness that they meanwhile enjoy.

In sum: neither you, nor those who think like you, have any idea what you’re talking about. You embarrass yourselves with ignorance --- not just being uninformed (in this day and age, there is less and less excuse for being uninformed on this matter, anyway), but being willfully ignorant. But now you know: so I hope we can count on you to be people of honesty and integrity, and change your views, as even the Vatican did.

Oh, and speaking of 'honesty', Roger, if YOU were honest, you would admit that the views on Genesis I expressed are 'strange' to you only because you are so ignorant of the history of interpretation of Genesis. For it is most certainly NOT only in the 'esoteric' traditions that this interpretation is standard. On the contrary: you will find it wherever the Cappadocian Fathers are read and respected. If you look carefully, you can even find at least remnants of it in the Roman Catholic Church Catechism -- certainly not an 'esoteric' source.

But by calling it 'strange' and 'esoteric', you are the one who should feel embarrassed to expose that YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

Nor is is true, as you claim, that there is no hint of the command to unify things in Scripture. Again, you show your ignorance of the history of interpretation of Genesis. Why, you even show ignorance of Christ's own interpretation of marriage, where he quotes Genesis as stating that marriage makes of the two ONE flesh. Since at least in the Jewish tradition, those same lines from Genesis IS traditionally interpreted as a command to marry, that is the very example you were unable to see: a command to unite male and female in one flesh.

There are other examples (e.g. peacemaking), but if you cannot follow the explanation of this one, you will miss the others, too, so there is no point in my imitating your habit of doing overly long posts explaining it.

My uncle has been reading ancient Greek, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew for more than 50 years. He is a Biblical scholar and minister. He worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He agrees with the author.

God said it and that settles it....
we are all sinners....that is why Jesus died for all our sins...it is our job to believe that and He wants us to come to Him and acknowledge that He is Lord...it is not a debate or a smorgasbord ( religion) you can't pick or choose, or justify or rewrite His word...it is clear and right...I don't know what after life awaits for those who deny Him as the only way, but I know I am going His way and await the day....even as a sinner...I accept Jesus as my Lord and savior..All these religions are there to choose ....but we all can't be right....in the end..I will go with Christ..

MJ, a preacher told me in a sermon once that the basis of religion is belief. All the interpretations aside, I don't believe for a second that God would create someone that was gay, and command him to live his life perpetrating a lie.

The bans on gay marriage will eventually be proven to be unconstitutional, at current laws favor gay hating churches over churches who teach God's message of love for one another. With some churches supporting gay marriage and some against it, on what constitutional basis would you defend bans on gay marriage? What argument could you present to the SCOTUS that would convince them that such a ban is constitutional?

MJ, honestly I'm not going to waste any more time trying to respond to you, because all you keep doing is (1) referring to an obscure branch of Greek theology that doesn't even remotely begin to represent anything that's ever been mainstream in Christian thought, plus (2) getting pretty obsessive about "things that should not be discussed directly", even though Scripture also talks bluntly about semen! and testicles! and prostitution! and soiled feminine hygiene products ["menstruous cloths"]! Egads!

Honestly, you're pretty off-balance. I pray for some good psychological counseling for you, since otherwise you're not likely to be able to talk reasonably about any of this with anyone. Thanks.

Sorry I'm so late to the dance. I suspect MJ is either a pre-Vatican II Catholic priest or monk (or maybe a nun). His argument has all the trademarks: references to Pauline contemporaries, expertise in Greek, insistence upon celibacy outside of marriage, insistence on monolithic, Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures, implication that humans must be involved in some sort of works for understanding and ultimately salvation, dismissal of Galileo (still!), and so on. Nothing wrong with any of that, except that whole Galileo thing, because G was right. Vatican II brought most Catholics into modern life, but apparently some prefer the Middle Ages.

I haven't yet read the entire article, but I will just say this - claiming that homosexuality is a choice is like saying that depression is just a choice. Even if the interpretation of Corinthians (that people who are driven to sin commit homosexual acts, a non-permanent state that can be changed) is correct, this does not mean that it is OK to bash homosexuals, any more than it is OK to bash depressed people. There is always a clash of perspectives when you try to get someone else to change their perspective - true Christians may need to learn how to detach sexual from personal identity as Jesus taught, and until we all learn how to do that - don't judge.

"Get real." Well, that's an intelligent argument.

If you bother to do any serious research in to Bible you will find that not only do a number of posters here believe Jonathan and David's relationship to be a romantic one, but also many Biblical scholars.

2 Timothy 4:3
For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.

We are members of a Presbyterian Church in Asheboro but have not attended in a year. We previously had two gay friendly and supportive ministers. Then the church brought in a new minister. We are a gay couple who has been together for 42 years. The minister told us it is clear God says our relationship is a sin. We know what it feels like to be ostracized and alienated by the church. Needless to say when we attend church we no longer go to FPC, Asheboro.

Hmmmm, "No where in the Bible is there an example of same sex marriages." I believe I read that comment several times above. So, let me think, I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where there is an example of dinosaurs, North America, South America, Antarctica, Jupiter, Mars, automobiles or airplanes either. What's your point?

2 Timothy 4:3
For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear.....This has ALSO been said several times above. Have you looked in a mirror? How are you so sure YOU'RE not the one "no longer listening to sound and wholesome teaching"?

Quit trying to "Humanize" God by trying to fit him into a mold YOU understand. You will drive yourself crazy trying to do it (if you haven't already). Nothing irritates me more than to have someone try to interpret my thoughts or assume they know my inner being, especially when they haven't taken the time to get to know me and READING about me doesn't cut it. You'd better take the time to talk to me, build a relationship with me before you can even begin to KNOW me. Since I was made in GOD'S image & not the other way around, I have to believe a lot of the comments above could be ticking Him off royally. Reading written word is/always has/always will be up for interpretation. You can NOT change that nor can you cram your interpretation down another's throat and expect them to willing accept it as fact. Your interpretation is your reality, so who is right/wrong? I would challenge all, to set aside what you've read and how you've been instructed. Clear all those things from your mind, then sit down and have a REAL conversation with God. Get to know him.....REALLY get to know him. Then after you've conversed with Him & allowed HIM to have the relationship He wants to have with you, if it's STILL important to have the question answered about homosexuality, ASK HIM. My guess is, you won't feel the NEED to ask, because the answer won't be anymore important to you than knowing why he gave you the color eyes you have. Stop being so self-righteous. Christ himself didn't judge, why are you above him?
While I'm not of the sexual orientation under your microscopic scrutiny, I can & will say, after reading the harsh comments above, I would choose to seek out my friends of that nature ANYDAY over your condemning company. The ones I know, are by far and away more loving, kind, caring, tolerant & non-prejudiced individuals (God's image?) than a great number of self-proclaimed Christians & Scholars.

The following extended quote is excerpted from an article by Richard Elliot Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, authors of The Bible Now:

We are scholars, not politicians. Our job isn't to score points for a side, push an agenda or to re-size the Bible to fit our personal views.

So here's the text and a summary of the evidence:

"You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to'ebah" (offensive thing)
Leviticus 18:22.

"And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to'ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them"
Leviticus 20:13.

We acknowledged that many people have recognized that these two texts pretty clearly do prohibit at least some kinds of male-male sex ... The law really means what pretty much everyone has taken it to mean for centuries. Whatever view one takes, one must address the law fairly in terms of what it says.

So we sought to contribute another perspective that we believe can be helpful on this subject. The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to'ebah, translated in English here as "an offensive thing" or in older translations as "an abomination." This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. In both of the contexts in Leviticus (chapters 18 and 20), male homosexuality is the only act to be called this. (Other acts are included broadly in a line at the end of chapter 18.) So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts.

The question is: Is this term to'ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to'ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative – meaning that something that is a to'ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to'ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to'ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another – in which case the law may change as people's perceptions change?

When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they're cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don't eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don't find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.

...

Now, one might respond that the law
here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God – and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase "an offensive thing to the LORD" (to'ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to'ebah to God!

If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to'ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to'ebah that opens the possibility of the law's change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This could involve arguments and evidence from specialists in biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise as Bible scholars. Our task here has been to make the biblical evidence known.


Are Biblical Laws About Homosexuality Eternal?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-elliott-friedman/biblical-law-on-homosexuality_b_911963.html

Richard Elliot Friedman, Shawna Dolansky
(authors of "The Bible Now")
Huffington Post
posted 8/1/2011 04:52 PM ET
retrieved 9/16/2011

God Bless you.

I wonder at what age do most heterosexual people choose their sexuality? Did you have a choice of being heterosexual or homosexual? I do not think so.

I am so glad that I am going to hell when I die according to your beliefs, cause I cannot wait to get away from all of you nut jobs. How do I know I'm going to hell? Simple I try to blaspheme the holy spirit (Jesus said, unforgivable) at least three times every day before breakfast. I hold this ritual in my life because of the way all of you Christian folks lead your lives. You all carry the same round about mindset. You vote republican because of their stance on one rediculous completely inornate issue ( think the big A) while the political party you trust so much to carry out gods will proceeds to sell out your children's future like eating is going out of style. It's almost 2012 and If you want to back Romney, hope your kids speak Chinese. I love that you all love interpreting the bible to suit your modern agenda. But your gods stance on this issue is a repetitive and firm stance throughout the bible. In Leviticus for example, god does not say, "here are some guidelines to live by while you wait for that science thing to be discovered." In fact its quite the opposite its more like, "these are the rules, forever if you don't like it, then go to hell." Quite literally. So I mean if you want to be true Christians you must accept gods word for what he claims it to be, Infallible. Therefore unless the translation was misinterpreted, which technically god would forgive you for, when you see a homosexual person you should quite literally grab a big rock and bludgeon that queer to death with it. As homosexuals are an abomination. Not my words, your god can claim them. So grab your rocks and take to the streets because there's some fags that deserve a good stoning for their abominable sexual preference.

To the author of this blog, I am glad that you are trying to help the gblt community to overcome some of their oppressions by nipping the source in the proverbial butt, no pun intended, ...I take it back, intended... However you seem to be far to smart of a person to buy into all this religion crap. I hope for your sake that someday you realize the truth about these absurd stories and your intelect can be put to far greater and more formidable use. A scholar and a gentleman &/or (pun intended.) lady you truly are.

"Jimbo, there is no god, wake up. You are a sad little man, life would have been so much better for you if religion ceased to exist. For that I am sorry"-Jesus Christ

Jake, I was trying to make the point that no one chooses their sexuality. Heterosexuals are born that way and homosexuals are born that way, etc. Some heterosexuals insist homosexuals choose their sexuality and they do not know what they are talking about. If you will read my first post you will see where my partner and I have been together for 42 years.

So you don't have a problem with a god who feels that shoplifting a stick of gum is no different than slitting someone's throat?

Since all is sin is equal, and you are guilty of road rage, does that mean you will also be burning in Hell with all of the evil homosexuals?

I believe the Bible says male-male sex is an abomination not a sin.

While literally you are correct that Jesus never comments on homosexuality, he does mention it. Those familiar with the Greek used in the centuries around the formation of Christianity and not just New Testament Greek will recognize that the Centurian's "servant" is in fact his male concubine, who Jesus heals without comment.

I just wish many of the people who leave comments wouldn't accuse someone of "tickling of ears" or the like. You notice that that accusation goes both ways. Just because someone bothers to take a concordance to their Bible and to learn to understand it (in Divinity school, no less) and comes to a different conclusion does not mean they are blaspheming. Thing is, all of us, gay and straight, love the same God. At least one of these sides is fundamentally wrong about how God sees things. So stop judging, again.

Thank you! Thank you! And thank you again! I have known for a very long time that being homosexual was NOT a sin. I have asked my pastor about it to no avail. I have prayed about it. I have asked God for His truth and not that of The Church. Someone commented about reading scriptures in the mind set of the Holy Spirit. I see that you have done exactly that. This article also helped me on another issue I have been struggling to understand. That being my own understanding of the bible has/is been used in an angle of misinterpretation of a mistranslation. I hope to gain your permission to print this and give copies to loved ones? We all believe in Christ's message of love yet struggle because a most beloved family member is gay. This has brought me so much comfort that I wish to share it! It is indeed an answered prayer! Again I thank you and look forward to reading more of your work. (I LOVED the humor! Carry on!)

Great article, entertaining comments. The biggest thing I always notice about these discussions is the seemingly "anti-GLBT" commentators almost always accuse the author of manipulating the scriptures to fit their beliefs, however they themselves have manipulated scripture to rule out the most important value gifted to us from Jesus Christ himself. Love.

Great article! However, even if the Bible did condemn homosexuality (which it didn't because it was not a defined concept at the time [i.e. you can't describe in a book how you hate the color red if there is no word for red]), it would still be irrelevant. We have come to many moral understandings such as slavery is wrong, we don't own women, etc. The vast majority of Christians (including literalists even though they won't admit it)have come to recognize that the Bible is not perfect. If we reassess some things in the bible then everything has to be reassessed and re-evaluated using the same moral thought process that we used to arrive at the conclusion that we do not stone our naughty children or send away women when they are on their period. You can not pick and choose to suit your own comfort or adhere to societal norms. Speaking of 'pick and choose' copy/paste this URL for a good laugh!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

How is that reasoning convincing? By its logic, we should also believe that

1) the Earth is the center of the universe

2) slavery is moral (as long as you don't kill your slaves or beat them until they lose body parts)

3) women are property, and their ownership passes from their fathers to their husbands

I'd like to see how Mark Sandlin interprets the greek word chresis in Romans 1:26-27.

The complete passage of Romans 1 describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.

Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual).

For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul's writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities.

As C. Ann Shepherd writes: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals."

I read this with an open mind hoping to learn something I may not have known and after reading all the scriptures listed, he has failed to convince me of his point.

Thank you for your hard work and witty writing. To be honest I was losing faith that there were many good, logical Christian people left in the world. So many people forget the 11th commandment given by Jesus at the last supper. . .to love. I am not a Christian (nor am I a homosexual or bi-sexual), however I did go to a Jesuit college for undergrad and have the utmost respect for those (seemingly) few who live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. Thank you again.

LOL!

It is long but well worth reading. Thank you for researching and writing this.

"I'm repenting after this post because I could be wrong"

That was absolutely delightful. God bless you and keep you. You ARE wrong, but you'll figure it out. P.S.: smoking marijuana isn't a sin, either, unless it's done to excess, just like drinking alcohol.

Its just so funny to me most of the post from the religious on here talk about twisting the verse's to fit some ideal....of gay acceptation...but all i see is someone speaking of love and tolerance....Your problem with this is what??? because its no longer being twisted into something hateful?..You know i love god, I speak with god, And I've never felt wrong for being myself. He made me smart, creative, funny, loving, and in all those he didn't leave room for rhetoric and bashing of anyone...Who am i to say he doesn't know what he's doing. Who are you to say anything when he's right you pick and choose what is usable as gods laws to fit your lifestyles...Maybe people should just concentrate on being good humans, might make us more understanding and less ignorant of others.

Wayne, it is you who appear to be reshaping the Bible around self.

"Sexual identity" is an un-Biblical myth that is propagated by the discredited "ex-gay movement. The Bible offers no support whatsoever to the ex-gay notions that homosexuality is caused by overbearing mothers, distant fathers, or abuse. Nor does the Bible offer any support to the myth that male homosexuality can be cured by acting tough and playing football, or that female homosexuality can be cured by working in feminine careers, wearing un-Biblical lipstick, and wearing sexy dresses that would be condemned by the Bible's authors.

There is no Biblical concept of an "identity in Jesus" -- that's another ultraconservative hoax. Homosexuality is neither an identity nor a behavior nor a lifestyle. Homosexuality is a state of sexual attraction -- a deeply integrated personality characteristic.

When someone is attracted to the same gender but they claim to be heterosexual, they are not expressing an "identity in Jesus" -- they are lying.

Jesus has shown millions of gay Christians in our churches -- and their families -- that they are loved as they are.

When you smear, reject, and ostracize gay Christians, Wayne, you bow to a spirit of untruthful denial and vengeance -- and you risk blasphemy by claiming that your will is the same as God's.

I don't think it would be a loving God that would
1) create two people
2) have them fall in love with each other
3) punish them for it

What I can't understand is why anyone who understands this stays religious! All the great religions teach something similar to the Golden Rule. To believe that murder and stealing were accepable before Moses is nuts! It's what works in any society and humans are social creatures. Check out science instead.

Remember that in Genesis 19 it was perfectly fine (admirable even) for Lot to offer his virgin daughters to be raped instead of the male guests! Go figure!

The religious pick and choose the quotes they like: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Two same sex people in a loving committed relationship is not a sin. Being homosexual is no more a choice than someone being heterosexual. A heterosexual person does not have the choice of being gay and a gay person does not have the choice of being heterosexual.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." That is stated as plainly and clearly as you can get

Exodus 35:2, Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

That is stated as plainly and clearly as you can get.


1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

It doesn't get any clearer than this, does it? So please explain to everyone why gays are still persecuted yet we don't kill people who work on the sabbath or sell our daughters into slavery. And you women out there better make sure you keep your mouth shut in church.

Really, please explain. The Bible is precise in its commandment to kill those who do not obey the sabbath. Just as Leviticus is clear that "man shall not lie with man". So why are we condemning homosexuals and denying them equal status yet we allow those who beak the fourth commandment. And no, I am not trying to "justify" homosexuality by pointing to other "sins" people commit everyday. I am pointing out your hypocrisy and ignorance. If homosexuality is wrong because of what it states in the Bible and must follow what the Bible states, then we must follow all of God's word. Right? Anything else is just bigotry cowardly hiding behind a sentence.

JUDGEMENT AND LOVE and knowing the difference.
So the main purpose of the article is judgment and why does the church not love towards people who struggle with homosexuality. Well, First off, I can say that the church can be judgmental, I will give you that. But do not generalize the church to that judgment though. Because then that becomes hypocrisy. The statement “hate the sin, love the sinner” is totally valid and possible. If we go by the statement “You are not a sin, but a child of God.” Because you are NOT a sin! If you are saying you are a sin, then you are giving the excuse to sin.
I will go to the examples of what judgment looks like and love looks like, First I will do judgment.
Bob: Hey
Bill: What’s up
Bob: Nothing much, hey, I have to tell you something.
Bill: What?
Bob: I struggle with Homosexuality...
Bill: WHAT??!!?? That is just wrong, you know you can go to hell for this, right? I am shunning you.
Now this is a very simple and over the top example of judgment. I will go over the mistakes of this. First, Homosexuality is NOT an “Automatic go-to-hell card.” All sins separate us from God and the only way that we can go to heaven is if we have a relationship with Christ. Second off, this is judgment, someone not willing to help you and is forever going to view you as that.
Now here is a conversation done out of love….
Bob: Hey
Bill: What’s up
Bob: Nothing much, hey, I have to tell you something.
Bill: What?
Bob: I struggle with Homosexuality...
Bill: First off, I still love you like a brother-in-Christ no matter what and I am glad that you told me. I will be there for you and help you through this, because you are not a sin, but a child of God.
Bob: I am glad that you are there for me. And Thank-You for not overreacting.
See, this is done out of LOVE. Bill is not condemning him, but he is loving him and helping Bob be more Christ-like.
OTHER ISSUES
As far as other issues not directly relating to homosexuality. 1) Rob Bell is a heretic. He twisted the bible and that is plain and simple. 2) The some of the bible verses that you used are taken out of context and misinterpreted poorly. Even the Greek is misinterpreted poorly on your half. I will use 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (which you only took 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) I want to park on the verse that talks about “nor men who practice homosexuality” You only looked at one of the Greek words that factored the determination, there is another Greek word that needs to be looked at “μαλακοὶ” (malakoi) out of the statement “οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται.” “μαλακοὶ” is an adjective and it’s a Nominative, Masculine, Plural meaning effeminate or male prostitute. The definition of effeminate is “(of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.” Which this is very crucial to go with the next word is ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai.) This is a 1st Declension Noun, Masculine, Nominative, Plural meaning “Male sexual pervert.” Which in many translations of the bible today, since it is an adjective and a noun right next to each other with similar meaning. They call it homosexuality, which I am supportive of this. So anyways, I see that you have received your Masters of Divinity from Wake Forest, which I am very iffy when it comes from the same university for spiritual openness of other religions, which in result you get a more politically liberal education. Meaning you get a cultural view of the bible, which it’s not good. Which you should use the bible to look at culture, DON’T use culture to look at the bible. But it does have one advantage (out of most of the negative), you do have a heart for social justice, which that’s not bad at all. Just thought to be encouraging as well. So I hope this gets my point across, if anyone so chose to read it.

So Jacob, basically what you are saying is that God created homosexual's but does not want them to practice homosexuality.........hmmm, well God created heterosexual's too so they can't practice heterosexuality either right??? I am so tired of this argument and the subject of this article got it right.....it's nothing but a bunch of bible clobbering on the LGBT community especially to promote certain religious organizations agenda's......FEAR and HATRED! Until you are gay or know someone who is you will never understand what it is like to be gay!! PERIOD!! I am a God fearing gay christian man who was brought up in the church and prayed all the time for God to help me to change if in fact being gay was a sin because I did not want to go to hell. The more I prayed, the more I started understanding who I was and I became more and more comfortable with it. He answered my prayers!! The only reason we are arguing homosexuality is because all these years it's taught that it is wrong and the fear tactic is used to scare people into not accepting who they are.......so therefore we grow up believing it is wrong and then it is passed down to their kids and then their kids and hence the cycle of hatred and discrimination keeps going! There is so much more in the bible that we are and are not supposed to be doing but I don't see those things being practiced......you guys seem to want to cling to homosexuality as if it is the only thing wrong! And you wonder why so many gay people do not want anything to do with religion......why would you want to be a part of something that hates you or condemns you!!

Thank God he sent His Son so that He could establish a new covenant with His people. The truth is, we are all doomed lest we believe in the risen Christ. We can always go to Him for forgiveness and mercy. He Is I AM...

I am impressed with the general tone of the comments on this thread. So many threads get huge amounts of capital letters, bad grammar, and name-calling, as well as sloganeering. With a couple exceptions, most arguments on both sides have been reasonably presented and have not resorted to smear tactics.

And here it is, in a nutshell. You may very well believe that your God has proclaimed homosexuality to be a sin, and I have enormous amounts of respect for the author for going to such lengths to think this thing through and present alternative arguments based on the Bible. But the straight fact of the matter is, the fact that you think homosexuality is a sin based on the writings of the Bible means absolutely nothing in the context of law or practice, and doesn't mean a whole lot more in the context of the afterlife (if any). Whether or not God actually stated that homosexuality is a sin, which is very much up for debate, is irrelevant. It is for God to make that call. Your job, all you have been told to do by God, is to live your life as well as you can and following the word of God as you see it, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to not judge. Think what you want, but you do not judge. Not even in that "Oh, Bob, I'll love you anyway even though you're gay and God says that's a sin" way referenced above. (As an aside, how condescending.)

All of the rest of this - marriage, gay sex, whether or not you're born with your sexual inclination - all if it is completely irrelevant if you are living God's word. We don't know, we can't know, if God created homosexuality or if God abhors homosexuality. It's not our job to know or to claim to know. So keep your opinions (because that's all they are) to yourself, and live your life the best way you know how, and I'll do the same. Why is that so hard? It's the Christian thing to do, and easier by far than the hate and judgment so often thrown about.

And just for fun, let me throw this out there - you could be wrong. Maybe there is no God, there was no Jesus, and Christianity is a complete and total fabrication. If that is the case, every single thing you have put forth here is based on nothing but lies and deceit, and should not be credited in any way. There are plenty of people on this planet - billions of them, in fact - who are not Christians, do not believe a single word of the Bible, and still manage to lead productive, healthy, wonderful, moral lives. Christians have no right and in fact no imperative to thrust their beliefs and teachings onto other people, and that being the case, the argument for homosexuality (or anything else) as a sin falls apart for the vast numbers of people who don't believe in your religion. Think about that for a while, and when you get frustrated at how it could possibly be that people hold such an outlandish belief system, and your head is about to explode thinking about how anyone could base their entire life on a flawed belief structure - you'll know how atheists and agnostics view the godly.

I ahve read your article on Gay Clobbering. My wife and I have been reading through the bible and recently finished Romans. I read you unerstanding and interpretation of meanings from Greek. I hope that you can help me in explaining in Romans 1: 26 - forward, where God gave them over to "depravity". What does this mean "depravity"?. I am earnestly seeking to understand as of now I don't believe I can support gay marriage, yet have many friends and fraternity brothers' who are gay. I love them dearly and desire their happiness and equality. But do I do it at what I have read and understood that the Bible talks about? Yes, I do believe that the Word is the Breath of God that Man was given. Yes, I look at the whole picture. No, I don't gay bash. I don't try to judge (however, I'll admit that I sometimes struggle with it). But I do believe that I am a servant of God and a follower of Jesus Christ. I've had to temper my anxieties over my own sexual abuse of others when I was a kid and when I was in my early twenties, while serving my country. I have learned to forgive and forget. To love them all and to empower them to be all they can be for Christ, whatever they do or their chosen vocation. It is not in me to deny equal rights and protection. But I feel like I have to make a choice and believe that my stance is based upon biblical principles and not man made interpretations. I know that that sounds a bit confusing and yes, I gotta say, it's confusing for me sometimes. But I know what my heart tells me and one cannot change the truth no matter how hard they try or dress it up. I only seek the truth. So, can you enlighten me? thanks

The complete passage of Romans 1 describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.

Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual).

For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul's writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities.

As C. Ann Shepherd writes: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals."

It is confusing as you state that you cannot at this support marriage equality yet you want you gay friends have equality. Also, realize that Truth and fact are not the same thing. Truth is philosophical and subjective. Facts are objective and scientific. What is your "truth" is not necessarily someone else's "truth". Truth should not be used to legislate facts should. "Truth" belongs in churches, private homes and philosophy classes.

This comment is to address the logic used to discuss homosexuality here, rather than the subject itself. Essentially, what's proposed here is that, since we can't prove that homosexuality is a sinful act according to scripture then it must be fine for whoever wishes so to engage in it. Bisexuality, by definition, is a construct including both genders being sexually enjoyed by one but is to be embraced independently of any references to monogamy because bisexuality isn't specifically condemned. I have no issues with gay people at all, but at least let's admit that if we're going to condone everything that's not addressed line for line in the Bible, then those who have always had sexual attractions to minors must be brought into the fold, considering that most of them feel they were born with this proclivity. What about culturally contextualizing bestiality, since this "feels" normal to some and can be practiced much more safely in this sophisticated age? I'm not equating all of this other than in the logic used. Rather problematic.....

The author isn't arguing that Christians should condone homosexuality because the Bible doesn't condemn it. He is merely saying that Christians shouldn't *condemn* homosexuality as if the Bible condemns it, because his argument is that it doesn't.

We don't need to read the Bible to condemn bestiality and sex with minors. Neither animals nor children can consent to sexual activities, so an adult having sex with them is engaging in either animal abuse or child rape.

But two adults *can* consent to participate in sexual activities. So two consenting adults performing homosexual acts is NOTHING like an adult having sex with an animal or with a child.

This is why bigots try to justify their hatred and intolerance by quoting the Bible. They want to hold up the Bible as the source of absolute moral truth.

(Side note: merely being revulsed by the idea of gay sex doesn't make you a bigot, just like being revulsed by the thought of fat people having sex, or your parents having sex, doesn't make you a bigot. It's only when you confuse your revulsion with MORAL revulsion that you become bigoted.)

But even that is incredibly stupid, because the Bible is clearly not the source for absolute moral truths. On the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced ("is it okay to own people and treat them like farm equipment"), the Bible gets it WRONG. The Bible says that slavery is okay as long as you don't kill your slaves or beat them so badly that they lose body parts. The Bible also helpfully explains the proper protocol for selling your daughter into slavery.

So even if the Bible does condemn homosexuality, that by itself is a terrible reason for us to condemn it. So why is so bad for two adults who love each other to express that love through intimacy and sex?

When I first started reading your article, I thought you had beaten me to the punch in writing my own opinion.
For a long time, I was not a fan of Paul... mainly because he has been used as the excuse to bring physical and emotional harm to various groups of people. He has been the excuse to deny the right of food for hungry people. He has been used to do a lot of bad. But, it has occurred to me that the whole theme of the Bible is God is Love. At the great Sermon on the Mount, hungry people were fed that day who didn't work a stick all day. And, in the example of Jesus, medical care was rendered til a person was healed and we have no example that Jesus charged anybody one penny. I know that Jesus preached the Love of God in all things and for all people. He would not have called a disciple to preach one word against that theme. If people think so, then they are wrong.
Next. I always just went by Genesis, period, for my feelings concerning homosexuality. You know. Many cultures have changed up the words of the Bible based on, like you pointed out, where they were in human knowledge and development. In our lifetimes, the words have been changed. I was a teen when someone noticed that Genesis said that when Adam and Eve were created, God called them Adam. Real quick, out came the New English versions or the New King James... laying the excuse for these new versions on that people couldn't understand the thees and thous and old English. They said the Bible was boring because it was hard to understand. So, Genesis got changed to variations of how God created Adam and Eve but he called them mankind or humans but not man or Adam. Actually, though:
Clearly, Adam was created and God called him Adam... the first of many men to come after him. God visited him in the cool of the evening. And, then, 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? And, it had nothing to do with original sin. At night, most likely they did lay together. It really isn't our business if they had sex or not. We don't have to know that Jesus peed off the side of the boat now and then, either. Some things aren't our business. Really.
It was not until about Genesis 5 that Eve got her name. Adam gave her that name... because. God could have blown up the whole universe, but He didn't. We know that He must not think that sin, whatever it is is damnable. He could have just given the two Adams the death penalty. Heck, he could have given the death penalty to the son of Adam and Eve who killed his brother, but He didn't. But, he didn't. Adam was no longer going to be living in paradise, for he was going to work the land by the sweat of his brow... and the new Eve had her own purpose. God was offended by her actions. Just as Adam would learn to appreciate just what Paradise was, she would now appreciate what being given life was. She would be the one whose body would create life, carry it, and whose heart would be broken by her offspring. 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? The sharing of a body would include now... but not be discontinued... but would include pregnancy and childbirth. That was the rule and sort of rehabilitation given to Adam and the new Eve... but not the rule for the rest of the generations to come. Clearly, not all of us have the same calling in life. Clearly, that is not the standard that marriage is one man and one woman. Clearly that is not the standard that marriage is forever. God never called a woman to live with a man who beats her and her children. That is not her husband no matter how many judges says it is. And, clearly, sex is not just an act meant to create children. It is an act between two consenting adults. And, it is their private business. It is one of the things that you and I and everyone else not be allowed an opinion.
I heard someone say once that God loves the homosexual, just not the sin and would greet him/her with "Go and sin no more"... well, I have a funny feeling that is how He would greet each of us. Lots of things are a sin but two consenting adults expressing their love isn't one of them. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that.

Thank you so much for sharing your opinion. I couldn't agree more.

[Arsenokoitai] Is Not Such a Mystery.

Clinical psychologist and theologian Stanton L. Jones 10 admits that White effectively invokes "the mystery of arsenokoitai," the unusual word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 that is commonly translated "homosexual sin."11 This, however, is not such a mystery, he argues, and its unraveling reveals a more complex picture of Paul's use of Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.

The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.

Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a "man-lier"). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, "Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Don't do that!" - C. Wayne Mayhall

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-

Loved the article! one thing, I was taught that is was fish with scales and not fins! Fish without scales were the bottom water feeders?? And the ones with scales, ie salmon, haddock, cod et all had scales. Well any ways that is what I was taught back in my youth. So fins or scales, no matter, loved the article and insight!

It has occured to me that those who argue that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" are revealing their own personal conflict regarding sexuality. They are most likely self-repressed homosexuals or bisexuals, or perhaps "straights" who have had gay experiences or a single incident of one and cannot come to terms with said experience in reconciling it (or them) with their religious beliefs, which invariably condemn homosexuality. Any comments or criticisms welcome.

The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest possible terms. According to the Old Testament, God commanded his people to kill homosexuals with rocks whenever they find them. End of story. How can you think that was EVER morally acceptable or a "good thing for the time?" There is no context that justifies it.

I don't understand how gay people (or anybody else) can enjoy this evil religion of hate. It's as bizarre to me as it would be to meet a Jewish person who picks things out of Mein Kampf to believe. Religion is the source of all hatred against gay people in this world. The amount of cognitive dissonance it would take to be a gay Christian seems mind-boggling to me.

I don't understand, when one sees the command to kill children for disobeying, kill people for picking up sticks, and kill people for being gay, how the hell they keep trying to salvage and defend this stupid book. Just throw the damn thing away already! Seriously!

This "clobber passage" is actually in there. Do you believe the Israelites actually had a covenant and contact with God, or do you believe they were a bunch of crazy ignorant barbarians who made up a bunch of horrible rules and acted upon them without any guidance from God? It can't be both!

Liberal Christians like to say those rules were man-made, but if they were, why didn't God intervene to stop them? Where was God when they were killing their children with rocks for not doing their chores?

God can't love homosexuals and let these passages make it into the final copy of the book, or the word "love" has no meaning. And that's really what I think happens with the definition of "love" when it comes to God. God's love apparently allows him to sit on his almighty ass and let the most horrible things happen to you.

One cannot "quit" homosexuality anymore than one can "quit" heterosexuality. You can choose to lie to yourself and enter into a sham marriage with a member of the opposite sex. Or choose to live a celibate life. But none of that changes your sexuality.

Also interesting is the large number of "ex-gays" who turn up in gay bars or troll the net looking for rent boys.

I will try to say this one more time as I have tried many times to make clear to others:

Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22 is not a condemnation of male on male sex. It isn't for a whole lot of reasons. Looking back at the past, three to four thousand years ago, homosexuality did not exist as a "lifestyle" choice. Sexual expression of all kinds was accepted, tolerated & even celebrated...

This verse in Leviticus has been badly interpreted or rendered from the original in Hebrew. To understand its proper meaning one has ot know the Hebrew that it was written in and understand that any other version in any other language will not get the correct meaning. This verse is a condemantion of male-male rape. IT IS A CONDEMNATION OF RAPE OF ONE MAN BY ANOTHER MAN. This verse condemns non-consensual sex of one man on another man. As a result the correct rendering of Leviticus 18:22 is:

"No man shall rape another man. This is a double bad act in the eyes of the Lord."

In order to get the full impact of the meaning, the original Hebrew has to be carefully scrutinized.

And, yes, Sodom & Gamorrah were condemned not for attempting to "rape" their intended "male" victims but because they were not providing hospitality which "respects" the needs of the visitor rather than take advantage of them.

Many passage of Tanach - Hebrew/Jewish sacred texts have not been properly rendered/translated because although Hebrew is specific in Hebrew finding the closest equivalent in another language is difficult to accomplish with clarity.

Again, Leviticus (Veyrikrain Hebrew) chapter 18, verse 22 must be understood this way:

"NO MAN SHALL RAPE ANOTHER MAN."

Specifically Hebrew does not have a word for the verb "to rape" & uses an expression that implies the action of rape whether of a woman or a man but by a male in either situation.

Shalom aleychem/n - Peace be unto you!

Amen to that.

The acrobatics people do to try to make these things fit together is highly entertaining.

The Bible says God gathered animals onto a boat and that there was a global flood. This is because it was written a long time ago when we didn't know what we do now. (The above article agrees).

The Bible says to kill the gays. This is because it was written a long time ago when we didn't know what we do now. (The above article, mysteriously, disagrees. Ain't that something.)

It is not that complex.

I believe homosexuality is a sin. Do i think all homosexuals are evil? No. Is homosexuality "worse" than lying, cheating, etc.? No. But it's still wrong. Unfortunately there are 2 competing sides in the Christian church: One side condemns and judges while the other doesn't want to tell anyone what they are doing is wrong. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Good stuff. Thanks or sharing. You may want to check out my blog at wordofawoman.com.

Finally a first rate article on this subject. As a footnote to Romans 1:26-28 I have found that very few Christians know the context or know the Emperor who killed Paul. Nero of course. Famous for his orgies where people were forced to perform sexual acts against their will.

For the life of my I don’t understand this desire to judge or to get involved with someone else’s business in the bedroom…because it’s NOT any of your business what gay people do or don’t do…unless you are one of them. I’ve never understood gay bashing of any manner, to me it’s simply a form of abuse directed at those who have been deliberately disenfranchised by already unwise members of society. I’m a Christian and I believe that God loves all of his children – certainly not just Christian straight people. It’s us straight Christians who have done more damage to society than Gay people could ever imagine. I suspect that in a country where 50 percent of marriages end up in divorce, that somehow we forget that it is us straight people who make up that 50 percent failure rate…not gay people! I’d be frightened if my husband thought that allowing Gay marriage would in any manner make our own marriage lesser somehow. My marriage is about my husband and I…and if it every were weakened, it would be OUR fault…not the fault of some gay married couple that I don’t even know…how ludicrous that line of thinking would be. If you’re straight, then mind your own business and get your own house in order…and if you don’t like Gays, then the straight people need to quit having Gay children…duh? And if you are Gay, please know that God loves you and that you are whole wonderful individuals that will be judged by God alone…on your own personal merits…and never by some minister that you never even met. We have a ton of awful problems in this old world – Gay issues are not on my radar, other than the fact that they need equality as God created human beings. I’m married and have been for decades, but if I weren’t – then I’d wait until everyone had equal rights…just like God affords us equality in his love for us. I believe God loves the Gay folks as much as he loved any other human born to date…they are his children – stop trying to beat them up you self centered sick bullies! C.E. Whitney

I am an imperfect Christian , we all are . This is truth for to deny we are sinners is to deny Christ's amazing sacrifice for us. We as Christians are forgiven by Christ's sacrifice and are called not to judge. This does not mean we have to share a gay persons views or be gay ourselves. I have many gay friends and while it is not my choice and I don't have a desire for it , I am also called NOT to judge them. I love them for the people they are not the sins they commit and I would hope they do the same for me. We all falter and struggle with sin saved or not. Don't you think that perhaps its time to start sharing the LOVE OF CHRIST...rather than the imperfect hatred of man ? Because my friends in the end there can be only one true judge and that is God Himself. God Bless ALL of you ...white , black , gay or straight , blue eyes or brown eyes...we are all human beings and we are called to love one another as God so loved us He gave His only begotten son.

Thank you for taking the time and writing such a though provoking article. I know that it has been well-received by Christian friends of mine looking for answers to these specific verses.

Thank you for articulating an argument that I have been attempting and failing at! haha!

I'm only sorry that many people's ears and eyes are closed these days. Wouldn't the world be such a better place if we all held our own faith and stopped telling people with differing faiths that they're wrong? Who's to say who's right? We're only human - God's plan is so much larger than all of us.. just look at all the stars!

Al, allowing same-sex marriage would not mean that "anything goes." It would just give equal rights to consenting adults who love each other. It would not mean that siblings would suddenly be allowed to marry each other or that marrying young children would become legal. There are legitimate reasons for why those marriages are illegal (such as the higher probability of recessive genetic diseases occurring in offspring of incestuous relationships), but there is really no legitimate non-religious reason for denying same-sex couples equal rights in marriage.